I think there is some slight sense in amongst this, if only slight.<p>(Assuming we can drop any argument of copyright being right/wrong for the moment.. for the record I believe it is broken)<p>It makes sense that sites like Youtube (who after all are actually the ones making most of the money here!) are given some of the responsibility for making sure whatever rules we insist on are not broken.<p>As I read it this law goes too far; but I think it is more a misguided move in the roughly right direction more than anything else. If we can get a <i>really serious revision</i> of what copyright means (this is important, and I think it is coming if slowly - but it has to be done next I think for the rest to work) and force the content hosts to take some culpability for whatever rules we eventually decide on then I think things would be on the right track.<p>edit: Im not shocked at the downvote: but Im interested in hearing counter arguments / what specifically seems illogical?