Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA

hamtaro writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and outspoken activist on copyright issues, exchanged some words with an EFF lawyer at this year's EFF 'Pioneer Awards'. The awards, held earlier this week, saw a heated discussion ensue about YouTube. Apparently Cuban feels that 'everyone knows' that YouTube is host to tons of infringing content and therefore it should be exempt from DMCA protections. You read that right: the EFF, defending the DMCA against Mark Cuban. 'Cuban is an interesting spokesman for copyright concerns since he has a broad perspective; as the owner of HDNet, he worries about having his content given away for free without his consent, but he's also someone who has funded EFF campaigns in the past, especially when the group defended Grokster's claim to legality. One of the strangest aspects of the debate was seeing an EFF lawyer defend the DMCA, which usually comes in for a drubbing due to its anti-circumvention provision. But von Lohmann told Ars Technica after the debate that the safe harbor section has actually allowed plenty of businesses to flourish that might otherwise have been mired in legal problems, and that it has generally worked well.'"

Comments

Who cares if they host some infringing content

[mjmalone]

That's absolutely ridiculous. YouTube has certainly complied with the guidelines prescribed to qualify for safe harbor (which protects service providers from copyright liability if they follow certain rules). They've even taken down content at the request of content-owners. Wether or not people "know that YouTube hosts infringing material," it doesn't matter. YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not. And everyone also knows that there is a plethora of original, non-infringing material on YouTube as well.

The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!