(2018-01-29, 11:17)jjd-uk Wrote: Exactly the key point as far as Youtube is concerned is they have algorithms that attempt to prevent uploading of infringing material, and where it does make it onto the site they have DMCA compliant procedures for the takedown of infringing material.
The problem is that the major copyright holders have done everything in their power to maximize their control over their content but its simply not practical (or desirable) to apply the same standard to all copyrighted material. So when we think about copyrighted content, what comes to mind? The Avengers. That's what the evil pirates are "stealing." Big blockbuster movies. But I can go on Youtube right now and watch hundreds of old TV movies, documentaries, films, tv episodes, etc. All of which remain on the site because no one bothers to file a take-down notice and the algorithm is not designed to automatically remove content that isn't likely to be marked as a violation. It doesn't take long to find examples-- Escape to Grizzly Mountain has nearly 400,000 views. Trial of Billy Jack nearly 150,000. The Way Ahead 160,000. High Flight has 600,000. Conflict of Wings 280,000. We might say, what the hell are those movies? and Who cares if they are uploaded in full to Youtube, their without value, clearly. But if Youtube were a television station, they would have to pay for the rights just to air those movies.
In other words, "pirated" material is really only material that major copyright holders feel are valuable. Is this a good standard to decide what qualifies as a copyright violation? Maybe, but what we know for sure is that its not codified into the law. Current copyrights last 150 years. That means we will all likely be dead by the time that a film from 1950 lapses into the public domain, and that's assuming that copyright isn't extended again before then. This kind of copyright maximalism is what undermines the position of copyright holders more than anything else. If we were to say copyright only lasted 20 years, it would be far easier to determine what qualifies as a violation vs what is simply fair-use cultural sharing. But as it stands you are equally guilty for sharing the some obscure 1950's movie as you are the latest Avengers. Only one is likely to get you in trouble and the other is not.
It's also good to keep in mind that if copyright maximalist had their way, Kodi would probably never exist because they would have banned dvd and cd ripping software long ago. And installed software on computers that would automatically delete any "violating" content.
