7 ms·
I think a challenge is that the law provides much needed protections to YT if they protect copyright holders. Distinguishing between real and fraudulent claiman
by thanksforfish 5y ago
I think a challenge is that the law provides much needed protections to YT if they protect copyright holders. Distinguishing between real and fraudulent claimants would need to be done very carefully; could accidentally denying a legitimate claim cause them to lose liability protections?
If so, they'd need lawyers in the loop for any decision about denying a fraudulent copyright claim. The cost of that is likely enough to make them prefer the current setup.
- danaris 5y agoYouTube's system goes far beyond what is required for DMCA Safe Harbor.
- shadilay 5y agoViacom had lawyers and YT creators did not, therefore they did not have a seat at the table when YT's draconian copyright system was created.
- pavon 5y agoNo what happened is that YT creators were found to be blatantly and directly infringing on copyright by uploading copyrighted video themselves. As a result they had to accept unbalanced settlement terms negotiated from a position of weakness.
- shadilay 5y agoI have never seen any evidence that "they", YT creators, had any input in the YT copyright system. There was no negotiation. YT is afterall a contract of adhesion.
- gwd 5y agoI've posted this before, but I think it needs to look like this: 1. Claimant files a copyright claim with Google against a video owner. This immediately causes the video to be taken down / revenue to be redirected. 2. Video owner can contest the claim. This immediately causes the video to go back up / revenue to be refunded (or perhaps escrowed pending further procedures). 3. Claimant can now re-file the claim, but putting up enough money to have a real, trained human actually look at the case (I'm thinking on the order of $1000). Video is again immediately taken down, and revenue redirected. 4. The video owner can now re-contest the claim by putting up the same amount of money. - If the video owner doesn't re-contest the claim, the money is refunded and the process is over. - If the video owner contests the claim, they put up the same amount of money. A real, trained copyright lawyer looks at the case and decides. Whoever wins gets their money back.
- cordite 5y agoIs this proof of stake
- Cederfjard 5y agoSo if you can’t put up $1000, but your counterpart can, you’re screwed?
- gwd 5y agoTechnically yes; but: 1. It's still better than the current situation, where you're screwed regardless 2. Not even a large corporation is going to be willing to lose $1000 over and over again. The only time it's rational to put up the $1000 is if you're pretty sure you're going to win, or if you're pretty sure the other guy can't pay. I think the chances of any random person being unable to come up with $1000 are reasonably low. So most re-claims should generally be actually valid. 3. Theoretically one could imagine services like bond lenders starting up, which will look at your case and front you the $1000; and if you win you pay them a cut of the refund ($50? $100?). If my predection at the end of #2 turned out to be false, there should be a reasonable market for this sort of thing.
- krisoft 5y ago> I think the chances of any random person being unable to come up with $1000 are reasonably low. I want to live in the world you live in! In the one I live in 1k is a lot of money to a lot of people to gamble on an uncertain process.
- tarboreus 5y agoWe're not talking about mom and pop, here, really. This is presumably a population that is making money on YouTube. Yes, $1000 is a lot to the average person, but as a business expense it's really not much. And getting your channel banned is career (or business) ending.
- 5y ago
- mulmen 5y agoSounds like a cost of running the largest streaming video service on the Internet. Should Google get free electricity to protect their bottom line?