4 ms·

I wish Youtube etc would blacklist requests by these companies, but am not optimistic. Curation seems like the path here, but it seems difficult. (See also the

I wish Youtube etc would blacklist requests by these companies, but am not optimistic. Curation seems like the path here, but it seems difficult. (See also the recent Kagi thread here, highlighting how being able to curate which sites appear on your search results is a big deal)

claytonwramsey 2y ago
The problem is not YouTube, but the law. The DMCA requires that online service providers (YouTube, Reddit, etc.) comply immediately with any takedown request and without question, so long as it meets sufficient conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_copyright_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
- monocasa 2y ago
  YouTube's system goes well beyond what is required by the DMCA. Notice no mention of "copyright strike" in the DMCA.
  - infinitesoup 2y ago
    YouTube’s “three strikes” policy is their implementation of the DMCA’s “repeat infringers” requirement: > has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are *repeat infringers* https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
- avianlyric 2y ago
  YouTube's copyright system has little to do with DMCA. Music right holders managed forced YouTube to implement a copyright claim system that explicitly didn't involve DMCA takedown requests. As a result any protection that DMCA provides to recipients of takedown requests don't apply to YouTube copyright claims. In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
  - infinitesoup 2y ago
    You’re conflating the two systems. YouTube does have the Content ID system, which does automatic detection and is mostly used to monetize (not take down) copyrighted content. But this case is a copyright strike, which means there was a DMCA takedown filed. The differences between these two systems are explained here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
creole_wither 2y ago
I wonder if that is currently legal under DMCA Safeharbor. Might need legal changes to punish abusers.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
The system is broken; if youtube (etc) do not respond to DMCA takedown requests on time, their service may be taken down - and back when YT was new and people were uploading movies and whatnot left right and center, they were very close to that. The consequences for YT for not taking something down vs invalid takedowns are much worse and more direct.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  I wouldn't have issue if this were simply running the DMCA process. But the YouTube process goes well beyond that. DMCA also allows for the content creator to issue a counter-notice and, as I understand it, that starts a clock and the party filling the takedown has 14 days to file a suit or the original takedown is reversed. Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including, again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc. with only their internal dispute process mattering.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    That is incorrect. You can appeal a Content ID claim. Doing so forces the claimant to either retract their claim or file a DMCA takedown.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      Not always... "Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations (...) Sometimes, this may mean the Content ID appeals and counter notification processes won't be available." https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545
sbuttgereit 2y ago
I agree, but the economics currently don't favor YouTube caring enough to solve this sort of problem In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care: making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be unsustainable. The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them: most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p YouTube. I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube management might take seriously.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  YouTube doesn't have to adjudicate anything. They just have to demote the known bad actors to using the real DMCA process rather than their own system. They can still make a claim under penalty of perjury with a takedown but that won't count as a strike.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    There's actually a lot of history (going back at least as far as 2007) that led to the current situation where the DMCA is not the process. In fairness to YouTube, they had significant legal pressure back in the day, including suits and credible threats thereof to go beyond the DMCA... which is exactly what they did. We can speculate to if the current situation is the natural conclusion of those agreements with major IP holders, or if they simply got religion and now embrace those practices... but at least historically, it wasn't simply management discretion which started them on this path. I don't dispute there are things they can, and should do, nor do I dispute that their current management of the problem sucks.... but it's not quite as simple as just taking a decision to abide by the DMCA as-is.

claytonwramsey 2y ago

The problem is not YouTube, but the law. The DMCA requires that online service providers (YouTube, Reddit, etc.) comply immediately with any takedown request and without question, so long as it meets sufficient conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_copyright_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

monocasa 2y ago
YouTube's system goes well beyond what is required by the DMCA. Notice no mention of "copyright strike" in the DMCA.
- infinitesoup 2y ago
  YouTube’s “three strikes” policy is their implementation of the DMCA’s “repeat infringers” requirement: > has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are *repeat infringers* https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
avianlyric 2y ago
YouTube's copyright system has little to do with DMCA. Music right holders managed forced YouTube to implement a copyright claim system that explicitly didn't involve DMCA takedown requests. As a result any protection that DMCA provides to recipients of takedown requests don't apply to YouTube copyright claims. In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
- infinitesoup 2y ago
  You’re conflating the two systems. YouTube does have the Content ID system, which does automatic detection and is mostly used to monetize (not take down) copyrighted content. But this case is a copyright strike, which means there was a DMCA takedown filed. The differences between these two systems are explained here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

creole_wither 2y ago

I wonder if that is currently legal under DMCA Safeharbor. Might need legal changes to punish abusers.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

The system is broken; if youtube (etc) do not respond to DMCA takedown requests on time, their service may be taken down - and back when YT was new and people were uploading movies and whatnot left right and center, they were very close to that. The consequences for YT for not taking something down vs invalid takedowns are much worse and more direct.

sbuttgereit 2y ago
I wouldn't have issue if this were simply running the DMCA process. But the YouTube process goes well beyond that. DMCA also allows for the content creator to issue a counter-notice and, as I understand it, that starts a clock and the party filling the takedown has 14 days to file a suit or the original takedown is reversed. Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including, again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc. with only their internal dispute process mattering.
- trogdor 2y ago
  That is incorrect. You can appeal a Content ID claim. Doing so forces the claimant to either retract their claim or file a DMCA takedown.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    Not always... "Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations (...) Sometimes, this may mean the Content ID appeals and counter notification processes won't be available." https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545

sbuttgereit 2y ago

I agree, but the economics currently don't favor YouTube caring enough to solve this sort of problem In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care: making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be unsustainable. The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them: most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p YouTube. I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube management might take seriously.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
YouTube doesn't have to adjudicate anything. They just have to demote the known bad actors to using the real DMCA process rather than their own system. They can still make a claim under penalty of perjury with a takedown but that won't count as a strike.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  There's actually a lot of history (going back at least as far as 2007) that led to the current situation where the DMCA is not the process. In fairness to YouTube, they had significant legal pressure back in the day, including suits and credible threats thereof to go beyond the DMCA... which is exactly what they did. We can speculate to if the current situation is the natural conclusion of those agreements with major IP holders, or if they simply got religion and now embrace those practices... but at least historically, it wasn't simply management discretion which started them on this path. I don't dispute there are things they can, and should do, nor do I dispute that their current management of the problem sucks.... but it's not quite as simple as just taking a decision to abide by the DMCA as-is.