4 ms·

It's a bit more complicated than that. Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to use t

It's a bit more complicated than that. Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to use the DMCA, they obviously can. If the content creator would prefer the rightsholder use the DMCA, they can dispute+appeal which will force the rightsholder to file a DMCA takedown if they want to continue with their claim. Unfortunately there's often a lot of confusion about the dispute+appeals process, since it's a multi-step process and there's a ton of people incorrectly conflating disputes with appeals, but the important takeaway is that a content creator can choose to force a DMCA takedown via an appeal (which happens after a rejected dispute). The reason content creators rarely choose to go the route of forcing a DMCA takedown is because: 1) the only remedy for a DMCA takedown is a removal of the entire video, which is often less preferable than the remedies offered by the google process (ex: replacing/muting the audio in the claimed section, monetization split, restrictions in only some geographical regions) 2) the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. This manifests on YouTube as a 3-strikes-and-your-channel-is-deleted policy that only applies to DMCA takedowns, but not copyright claims that come through the optional google process. 3) There's some scary warnings about how particularly vindictive rightsholders react to this by choosing to file a lawsuit against the creator in addition to filing the DMCA takedown

SrslyJosh 6y ago
> Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. So, optional in the "or we'll break your legs" sense.
- polishTar 6y ago
  I suppose. It's optional in the sense that the DMCA process is the alternative, and the DMCA sucks really bad. My interpretation of google's copyright system is that it tries to straddle the line of being both significantly less punishing to content creators while also giving enough of a remedy to rightsholders so they don't end up preferring the DMCA takedown. The system is completely useless if rightsholders disfavor it and use the DMCA instead (which by law they can do at any time). This is a really unfortunate challenge around the design of copyright systems like googles that isn't often appreciated. All this would be so much easier if the DMCA was just reformed. There are so many obvious changes that could be made to make it much more tolerable and remove the need for complex systems like google's.
dotdi 6y ago
Just want to leave something here: >the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. AFAIK there is no clause that protects the reverse process to this: copyright holders can just bulk file bullshit claims without consequences. As usual, it's the big corps that are favored by such laws at the expense of the individual. Also > monetization split exists only for ad-revenue, which is split between YouTube and creators. That doesn't apply to copyright claimed material, where all money goes to the copyright holder, no question asked whatsoever.

SrslyJosh 6y ago

> Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. So, optional in the "or we'll break your legs" sense.

polishTar 6y ago
I suppose. It's optional in the sense that the DMCA process is the alternative, and the DMCA sucks really bad. My interpretation of google's copyright system is that it tries to straddle the line of being both significantly less punishing to content creators while also giving enough of a remedy to rightsholders so they don't end up preferring the DMCA takedown. The system is completely useless if rightsholders disfavor it and use the DMCA instead (which by law they can do at any time). This is a really unfortunate challenge around the design of copyright systems like googles that isn't often appreciated. All this would be so much easier if the DMCA was just reformed. There are so many obvious changes that could be made to make it much more tolerable and remove the need for complex systems like google's.

dotdi 6y ago

Just want to leave something here: >the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. AFAIK there is no clause that protects the reverse process to this: copyright holders can just bulk file bullshit claims without consequences. As usual, it's the big corps that are favored by such laws at the expense of the individual. Also > monetization split exists only for ad-revenue, which is split between YouTube and creators. That doesn't apply to copyright claimed material, where all money goes to the copyright holder, no question asked whatsoever.