3 ms·
I think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK that $1M is split between the
by tialaramex 2y ago
I think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK that $1M is split between the victim of your oopsy and Youtube for their trouble - you just pay $1M to get back into the game. Outfits like this could explain to their investors that while their technology does sometimes have little goofs that cost a few billion dollars per year, once they invent perfect AI they can scale infinitely and make that back easily, so if you invest $10Bn of your fiat currency today, in 18 months they can 100% guarantee nothing in particular, wow.
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M This is a license to rip off the copyrights of anyone without a million dollars in cash.
- mullingitover 2y agoI don't think so, since YouTube is operating their extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders" copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be in effect. The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
- vkou 2y agoIt isn't required by law, it's required by people who would sue the pants off it if it didn't kowtow to them. Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can be ignored when you are rich and powerful. Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.
- TZubiri 2y agoI smell IANAL
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tialaramex 2y agoNah, I'd expect under this model insurance would become readily available. Insurers live on the margins, so even though it would cost a lot of money if you crash that boring mid-range car into somebody's house, the insurer doesn't charge you a lot of money to insure you against that risk, they're betting that on average you're not going to do that. As a safeguard they probably don't insure kids who just got bought a Ferrari as their first car, or anybody who has just done time for crashing their car into a house on purpose, but mostly they're just playing the numbers.
- HWR_14 2y agoInsurance would only work if the funds didn't have to be provided upfront, just in response to a failure.
- EA-3167 2y agoThat's already the status quo, random nobodies with their art ripped off by OpenAI or some content mill on YouTube don't have the benefit of hiring companies to perform takedowns.
- TZubiri 2y agoNah, you can subcontract a provider who bonds the 1M and puts their reputation on the line. If they deem your claim fit they can charge 500$ or 1k
- ysavir 2y agoWouldn't this mean that the only people able to make claims in the first place are people with $1M to spare? It might deter aggressive claims, but also prevent individuals from making claims on violations of their copyrights.
- tibbon 2y agoPerhaps it could start low, $2, and then for every fraudulent claim you make it goes up exponentially? It would be accessible to the common person, but for a mega company making bulk fraudulent claims, it becomes expensive.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoThey would use sock puppet accounts run by an LLC for each claim.
- ysavir 2y agoUnless the mega company just keeps violating it, knowing that the more times they do it, the more they'll win in the end.
- smitop 2y agoInsurance companies could front the money, in exchange for a premium based on how legitimate the claim seems.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoI think it's Finland where if the punishment for a crime is a fine, the fine scales with the income of the perpetrator. I like that system.
- seneca 2y agoWouldn't this keep anyone without a spare million from making copyright claims, and incentivise YouTube to encourage these "mistakes" since they get paid for them?
- wslh 2y agoGood aligned to crypto! Chainpatrol was in the name of Arbitrum <https://arbitrum.io/ https://arbitrum.io/>.
- junon 2y agoThat's a poor people tax. Not a deterrent.
- TZubiri 2y agoThat's basically Proof of Stake btw, on which Arbitrum, an Ethereum l2 chain, is based.