10 ms·
The key phrase there is "knowingly materially". So in other words, an automated content matching system which flags up any instance of 2 seconds of matching con
by lozenge 7y ago
The key phrase there is "knowingly materially". So in other words, an automated content matching system which flags up any instance of 2 seconds of matching content, with no manual review step, would not fall afoul of this clause, because there is no law that says a use under 2 seconds is definitely not infringing.
- gpderetta 7y agoCertainly any automated system would have a known false positive rate. How would you justify not knowing that some content was mislabeled?
- wahern 7y agoGood point, and perhaps the most important reason this remedy isn't much of a deterrent. That said, once you dispute a takedown request I would imagine (hope!) that the moderating effect of automation is removed, making it easier to prove that element if the requester remains intransigent. But even without automation, "knowing" is a steep burden when it comes to copyright considering all the legal grey areas. And it just occurred to me that it cuts both ways--the subsection makes both copyright holder and infringer liable for misrepresentation in takedown disputes. If you make it easier to show knowledge of the copyright holder, you make it easier to show knowledge of the purported infringer. The easier it is to meet this element, the more financially risky is it to dispute takedowns.