4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoGoogle will happily share full details of the claimant .. if requested by lawyer.
- breput 4y agoHappily might be an overstatement. They will have to, obviously, but good luck getting it done easily ($$$) or quickly.
- kfajdsl 4y agoBut that takes $$$ and time and effort that just isn't worth it for small creators
- gaius_baltar 4y agoAnd 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 agoBecause 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.
- tadfisher 4y agoThese aren't copyright claims, they're monetization attribution claims using the Content ID system. State tort law applies, as presumably you have a monetization contract with Google.