tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post790299848851262328..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: YouTube’s new Transparency Report reveals centrality of automated notices and automated takedownsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34921403031651894462018-04-29T14:28:45.108+01:002018-04-29T14:28:45.108+01:00A question for clarity:
If an item is "taken...A question for clarity:<br /><br />If an item is "taken down" before ANY views (and this can only be done by the provider, given the fact that no one has viewed the item to initiate a takedown process), is this really the same as "take down."<br /><br />I think a more clear thing to do would be to distinguish and use different names for different actions. Those items being scrutinized and NOT being put up at all (that is, "being taken down before any views") are merely being processed within a vetting system in the process of something <b>actually</b> being "put up." It is ONLY those things with views that evidence that something HAS BEEN posted that has passed the vetting process.<br /><br />I think it legally significant to distinguish an original vetting process from any TRUE take-down process - for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, copyright compliance.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.com