5 ms·

This is not about the laws. YouTube has their own copyright processes that are more stringent than DMCA. They allow companies to automate take down and take ov

This is not about the laws. YouTube has their own copyright processes that are more stringent than DMCA. They allow companies to automate take down and take over requests with no repercussions. Everyone who shares a video to their platform has agreed to this process.

jedberg 6y ago
I'm aware of that, but the reason YouTube has that process is because they don't want to get sued. If the law gave YouTube immunity by simply reporting copyright claims instead of taking them down, they would switch their process. Especially if YouTube had a penalty for getting it wrong.
- MrStonedOne 6y ago
  YouTube has a process outside of the DMCA to let rights holders take down videos without risk of a false DMCA suit.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Yes I know, which is why the law should be changed to make this extrajudicial process illegal and expensive for YouTube, so that their most prudent course of action is to notify the copyright holder and then do nothing.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      A proposal which amounts to making it 'illegal and expensive' for an internet platform to do any kind of moderation other than the process mandated by US copyright law sounds like a far more grotesque imposition on the internet than anything the most aggressive copyright lawyers have proposed. The status quo where YouTube is full of voluntarily uploaded material by rightsholders, other videos featuring their songs (for which the rightsholders get compensated) and even some cover bands getting revenue share, and most copyright-struck videos just get demonetised sounds a lot better than the RIAA simply trying to get everything taken down. Judging by the amount of unofficial Santeria videos on YouTube, I don't think anyone would struggle to publish cop videos with Sublime playing in the background on there anyway.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        I have to disagree. Making the platform completely indemnified if they take no action and putting all the responsibility on the rights holders would be great for the internet. It would suck for the rights holders, but I'm ok with that, and I think most people would be.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I think you’d just see the shoe on the other foot, with giant companies exploiting the work of smaller creators who are left with little recourse.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    I think a fair solution would be "Should your content be taken down by the ContentID system/outside the DMCA, you should be able to protest and require a DMCA claim", i.e. "I stand by the righteousness of my denial and want to invoke the legal process to defend it".
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  > I'm aware of that, but the reason YouTube has that process is because they don't want to get sued. If the law gave YouTube immunity by simply reporting copyright claims instead of taking them down, they would switch their process. The DMCA already has a system that is much fairer to the average creator in the form of safe harbor provisions. YouTube doesn't like the DMCA process because it's expensive to handle and process individual claims, compared to letting their big partners just sling bogus claims across the entire site. They'd prefer to be on the side of rightsholders over creators, simply because it's cheaper.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Exactly. So put a penalty on them for getting it wrong so it's cheaper to not take videos down.
    - Jasper_ 6y ago
      There's already a "under penalty of perjury" in the DMCA for rightsholders. Though it's arguable whether it has been ineffective; most settle out of court before it gets that far. YouTube and their partners intentionally sidestep the DMCA takedown rules in favor of their own system which doesn't have these rules. The point of Content ID is to remove the barriers the law and the DMCA have, in favor of an arbitration system which (mostly) sides with big rightsholders.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        The problem is that the only thing the claimant is saying under penalty of perjury as that they are actually the rightsholder (or are authorized to act on their behalf), and they have a good-faith belief that their takedown reasoning is correct. Since it's essentially impossible to prove lack of a "belief", no one ever gets in trouble for filing a false or weak claim.
      - FireBeyond 6y ago
        > There's already a "under penalty of perjury" in the DMCA for rightsholders. Though it's arguable whether it has been ineffective; most settle out of court before it gets that far. Most? To my knowledge in the history of the DMCA not a single person has been hit with a perjury claim, not even the most egregious vexatious claimant.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  They might have nonstandard contracts with big media producers that prevent YT from removing ContentID and/or require YT to grant special takedown powers, so any legal change would have to address those types of contracts (if they exist) as well.

jedberg 6y ago

I'm aware of that, but the reason YouTube has that process is because they don't want to get sued. If the law gave YouTube immunity by simply reporting copyright claims instead of taking them down, they would switch their process. Especially if YouTube had a penalty for getting it wrong.

MrStonedOne 6y ago
YouTube has a process outside of the DMCA to let rights holders take down videos without risk of a false DMCA suit.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Yes I know, which is why the law should be changed to make this extrajudicial process illegal and expensive for YouTube, so that their most prudent course of action is to notify the copyright holder and then do nothing.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    A proposal which amounts to making it 'illegal and expensive' for an internet platform to do any kind of moderation other than the process mandated by US copyright law sounds like a far more grotesque imposition on the internet than anything the most aggressive copyright lawyers have proposed. The status quo where YouTube is full of voluntarily uploaded material by rightsholders, other videos featuring their songs (for which the rightsholders get compensated) and even some cover bands getting revenue share, and most copyright-struck videos just get demonetised sounds a lot better than the RIAA simply trying to get everything taken down. Judging by the amount of unofficial Santeria videos on YouTube, I don't think anyone would struggle to publish cop videos with Sublime playing in the background on there anyway.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      I have to disagree. Making the platform completely indemnified if they take no action and putting all the responsibility on the rights holders would be great for the internet. It would suck for the rights holders, but I'm ok with that, and I think most people would be.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I think you’d just see the shoe on the other foot, with giant companies exploiting the work of smaller creators who are left with little recourse.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  I think a fair solution would be "Should your content be taken down by the ContentID system/outside the DMCA, you should be able to protest and require a DMCA claim", i.e. "I stand by the righteousness of my denial and want to invoke the legal process to defend it".
Jasper_ 6y ago
> I'm aware of that, but the reason YouTube has that process is because they don't want to get sued. If the law gave YouTube immunity by simply reporting copyright claims instead of taking them down, they would switch their process. The DMCA already has a system that is much fairer to the average creator in the form of safe harbor provisions. YouTube doesn't like the DMCA process because it's expensive to handle and process individual claims, compared to letting their big partners just sling bogus claims across the entire site. They'd prefer to be on the side of rightsholders over creators, simply because it's cheaper.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Exactly. So put a penalty on them for getting it wrong so it's cheaper to not take videos down.
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    There's already a "under penalty of perjury" in the DMCA for rightsholders. Though it's arguable whether it has been ineffective; most settle out of court before it gets that far. YouTube and their partners intentionally sidestep the DMCA takedown rules in favor of their own system which doesn't have these rules. The point of Content ID is to remove the barriers the law and the DMCA have, in favor of an arbitration system which (mostly) sides with big rightsholders.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      The problem is that the only thing the claimant is saying under penalty of perjury as that they are actually the rightsholder (or are authorized to act on their behalf), and they have a good-faith belief that their takedown reasoning is correct. Since it's essentially impossible to prove lack of a "belief", no one ever gets in trouble for filing a false or weak claim.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      > There's already a "under penalty of perjury" in the DMCA for rightsholders. Though it's arguable whether it has been ineffective; most settle out of court before it gets that far. Most? To my knowledge in the history of the DMCA not a single person has been hit with a perjury claim, not even the most egregious vexatious claimant.
nitrogen 6y ago
They might have nonstandard contracts with big media producers that prevent YT from removing ContentID and/or require YT to grant special takedown powers, so any legal change would have to address those types of contracts (if they exist) as well.