alt Hacker News> Neither your hypothetical Youtube lawsuit nor the itch.io takedown have any lawful basis.
[max_anger]
THE YT LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED: VIACOM VS YOUTUBE.
THE REVERSAL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT IN *VIACOM'S FAVOR* IS WHAT'S LED TO ALL OF THIS NONSENSE RIGHT NOW.
AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IF YOUTUBE *EVER* BECOMES LAX WITH COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT.
[/max_anger]
The current expectation is that platforms *do* have to preemptively take down the offending content, or risk losing their Safe Harbor status. This defaults ANY platform's stance to be overly cautious about what is submitted, when they shouldn't even be doing the prosecution's job AT ALL.
> Thus your argument is that if Youtube doesn't bow to the bullies then the bullies might be mean.
The bullies ARE mean, and their current weapons of use are the holes in the Safe Harbor clause to take down platforms.
> That is quite different from Youtube not being able to stand up to those bullies.
YouTube CAN'T stand up to them, because ANY laxer enforcement risks losing their Safe Harbor protections.
To reiterate my point: Safe Harbor needs to be made BULLETPROOF for YouTube to begin to relax their current stance.
> [max_anger]
Maybe calming down will allow you to think more rationally.
> The current expectation is...
You expectation perhaps. Not the expectation of the law. The DMCA is clear on what service providers have to do and Youtube regularly does much more than they need.
> The bullies ARE mean, and their current weapons of use are the holes in the Safe Harbor clause to take down platforms.
So you want to preemptively surrender moderation to them? Might as well let them try taking it down.
> YouTube CAN'T stand up to them, because ANY laxer enforcement risks losing their Safe Harbor protections.
And living risks death. No company is without risks. Standing up to obviously frivolous takedown requests is a very small risk.