4 ms·

But there's the law and then there's a company's ability to make another's life miserable by way of lawsuit. So even if you're right, getting sued by Disney, Wa

But there's the law and then there's a company's ability to make another's life miserable by way of lawsuit. So even if you're right, getting sued by Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal and every other player in the media world on a regular basis will cost you a staggering amount of time and money and will generate a lot of bad press. Just taking content down on the other hand costs you very little. And since copyright and fair use law is very much decided on a case-by-case basis, there wouldn't be the one big victory which ensures they're being left alone - just an endless string of costly litigation. Youtube isn't a public interest group or a civil rights movement that's in it for a legal or ideological goal. They're a business looking to make money. I know it sucks for the creators, but I think that's what it comes down to.

shkkmo 3y ago
The criticisms against Content ID aren't that it can't predict fair use judgements. The worst instances of copyright abuse involve people claiming copyright that they don't own. Either against the original source material in or against works in the public domain. By following the DMCA, and adhering to the rules, Google would be protected. Instead Google has implemented a system that is even more broken to than the DMCA and somehow has even fewer consequences to incorrect or bad faith claims. Being a "business looking to make money" is not a moral or ethical justification for any kind of bad behavior.
chrismorgan 3y ago
On what grounds would they file suit? If YouTube complies with the DMCA §512 requirements, it’s a safe harbour, granted immunity from copyright liability.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  Even if the takedown process is followed, the DMCA §512 safe harbor doesn't apply if the service provider has "actual knowledge" of specific infringing content. Content ID was (probably) first developed in response to lawsuit by Viacom on those grounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....), although it's not clear if their arguments would have ultimately been successful.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    Thanks for this valuable information! Didn’t know about that suit. Hmm. I can see a sort of a connection there. I wish there was some way for the Little Man (collectively) to object to Content ID’s undue process. DMCA takedowns say that in the case of a counternotice, platform must reinstate the content “within 10–14 business days” unless the copyright owner files suit. Content ID, on the other hand, gives no recourse—all you can do is file a dispute which is adjudicated exclusively by the claimer, who by your action initiating a dispute is granted power to Strike you with fire and brimstone (where the third strike will probably cause the termination of your Google account).

shkkmo 3y ago

The criticisms against Content ID aren't that it can't predict fair use judgements. The worst instances of copyright abuse involve people claiming copyright that they don't own. Either against the original source material in or against works in the public domain. By following the DMCA, and adhering to the rules, Google would be protected. Instead Google has implemented a system that is even more broken to than the DMCA and somehow has even fewer consequences to incorrect or bad faith claims. Being a "business looking to make money" is not a moral or ethical justification for any kind of bad behavior.

chrismorgan 3y ago

On what grounds would they file suit? If YouTube complies with the DMCA §512 requirements, it’s a safe harbour, granted immunity from copyright liability.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
Even if the takedown process is followed, the DMCA §512 safe harbor doesn't apply if the service provider has "actual knowledge" of specific infringing content. Content ID was (probably) first developed in response to lawsuit by Viacom on those grounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....), although it's not clear if their arguments would have ultimately been successful.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  Thanks for this valuable information! Didn’t know about that suit. Hmm. I can see a sort of a connection there. I wish there was some way for the Little Man (collectively) to object to Content ID’s undue process. DMCA takedowns say that in the case of a counternotice, platform must reinstate the content “within 10–14 business days” unless the copyright owner files suit. Content ID, on the other hand, gives no recourse—all you can do is file a dispute which is adjudicated exclusively by the claimer, who by your action initiating a dispute is granted power to Strike you with fire and brimstone (where the third strike will probably cause the termination of your Google account).