Here is one I definitely did not anticipate. A bunch identified for spreading a bunch of bogus RIAA speaking factors in regards to the evils of YouTube appears to be admitting two odd issues: (1) that it is not possible to anticipate YouTube to precisely police all of the content material on its web site and (2) that sharing complete printed information articles is clearly not copyright infringement. The group in query is the “Content material Creators Coalition” — final seen round these components whining about the DMCA’s safe harbors on a web site that solely exists due to them. And evidently weird and self-contradictory publicity stunts are mainly the norm for this group. They’ve particularly been whining about how one of their videos got taken down on YouTube over an obvious phrases of service violation. They complained, and YouTube reviewed it, and put the video again up. However, the Content material Creators Coalition is utilizing this to argue… one thing about how YouTube is attempting to censor criticism?
It actually would not make a lot sense, as a result of it truly appears to be a fairly blatant admission by the Content material Creators Coalition that their different bugaboo — about how YouTube would not take down infringing content material quick sufficient — is totally foolish as properly. Proactively policing the hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of movies uploaded to the location (at no cost, thoughts you) is sort of not possible to do appropriately. The article itself (printed by the Google-hating Information Corp.-owned NY Submit) tries to assault YouTube’s moderation options, however truly makes the proper argument for why it is foolish to anticipate an open platform like YouTube to police all the pieces:
Whereas movies of ISIS beheadings one way or the other slipped previous YouTube censors, the video streaming web site didn’t have any issues discovering a playful advert marketing campaign by some indie musicians — and promptly pulling the plug on it.
Proper. Which is why it is nice that we are able to now add the Content material Creators Coalition to those that assume that forcing YouTube to police and filter content material on its platform is foolish and can result in pointless and misguided takedowns. Glad to have them on board.
Now, the one purpose I even learn about this text is that it was despatched to me by Eric Jotkoff at Regulation Media Group. In the event you do not bear in mind Regulation Media Group, they’re the secretive lobbying PR shop that appears to focus on attacking Google with actually sketchy practices, akin to insisting that corn farmers might be harm by Google partnering with Yahoo, or by publishing faked op-eds, akin to one about how terrible web neutrality was — however “written” by a man who truly was in favor of web neutrality.
And after I say that Jotkoff and Regulation Media Group despatched me that NY Submit article, I do imply despatched it to me. He despatched me the complete article in an e-mail. In order that seems to be Regulation Media Group, on behalf of the Content material Creators Coalition, admitting that sending round complete information articles is just not infringing. Now, I would argue that there is a good truthful use case to be made for sharing full articles by way of e-mail in such conditions. However I would not actually anticipate a gaggle like Regulation Media Group, which recurrently sends me emails in regards to the significance of stronger copyright on behalf of a complete bunch of teams that each one appear to parrot the RIAA’s speaking factors (coincidence, I am certain?), to mainly admit that reposting full articles from firms like Information Corp. is truthful use.
I’ve requested Eric to substantiate that that is the official stance of the group, however, maybe not too surprisingly, I’ve not heard again on the time of publication.