4 ms·

Fee can be refundable if review is not malicious. Win-win.

jandrese 6y ago
The bot that issued the takedown should be charged the $10 fee for every decision that is reversed. Today there is basically no consequence for automated false takedown notices if you are a big media cartel, so they don't care. They tune their systems to minimize false negatives at the cost of many false positives because nobody is stopping them.
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  Of course there are "no consequences" to YouTube for an incorrect anything. They are a private company. Why would they punish themselves?
  - chaosharmonic 6y ago
    This isn't about consequences to YouTube. It's about consequences to copyright holders for frivolous takedowns. When you issue a DMCA notice, you're certifying that the content is yours, under (theoretical) penalty of perjury. But big content studios erroneously issue them using automated systems all the time, and the only way to actually enforce this is for you, the individual getting targeted by one, to personally take legal action against a multinational corporation. Meaning that, for all practical purposes, the people this affects have zero recourse.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      This is why automated content takedown doesn't use the DMCA. It's a system designed by the content cartels.
    - SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
      That is wrong. Nearly 100% of people who receive a DMCA notice of alleged infringement (read: 'copyright strike') from YouTube have the option of filing a counter-notification. In nearly all cases, YouTube responds to valid counter-notifications by informing the party that initiated the takedown. Counter-notification starts the clock on a 10-day window, within which the party alleging infringement must - if they want to keep the video down - sue you in federal court and prove to YouTube that they they have filed suit against you. Otherwise the video goes back up. That procedure is almost always available. The downside, of course, is that you might get sued for an enormous amount of money that you may be held liable for. Statutory damages are scary. (But thy are a consequence of infringement, not notice-and-takedown.)
- jki275 6y ago
  I’d argue that bot should be charged multiple orders if magnitude more than $10. The only way to modify that behavior is to make it hurt.

The bot that issued the takedown should be charged the $10 fee for every decision that is reversed. Today there is basically no consequence for automated false takedown notices if you are a big media cartel, so they don't care. They tune their systems to minimize false negatives at the cost of many false positives because nobody is stopping them.

SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
Of course there are "no consequences" to YouTube for an incorrect anything. They are a private company. Why would they punish themselves?
- chaosharmonic 6y ago
  This isn't about consequences to YouTube. It's about consequences to copyright holders for frivolous takedowns. When you issue a DMCA notice, you're certifying that the content is yours, under (theoretical) penalty of perjury. But big content studios erroneously issue them using automated systems all the time, and the only way to actually enforce this is for you, the individual getting targeted by one, to personally take legal action against a multinational corporation. Meaning that, for all practical purposes, the people this affects have zero recourse.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    This is why automated content takedown doesn't use the DMCA. It's a system designed by the content cartels.
  - SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
    That is wrong. Nearly 100% of people who receive a DMCA notice of alleged infringement (read: 'copyright strike') from YouTube have the option of filing a counter-notification. In nearly all cases, YouTube responds to valid counter-notifications by informing the party that initiated the takedown. Counter-notification starts the clock on a 10-day window, within which the party alleging infringement must - if they want to keep the video down - sue you in federal court and prove to YouTube that they they have filed suit against you. Otherwise the video goes back up. That procedure is almost always available. The downside, of course, is that you might get sued for an enormous amount of money that you may be held liable for. Statutory damages are scary. (But thy are a consequence of infringement, not notice-and-takedown.)
jki275 6y ago
I’d argue that bot should be charged multiple orders if magnitude more than $10. The only way to modify that behavior is to make it hurt.