2 ms·

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 Go

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

> 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.