Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The problem I have is that assumptions are not really good enough if push comes to shove.
And where has push come to shove?
[[WP:COPYRIGHT]] makes it clear that ''knowingly'' linking to infringing material is contributory infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad).
"Makes us look bad" is a purely subjective determination.
"Knowingly" is a tough standard to establish. It needs to be proved. For most of the YouTube material we have no way of "knowing" whether it is a copyvio or not. This is why the DMCA process requires that a claimant state his connection with the material. A stranger has no personal knowledge of the situation, and has no right to start a legal action. Maybe the real owner just doesn't care enough about copyrights to even answer letters of request. Maybe the permission is implicit in his failure to take action.
Given that many YouTube vids are copyvios, we can be argued to *nkow* that violation is likely, and looking the other way and whistling innocently does not seem to me to be exercising due diligence. I don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright before adding, but there is this committed group who are insistent that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I think.
It is not logical to argue that because many YouTube videos are copyvios some specific video must be a copyvio. If many are copyvios then many others are not. Arguing that something is likely is not the same as arguing that it is.
Although I have no problem looking the other way in many circumstances, it's not even relevant here.
Ec