4 ms·
Isn't it even in the U.S. e.g. enough for some big music firm to claim copyright infringement on a YouTube video for it to be removed and the channel's owner ge
by GTP 8mo ago
Isn't it even in the U.S. e.g. enough for some big music firm to claim copyright infringement on a YouTube video for it to be removed and the channel's owner get a copyright strike, no courts and no FBI involved? AFAIK this is what happens with so-called DMCA takedown requests.
- mrtksn 8mo agoExactly, in USA they just remove your videos from YouTube and in Spain in Italy they just block your domains on the ISPs for the exact same reasons and both are sometimes fraudulent.
- rockemsockem 8mo agoThe USA does not remove your videos from YouTube, Google does because they don't have the resources to evaluate all copyright claims and they are afraid of getting sued. You're welcome to host your own videos.
- mrtksn 8mo agoNeither Spain is blocking freedom.gov, what is your point?
- petcat 8mo agoThe difference is that content creator can put the video on their own website and that domain won't get blocked by my ISP. It might get seized later after some judicial review.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- GTP 8mo agoNot sure about this, couldn't they send the very same DMCA takedown request to the ISP or the hosting provider?
- petcat 8mo agoNo, they can't. It's why ISP -level blocks are non-existent in USA. And there's no "hosting provider" in this scenario assuming the person self-hosts on their own server.
- GTP 8mo agoSo, if my understanding is correct, a DMCA takedown request can only be sent to whatever entity is actually storing the data. So the ISP doesn't get involved. If someone is self-hosting, they are the ones receiving the takedown request, while if they're relying on an hosting provider, the provider gets the request. Is this correct?