Boy was I miffed when they shut down Napster back in the days. Lesson learned: Just because something is there for years doesn't mean it's legal. And nothing lasts forever.I come to the conclusion, that there's no legal business case in providing a (costly) infrastructure for user submitted content, just like a hosting service without the obligation to supervise what's going on at the platform - but nevertheless with the firm intention to earn money out of this constellation just like a commercial publisher.Profit without responsibility, you can't have it both ways. Youtube is fueled by persistent copyright violations, which can't be endured any longer. On the other hand, users wouldn't agree to all legal risk being shifted towards them - they would stop uploading content instantly after the first lawsuits.Perspectives without legal pitfalls? Either decentralize and just aggregate the links to the respective media. Or be a host in the strict sense of the word, imperatively without commercial ambitions regarding the platform content. Both not very compelling prospects.So what's left for platforms like Youtube? Paid hosting, paid content.