3 ms·

YouTube did come up with a solution to one of the issues with DMCA - that it requires a manual report. They allowed sophisticated rights owners to upload conten

by ikeboy 6y ago

YouTube did come up with a solution to one of the issues with DMCA - that it requires a manual report. They allowed sophisticated rights owners to upload content and then automatically flag any uploads that match. This is done outside of the DMCA and has no negative effect on users accounts, and comes with an appeal option. This is somewhat of an improvement on the DMCA, and it's voluntary for rights owners so it doesn't violate the DMCA. It's successfully reduced the number of DMCA complaints YouTube receives. I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. Is removing a video for 14 days such a terrible downside that you'd get rid of the whole framework? Or are there other parts you object to? As above, I don't believe the DMCA is perfect. So please don't accuse me of thinking it is. I think penalties for false claims should be increased, I think false claims should be strict liability and antitrust per se. But I think getting rid of the entire framework would be a mistake.

pdonis 6y ago
> I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. It simply means the content is removed for 14 days, if a valid counternotice is submitted and no lawsuit is filed. So to be clear - the 14 day period is what you consider draconian?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. Yes, it does, because the content gets taken down. That means treating the content as if it does infringe copyright. That means treating the claim of infringement as valid. Saying "well, we aren't accepting it as valid, but we're still taking down the content anyway" is just sophistry. Taking down the content is accepting the claim as valid, or would be in any sane legal regime. But we don't live in a sane legal regime.

by ikeboy 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.

ikeboy 6y ago
Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. It simply means the content is removed for 14 days, if a valid counternotice is submitted and no lawsuit is filed. So to be clear - the 14 day period is what you consider draconian?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. Yes, it does, because the content gets taken down. That means treating the content as if it does infringe copyright. That means treating the claim of infringement as valid. Saying "well, we aren't accepting it as valid, but we're still taking down the content anyway" is just sophistry. Taking down the content is accepting the claim as valid, or would be in any sane legal regime. But we don't live in a sane legal regime.