3 ms·

The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argume

The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.

applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corporations have an incentive to steal from small creators, because small creators will not be able to defend their copyright, essentially granting it to the corp for free. The actual answer is to tear the entire fucking system down because it only exists to serve megacorporations, and start fresh, but there's nothing simple about that.
- andai 1mo ago
  Just make the bond a % of the entity's revenue. Like that (apocryphal?) story about how Nokia CEO got speeding ticket of several million dollars in Finland, due to the ticket being a % of income. Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims. Hmm, maybe coming up with a good law is actually hard.
  - linolevan 1mo ago
    Not quite a million USD, but ~$120k https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-121000-speeding-ticket/story?id=99861907 https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-12100...
  - MayeulC 1mo ago
    Just a token fee like $5 would discourage spamming claims, though it does make fighting against re-uploads of the same content harder (the power balance isn't too bad for the play store where there is an entry fee for publishers as well).
- lnxg33k1 1mo ago
  It is not that society needs to be prisoner of small creators, every time there is some regulation the small creator and hobbyist come to the rescue cmon
  - applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
    So society should be a prisoner to corporations instead, giving them even more power because you didn't think through how your brilliant new regulation could be misused by malicious actors? Cmon, indeed.
- pdonis 1mo ago
  The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
  - applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
    You do understand that corporations aren't the only entities who produce content and file copyright claims, right? Independent artists, authors, developers, etc. all need to be able to file claims too, and they're already much more vulnerable. I hate the current copyright regime as much as anyone, but the solution can't be one that makes it even less helpful for independent creatives and even more abusable by corporations.
  - wildzzz 1mo ago
    Big companies regularly rip off small creators. Even if the copyright theft is incredibly obvious, a big company has the funds to drag out the legal proceedings for years. Do you have that kind of money?
jmward01 1mo ago
Looks like some interest in this idea so I will refine it a little. The core question is about the bond value. There are some competing things here: A small time creator should be able to defend themselves against DMCA attacks on them (they get a bond on a reversed claim) and still be able to send notices against others without undue cost. Similarly, big content creators should be able to defend their work. I think the answer here is that the bond goes up the more content strikes you submit. Small creators essentially operate for free with just a few sent out, large troll farms have to post very big bonds. This works for small creators, they could receive big bonds if someone like MS incorrectly smacks them. Of course the bond rate could also go up by number of successful reversals too but that would just lead to account churn. The essential idea here is that there is a real cost per DMCA notice that turns into a reward for those incorrectly accused. As the total number of DMCA notices go up the more bond money is floating around ready to pay those harmed by the system. DMCA takedown agents now have a real incentive to get it right. The better they are the more money they save. The trick is to set the bond high enough to turn it into a real value prop. The only thing missing, I think, is the upward pressure on the base bond. I think that should be set by the global ratio of successful to reversed takedowns. If the industry is spamming the bond goes up and payments go up. If the industry is policing itself the bond goes down.
xenadu02 1mo ago
It is not a legal process. It is Google's process designed to minimize their involvement to the maximum degree possible. When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private party told another private party you are a bad person and the private party in control punished you. If memory serves the whole system came about way back because the big media companies and record companies got together to sue YT after google acquired them. So you might say the system was designed to let purported copyright holders act arbitrarily on purpose.
- gpm 1mo ago
  In the Starbucks example wouldn't there theoretically be a defamation claim against the person who lied about you - just with absurdly small damages that aren't worth pursuing.
  - xenadu02 1mo ago
    Yes that is technically true. In theory you might be able to get some damages from them and even from Starbucks. But Starbucks would be within their rights to ban you permanently. You could try to go after YouTube but expect to be permabanned from all of Google. You probably signed away your right to sue anyhow with some YT/Google TOS update.
raincole 1mo ago
"Let's ensure big corporations can freely abuse small creators more than they are doing now."

applfanboysbgon 1mo ago

The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corporations have an incentive to steal from small creators, because small creators will not be able to defend their copyright, essentially granting it to the corp for free. The actual answer is to tear the entire fucking system down because it only exists to serve megacorporations, and start fresh, but there's nothing simple about that.

andai 1mo ago
Just make the bond a % of the entity's revenue. Like that (apocryphal?) story about how Nokia CEO got speeding ticket of several million dollars in Finland, due to the ticket being a % of income. Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims. Hmm, maybe coming up with a good law is actually hard.
- linolevan 1mo ago
  Not quite a million USD, but ~$120k https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-121000-speeding-ticket/story?id=99861907 https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-12100...
- MayeulC 1mo ago
  Just a token fee like $5 would discourage spamming claims, though it does make fighting against re-uploads of the same content harder (the power balance isn't too bad for the play store where there is an entry fee for publishers as well).
lnxg33k1 1mo ago
It is not that society needs to be prisoner of small creators, every time there is some regulation the small creator and hobbyist come to the rescue cmon
- applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
  So society should be a prisoner to corporations instead, giving them even more power because you didn't think through how your brilliant new regulation could be misused by malicious actors? Cmon, indeed.
pdonis 1mo ago
The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
- applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
  You do understand that corporations aren't the only entities who produce content and file copyright claims, right? Independent artists, authors, developers, etc. all need to be able to file claims too, and they're already much more vulnerable. I hate the current copyright regime as much as anyone, but the solution can't be one that makes it even less helpful for independent creatives and even more abusable by corporations.
- wildzzz 1mo ago
  Big companies regularly rip off small creators. Even if the copyright theft is incredibly obvious, a big company has the funds to drag out the legal proceedings for years. Do you have that kind of money?

jmward01 1mo ago

Looks like some interest in this idea so I will refine it a little. The core question is about the bond value. There are some competing things here: A small time creator should be able to defend themselves against DMCA attacks on them (they get a bond on a reversed claim) and still be able to send notices against others without undue cost. Similarly, big content creators should be able to defend their work. I think the answer here is that the bond goes up the more content strikes you submit. Small creators essentially operate for free with just a few sent out, large troll farms have to post very big bonds. This works for small creators, they could receive big bonds if someone like MS incorrectly smacks them. Of course the bond rate could also go up by number of successful reversals too but that would just lead to account churn. The essential idea here is that there is a real cost per DMCA notice that turns into a reward for those incorrectly accused. As the total number of DMCA notices go up the more bond money is floating around ready to pay those harmed by the system. DMCA takedown agents now have a real incentive to get it right. The better they are the more money they save. The trick is to set the bond high enough to turn it into a real value prop. The only thing missing, I think, is the upward pressure on the base bond. I think that should be set by the global ratio of successful to reversed takedowns. If the industry is spamming the bond goes up and payments go up. If the industry is policing itself the bond goes down.

xenadu02 1mo ago

It is not a legal process. It is Google's process designed to minimize their involvement to the maximum degree possible. When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private party told another private party you are a bad person and the private party in control punished you. If memory serves the whole system came about way back because the big media companies and record companies got together to sue YT after google acquired them. So you might say the system was designed to let purported copyright holders act arbitrarily on purpose.

gpm 1mo ago
In the Starbucks example wouldn't there theoretically be a defamation claim against the person who lied about you - just with absurdly small damages that aren't worth pursuing.
- xenadu02 1mo ago
  Yes that is technically true. In theory you might be able to get some damages from them and even from Starbucks. But Starbucks would be within their rights to ban you permanently. You could try to go after YouTube but expect to be permabanned from all of Google. You probably signed away your right to sue anyhow with some YT/Google TOS update.

raincole 1mo ago

"Let's ensure big corporations can freely abuse small creators more than they are doing now."