6 ms·

The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees. As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on

The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees. As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).

hedora 7y ago
It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam. Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc. A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights. To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.
- ghayes 7y ago
  What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    They may have paid millions, but not necessarily. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
  - hedora 7y ago
    True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault. The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist. In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties. To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      When legislatures come up with a penalty that depends on say a percentage of global turnover, HN lights up at the iniquity of it. Despite that being in a jurisdiction that demands proportionality in penalties, so it's a maximum that will rarely if ever levied, and only on the largest corporates.
    - bostik 7y ago
      If you want punitive action, balance and justice in one package, aim high: eye for an eye. For each case of copyfraud, have the defrauder lose copyright for one item in their catalogue and placed into public domain. The item? Victim's choice.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist." This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?
  - brightball 7y ago
    FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".
      - recursive 7y ago
        Regardless of whether you feel you're risking third degree burns, you are. http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 > Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Sure, but I was referring to a spill. If I spill hot water on myself, I don't expect the consequences to be the same as being immersed in it at constant temperature. Both because the time is short and it cools as it falls and spatters. I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns. Although maybe I'm just comfortably numb.
      - zaarn 7y ago
        When you drive a car you probably don't feel like you're risking fatal road accidents happen either but it happens. Third degree burns happen with boiling hot water, any boiling water is dangerous and potentially lethal if mishandled. People underestimate the energy stored in that water.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Millions of dollars for giving someone third degree burns. Hot coffee is not a crime.
    - Jotra7 7y ago
      Are you kidding? Perhaps your smug ass should actually look up what happened or maybe just stop talking about shit you know nothing about.
throwaway2048 7y ago
The YouTube take down process where you steal video revenue does not involve the DMCA
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  This. Many people forget that Content ID isn’t the DMCA
jfoster 7y ago
What happens if there's two claims? Could a YouTuber do something along the lines of just lodging claims against their own videos in order to prevent others from lodging claims?
- pdkl95 7y ago
  Jim Sterling talking about including footage from multiple companies as a "copyright deadlock": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM
ratsmack 7y ago
Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- iscrewyou 7y ago
  I think the idea is be that there will be less frivolous claims when you know you can be sued for falsely claiming something.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  How would you change the laws to protect people like OP?
  - pas 7y ago
    Large companies should be required to have a full-time consumer advocate (paid by the company, but selected by users) who can effectively have a say in matters.
- guntars 7y ago
  Then maybe someone needs to sell DMCA insurance to small creators that could never afford to retain a lawyer individually. The majority of the invalid claims would get reversed the second a suit is filed and they wouldn’t go further than that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - inetknght 7y ago
    That's a step in the wrong direction: preventing abuse will always be better than legitimizing it.
kevingadd 7y ago
You can't do this on YouTube because YT satisfied the big copyright manipulators by adding their own system in front of the DMCA. As a result these claims don't go through the DMCA process and the legal penalties (toothless to begin with) built into the DMCA aren't available to you. Content ID killing your content or claiming it because someone misused Content ID isn't a legal matter so you are powerless. This is how it is intended to be: It's what Viacom/Disney/etc wanted and Google gave it to them. AFAIK DMCA notices only produce a takedown, not monetization. If you want to monetize you go through Content ID, which is not the DMCA. A false DMCA also exposes you to real legal threat, and a big player with money for a lawyer will dismantle you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kalleboo 7y ago
> monetize on their content for a while I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned. edit: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.
ta34729384 7y ago
Anyone who has even a minor interest in resisting the unfair, uncompetitive playing field big tech has created for itself, should install ad-blockers. Everywhere. And get everyone they know to as well.

hedora 7y ago

It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam. Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc. A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights. To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.

ghayes 7y ago
What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  They may have paid millions, but not necessarily. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
- hedora 7y ago
  True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault. The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist. In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties. To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    When legislatures come up with a penalty that depends on say a percentage of global turnover, HN lights up at the iniquity of it. Despite that being in a jurisdiction that demands proportionality in penalties, so it's a maximum that will rarely if ever levied, and only on the largest corporates.
  - bostik 7y ago
    If you want punitive action, balance and justice in one package, aim high: eye for an eye. For each case of copyfraud, have the defrauder lose copyright for one item in their catalogue and placed into public domain. The item? Victim's choice.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist." This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?
- brightball 7y ago
  FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".
    - recursive 7y ago
      Regardless of whether you feel you're risking third degree burns, you are. http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 > Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Sure, but I was referring to a spill. If I spill hot water on myself, I don't expect the consequences to be the same as being immersed in it at constant temperature. Both because the time is short and it cools as it falls and spatters. I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns. Although maybe I'm just comfortably numb.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      When you drive a car you probably don't feel like you're risking fatal road accidents happen either but it happens. Third degree burns happen with boiling hot water, any boiling water is dangerous and potentially lethal if mishandled. People underestimate the energy stored in that water.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Millions of dollars for giving someone third degree burns. Hot coffee is not a crime.
  - Jotra7 7y ago
    Are you kidding? Perhaps your smug ass should actually look up what happened or maybe just stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

throwaway2048 7y ago

The YouTube take down process where you steal video revenue does not involve the DMCA

colejohnson66 7y ago
This. Many people forget that Content ID isn’t the DMCA

jfoster 7y ago

What happens if there's two claims? Could a YouTuber do something along the lines of just lodging claims against their own videos in order to prevent others from lodging claims?

pdkl95 7y ago
Jim Sterling talking about including footage from multiple companies as a "copyright deadlock": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM

ratsmack 7y ago

Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
iscrewyou 7y ago
I think the idea is be that there will be less frivolous claims when you know you can be sued for falsely claiming something.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
How would you change the laws to protect people like OP?
- pas 7y ago
  Large companies should be required to have a full-time consumer advocate (paid by the company, but selected by users) who can effectively have a say in matters.
guntars 7y ago
Then maybe someone needs to sell DMCA insurance to small creators that could never afford to retain a lawyer individually. The majority of the invalid claims would get reversed the second a suit is filed and they wouldn’t go further than that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inetknght 7y ago
  That's a step in the wrong direction: preventing abuse will always be better than legitimizing it.

kevingadd 7y ago

You can't do this on YouTube because YT satisfied the big copyright manipulators by adding their own system in front of the DMCA. As a result these claims don't go through the DMCA process and the legal penalties (toothless to begin with) built into the DMCA aren't available to you. Content ID killing your content or claiming it because someone misused Content ID isn't a legal matter so you are powerless. This is how it is intended to be: It's what Viacom/Disney/etc wanted and Google gave it to them. AFAIK DMCA notices only produce a takedown, not monetization. If you want to monetize you go through Content ID, which is not the DMCA. A false DMCA also exposes you to real legal threat, and a big player with money for a lawyer will dismantle you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kalleboo 7y ago

> monetize on their content for a while I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned. edit: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.

ta34729384 7y ago

Anyone who has even a minor interest in resisting the unfair, uncompetitive playing field big tech has created for itself, should install ad-blockers. Everywhere. And get everyone they know to as well.