4 ms·

>requires a one day deadline for takedown The DMCA does not require takedown within one day. It requires “expeditious” removal. But courts have held that respo

>requires a one day deadline for takedown The DMCA does not require takedown within one day. It requires “expeditious” removal. But courts have held that response times ranging from 5 to 14 days are expeditious, and in a recent case against YouTube (Business Casual v YouTube), a 23-day delay was excused because the court applied the standard for purposes of volitional conduct and direct infringement, sidestepping the DMCA entirely. Some quotes: The plaintiff “has not pointed to any authority to support the proposition that YouTube was under a legal obligation to conduct its investigation into Business Casual’s complaint on a more compressed timeline” “Business Causal has failed to claim plausibly that any purported delay by YouTube constituted active, volitional conduct that caused TV-Novosti’s alleged infringement” That case was significant for a bunch of other reasons, too. See discussion at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/youtube-defeats-copyright-lawsuit-for-not-removing-users-videos-quickly-enough-business-casual-v-youtube.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/youtube-defeat...

mindslight 3y ago
Doh, I must have confused some provider's policy with the law for the 24 hour thing. Still I'd make the point that the processing of a DMCA notice and the takedown generally happen simultaneously (regardless of delays), as opposed to say giving the uploader enough time to respond with a counterclaim and avoid an interruption in service. That is a very interesting case! The part about the DMCA not applying to most Youtube takedowns (because the legit uploader has given Youtube a license) is particularly surprising, despite being a straightforward implication of the law.
- trogdor 3y ago
  >The part about the DMCA not applying to most Youtube takedowns (because the legit uploader has given Youtube a license) is particularly surprising The licensing aspect is the surprising part I was referencing, but I understand it a bit differently. It’s not that the DMCA doesn’t apply. Rather, it’s that when you upload your content to YouTube, YouTube’s terms of service grant YouTube a broad license to use the content you uploaded. Consequently, YouTube can’t be liable for directly infringing any copyrights associated with that content. Since you licensed it to them. The DMCA still applies.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Assuming we're using "DMCA" here as a shorthand for the DMCA safe harbor, what do you mean it still applies? The way I understand it, abiding by the takedown process is only relevant for a party that would otherwise would be liable for copyright infringement. The court states this in a bit of a roundabout way (compared to my blunt summary): > The DMCA safe harbors provide potential defenses against copyright infringement claims where, but for the safe harbors, the plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action against the defendant for copyright infringement. But alleged failures to satisfy the conditions of a DMCA safe harbor provision cannot constitute a cause of action without a viable underlying claim for copyright infringement.

mindslight 3y ago

Doh, I must have confused some provider's policy with the law for the 24 hour thing. Still I'd make the point that the processing of a DMCA notice and the takedown generally happen simultaneously (regardless of delays), as opposed to say giving the uploader enough time to respond with a counterclaim and avoid an interruption in service. That is a very interesting case! The part about the DMCA not applying to most Youtube takedowns (because the legit uploader has given Youtube a license) is particularly surprising, despite being a straightforward implication of the law.

trogdor 3y ago
>The part about the DMCA not applying to most Youtube takedowns (because the legit uploader has given Youtube a license) is particularly surprising The licensing aspect is the surprising part I was referencing, but I understand it a bit differently. It’s not that the DMCA doesn’t apply. Rather, it’s that when you upload your content to YouTube, YouTube’s terms of service grant YouTube a broad license to use the content you uploaded. Consequently, YouTube can’t be liable for directly infringing any copyrights associated with that content. Since you licensed it to them. The DMCA still applies.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Assuming we're using "DMCA" here as a shorthand for the DMCA safe harbor, what do you mean it still applies? The way I understand it, abiding by the takedown process is only relevant for a party that would otherwise would be liable for copyright infringement. The court states this in a bit of a roundabout way (compared to my blunt summary): > The DMCA safe harbors provide potential defenses against copyright infringement claims where, but for the safe harbors, the plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action against the defendant for copyright infringement. But alleged failures to satisfy the conditions of a DMCA safe harbor provision cannot constitute a cause of action without a viable underlying claim for copyright infringement.