> the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, known as notice

> the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, known as notice and take down, and 2) the existence of "red flags." > The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Subjectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Objectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances." TL;DR: A half page automated email from a content owner has to be acted on expeditiously, can only be overturned with a lawsuit, and there's no penalty for abusing the system. Big content owners put a lot of money in the pockets of legislators to get such obviously biased laws in their favor. The takedown example here [0] requires all of 30 minutes of effort to be able to send notices as fast as your internet connection allows it. At this point all protections the OSP (YouTube) has are removed. The "red flag" process sets the bar just as low for the content owners. No OSP wants to test challenging this out in court knowing they make an enemy out of big content owners and even expose themselves to targeted attacks and more liability. But worse, the law puts a hell of a burden on the allegedly infringing party (the YouTube user) who has to fight in court against an automated email. Given the imbalance of power you'd expect the legislation to propose some penalty for abuse, like rapidly increasing fines for each false flag. It does not. It is solely aimed at "expeditiously" complying with the demand of the content owner leaving the other party with an impossible fight if they want the situation corrected. There is no reasonable interpretation where setting such a low bar for content owners but such a high bar for everyone else has anything to do with fairness. Big name content owners payed for this, and the US legislators took the money and delivered. YouTube and Twitter simply have no bone to pick with them and would rather stay out of the fight by complying without objections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Takedown_example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...