4 ms·

This would only work if a successful claim resulted in the YouTuber having to pay, otherwise such an asymmetric situation would never be sustainable. Given how

This would only work if a successful claim resulted in the YouTuber having to pay, otherwise such an asymmetric situation would never be sustainable. Given how many popular videos sit on the edge of copyright abuse it’s not really in Google’s interest to do this anyway.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
I would agree with this. It should work both ways. There may be a few edge cases where it really wasn't clear if it was or was not copyright infringement; both cases were reasonable. These would be the exception where neither party may be fined.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  And how do you figure out what these cases are without spending $2 million in court fees each time?
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work. Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his copyright Step 3: Charlie sends Bob a DMCA takedown notice. Step 4: Bob takes down Alice's media, issues Alice a notice that he's received a claim, and is now protected from being sued by Charlie. Step 5: Alice disagrees that her upload violates Charlie's copyright, and issues a counter-claim to Bob. Step 6: Bob reinstates Alice's upload, notifies Charlie that Alice has contested his claim, and is now protected from being sued by Alice. Step 7: Charlie sues Alice, because he still believes the content to be in violation of his copyright, or gives up Step 8: Court case / counter suit decides damages between Charlie and Alice The problem is not the DMCA system, which if anything is too generous to the media host. The problem is YouTube's added bullshit layer, which goes something like "Charlie hints that he might send a DMCA takedown, Bob takes down Alice's video and threatens to ban her from the platform"
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Given how the DMCA works and the liability involved, why would it work any differently?

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

I would agree with this. It should work both ways. There may be a few edge cases where it really wasn't clear if it was or was not copyright infringement; both cases were reasonable. These would be the exception where neither party may be fined.

Mindwipe 4y ago
And how do you figure out what these cases are without spending $2 million in court fees each time?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work. Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his copyright Step 3: Charlie sends Bob a DMCA takedown notice. Step 4: Bob takes down Alice's media, issues Alice a notice that he's received a claim, and is now protected from being sued by Charlie. Step 5: Alice disagrees that her upload violates Charlie's copyright, and issues a counter-claim to Bob. Step 6: Bob reinstates Alice's upload, notifies Charlie that Alice has contested his claim, and is now protected from being sued by Alice. Step 7: Charlie sues Alice, because he still believes the content to be in violation of his copyright, or gives up Step 8: Court case / counter suit decides damages between Charlie and Alice The problem is not the DMCA system, which if anything is too generous to the media host. The problem is YouTube's added bullshit layer, which goes something like "Charlie hints that he might send a DMCA takedown, Bob takes down Alice's video and threatens to ban her from the platform"

endisneigh 4y ago
Given how the DMCA works and the liability involved, why would it work any differently?