4 ms·

Not just that, but the person issuing the false copyright claim should be responsibl for all the damages and predicted lost income in case of a false accusation

Not just that, but the person issuing the false copyright claim should be responsibl for all the damages and predicted lost income in case of a false accusation, and that should include the operators of automated systems. Will your false copyright claim cause someone to lose money? Well, you'll have to pay them back if they prove the claim is false, so better triple check the content for fase positives, fair use, etc., before claiming anything.

freedomben 2y ago
Yes, it really blows my mind that this isn't the case. It really shows how unbelievably powerful the "rightsholder" interests are, that they can not only demand one-way accountability, but also get one of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world to enforce and operate it for them.
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  Idk, on one hand I hate corporations and suit and tie MBAs and lawyers working to enable the 1%. But the prerequisite to the above argument is that people have a right to upload to YouTube; we don't, but it would certainly be a better service if its users weren't plagued by false copyright claims.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Well, there is some accountability penalty in the DMCA, but it's just against people who issue takedowns for content they know they aren't responsible for. In other words, the only penalty is for impersonation, not for totally frivolous and excessive claims. There is some merit in limiting who-can-file-for-what, however it also annoys me since it also closes off a route of activism which could help force a consistent application of the rules. (Thus exposing both how bad the system is and also forcing rights-holders to curb their overreach.) For example, imagine that AcmeCorp lawyers were to abuse takedowns to remove negative reviews of their product, while ignoring positive reviews that are equally-or-more "infringing." Or if multiple companies arranged a kind of ceasefire-cartel while using the law to persecute others. If a citizen could "help" them with removing all that content they "missed"...
  - thayne 2y ago
    It is very asymmetric. The supposed rightsholder just has to fill out an online form or make an automated API request to take down content in an often automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent system. But to dispute a claim the supposed violoter has to go through a much more arduous process with limited information. To seek accountability of a false claim, they must go to the courts which are innocent until proven guilty, and will take significant time and money to pursue. And the claimant can just claim it was a mistake. That may even be true. After all there isn't an incentive to put any effort into making sure your claim is valid before making it.
  - cvalka 2y ago
    Incorrect
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > Incorrect Insufficient
      - cvalka 2y ago
        Correct. https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal
jasonjayr 2y ago
Youtube should immediately hold any revenue generated by the video in escrow till the dispute runs its course. It sounds like creating a Contentid claim on a video, especially for a popular streamer, will sap all the revenue from the new/fresh video to the claimer, with no recourse for the streamer to get it back if the claim was false.
- trogdor 2y ago
  That’s exactly what they do.

freedomben 2y ago

Yes, it really blows my mind that this isn't the case. It really shows how unbelievably powerful the "rightsholder" interests are, that they can not only demand one-way accountability, but also get one of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world to enforce and operate it for them.

fennecbutt 2y ago
Idk, on one hand I hate corporations and suit and tie MBAs and lawyers working to enable the 1%. But the prerequisite to the above argument is that people have a right to upload to YouTube; we don't, but it would certainly be a better service if its users weren't plagued by false copyright claims.
Terr_ 2y ago
Well, there is some accountability penalty in the DMCA, but it's just against people who issue takedowns for content they know they aren't responsible for. In other words, the only penalty is for impersonation, not for totally frivolous and excessive claims. There is some merit in limiting who-can-file-for-what, however it also annoys me since it also closes off a route of activism which could help force a consistent application of the rules. (Thus exposing both how bad the system is and also forcing rights-holders to curb their overreach.) For example, imagine that AcmeCorp lawyers were to abuse takedowns to remove negative reviews of their product, while ignoring positive reviews that are equally-or-more "infringing." Or if multiple companies arranged a kind of ceasefire-cartel while using the law to persecute others. If a citizen could "help" them with removing all that content they "missed"...
- thayne 2y ago
  It is very asymmetric. The supposed rightsholder just has to fill out an online form or make an automated API request to take down content in an often automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent system. But to dispute a claim the supposed violoter has to go through a much more arduous process with limited information. To seek accountability of a false claim, they must go to the courts which are innocent until proven guilty, and will take significant time and money to pursue. And the claimant can just claim it was a mistake. That may even be true. After all there isn't an incentive to put any effort into making sure your claim is valid before making it.
- cvalka 2y ago
  Incorrect
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Incorrect Insufficient
    - cvalka 2y ago
      Correct. https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

jasonjayr 2y ago

Youtube should immediately hold any revenue generated by the video in escrow till the dispute runs its course. It sounds like creating a Contentid claim on a video, especially for a popular streamer, will sap all the revenue from the new/fresh video to the claimer, with no recourse for the streamer to get it back if the claim was false.

trogdor 2y ago
That’s exactly what they do.