3 ms·

My understanding is that copyright holders aren't typically filing DMCA complaints against YouTube. They're using YouTube's internal resolution mechanisms which

by kej 7y ago

My understanding is that copyright holders aren't typically filing DMCA complaints against YouTube. They're using YouTube's internal resolution mechanisms which lack the DMCA's disincentives for abuse.

SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
This is correct. Additionally (possibly off-topic) people often misunderstand what sort of abuse the DMCA penalizes. The DMCA prohibits claiming you own the copyright on some work that you don't. It does NOT prohibit claiming that anything infringes that copyright. For example, pretend I'm Nintendo. I own the copyright on Mario. Someone posts a video of Mario. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Valid claim. No perjury penalty. Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Invalid claim. No perjury penalty! (This is the scenario people think is prohibited.) Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Doom. Invalid claim. Perjury penalty! I don't own any copyright to Doom! It's the latter (rarely seen) case that the DMCA prohibits. AFAIK YouTube also prohibits that in their ToS.
- anticensor 7y ago
  > Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Invalid claim. No perjury penalty! (This is the scenario people think is prohibited.) It is prohibited in some parts of Continental Europe, but not in USA.
- gpm 7y ago
  This is factually incorrect. DMCA claimants are required to consider whether or not actual copyright infringement is occurring, including whether or not the use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. As far as I know no one has litigated this with respect to the perjury penalty specifically, but civil DMCA penalties for filing false DMCA claims absolutely do apply, and it seems likely that if a prosecutor would actually prosecute this criminal ones (perjury) would too. (The grandparents point that youtubes copyright system these days doesn't really involve the DMCA is still valid). IANAL
- jcranmer 7y ago
  > Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Doom. Invalid claim. Perjury penalty! I don't own any copyright to Doom! Nor is this necessarily perjury. The actual statement you make under penalty of perjury is "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If you believe the statement that you own the copyright on Doom to be true, then it is not perjury, even if you do not actually own it. A case where this would matter a great deal would be the Happy Birthday song--Warner/Chappell believed they owned a copyright that they did not, and thus they could send DMCA takedown notices for people singing that song without fear of perjury (at least, until the courts ruled that they did not own the copyright).

by kej 7y ago

SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago

This is correct. Additionally (possibly off-topic) people often misunderstand what sort of abuse the DMCA penalizes. The DMCA prohibits claiming you own the copyright on some work that you don't. It does NOT prohibit claiming that anything infringes that copyright. For example, pretend I'm Nintendo. I own the copyright on Mario. Someone posts a video of Mario. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Valid claim. No perjury penalty. Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Invalid claim. No perjury penalty! (This is the scenario people think is prohibited.) Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Doom. Invalid claim. Perjury penalty! I don't own any copyright to Doom! It's the latter (rarely seen) case that the DMCA prohibits. AFAIK YouTube also prohibits that in their ToS.

anticensor 7y ago
> Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Invalid claim. No perjury penalty! (This is the scenario people think is prohibited.) It is prohibited in some parts of Continental Europe, but not in USA.
gpm 7y ago
This is factually incorrect. DMCA claimants are required to consider whether or not actual copyright infringement is occurring, including whether or not the use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. As far as I know no one has litigated this with respect to the perjury penalty specifically, but civil DMCA penalties for filing false DMCA claims absolutely do apply, and it seems likely that if a prosecutor would actually prosecute this criminal ones (perjury) would too. (The grandparents point that youtubes copyright system these days doesn't really involve the DMCA is still valid). IANAL
jcranmer 7y ago
> Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Doom. Invalid claim. Perjury penalty! I don't own any copyright to Doom! Nor is this necessarily perjury. The actual statement you make under penalty of perjury is "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If you believe the statement that you own the copyright on Doom to be true, then it is not perjury, even if you do not actually own it. A case where this would matter a great deal would be the Happy Birthday song--Warner/Chappell believed they owned a copyright that they did not, and thus they could send DMCA takedown notices for people singing that song without fear of perjury (at least, until the courts ruled that they did not own the copyright).