4 ms·

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that. It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.

sam0x17 7y ago
Heck, I'd even have my developers write an AI that automatically extracts fair-use-length clips from videos and songs belonging to some of the biggest complainers, and uploads them as "honeypot" videos. If they complain about one of those, ban 'em from complaining again. They don't understand copyright law.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  A 10 second clip of a movie isn’t necessarily fair use; It’s decided on a case by case basis. You can use as much as you need to get your point across; No more. If that’s 10 seconds, you can use 10 seconds. If that’s a minute, you can use a minute.
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    But if Google's lawyers took a stance on this, they could use precedent to set defined rules for what actually counts as fair use and all these claimants would be fucked.
    - chris_wot 7y ago
      Or they could lose. Courts don’t like it when someone games fair use.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Google doesn't get to decide what counts as fair use.
      - sam0x17 7y ago
        Right, but the contentID system essentially _is_ them deciding what fair use is.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Content ID seems more like forced arbitrage clauses - essentially a way to preempt and prevent people from using the legal system.
nwallin 7y ago
> I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. Money. If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. The DMCA isn't designed in a way to make an easy path forward for a service like Youtube to operate fairly in a profitable manner. Article 13 prohibits it by law. Copyright law reminds me of going to my parent's house and being asked to fix something on their computer. It's not this one thing that's broken, it's everything that's broken. I could fix all the little individual things, but it would be a lot easier to wipe it clean and start from scratch.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.
  - nwallin 7y ago
    The keyword is "contested". If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far. Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly. Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need" applies here.
    - juped 7y ago
      You are factually incorrect about the well-known DMCA notice and counter-notice provisions. Please read 17 USC §512, subsections (c) and (g). The comment to which you are replying quotes what I presume from context to be subsection (c) (the language is repeated across multiple subsections). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The law provides that service providers can avoid liability by following these procedures, which afford them no discretion or opportunity to review claimed infringement. You claim that "DMCA claims [...] [impose] a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim." From the statute, it appears instead that reviewing section (c) notices or section (g) counter-notices and acting based on their own purported determination of infringement or non-infringement would cause the loss of their safe harbor, a safe harbor available only when the provider follows the nondiscretionary procedure laid out in (c)(1) and (g)(2).
krapp 7y ago
>I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did. The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.
patmcc 7y ago
>>> fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that. That isn't how fair use works. 30 seconds might not be fair use and 10 minutes might, depending on how they're used.

sam0x17 7y ago

Heck, I'd even have my developers write an AI that automatically extracts fair-use-length clips from videos and songs belonging to some of the biggest complainers, and uploads them as "honeypot" videos. If they complain about one of those, ban 'em from complaining again. They don't understand copyright law.

colejohnson66 7y ago
A 10 second clip of a movie isn’t necessarily fair use; It’s decided on a case by case basis. You can use as much as you need to get your point across; No more. If that’s 10 seconds, you can use 10 seconds. If that’s a minute, you can use a minute.
- sam0x17 7y ago
  But if Google's lawyers took a stance on this, they could use precedent to set defined rules for what actually counts as fair use and all these claimants would be fucked.
  - chris_wot 7y ago
    Or they could lose. Courts don’t like it when someone games fair use.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Google doesn't get to decide what counts as fair use.
    - sam0x17 7y ago
      Right, but the contentID system essentially _is_ them deciding what fair use is.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Content ID seems more like forced arbitrage clauses - essentially a way to preempt and prevent people from using the legal system.

nwallin 7y ago

> I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. Money. If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. The DMCA isn't designed in a way to make an easy path forward for a service like Youtube to operate fairly in a profitable manner. Article 13 prohibits it by law. Copyright law reminds me of going to my parent's house and being asked to fix something on their computer. It's not this one thing that's broken, it's everything that's broken. I could fix all the little individual things, but it would be a lot easier to wipe it clean and start from scratch.

icebraining 7y ago
> they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.
- nwallin 7y ago
  The keyword is "contested". If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far. Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly. Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need" applies here.
  - juped 7y ago
    You are factually incorrect about the well-known DMCA notice and counter-notice provisions. Please read 17 USC §512, subsections (c) and (g). The comment to which you are replying quotes what I presume from context to be subsection (c) (the language is repeated across multiple subsections). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The law provides that service providers can avoid liability by following these procedures, which afford them no discretion or opportunity to review claimed infringement. You claim that "DMCA claims [...] [impose] a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim." From the statute, it appears instead that reviewing section (c) notices or section (g) counter-notices and acting based on their own purported determination of infringement or non-infringement would cause the loss of their safe harbor, a safe harbor available only when the provider follows the nondiscretionary procedure laid out in (c)(1) and (g)(2).

krapp 7y ago

>I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did. The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.

patmcc 7y ago

>>> fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that. That isn't how fair use works. 30 seconds might not be fair use and 10 minutes might, depending on how they're used.