4 ms·

> Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright claim system abuse? Maybe? It is called following the law! DMCA Section 512(f) basically says that if you issu

by GuB-42 4y ago

> Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright claim system abuse? Maybe? It is called following the law! DMCA Section 512(f) basically says that if you issue a false claim, you are liable for all damage you caused, including attorney fees. I don't know what lawyers have to say, but it looks like easy money for a law firm if DMCA false claims are so common and so obvious.

lesuorac 4y ago
> (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, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. Judges are not state machines, it matters not what the technically correct decision may be, they are not required to make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  > 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing. Right, they're not worth doing because the cost of doing them won't be reimbursed. Unsure if you read the above link for the other court case, but moving in a different direction. There have been plenty of DMCA requests for 127.0.0.1 [1], there is no argument that those are in good faith. It would be easy money to get reimbursement for dealing with them but you won't because the courts do not have to give you it. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&oq=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&o...
monocasa 4y ago
Reminder that the normal YouTube copyright process isn't the DMCA process, but instead a process YouTube came up with as part of a settlement with the record labels that gives those making the claim nearly all of the power.
- yummypaint 4y ago
  The youtube TOS does not shield people making false claims from liability. It is extremely lopsided in every other aspect, though.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    But the DMCA section about liability for false claims doesn't apply if it wasn't a DMCA takedown in the first place.
    - KZerda 4y ago
      There are other actionable laws that could potentially be used here though. Slander of Title [1] certainly seems to apply here, given that the claims disparage ownership, and could be argue to have caused damages, through things like unwanted ads being played before and during the videos. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title
      - monocasa 4y ago
        Which doesn't come with attorney's fees by default. So if they screwed you out of, say, $10k, it might not even be worth it to go after if there's a large disparity between your resources and theirs.
    - yummypaint 4y ago
      You don't need the DMCA to be able to sue someone, this is just tort law.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
kevingadd 4y ago
YouTube circumvents the DMCA with a custom process, which is why fraud is so rampant - they intentionally designed a system to enable fraud (at the behest of media companies)
yummypaint 4y ago
I have chatted informally with probably half a dozen "big law" lawyers about the current state of rampant DMCA abuse, though none of them specialized in trademark/copyright. The initial reaction i got was that there wouldn't be enough money in it. The other reaction i got was basically "who cares?" Those aren't really the right people to ask, but that was my experience for what it's worth. To be fair those attorneys were probably far too expensive for anyone involved in a DMCA dispute to use, but personally if i had an airtight case i would want those types of firms to be running up the bill.
e40 4y ago
But we don't see people getting money from false DMCA claims. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we did.
chrismcb 4y ago
I believe the keyword though is "knowingly" which is really hard to prove
- GuB-42 4y ago
  I would guess that using a system that is known to produce false positives without second checking (as evidenced by the obvious mistakes) counts as "knowingly". But again I am not a lawyer.

by GuB-42 4y ago

lesuorac 4y ago

> (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, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. Judges are not state machines, it matters not what the technically correct decision may be, they are not required to make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.

Mindwipe 4y ago
> 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing. Right, they're not worth doing because the cost of doing them won't be reimbursed. Unsure if you read the above link for the other court case, but moving in a different direction. There have been plenty of DMCA requests for 127.0.0.1 [1], there is no argument that those are in good faith. It would be easy money to get reimbursement for dealing with them but you won't because the courts do not have to give you it. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&oq=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&o...

monocasa 4y ago

Reminder that the normal YouTube copyright process isn't the DMCA process, but instead a process YouTube came up with as part of a settlement with the record labels that gives those making the claim nearly all of the power.

yummypaint 4y ago
The youtube TOS does not shield people making false claims from liability. It is extremely lopsided in every other aspect, though.
- monocasa 4y ago
  But the DMCA section about liability for false claims doesn't apply if it wasn't a DMCA takedown in the first place.
  - KZerda 4y ago
    There are other actionable laws that could potentially be used here though. Slander of Title [1] certainly seems to apply here, given that the claims disparage ownership, and could be argue to have caused damages, through things like unwanted ads being played before and during the videos. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title
    - monocasa 4y ago
      Which doesn't come with attorney's fees by default. So if they screwed you out of, say, $10k, it might not even be worth it to go after if there's a large disparity between your resources and theirs.
  - yummypaint 4y ago
    You don't need the DMCA to be able to sue someone, this is just tort law.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago

kevingadd 4y ago

YouTube circumvents the DMCA with a custom process, which is why fraud is so rampant - they intentionally designed a system to enable fraud (at the behest of media companies)

yummypaint 4y ago

I have chatted informally with probably half a dozen "big law" lawyers about the current state of rampant DMCA abuse, though none of them specialized in trademark/copyright. The initial reaction i got was that there wouldn't be enough money in it. The other reaction i got was basically "who cares?" Those aren't really the right people to ask, but that was my experience for what it's worth. To be fair those attorneys were probably far too expensive for anyone involved in a DMCA dispute to use, but personally if i had an airtight case i would want those types of firms to be running up the bill.

e40 4y ago

But we don't see people getting money from false DMCA claims. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we did.

chrismcb 4y ago

I believe the keyword though is "knowingly" which is really hard to prove

GuB-42 4y ago
I would guess that using a system that is known to produce false positives without second checking (as evidenced by the obvious mistakes) counts as "knowingly". But again I am not a lawyer.