3 ms·
I wouldn't want to spread misinformation! It appears you are correct: > (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the mate
by LeifCarrotson 10y ago
I wouldn't want to spread misinformation! It appears you are correct:
> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
So where in this system is the good faith belief actually evaluated?
- criley2 10y agoThe issue is that the burden of validation is so great that the government demanded Google do it themselves, and Google realized the burden is so great that they basically treat all complaints as valid and in good faith, because the effort to actually hand validate each request would make it one of the most labor intensive divisions in all of Alphabet. In terms of liability, Google would rather prematurely remove content (no penalty) than accidentally leave up covered material (violation of safe harbor, could be used by Verizon et al to indicate in another lawsuit that the entire system is flawed, thus safe harbor protection doesn't apply at all, and Google can be directly sued for violation of copyright, something Verizon would love!)
- jandrese 10y agoGood faith is assumed if the complainant is a large corporation. It is only evaluated if the target is owned by a large corporation.