3 ms·
I wonder if they could go after damages from YouTube itself, forcing it to adjust the system so frivolous claims are less trivial to make. Striking back is well
by _bxg1 8y ago
I wonder if they could go after damages from YouTube itself, forcing it to adjust the system so frivolous claims are less trivial to make. Striking back is well and good, but most of the channels that suffer from these claims can't afford lawyers.
- ahmedalsudani 8y agoAlmost certainly not. There is no way YouTube’s TOS do not protect them from that kind of claim. Even if the TOS had a hole in them, YouTube is not acting maliciously and is abiding by DMCA.
- soneil 8y agoI suspect that's easier said than done. The whole take-down process is setup to keep them within the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ). There's provision for repeat offenders - 502(i) - but no provision for fraudulent or malicious claims (other than the standard counter-notice). This leaves providers somewhat hamstrung when it comes to "the boy who cries wolf". If you make 100 illegitimate claims and then 1 legitimate claim, that 101st claim is still entirely within the scope of §502, and ignoring it because of the user's malicious history would fall foul of safe-harbor.