The point is you are not legally responsible for user content you don't know about, so unless Ralle is Google and gives the power to abuse DMCAs to the users, you have to prove that he intentionally allowed for anything illegal to preside.
I have no idea how the
DMCA has anything to do with age restrictions.
Maybe you meant the
MPAA, which is
also responsible for film ratings in the U.S. and its territories?
If one was unaware of what is happening on his / her *moderated* web site one way or another, then such a site would imho be dubiously managed / moderated.
Indeed, it would be ridiculous to even suggest a webmaster of a big site can filter and monitor everything.
Quoting someone:
"[...] Unless you think every site is/should run like YouTube which monitors everything and filters whatever it wants based on agendas (it starts with what is legal, history shows it never ends there)."
Apply the same to any kind of online service with user content, like chats, and think logically if the owner of the service is liable for his users' content.
It greatly depends on whether the site is moderated or not.
... but this has nothing to do with the OP imho, which is about embedded links pointing to age-restricted contents on a third-party site when it is viewed on said third-party site.
Everything you wrote later comes to play with exactly what I wrote - DMCA abuses. Aka the law you are so in favor of is designed for abuse, and indeed abuse of it is directly supported by Google, by actions if not words, although we have seen enough of their words too lately, and how completely subjective and corrupt they are as a company.
I bet that you do not have a Google Account, nor do you use any of their services / products, including any of the ones provided by any of their subsidiaries. As for me, I do not have a Google Account, and I personally have nothing against Google.
YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. Even though Google bought YouTube in November 2006, YouTube is not Google.
What I have written earlier is because of the link you provided. You have invited me to see this page:
Am I legally liable for user generated content and comments?
Not only did I see it, but I have also read it.
The only answer there cites some Risk management *
suggestions* by Cooley Godward’s Information Technology Group. A more complete version of this article, which I myself have also read and directly linked to in this thread (
Website Provider Liability for User Content and Actions – Eric Goldman), learns me that the article is in fact about intellectual property infringement, defamation and other "Publisher/Speaker" torts, obscenity and child pornography, plus other claims. Meaning, the article has imho nothing to do with embedded links pointing to age-restricted contents on a third-party site when viewed on said third-party web site.
Also, I must point out that laws and case laws may greatly vary from country to country. The suggestions by Cooley Godward's ITG are written from an American point of view. At the time of writing, Cooley Godward LLP was a law firm which served clients in California, Colorado and Washington. Therefore, readers worldwide should imho remain cautious with such advice, and always check in which country such advice may or may not be relevant. And again, these are only general suggestions by one U.S. law firm.
Cooley Godward LLP is now known as
Cooley LLP, and has additional offices outside of the U.S. (in England and in China).
A video being marked as anything on YouTube tells you nothing about it nowadays, except that someone out there thought something about it and has the power to abuse the law.
Regardless, a short online search would have shown you this is how YouTube works...
I will keep this "anything" to age restrictions, because it is mostly the subject at hand here.
Either the poster itself age-restricts the video on YouTube, or someone complains afterwards and reports it, and then YouTube reviews the video to see whether or not it is against their Rules. Appeals on their decisions can be made.
I have already linked to YouTube's policies in a previous post, therefore we know how they work.
Regardless, a short online search would have shown you this is how YouTube works...
For some reason, I have the feeling that the links I provided can help people make their own minds about whether YouTube (supposedly) monitors everything and filters whatever it wants based on agendas, or not.
Again, thanks
@GhostWolf for pointing out that embed links are not age-restricted by YouTube.
