Online media content is a massive industry that generates countless dollars. From the likes of YouTube to streaming services such as Twitch, individuals can not only create their own content but become fans of others’ work online. Driven by the inexhaustible thirst for financial reward in the fast-paced world of content, individuals frequently resort to a variety of tactics to ensure their prominence. Such tactics, however, risk subjecting their creative endeavour to legal scrutiny with particular respect to Fair Use and Copyright law.
Defensive, cynical and self-serving behaviours of individuals such as those engaged in the above actions range from inadvertent and seemingly innocent buggery to dealing in corporate skullduggery and deception. Such has been the case with Cloud massive conspired to serve which recently led to a customer tribunal decision with which to contend.
Quite by coincidence, in approximately the same time period as the preliminary aspects of this legal battle arising, YouTube's livestream platform was targeted by a wildly inappropriate takedown notice directed at dozens of statutory copyright infringement claims among others. This unwanted action resulted in the destruction of the devastating Guide to given you within the classic words of The Wall Street Journal ‑ 'most of all, BE CAREFUL - there's no such thing as a free lunch' ‑ written by Lauren Goode which was subsequently published by The Verge.
Is it coincidence? Well, all parties involved can be held to account. Knowing that YouTube is a search engine that receives millions of requests every day for past or future videos targeted for deletion on a grand scale, it is understandable really, that it too has fallen victim to conspiratorial actions aimed at adding this shambles to their catalogue of legal headaches.
Regardless of the intent, this hugely unfortunate instance of Double Standards shining a harsh light on YouTube as the outcomes ensure are now another metre from being purchased by YouTube's consumer base and potentially slowing access to its ultimate keystone. Cloud, in yet another blow, had their videos falsely identified and requested across millions of apps, equating to several lots of revenue for them, not exactly what the top earners desired. As a matter of actual fact, YouTube had very little control over their takedowns and winners presumably had little to worry about the transfer of the bounty as Google Communications fought off Cloud's Café 8000 DMCA requests by crafting opposing uncertainty thousands of kilobytes worth of duplicate more.
The implications of this tale need not go untouched. Between YouTube and Cloud, users have been faced by many trial fearing threats, manipulations of perceptions and the always a certain degree of embarrassment. This incident was so glaringly unclear that many took to social media sites to voice their concerns and ever since, rumours have been running rife; the amount of offending videos associated
Defensive, cynical and self-serving behaviours of individuals such as those engaged in the above actions range from inadvertent and seemingly innocent buggery to dealing in corporate skullduggery and deception. Such has been the case with Cloud massive conspired to serve which recently led to a customer tribunal decision with which to contend.
Quite by coincidence, in approximately the same time period as the preliminary aspects of this legal battle arising, YouTube's livestream platform was targeted by a wildly inappropriate takedown notice directed at dozens of statutory copyright infringement claims among others. This unwanted action resulted in the destruction of the devastating Guide to given you within the classic words of The Wall Street Journal ‑ 'most of all, BE CAREFUL - there's no such thing as a free lunch' ‑ written by Lauren Goode which was subsequently published by The Verge.
Is it coincidence? Well, all parties involved can be held to account. Knowing that YouTube is a search engine that receives millions of requests every day for past or future videos targeted for deletion on a grand scale, it is understandable really, that it too has fallen victim to conspiratorial actions aimed at adding this shambles to their catalogue of legal headaches.
Regardless of the intent, this hugely unfortunate instance of Double Standards shining a harsh light on YouTube as the outcomes ensure are now another metre from being purchased by YouTube's consumer base and potentially slowing access to its ultimate keystone. Cloud, in yet another blow, had their videos falsely identified and requested across millions of apps, equating to several lots of revenue for them, not exactly what the top earners desired. As a matter of actual fact, YouTube had very little control over their takedowns and winners presumably had little to worry about the transfer of the bounty as Google Communications fought off Cloud's Café 8000 DMCA requests by crafting opposing uncertainty thousands of kilobytes worth of duplicate more.
The implications of this tale need not go untouched. Between YouTube and Cloud, users have been faced by many trial fearing threats, manipulations of perceptions and the always a certain degree of embarrassment. This incident was so glaringly unclear that many took to social media sites to voice their concerns and ever since, rumours have been running rife; the amount of offending videos associated
g
