3 ms·

Youtube policy is actually pretty lenient compared to most IP rights law. "Fair Use"/"Fair Dealing" actually has a pretty well-litigated definition in most juri

Youtube policy is actually pretty lenient compared to most IP rights law. "Fair Use"/"Fair Dealing" actually has a pretty well-litigated definition in most jurisdictions. YouTubers just dislike the definition. If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. "Fair use" isn't a magic incantation to ward off evil lawyers, it's a defence with definitions and restrictions used during a dispute. The copyright strikes are a pretty good compromise to shelter individual creators from the outside world that's used to Big Company 1 dealing with Big Company 2.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> YouTubers just dislike the definition. That's not it at all. The problem is that they use opaque algorithms with false positives to issue strikes. Or content companies illegitimately add public domain materials to their libraries, which causes strikes against anyone lawfully using those materials. > If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. They can still send you those things if you infringe their copyrights regardless of what YouTube does. They generally don't because random individuals generally don't have enough money to justify their legal expenses and it's incredibly bad PR.
- graypegg 3y ago
  The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on litigating a small YouTube channel. That is true. However, Youtube without these tools in place would be sued out of existence. Copyright holders wouldn't ever come after 1 video, they would go after the platform hosting their IP without compensation. With every legal right to do so! Youtube cuts a good deal for them where they get god-tools, and in exchange, YouTube can continue to exist. Never said it was a good set up, but this idea that YouTube has another "easy choice" is pervasive.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.
    - graypegg 3y ago
      That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....
      - monocasa 3y ago
        The Napster decision left the DMCA question open as it didn't affect the actual appeal, and was instead left to be decided at trial (which never occurred): > We do not agree that Napster's potential liability for contributory and vicarious infringement renders the Digital Millennium Copyright Act inapplicable per se. We instead recognize that this issue will be more fully developed at trial. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14102696336550697309&q=239+F.3d+1004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=141026963365506... The Grokster decision fails to mention the DMCA at all.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> YouTubers just dislike the definition. That's not it at all. The problem is that they use opaque algorithms with false positives to issue strikes. Or content companies illegitimately add public domain materials to their libraries, which causes strikes against anyone lawfully using those materials. > If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. They can still send you those things if you infringe their copyrights regardless of what YouTube does. They generally don't because random individuals generally don't have enough money to justify their legal expenses and it's incredibly bad PR.

graypegg 3y ago
The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on litigating a small YouTube channel. That is true. However, Youtube without these tools in place would be sued out of existence. Copyright holders wouldn't ever come after 1 video, they would go after the platform hosting their IP without compensation. With every legal right to do so! Youtube cuts a good deal for them where they get god-tools, and in exchange, YouTube can continue to exist. Never said it was a good set up, but this idea that YouTube has another "easy choice" is pervasive.
- monocasa 3y ago
  YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....
    - monocasa 3y ago
      The Napster decision left the DMCA question open as it didn't affect the actual appeal, and was instead left to be decided at trial (which never occurred): > We do not agree that Napster's potential liability for contributory and vicarious infringement renders the Digital Millennium Copyright Act inapplicable per se. We instead recognize that this issue will be more fully developed at trial. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14102696336550697309&q=239+F.3d+1004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=141026963365506... The Grokster decision fails to mention the DMCA at all.