3 ms·
This is what the DMCA safe harbor policy was meant to deal with. Hosts are not held liable for user content if they respond to a DMCA takedown notice in a timel
by kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
This is what the DMCA safe harbor policy was meant to deal with. Hosts are not held liable for user content if they respond to a DMCA takedown notice in a timely manner. The other half of the system is that users are supposed to be able to submit a counter notice to have content immediately restored without judicial intervention. At that point the host is immune from litigation and the original party can seek remediation in the court system.
YouTube doesn't provide an implementation of the second half of the DMCA process because they have a side deal with big media to manage royalties in exchange for a system biased in their favor.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago> supposed to be able to submit a counter notice to have content immediately restored Not immediately AFAIK - the provider has to wait ~2 weeks (in which case the original issuer of the notice can sue). > YouTube doesn't provide an implementation of the second half of the DMCA AFAIK YouTube does implement this: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en However, most copyright disputes on YouTube happen within YouTube's own process (where usually the claimant gets the revenue from the video but the content usually stays up), not the DMCA process (takedown and copyright strike)
- hnick 2y agoThey tried the safe harbour argument against Viacom. It didn't go that smoothly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... That whole debacle spawned Content ID and yes, now they're happily in bed together. They probably prefer it like that, while we'd prefer safe harbour actually works as intended.