Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Should youtube be able to claim safe harbor protections when they sell advertising against their users' content?

    Does anyone have a good argument for why Youtube and an ISP should be treated as the same thing?

  2. #2
    There's this assumption that social media platforms should benefit from the same safe harbor protections as an ISP. But social media platforms are far from dumb pipes. They claim to have no control over their users' content when it comes to legal protections, but when it comes to advertising suddenly the story changes. Not only do they have control over the content, they own the right to sell advertising against it. Seems hypocritical to me.

  3. #3
    I don’t see how safe harbour and selling ads are related at all. They sell ads without looking at the content.

  4. #4
    I’m more interested in the idea of ownership. Youtube’s terms of service claim a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to all the content uploaded to it’s platform. That’s essentially co-ownership with the uploader.
    So they claim to own all uploads, profit off them, and at the same time claim ignorance when it comes to all legal responsibility.
    If youtube wants to monetize user content, it makes sense that they should be responsible for that content.

  5. #5
    A non exclusive worldwide perpetual license stops a user uploading something and then suing you for not taking it down. It’s the same terms as any other site that accepts user generated/submitted content, from YouTube to Twitter to Instagram to every comments section on the planet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts