If you built a software product, would you consider your customer service & sales staff part of that? How about the people who ensure the systems are kept running? How about the accountants & lawyers who are eligible to practice in those jurisdictions and know the relevant tax codes/laws?
Do you think your software product, if made in USA, would be bought in France or Germany or Italy or anywhere but North America if you did not have someone who worked in that timezone and spoke that language and knew that culture?
Would those people who did that role be considered an important part of your company, considering you would not have anywhere near the same number of sales from those regions if they did not exist?
To pre-rempt the "I'd outsource it" response. When 7+ figures of revenue(& profit) are at stake, I can assure you that you would change your mind.
Or if you would not, the new guy the board hires to replace you would.
so treat the new employee the same as the employees who have been in the company for a few years and have written a lot of the systems and have internalised the business domain/company setup/system architecture & troubleshooting?
unless a company is rewriting the same 10 input form over & over again, I don't think that will work out great for anyone.
> And what exactly would a competing service do differently?
Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.
> That is changing and it's a terrible trend
I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.
> This is easier for tech companies because they breathe this kind of culture.
Eh, no.
Tech companies have, by and large, just ignored existing legislation thus enabling them to host mountains of content at negligible cost.
They opened the floodgates - they should deal with the water (both that which is original & that which is stolen). They are 100% the cause of this issue and should be 100% of the solution.
If they're not able to do that, then they should get out of the business altogether.
Ignoring laws to lower your costs is not innovative in the slightest.
Using the excuse that the internet is a new medium is malarky. Existing rules apply.
Exactly. So the solution YouTube has isn't appropriate. They should invest in a better solution even if that involves having more humans in the loop for review/approval.
That's the true cost of their business.
They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws.
It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws that could substantially damage our payroll spend"
said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯