4 ms·

The system YouTube uses backs up onto the DMCA. If you submit a copyright counter notice, the claimant needs to engage in legal action within a certain amount o

by kevinh 4y ago

The system YouTube uses backs up onto the DMCA. If you submit a copyright counter notice, the claimant needs to engage in legal action within a certain amount of time or YT will reinstate the video. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684

Forgeties79 4y ago
During which the content creator misses out on revenue, much of which they often can’t recoup because the content may not be evergreen. If I release a video about election results during an election and it takes weeks - hell let’s be generous and say 72 hours - to go out because of a bogus DMCA claim, that’s a huge financial loss for me. 90 days? No way. In the world of online content creation that’s a death sentence. That’s not even remotely a solution.
- tyingq 4y ago
  And the entity filing the false claims is free to spawn a few extra corporate identities if they like and keep your videos in limbo.
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    This is one of the few things Vimeo (at least used to, it’s been a while since it happened to me) does right. I got a notice that I used licensed music and they took my video down, I appealed and my video immediately went back up during the appeal process. This all took place within about half an hour of my posting it. I sent them the email showing the artist gave me permission, and a few days later the notice was lifted. All through this process my video was only down for about 15min. For YouTube: Freeze the transfer of the revenue on that one video until it’s resolved but keep the video up and let it still collect revenue. It’s not great if you depend on the income but it’s a hell of a lot better than losing the income entirely. This solution is much better, if still imperfect.
- causality0 4y ago
  Don't forget they can just file three strikes at once and obliterate your whole channel.
m-p-3 4y ago
It should require a legal action to engage a DMCA notice in the first place.
- zeruch 4y ago
  That's a tautology. The DMCA is a legal action, but not inherently one that requires litigation. There is a difference.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Wasn’t that the whole point of the DMCA? That copyright injunctions were too expensive and slow to get? I think it’s working exactly as intended. Which, unsurprisingly, is terrifically easily to abuse.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- judge2020 4y ago
  DMCA takedowns technically are legal actions, as: > (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee... In practice, as far as I know nobody has ever been prosecuted or civilly sued under this section of the DMCA. Maybe this will be the first case to do so.
- jpalomaki 4y ago
  Try to look at it from small content owner perspective: Google is making content you own available online and monetizing it through subscription fees and ads. Then when you ask them to stop, they require you to start with law suit before doing anything. That costs money and takes time. Meanwhile there might be already couple more channels with the content, requiring more lawsuits.

by kevinh 4y ago

Forgeties79 4y ago

During which the content creator misses out on revenue, much of which they often can’t recoup because the content may not be evergreen. If I release a video about election results during an election and it takes weeks - hell let’s be generous and say 72 hours - to go out because of a bogus DMCA claim, that’s a huge financial loss for me. 90 days? No way. In the world of online content creation that’s a death sentence. That’s not even remotely a solution.

tyingq 4y ago
And the entity filing the false claims is free to spawn a few extra corporate identities if they like and keep your videos in limbo.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  This is one of the few things Vimeo (at least used to, it’s been a while since it happened to me) does right. I got a notice that I used licensed music and they took my video down, I appealed and my video immediately went back up during the appeal process. This all took place within about half an hour of my posting it. I sent them the email showing the artist gave me permission, and a few days later the notice was lifted. All through this process my video was only down for about 15min. For YouTube: Freeze the transfer of the revenue on that one video until it’s resolved but keep the video up and let it still collect revenue. It’s not great if you depend on the income but it’s a hell of a lot better than losing the income entirely. This solution is much better, if still imperfect.
causality0 4y ago
Don't forget they can just file three strikes at once and obliterate your whole channel.

m-p-3 4y ago

It should require a legal action to engage a DMCA notice in the first place.

zeruch 4y ago
That's a tautology. The DMCA is a legal action, but not inherently one that requires litigation. There is a difference.
MBCook 4y ago
Wasn’t that the whole point of the DMCA? That copyright injunctions were too expensive and slow to get? I think it’s working exactly as intended. Which, unsurprisingly, is terrifically easily to abuse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
judge2020 4y ago
DMCA takedowns technically are legal actions, as: > (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee... In practice, as far as I know nobody has ever been prosecuted or civilly sued under this section of the DMCA. Maybe this will be the first case to do so.
jpalomaki 4y ago
Try to look at it from small content owner perspective: Google is making content you own available online and monetizing it through subscription fees and ads. Then when you ask them to stop, they require you to start with law suit before doing anything. That costs money and takes time. Meanwhile there might be already couple more channels with the content, requiring more lawsuits.