Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I agree, but again using Cracked as an example, they have many times linked to a 30+ minute video to make a one-sentence joke. That's far beyond fair use as far as the law is written. They also obviously do not get prior permission from the publisher; a typical older article from Cracked will have embedded videos that show "this was removed for copyright violation" placeholders.



You don't need prior permission if it's fair use, and it can still be fair use even if the video is removed (the DMCA ensures it has to be taken down regardless, at least until the uploader sends a counter-notice, and YT goes even beyond that).

Still, the 30m for a single joke might be infringing, yes, but so what? If it would be infringement if they served the video from their own servers, why shouldn't it be by embedding from YT?


>If it would be infringement if they served the video from their own servers, why shouldn't it be by embedding from YT? //

Because then the infringement, if there is one, is YouTube's and not the linker-to-YouTube's.


No, according to the courts, (in the EU) it isn't. My question is: why shouldn't it be?


EDIT: I mean, should it be.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: