5 ms·

Is there any penalty for being overzealous regarding the protection of your copyrights? I understand that individuals could litigate, but I would assume that to

Is there any penalty for being overzealous regarding the protection of your copyrights? I understand that individuals could litigate, but I would assume that to be a long winded process.

jcranmer 8y ago
Filing a DMCA takedown notice for stuff you do not own copyright for is perjury. (Filing one that ignores fair use considerations does not fall under that category, though). Youtube's Content ID system is not related to DMCA takedowns, though, so there is no legal repercussions to making fallacious claims outside to violating whatever terms of service the system has.
- NSAID 8y ago
  Almost perjury. There's a good faith clause, so if someone believes in good faith that their magic black box AI correctly identifies their IP and never issues incorrect takedowns, it's not perjury.
  - Thiez 8y ago
    If only a judge would rule that such faith in the magic black box is no longer 'good' once it has made, say, 3 mistakes. At that point the user of the AI should understand that it isn't perfect and be obligated to manually check all future results.
    - krapp 8y ago
      You don't understand the purpose of these systems if you believe accuracy is that important. They're designed to pacify copyright owners, to prevent lawsuits against the platform and keep licensed content on the platform... the heavy-handedness and opaqueness are intentional, as is the bias towards false positives.
    - Mindwipe 8y ago
      Content ID is not a DMCA system. The DMCA system is manual. Content ID is a private system, operated by YouTube, to improve Google's liability risks and relationships with major rights holders. It is not regulated by the DMCA. It is not supposed to be regulated by the DMCA. Google decided to give some companies the right to do the things Content ID does. And Google does that because it saves them money on running a free hosting service and people get what they pay for in that regard. There is no logic that a judge would touch this scenario. The only argument is that YouTube has near monopoly status, but that isn't an argument for regulating content ID, it's an argument for breaking up YouTube.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    The good faith clause does not apply to the condition I mentioned. Good faith applies to believing that the material in question infringes your copyright; it does not apply to believing that you actually own copyright on the allegedly infringing copyright. 17 USC §512 (c)(3)(A)(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.
    - srtjstjsj 8y ago
      You wrote "Filing a DMCA takedown notice for stuff you do not own copyright for is perjury" which is ambiguous -- does "stuff" mean the allegedly infringing artifact (not perjury), or the allegedly protected work (perjury)?
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Not quite. Sending a DMCA notice on behalf of someone that you do not actually have authorization to send DMCA notices on behalf of is perjury. There is no penalty at all for sending a DMCA notice against something that is not actually the work you say you are sending the DMCA notice for.
raxxorrax 8y ago
Is there any penalty? In most laws there is a penalty if you don't have regular disputes about your patents and rights. But nobody wants to starve patent troll lawyers. There is a complete industry which we should get rid off, because it doesn't do anything productive.

Is there any penalty for being overzealous regarding the protection of your copyrights? I understand that individuals could litigate, but I would assume that to be a long winded process.

jcranmer 8y ago

Filing a DMCA takedown notice for stuff you do not own copyright for is perjury. (Filing one that ignores fair use considerations does not fall under that category, though). Youtube's Content ID system is not related to DMCA takedowns, though, so there is no legal repercussions to making fallacious claims outside to violating whatever terms of service the system has.

NSAID 8y ago
Almost perjury. There's a good faith clause, so if someone believes in good faith that their magic black box AI correctly identifies their IP and never issues incorrect takedowns, it's not perjury.
- Thiez 8y ago
  If only a judge would rule that such faith in the magic black box is no longer 'good' once it has made, say, 3 mistakes. At that point the user of the AI should understand that it isn't perfect and be obligated to manually check all future results.
  - krapp 8y ago
    You don't understand the purpose of these systems if you believe accuracy is that important. They're designed to pacify copyright owners, to prevent lawsuits against the platform and keep licensed content on the platform... the heavy-handedness and opaqueness are intentional, as is the bias towards false positives.
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    Content ID is not a DMCA system. The DMCA system is manual. Content ID is a private system, operated by YouTube, to improve Google's liability risks and relationships with major rights holders. It is not regulated by the DMCA. It is not supposed to be regulated by the DMCA. Google decided to give some companies the right to do the things Content ID does. And Google does that because it saves them money on running a free hosting service and people get what they pay for in that regard. There is no logic that a judge would touch this scenario. The only argument is that YouTube has near monopoly status, but that isn't an argument for regulating content ID, it's an argument for breaking up YouTube.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The good faith clause does not apply to the condition I mentioned. Good faith applies to believing that the material in question infringes your copyright; it does not apply to believing that you actually own copyright on the allegedly infringing copyright. 17 USC §512 (c)(3)(A)(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.
  - srtjstjsj 8y ago
    You wrote "Filing a DMCA takedown notice for stuff you do not own copyright for is perjury" which is ambiguous -- does "stuff" mean the allegedly infringing artifact (not perjury), or the allegedly protected work (perjury)?
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Not quite. Sending a DMCA notice on behalf of someone that you do not actually have authorization to send DMCA notices on behalf of is perjury. There is no penalty at all for sending a DMCA notice against something that is not actually the work you say you are sending the DMCA notice for.

raxxorrax 8y ago

Is there any penalty? In most laws there is a penalty if you don't have regular disputes about your patents and rights. But nobody wants to starve patent troll lawyers. There is a complete industry which we should get rid off, because it doesn't do anything productive.