4 ms·

Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I m

Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I may be totally off base with those terms.)

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.
- rolph 4y ago
  every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.
breput 4y ago
She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.
- rasz 4y ago
  Google will happily share full details of the claimant .. if requested by lawyer.
  - breput 4y ago
    Happily might be an overstatement. They will have to, obviously, but good luck getting it done easily ($$$) or quickly.
  - kfajdsl 4y ago
    But that takes $$$ and time and effort that just isn't worth it for small creators
    - gaius_baltar 4y ago
      And that's why it can work in countries with small claims, no lawyers or costs required to petition. Idea behind these courts is that people can represent themselves for a conciliatory session with a judge. The judge reach a verdict and, if a part does not accept, s/he can appeal (but now there are fees and lawyers required). Verdicts by default are possible if the part does not represent, however. This usually scales well because typical lawsuits are 1:1, and very uncommon for particular person. However, if a few thousand people sue Google on a small amount, a simple demand to repair monetary damages (this seems to have a different name every country), or co-name Google with a John Doe because Google has the information on Doe or is the only presence on that particular country, they will need to represent or risk a default. And the process won't scale on their side only. A legal and ethically correct DDoS on Google, but requires thousands of people motivated enough to navigate the bureaucratic depths. And Fran's comment about lawyering up is probably valid on USA where, AFAIK, the procedure for small claims is different.
      - nightpool 4y ago
        Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only
        CoastalCoder 4y ago
        > Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only IIUC, the idea was to sue in small claims court not on DMCA grounds, but on whatever state laws might relate to tortious interference, slander of title, defamation, etc.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
I don't think you need a separate tort - filing a false DMCA claim is already actionable. I think it carries 3x damages too. However, very few youtubers understand that they have strong legal remedies against false DMCA claims, and they can file counter-notifications fairly easily too (these undo the effects of the DMCA claim).
- Nursie 4y ago
  Are youtube copyright claims actually DMCA claims anyway? Or are they just a youtube claim, without the same legal standing?
  - phibz 4y ago
    I believe they are DMCA claims. The exist because it grants youtube imunity in the process. Youtube had no incentive to get involved except for pissing off their content creators. If you can't counter claim/sue then get loud. Let your viewers know. Edit: reading in another thread that perhaps this is content ID. Not that, that is any better.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    No, they are "copyright takedown requests"
  - mlyle 4y ago
    After 2 "appeals" adjudicated by the original claimant, YouTube requires the original claimant to file a DMCA claim. But before this, no.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    They don't say that they are DMCA claims, but they are DMCA claims.
anonymousiam 4y ago
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's a difference between a copyright claim and a "Content ID" claim. The former has an associated legal framework, but the latter was created through some agreement between Google and the media mob (MPAA, RIAA, etc.). https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > Copyright owners are the ones who decide whether other people can reuse their copyrighted content. I thought that was Copyright law?
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Copyright law is the _framework_ that sets out how Copyright owners can decide who gets to use their content.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago

Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.

rolph 4y ago
every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.

breput 4y ago

She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.

rasz 4y ago
Google will happily share full details of the claimant .. if requested by lawyer.
- breput 4y ago
  Happily might be an overstatement. They will have to, obviously, but good luck getting it done easily ($$$) or quickly.
- kfajdsl 4y ago
  But that takes $$$ and time and effort that just isn't worth it for small creators
  - gaius_baltar 4y ago
    And that's why it can work in countries with small claims, no lawyers or costs required to petition. Idea behind these courts is that people can represent themselves for a conciliatory session with a judge. The judge reach a verdict and, if a part does not accept, s/he can appeal (but now there are fees and lawyers required). Verdicts by default are possible if the part does not represent, however. This usually scales well because typical lawsuits are 1:1, and very uncommon for particular person. However, if a few thousand people sue Google on a small amount, a simple demand to repair monetary damages (this seems to have a different name every country), or co-name Google with a John Doe because Google has the information on Doe or is the only presence on that particular country, they will need to represent or risk a default. And the process won't scale on their side only. A legal and ethically correct DDoS on Google, but requires thousands of people motivated enough to navigate the bureaucratic depths. And Fran's comment about lawyering up is probably valid on USA where, AFAIK, the procedure for small claims is different.
    - nightpool 4y ago
      Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only
      - CoastalCoder 4y ago
        > Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only IIUC, the idea was to sue in small claims court not on DMCA grounds, but on whatever state laws might relate to tortious interference, slander of title, defamation, etc.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

I don't think you need a separate tort - filing a false DMCA claim is already actionable. I think it carries 3x damages too. However, very few youtubers understand that they have strong legal remedies against false DMCA claims, and they can file counter-notifications fairly easily too (these undo the effects of the DMCA claim).

Nursie 4y ago
Are youtube copyright claims actually DMCA claims anyway? Or are they just a youtube claim, without the same legal standing?
- phibz 4y ago
  I believe they are DMCA claims. The exist because it grants youtube imunity in the process. Youtube had no incentive to get involved except for pissing off their content creators. If you can't counter claim/sue then get loud. Let your viewers know. Edit: reading in another thread that perhaps this is content ID. Not that, that is any better.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  No, they are "copyright takedown requests"
- mlyle 4y ago
  After 2 "appeals" adjudicated by the original claimant, YouTube requires the original claimant to file a DMCA claim. But before this, no.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  They don't say that they are DMCA claims, but they are DMCA claims.

anonymousiam 4y ago

As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's a difference between a copyright claim and a "Content ID" claim. The former has an associated legal framework, but the latter was created through some agreement between Google and the media mob (MPAA, RIAA, etc.). https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en

the_only_law 4y ago
> Copyright owners are the ones who decide whether other people can reuse their copyrighted content. I thought that was Copyright law?
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Copyright law is the _framework_ that sets out how Copyright owners can decide who gets to use their content.