3 ms·

>DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an upl

>DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. I am well aware of the differences between the two, and this is exactly what I was referring to. There absolutely have been instances of bogus DMCA takedown notices negatively impacting users and being a nightmare for them to resolve.

judge2020 3y ago
Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. The DMCA process makes it so that YouTube doesn't have much choice in the matter besides by suing the fraudster for false DMCA[0]. If they make a determination that "we think this DMCA is false so we'll bring your video up" they'd take on a lot of risk in assuming legal liability for that video if it actually infringing. They have done this before for obvious abuse, though[1]. 0: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyright-troll-lawsuit-settled-false-dmca-takedown-christopher-brady https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyrig... 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_rejecting_fraudulent_dmca_takedown/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_...
- jjulius 3y ago
  >Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. I never criticized YT for this (stating that Google hardly cares to hear is just a fact, used as an example - they are notorious for not putting much effort into responding to customer service complaints), I just used it as an example of one platform on which this happens. The entire point of my post was to highlight the fact that bots scanning for copyright infringement don't typically care if your voice happens to sound like, say, Gilbert Gottfried. All the bot hears is Gottfried's voice, so bam, takedown notice sent. The platform doesn't matter.

judge2020 3y ago

Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. The DMCA process makes it so that YouTube doesn't have much choice in the matter besides by suing the fraudster for false DMCA[0]. If they make a determination that "we think this DMCA is false so we'll bring your video up" they'd take on a lot of risk in assuming legal liability for that video if it actually infringing. They have done this before for obvious abuse, though[1]. 0: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyright-troll-lawsuit-settled-false-dmca-takedown-christopher-brady https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyrig... 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_rejecting_fraudulent_dmca_takedown/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_...

jjulius 3y ago
>Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. I never criticized YT for this (stating that Google hardly cares to hear is just a fact, used as an example - they are notorious for not putting much effort into responding to customer service complaints), I just used it as an example of one platform on which this happens. The entire point of my post was to highlight the fact that bots scanning for copyright infringement don't typically care if your voice happens to sound like, say, Gilbert Gottfried. All the bot hears is Gottfried's voice, so bam, takedown notice sent. The platform doesn't matter.