They're not going to get safe harbor if they've got the ability to block and monetize--that's not common carrier and they are exerting control.
The first problem is that YouTube is effectively a monopoly. The app is default installed on 2/3 of all smartphones, and the server bandwidth is subsidized by Google so that competitors really can't get traction. If we had a viable YouTube competitor, these terms would get smashed.
The second problem is that DMCA takedown is an unfair burden on the artist. After you have to file some number of the things over time, it should be considered a willful infringement by the service if it is collecting money.
Instead, Google gets to have it both ways: it gets to extract money while sitting behind the DMCA as a shield.
They're not going to get safe harbor if they've got the ability to block and monetize--that's not common carrier and they are exerting control.
"Common carrier" is an ISP term, it doesn't apply here anyway.
Google won't be liable as long as they (1) aren't aware of the infringing videos and (2) take them down after receiving a DMCA complaint. I don't see how their ability to block them changes this - it's pretty established that these services are not required to proactively monitor their content.
After you have to file some number of the things over time, it should be considered a willful infringement by the service if it is collecting money.
That would kill any user content service that has ads, not only Youtube. How exactly do you propose they'd do such a thing? ContentID is far from infallible, and many sites can't even afford to build such a technology - in fact, if you required automated takedown based on content recognition, you'd only be strengthening Youtube's position.
Instead, Google gets to have it both ways: it gets to extract money while sitting behind the DMCA as a shield.
And the phone service gets to charge money when criminals place calls to conspire to commit crimes. So what?
By the way, I agree that this move is pretty shitty by Google. No argument there.
> Google won't be liable as long as they (1) aren't aware of the infringing videos and (2) take them down after receiving a DMCA complaint. I don't see how their ability to block them changes this - it's pretty established that these services are not required to proactively monitor their content.
Asking what another comment asked above this thread - doesn't ContentID exactly fill the requirements for clause (1) - Google knows which videos are potential infringement.
ContentID won't know what videos are hers if they delete the reference videos from the database. And I don't see how could they be forced to keep them there, since that would be tantamount to forcing pro-active monitoring.
But if Google is paying her now for the use of her music in YouTube videos, how can they then claim after the agreement ends that they were unaware of the same videos?
The first problem is that YouTube is effectively a monopoly. The app is default installed on 2/3 of all smartphones, and the server bandwidth is subsidized by Google so that competitors really can't get traction. If we had a viable YouTube competitor, these terms would get smashed.
The second problem is that DMCA takedown is an unfair burden on the artist. After you have to file some number of the things over time, it should be considered a willful infringement by the service if it is collecting money.
Instead, Google gets to have it both ways: it gets to extract money while sitting behind the DMCA as a shield.