4 ms·

They are not required by DMCA to nuke you after 3 strikes, and they are allowed to keep the content if you file a counter-notice. Neither really works with YouT

by vsl 8y ago

They are not required by DMCA to nuke you after 3 strikes, and they are allowed to keep the content if you file a counter-notice. Neither really works with YouTube. This IS on Google.

ikeboy 8y ago
They're required to block repeat infringers, which is reasonably taken to mean 3. They accept and process counter-notices. Going to disagree with you that they don't work.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  The article disproves your opinion. They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims, stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. If anything they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. Even if you file a counter notice, the claims are often upheld unless there's a massive outcry. Bad publicity should not be the only recourse for bad actors.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    >They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims This would, in fact, cause them to lose their safe harbor under DMCA. There is no provision to simply ignore claims. >stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. Who's copyright is being violated? What money is being stolen? >they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. I strongly recommend that you actually read the DMCA. The safe harbor is given to the service provider for accepting DMCA notices, and protects them from suits from the complainant. There's a separate safe harbor against claims from the uploader, and they get that by accepting counter-notices. But there's no obligation to accept counternotices, since they can delete videos at any time per their terms. So there's no relevant safe harbor they would lose here. You've provided no source for the claim that they often reject valid counternotices. I don't believe this is the case.

by vsl 8y ago

They are not required by DMCA to nuke you after 3 strikes, and they are allowed to keep the content if you file a counter-notice. Neither really works with YouTube. This IS on Google.

ikeboy 8y ago

They're required to block repeat infringers, which is reasonably taken to mean 3. They accept and process counter-notices. Going to disagree with you that they don't work.

cannonedhamster 8y ago
The article disproves your opinion. They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims, stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. If anything they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. Even if you file a counter notice, the claims are often upheld unless there's a massive outcry. Bad publicity should not be the only recourse for bad actors.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  >They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims This would, in fact, cause them to lose their safe harbor under DMCA. There is no provision to simply ignore claims. >stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. Who's copyright is being violated? What money is being stolen? >they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. I strongly recommend that you actually read the DMCA. The safe harbor is given to the service provider for accepting DMCA notices, and protects them from suits from the complainant. There's a separate safe harbor against claims from the uploader, and they get that by accepting counter-notices. But there's no obligation to accept counternotices, since they can delete videos at any time per their terms. So there's no relevant safe harbor they would lose here. You've provided no source for the claim that they often reject valid counternotices. I don't believe this is the case.