4 ms·

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".

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".