5 ms·

Worth noting: ContentID is not the DMCA. If it was a ContentID takedown, you basically have no recourse outside YouTube.

mschuster91 5y ago
The screenshots in the tweet and the thread look like a DMCA claim to me.
kmeisthax 5y ago
A related fact: some companies with ContentID access have an additional indemnification agreement with YouTube. They agree to pay any judgment brought against YouTube in exchange for YouTube ignoring DMCA counterclaims entirely. What that means is that if that particular claimnant decides they own your video, they own your video, and your only recourse is very expensive legal action against them to prove it's yours. YouTube has so thoroughly contravened the intent and spirit of the DMCA it's hilarious.
- EE84M3i 5y ago
  Where can I read more about those agreements?
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  I don’t see how Google can ignore DMCA counterclaims because handling them properly is a matter of federal law. There is no way a private party can indemnify Google against illegal behavior. I would not be surprised if Content ID participants have indemnification agreements with Google related to Content ID, which is itself a private agreement.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Google cannot ignore DMCA counterclaims Yes, they can. > because handling them properly is a matter of federal law. They can ignore them unless they have some legsl obligation outside of the DMCA not to take the content down, because the only matter of federal law applicable to handling counterclaims properly is the DMCA safe harbor, which: (1) continues to protect against copyright liability to the purported rights holder so long as they do not restore the content without a proper counternotice, an (2) protects against any liability they would have under any other law to the user for taking down the content unless they fail to restore it with a valid counternotice. But, there is no separate liability for not honoring a counternotice, and Google (like most free content hosts) structurrs their relations with users so that there is almost possibility of liability for taking content down with or without cause, so #2 isn’t much of a concern.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      Google has safe harbor so long as they are a neutral middleman between the two parties with conflicting copyright claims. Taking payment from one party to ignore the lawful claims from the other party is not exactly neutral. I bet if you asked Google’s General Counsel whether they ignore DMCA counter claims, they would say “no, we handle them properly,” not “yes, Sony Music pays us to ignore them.”
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Google has safe harbor so long as they are a neutral middleman between the two parties with conflicting copyright claims. That might be what you’d like the law to say, but the safe harbor law is very explicit on what it requires, and being a “neutral middleman” is not it. Not sure why people like to pretend DMCA and Section 230 include neutrality requirements that aren't actually there.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > YouTube has so thoroughly contravened the intent and spirit of the DMCA The intent of the DMCA as a whole was to protect copyright holders above all else. The intent of the DMCA was to avoid innocent online hosts from being collateral damage. The counterclaim process was a by-design empty, toothless gesture to users, who, unlike copyright holders, generally never had any claims against hosts against which the safe harbor would protect. Ignoring counterclaims may be against the PR of the DMCA safe harbor, but it is very much exactly consistent with the intent and spirit of the DMCA as a whole and the safe harbor in particular (the intent and spirit of which was ebtirely “protect the interests of the big businesses”.)

mschuster91 5y ago

The screenshots in the tweet and the thread look like a DMCA claim to me.

kmeisthax 5y ago

A related fact: some companies with ContentID access have an additional indemnification agreement with YouTube. They agree to pay any judgment brought against YouTube in exchange for YouTube ignoring DMCA counterclaims entirely. What that means is that if that particular claimnant decides they own your video, they own your video, and your only recourse is very expensive legal action against them to prove it's yours. YouTube has so thoroughly contravened the intent and spirit of the DMCA it's hilarious.

EE84M3i 5y ago
Where can I read more about those agreements?
snowwrestler 5y ago
I don’t see how Google can ignore DMCA counterclaims because handling them properly is a matter of federal law. There is no way a private party can indemnify Google against illegal behavior. I would not be surprised if Content ID participants have indemnification agreements with Google related to Content ID, which is itself a private agreement.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Google cannot ignore DMCA counterclaims Yes, they can. > because handling them properly is a matter of federal law. They can ignore them unless they have some legsl obligation outside of the DMCA not to take the content down, because the only matter of federal law applicable to handling counterclaims properly is the DMCA safe harbor, which: (1) continues to protect against copyright liability to the purported rights holder so long as they do not restore the content without a proper counternotice, an (2) protects against any liability they would have under any other law to the user for taking down the content unless they fail to restore it with a valid counternotice. But, there is no separate liability for not honoring a counternotice, and Google (like most free content hosts) structurrs their relations with users so that there is almost possibility of liability for taking content down with or without cause, so #2 isn’t much of a concern.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Google has safe harbor so long as they are a neutral middleman between the two parties with conflicting copyright claims. Taking payment from one party to ignore the lawful claims from the other party is not exactly neutral. I bet if you asked Google’s General Counsel whether they ignore DMCA counter claims, they would say “no, we handle them properly,” not “yes, Sony Music pays us to ignore them.”
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Google has safe harbor so long as they are a neutral middleman between the two parties with conflicting copyright claims. That might be what you’d like the law to say, but the safe harbor law is very explicit on what it requires, and being a “neutral middleman” is not it. Not sure why people like to pretend DMCA and Section 230 include neutrality requirements that aren't actually there.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> YouTube has so thoroughly contravened the intent and spirit of the DMCA The intent of the DMCA as a whole was to protect copyright holders above all else. The intent of the DMCA was to avoid innocent online hosts from being collateral damage. The counterclaim process was a by-design empty, toothless gesture to users, who, unlike copyright holders, generally never had any claims against hosts against which the safe harbor would protect. Ignoring counterclaims may be against the PR of the DMCA safe harbor, but it is very much exactly consistent with the intent and spirit of the DMCA as a whole and the safe harbor in particular (the intent and spirit of which was ebtirely “protect the interests of the big businesses”.)