4 ms·

> This seems like a major oversight in Content ID, it should force the claimant to provide a release date for the song and exclude videos that were uploaded bef

> This seems like a major oversight in Content ID, it should force the claimant to provide a release date for the song and exclude videos that were uploaded before that date. The major oversight rather lies in the fact that the law does not introduce huge penalties/indemnification for false copyright claims - if these existed, copyright holders would be a lot more cautious with potentially false claims.

falcolas 9y ago
The law does in the form of perjury charges for false DMCA claims; content ID is intentionally operates outside the DMCA legal framework. The perjury coverage is weak, but they at least provide something. EDIT: Perjury comes into play as part of a permanent takedown request, not the initial temporary takedown request. Just a clarification.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The perjury charges are in respect to the claim that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights on the work you claim is being infringed. If you own the rights to a 2013 advertising jingle for yo-yo wax, and you assert that you own the rights to it while making a DMCA takedown claim against a birthday party video posted in 2010, there is no perjury. The claim that the work is infringing is not the part covered by the perjury threat. This is why the DMCA is broken. There is no reason whatsoever for legitimate copyright holders to avoid making frivolous claims, and the burden lies entirely on their victims to prove their innocence. (I am not a lawyer. I might be wrong about this. Don't mistake this comment for legal advice.)
  - falcolas 9y ago
    The perjury claims come into play with the permanent takedown. There's no burden of proof on the initial takedown, as there is no burden of proof for the request to have it put back up. It's after those two steps that the takedown can become permanent, which is where the legalities and associated penalties come into play, and where the claim can go to court. As I said, weak, but it's there.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Wouldn't even that go away if the claimant had a legitimate reason to believe the subject was infringing? ...maybe if an automated matching algorithm flagged it as such?
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        If the algorithm returns false positives more than 5% of the time, does the claimant truly have a legitimate reason for such a belief?
      - falcolas 9y ago
        Yes. Which is why it only prevents false claims (the original concern), and why I label it as a weak protection. Of course, it's also only really going to come into play during the lawsuit phase of the notice and takedown process, a process unlikely to be automated. IANAL, of course.

falcolas 9y ago

The law does in the form of perjury charges for false DMCA claims; content ID is intentionally operates outside the DMCA legal framework. The perjury coverage is weak, but they at least provide something. EDIT: Perjury comes into play as part of a permanent takedown request, not the initial temporary takedown request. Just a clarification.

logfromblammo 9y ago
The perjury charges are in respect to the claim that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights on the work you claim is being infringed. If you own the rights to a 2013 advertising jingle for yo-yo wax, and you assert that you own the rights to it while making a DMCA takedown claim against a birthday party video posted in 2010, there is no perjury. The claim that the work is infringing is not the part covered by the perjury threat. This is why the DMCA is broken. There is no reason whatsoever for legitimate copyright holders to avoid making frivolous claims, and the burden lies entirely on their victims to prove their innocence. (I am not a lawyer. I might be wrong about this. Don't mistake this comment for legal advice.)
- falcolas 9y ago
  The perjury claims come into play with the permanent takedown. There's no burden of proof on the initial takedown, as there is no burden of proof for the request to have it put back up. It's after those two steps that the takedown can become permanent, which is where the legalities and associated penalties come into play, and where the claim can go to court. As I said, weak, but it's there.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Wouldn't even that go away if the claimant had a legitimate reason to believe the subject was infringing? ...maybe if an automated matching algorithm flagged it as such?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      If the algorithm returns false positives more than 5% of the time, does the claimant truly have a legitimate reason for such a belief?
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Yes. Which is why it only prevents false claims (the original concern), and why I label it as a weak protection. Of course, it's also only really going to come into play during the lawsuit phase of the notice and takedown process, a process unlikely to be automated. IANAL, of course.