[WikiEN-l] YouTube links

[Ray Saintonge]

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