5 ms·

There are. AFAIK, it's never been applied.

zdragnar 9y ago
The problem is probably calculating damages, or at least finding damages that outweigh the cost of taking legal action. Projected ad revenue share isn't worth the effort on its own for most people. Some might cry foul at this. As a thought experiment, I wonder if such cases are worth clogging up our court systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that violations of law ought to go without remediation... but purely from a pragmatic point of view, I'm not sure that the system is currently set up to handle lawsuits over this as a recourse.
- bambataa 9y ago
  Of course it’s not set up to handle this kind of thing, which is exactly why they do it. You may be legally in the right but have no real recourse.
  - zdragnar 9y ago
    What alternatives might be available that simultaneously preserve due process for both the accusor and accused when potential damages are anywhere from zero to less than the costs of filing a lawsuit? In the US, I'm not sure if small claims courts would handle such a speculative case. We could set up extrajudicial processes via executive bureaucracy, but the end result is simply less transparent courts. I suppose we could compel businesses to manually validate takedown requests and the like... I am also imagining that would be ripe for abuse to the point it ends up being used antagonistically and ultimately drives down shared revenue for all participants to offset the cost.
    - bambataa 9y ago
      A less automated process. Maybe YouTube’s algorithm flags your video but instead of taking it down automatically it gets reviewed by a person who maybe even contacts you. That way you get a chance to justify yourself. Sure, it’s more work for them but it means the uploaded gets a voice in the process that they seem to currently lack. I imagine some of the more obvious false positives could be easily ha does this way.
ubernostrum 9y ago
If you're referring to the DMCA, there are two important things to know: 1. YouTube supports DMCA notices, because it has to in order to keep safe harbor, but YouTube's preferred/automated system does not use DMCA notices and so is not bound by the DMCA's rules. 2. It's next to impossible to meet the standard for getting punishment/damages out of a false DMCA takedown. The only part of a notice that's made under penalty of perjury is that assertion that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. The claim of infringement is not made under penalty of perjury. The infamous Diebold case did get damages, but only because Diebold literally admitted in court "we knew this wasn't infringing but sent a takedown anyway". As long as the sender of the takedown notice isn't quite that stupid, they won't be on the hook for anything.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Number 1 is the biggest. Youtube’s ContentID system isn’t based on the DMCA
cyphar 9y ago
The DMCA has a counter-claim system. In 2008, Thunderf00t (Phil Mason) quite famously had many of his videos wrongfully taken down by a Christian Extremist called VenomFangX using the DMCA. Phil went through the process of suing him, though they eventually settled, and VenomFangX had to quit YouTube for a year. There was a video series about it[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlgB1AD5hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlgB1AD5hI

The problem is probably calculating damages, or at least finding damages that outweigh the cost of taking legal action. Projected ad revenue share isn't worth the effort on its own for most people. Some might cry foul at this. As a thought experiment, I wonder if such cases are worth clogging up our court systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that violations of law ought to go without remediation... but purely from a pragmatic point of view, I'm not sure that the system is currently set up to handle lawsuits over this as a recourse.

bambataa 9y ago
Of course it’s not set up to handle this kind of thing, which is exactly why they do it. You may be legally in the right but have no real recourse.
- zdragnar 9y ago
  What alternatives might be available that simultaneously preserve due process for both the accusor and accused when potential damages are anywhere from zero to less than the costs of filing a lawsuit? In the US, I'm not sure if small claims courts would handle such a speculative case. We could set up extrajudicial processes via executive bureaucracy, but the end result is simply less transparent courts. I suppose we could compel businesses to manually validate takedown requests and the like... I am also imagining that would be ripe for abuse to the point it ends up being used antagonistically and ultimately drives down shared revenue for all participants to offset the cost.
  - bambataa 9y ago
    A less automated process. Maybe YouTube’s algorithm flags your video but instead of taking it down automatically it gets reviewed by a person who maybe even contacts you. That way you get a chance to justify yourself. Sure, it’s more work for them but it means the uploaded gets a voice in the process that they seem to currently lack. I imagine some of the more obvious false positives could be easily ha does this way.

ubernostrum 9y ago

If you're referring to the DMCA, there are two important things to know: 1. YouTube supports DMCA notices, because it has to in order to keep safe harbor, but YouTube's preferred/automated system does not use DMCA notices and so is not bound by the DMCA's rules. 2. It's next to impossible to meet the standard for getting punishment/damages out of a false DMCA takedown. The only part of a notice that's made under penalty of perjury is that assertion that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. The claim of infringement is not made under penalty of perjury. The infamous Diebold case did get damages, but only because Diebold literally admitted in court "we knew this wasn't infringing but sent a takedown anyway". As long as the sender of the takedown notice isn't quite that stupid, they won't be on the hook for anything.

colejohnson66 9y ago
Number 1 is the biggest. Youtube’s ContentID system isn’t based on the DMCA

cyphar 9y ago

The DMCA has a counter-claim system. In 2008, Thunderf00t (Phil Mason) quite famously had many of his videos wrongfully taken down by a Christian Extremist called VenomFangX using the DMCA. Phil went through the process of suing him, though they eventually settled, and VenomFangX had to quit YouTube for a year. There was a video series about it[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlgB1AD5hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlgB1AD5hI