Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all

Most likely, this could be a settlement that gives UMG and the likes a great latitude at taking down videos, and Youtube a guarantee not to get sued or some other rights.

On the other hand, if this kind of practice (let me stop whatever content I want or I'll sue you on unrelated matters) became widespread, this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights.



They won't get sued by UMG. They could in theory be sued by uploaders.


Or worse yet, abandoned by their users.


For what? Being denied their natural right to have content hosted by Google at no charge?

Wait, hang on...


That's why I said "in theory". If there is an argument that YouTube would be liable for damages, following the rules of the DMCA would have given them immunity. By not following those rules, they lose that immunity.


I would guess that the additional take down rights were in exchange for VEVO posting the official music videos on Youtube. The videos would increase traffic to Youtube, but the company would obviously want significant benefits for posting their protected content in a public area.


>"this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights."

Youtube is a business unit of a publicly traded company.

It has users, not citizens.

Free speech rights are irrelevant to the way in which it establishes policies.


This is generally true, but not always.

- - - Quote [1]

Shopping malls are an exception to the rule. In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day "functional equivalent" of a traditional public gathering place, because they have "common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . ."

The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall.

- - - End Quote

I don't think it's crazy to imagine that a web space that's universally used for people to sound off, and to post comments on others' contributions, could become recognized as a public space for First Amendment purposes. (IANAL)

[1] http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rig...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: