3 ms·

If only anyone would actually do DMCA? YouTube, Twitch et al pretend to have a "DMCA strike system" but in fact they are trying to co-opt the term for "we have

If only anyone would actually do DMCA? YouTube, Twitch et al pretend to have a "DMCA strike system" but in fact they are trying to co-opt the term for "we have entirely bowed to the demands of producers" and instituted systems that have nothing to do with DMCA. Under DMCA, if someone strikes my classical music composition, I write a one sentence counter notice and that is it. There is no "three strikes" or "YouTube sides with the content producer instead of your counter notice" in DMCA at all. There are basically only two fixes needed for DMCA: 1) legal liability for false or fraudulent DMCA notices, ideally with punitive damages; 2) platforms that do pretend-DMCA for removing user generated content incur the liability for their actions.

advael 5y ago
The provisions you describe are a minor inconvenience compared to the sweeping provision that criminalizes circumvention of anything that could be construed as DRM
stale2002 5y ago
> instituted systems that have nothing to do with DMCA. > Under DMCA, if someone strikes my classical music composition, I write a one sentence counter notice and that is it. Although I agree that there could be problems if a system has no counter-claim process (although, I think that this claim of your is factually incorrect. I think youtube has counterclaims, even for its "fake" DMCAs), I think that you have strongly mis-interpreted the motivations for having "fake" DMCA processes. The motivations for having fake DMCAs, is that if someone doesn't get a real DMCA, then there is no longer any legal obligation to perma-ban someone for being a "repeat" infringer. This draconian, repeat infringer policy, which many platforms have, is bad for everyone. And getting around it helps creators. > "YouTube sides with the content producer instead of your counter notice" in DMCA at all. I am not sure why you think this is the case. If there is a counter claim, youtube is required by law to respect the counterclaim.
- wtallis 5y ago
  > I am not sure why you think this is the case. If there is a counter claim, youtube is required by law to respect the counterclaim. Not if it's the counter-claim in their non-DMCA process.
judge2020 5y ago
YouTube has its own systems because the music studios always have a trick up their sleeve if YT doesn't dance: they can just stop uploading MVs to YouTube. That's 25% of all views on the platform[0]. I'm sure Spotify would love to take all of those. 0: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/09/15/youtube-music-viewer-hours/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/09/15/youtube-music-vi...
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  Well, two tricks. The other one is massive lawsuit against YouTube for no longer "doing enough" to prevent copyright infringement. Viacom v. YouTube started in 2007, was reversed several times, and really only ended because they settled, the settlement being secret but I'd guess probably directly lead to ContentID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  >they can just stop uploading MVs to YouTube. What, and stop being able to get free advertising on what is effectively the largest audio streaming website on the internet? In an actually free market, any media company that tried this would immediately get eclipsed by the rest. But instead, we have a small number of record conglomerates that have formed a trust to bully everyone else to play on their terms, and the US gov refuses to trust-bust until it starts becoming a threat to their political power.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >What, and stop being able to get free advertising on what is effectively the largest audio streaming website on the internet? Not just free advertising. A damn lot of these music videos are "monetized", and about of half the ad revenue goes to the studios (if and how much of that money is passed on to the artists... that's another question). Youtube should do proper DMCA, I fully agree, at least when it comes to the notice-counternotice-lawsuit process defined by the law. However, it's not as easy. The DMCA is law in the United States, but - surprisingly to some (I have dealt with processing DMCA notices and similar, not for Youtube/Google tho) - it is not a law elsewhere and other nations have their own laws. Even the question of what happens when there is a dispute and party A is in the US and party B is e.g. in Germany is not that easy... Not even what jurisdiction Youtube itself then falls under. Browsing Youtube from Germany gives an imprint that states that the service is provided by Google Ireland Limited (the EU mothership) but also mentions the legal department of Google Germany GmbH (the German subsidiary). Youtube has been sued in German courts over copyright before (e.g. the GEMA case), and Youtube did show up because if they had ignored it instead they would have risked losing the entire German market, if not the EU market. The kafka-esque system they have right now - with three strikes, ContentID, reporting made extremely easy for alleged copyright owners, challenging these reports made difficult and black box for the channel owners - is most likely a result of their legal department pushing for the global lowest common denominator of any jurisdiction they care about with the smallest risk of Youtube being sued and found liable for user conduct in those jurisdictions.

advael 5y ago

The provisions you describe are a minor inconvenience compared to the sweeping provision that criminalizes circumvention of anything that could be construed as DRM

stale2002 5y ago

> instituted systems that have nothing to do with DMCA. > Under DMCA, if someone strikes my classical music composition, I write a one sentence counter notice and that is it. Although I agree that there could be problems if a system has no counter-claim process (although, I think that this claim of your is factually incorrect. I think youtube has counterclaims, even for its "fake" DMCAs), I think that you have strongly mis-interpreted the motivations for having "fake" DMCA processes. The motivations for having fake DMCAs, is that if someone doesn't get a real DMCA, then there is no longer any legal obligation to perma-ban someone for being a "repeat" infringer. This draconian, repeat infringer policy, which many platforms have, is bad for everyone. And getting around it helps creators. > "YouTube sides with the content producer instead of your counter notice" in DMCA at all. I am not sure why you think this is the case. If there is a counter claim, youtube is required by law to respect the counterclaim.

wtallis 5y ago
> I am not sure why you think this is the case. If there is a counter claim, youtube is required by law to respect the counterclaim. Not if it's the counter-claim in their non-DMCA process.

judge2020 5y ago

YouTube has its own systems because the music studios always have a trick up their sleeve if YT doesn't dance: they can just stop uploading MVs to YouTube. That's 25% of all views on the platform[0]. I'm sure Spotify would love to take all of those. 0: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/09/15/youtube-music-viewer-hours/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/09/15/youtube-music-vi...

CobrastanJorji 5y ago
Well, two tricks. The other one is massive lawsuit against YouTube for no longer "doing enough" to prevent copyright infringement. Viacom v. YouTube started in 2007, was reversed several times, and really only ended because they settled, the settlement being secret but I'd guess probably directly lead to ContentID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
LordDragonfang 5y ago
>they can just stop uploading MVs to YouTube. What, and stop being able to get free advertising on what is effectively the largest audio streaming website on the internet? In an actually free market, any media company that tried this would immediately get eclipsed by the rest. But instead, we have a small number of record conglomerates that have formed a trust to bully everyone else to play on their terms, and the US gov refuses to trust-bust until it starts becoming a threat to their political power.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >What, and stop being able to get free advertising on what is effectively the largest audio streaming website on the internet? Not just free advertising. A damn lot of these music videos are "monetized", and about of half the ad revenue goes to the studios (if and how much of that money is passed on to the artists... that's another question). Youtube should do proper DMCA, I fully agree, at least when it comes to the notice-counternotice-lawsuit process defined by the law. However, it's not as easy. The DMCA is law in the United States, but - surprisingly to some (I have dealt with processing DMCA notices and similar, not for Youtube/Google tho) - it is not a law elsewhere and other nations have their own laws. Even the question of what happens when there is a dispute and party A is in the US and party B is e.g. in Germany is not that easy... Not even what jurisdiction Youtube itself then falls under. Browsing Youtube from Germany gives an imprint that states that the service is provided by Google Ireland Limited (the EU mothership) but also mentions the legal department of Google Germany GmbH (the German subsidiary). Youtube has been sued in German courts over copyright before (e.g. the GEMA case), and Youtube did show up because if they had ignored it instead they would have risked losing the entire German market, if not the EU market. The kafka-esque system they have right now - with three strikes, ContentID, reporting made extremely easy for alleged copyright owners, challenging these reports made difficult and black box for the channel owners - is most likely a result of their legal department pushing for the global lowest common denominator of any jurisdiction they care about with the smallest risk of Youtube being sued and found liable for user conduct in those jurisdictions.