4 ms·

It's not standard law to require them to accept jurisdiction by anyone who wants to sue. I'm arguing that people should be able to post to YouTube from anywher

by ikeboy 6y ago

It's not standard law to require them to accept jurisdiction by anyone who wants to sue. I'm arguing that people should be able to post to YouTube from anywhere, and be subject to liability wherever they normally have jurisdiction, plus be subject to liability if sued by YouTube as per the contract with YouTube. >If they made false claims about their copyright to what they post, yes. But if their claim is correct, it's not perjury. How is that a problem? It creates criminal liability for ambiguous fair use cases. And if you don't create additional liability, then your system is no different than the current one. >In fact, the "it's not worth the bother to me" alternative basically replicates what we have now under the DMCA. But the difference is that the DMCA imposes the same process on all cases, instead of letting people figure out by the natural process of evolution what process works best for different types of cases. DMCA doesn't impose it, it just offers it as an option to companies that want the safe harbor. A company is free to ignore a DMCA complaint if they don't think it's valid. They still keep the safe harbor for other cases, they just lose it for that specific notice. >Ambiguous cases now go to court. Some ambiguous cases get reinstated after a counternotice is submitted. In your system, a lawsuit would need to be filed. This would mean some things stay down.

pdonis 6y ago
> It creates criminal liability for ambiguous fair use cases. Ah, ok, I thought that's what you might be referring to. I covered that later in my post, suggesting the "it's not worth the trouble to me" alternative for such cases. What the DMCA does not provide is a way for people like the person described in the article, who know they created all the content they are posting themselves, to tell Company Y (YouTube or Github or whomever) that they are confident enough in their legal ownership of the content, because they know they created it themselves, to say so under penalty of perjury, so Company Y would already have a pre-set response to any claim of infringement. See further comments below. > Some ambiguous cases get reinstated after a counternotice is submitted. In your system, a lawsuit would need to be filed. Not at all. In such a case, under the DMCA, the content gets reinstated because Company Y believes the counter notice to be legitimate. In my proposed scenario, the content would never be taken down in the first place, because Company Y would have the equivalent of the counter notice (the legal document from the person who posted the content) already in hand when the complaint from Company X arrived, and would simply provide a copy to Company X (Step 2 of my process). So this content would be chilled less under my scenario, since it wouldn't be taken down at all, whereas under the DMCA it would be taken down for up to 14 days (or even longer if it took longer for the counter notice to be filed).
- ikeboy 6y ago
  In an ambiguous case, the rights owner provides their "proof" to Y, which then removes the content because they don't want to take the legal risk. Hence, content is chilled that isn't chilled under DMCA. I'm not responding to the first part of your comment, there's too many moving parts in your proposal spread across too many different comments for me to be able to figure out what you mean here. I think this conversation has gone on long enough.

by ikeboy 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> It creates criminal liability for ambiguous fair use cases. Ah, ok, I thought that's what you might be referring to. I covered that later in my post, suggesting the "it's not worth the trouble to me" alternative for such cases. What the DMCA does not provide is a way for people like the person described in the article, who know they created all the content they are posting themselves, to tell Company Y (YouTube or Github or whomever) that they are confident enough in their legal ownership of the content, because they know they created it themselves, to say so under penalty of perjury, so Company Y would already have a pre-set response to any claim of infringement. See further comments below. > Some ambiguous cases get reinstated after a counternotice is submitted. In your system, a lawsuit would need to be filed. Not at all. In such a case, under the DMCA, the content gets reinstated because Company Y believes the counter notice to be legitimate. In my proposed scenario, the content would never be taken down in the first place, because Company Y would have the equivalent of the counter notice (the legal document from the person who posted the content) already in hand when the complaint from Company X arrived, and would simply provide a copy to Company X (Step 2 of my process). So this content would be chilled less under my scenario, since it wouldn't be taken down at all, whereas under the DMCA it would be taken down for up to 14 days (or even longer if it took longer for the counter notice to be filed).

ikeboy 6y ago
In an ambiguous case, the rights owner provides their "proof" to Y, which then removes the content because they don't want to take the legal risk. Hence, content is chilled that isn't chilled under DMCA. I'm not responding to the first part of your comment, there's too many moving parts in your proposal spread across too many different comments for me to be able to figure out what you mean here. I think this conversation has gone on long enough.