3 ms·
If I own Star Wars, and someone does a review on YT that has many clips from it, I am 100% certain I'm the rights owner and hold copyright on those clips. I don
by patmcc 3y ago
If I own Star Wars, and someone does a review on YT that has many clips from it, I am 100% certain I'm the rights owner and hold copyright on those clips. I don't know if it's fair use, but that's not what the DMCA requires.
Now, if I submit a DMCA notice against a Star Trek review (that has no Star Wars clips), that's an entirely different thing.
I think we should be extremely harsh on the latter.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThe categorization that you propose also cannot be 100% accurate, probably not even 99.9% accurate.
- patmcc 3y agoWhy not? Are we to believe copyright owners can't reliably watch a video (or whatever) and know if it contains any of their content? Again, this is separate from the fair use question. I'm saying if the owner of Star Wars files a DMCA notice against some guy reading Hamlet in an empty room, we should have little patience for that.
- rimunroe 3y agoSay someone makes a fan vid using clips from Star Wars, receives a DMCA complaint from Disney, and then successfully appeals that takedown on fair use grounds. In this case, would Disney be penalized? If they wouldn't be penalized, why? If it's because Disney owns the rights to Star Wars, how would that be discovered? Making a complaint when you don't have a good faith belief you own the copyright to it already caries the penalty of perjury. Would the cost of this new penalty be more than that? If they would get penalized, then how is the existence of fair use not relevant as far as the risk to copyright holders is concerned?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoBecause... of human error? Is there something unclear about the fact that humans are not perfect machines of categorization and labelling?
- blackboxlogic 3y agoYes, humans make mistakes, and we improve by creating strong disincentives for mistakes.
- patmcc 3y agoHumans indeed make errors; I'm suggesting that the penalty for utterly false DMCA notices (i.e. saying my Hamlet monologue infringes the Star Wars copyright) be significant enough that rights holders put a modicum of effort into not submitting notices with errors.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoSo if you understand 'Why not?' then why ask a rhetorical question like that in previous comment? It seems like it could only confuse the discussion, and passing readers, and not help in any way.
- patmcc 3y agoBecause an individual human can make errors, that's unavoidable. But a system made up of individual humans (and computers) can catch errors, refuse to submit a DMCA notice unless there's ~100% certainty, etc. Here's a sketch: an automated system finds (alleged) copyright infringement, a human watches the content to check if it does in fact contain e.g. Star Wars, a second human finds the matching content in their library, and a third human verifies the work by human 1 and 2 and writes up the DMCA notice. The current system seems to have zero penalty for submitting false DMCA notices, imposing significant costs on anyone a rights-holder decides to target.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> But a system made up of individual humans (and computers) can catch errors, refuse to submit a DMCA notice unless there's ~100% certainty, etc. What's your proof that such a system has been realized anywhere on the internet, with a '~100% certainty' rate? Or is this entirely conjecture?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]