In the general case, someone (or some thing) can sue for pretty much any reason whatsoever. One of the unappreciated roles of publishers and distributors is that they also serve as a legal defence organisation. You'll often hear people talk of how the publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or books also have lawyers to deal with, say, libel or other claims. Copyright isn't the only consideration here. For any community-based activity, there are also the issues of inter- and intra-community disputes.
Peer-based publishing tends to ignore this question.
>In the general case, someone (or some thing) can sue for pretty much any reason whatsoever.
in the general case, copyright trolls aren't going to pursue Joe Schmoe over their indie band cover. you'd put hundreds in and barely make pennies back even if you win.
But in the youtube case, it's an easy profit with little consequence. Suing is easy, but costly. DMCA's is easy and zero cost, especially once you automate it.
True. Though YouTube's ContentID / 3-strikes system isn't even the DMCA process. It's easier yet for the claimant.
It does help reduce the legal threat to YouTube itself. The company is more likely to be sued by a large copyright holder than its many small video uploaders. Though the latter have been known to show up in a disgruntled state of mind and with harmful intent at HQ. That risk is also shifted, from shareholders to employees and contractors.
YouTube from a risk perspective is grotesquely fascinating.
In the general case, someone (or some thing) can sue for pretty much any reason whatsoever. One of the unappreciated roles of publishers and distributors is that they also serve as a legal defence organisation. You'll often hear people talk of how the publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or books also have lawyers to deal with, say, libel or other claims. Copyright isn't the only consideration here. For any community-based activity, there are also the issues of inter- and intra-community disputes.
Peer-based publishing tends to ignore this question.