4 ms·

Caveat: Totally not a lawyer. No, it's really not a DMCA takedown notice. DMCA takedown notices are a mechanism whereby a hosting company can qualify for the s

Caveat: Totally not a lawyer. No, it's really not a DMCA takedown notice. DMCA takedown notices are a mechanism whereby a hosting company can qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. If they comply with the rules of handling such notices they are not liable for any copyright violations of their users. Youtube will still comply with those, or face liability, but they offer this tool to content owners that register with them. As such, it is not a DMCA takedown notice and is not subjected to the penalties of perjury that are laid out in the DMCA's rules about takedown notices. That doesn't mean that no law applies, just that the DMCA's specific rules for DMCA takedown notices don't apply. One question I would love an actual lawyer to answer or comment on is: Does Youtube's prevalence make them a common carrier or have similar implications?

MWil 13y ago
Caveat: I am an actual lawyer, I'm just not providing any legal advice to anyone. "but they offer this tool to content owners that register with them. As such, it is not a DMCA takedown notice" The first part of what you said is exactly who DMCA takedown systems are for so I'm not sure I see the "as such" logic. The DMCA takes the uploading user into account almost never, except when they become repeat offenders or "red flags" otherwise. It's sole purpose for existing is to appease content owners. You're intertwining "notice and takedown" with "safe harbor". They are two different sides of the coin. The former gives content owners power and the latter gives service providers a defense.
- aptwebapps 13y ago
  Yeah, the "as such" was superfluous. And you're correct (if I may put words in your mouth) that the DMCA was drafted for (and by) content owners first, service providers second, and the public at large a distant third. What I thought, but I now have doubts about, was that because this takedown service that Youtube provides was in addition to compliance with regular DMCA takedown notices it would not be subject to the same rules. "You're intertwining "notice and takedown" with "safe harbor"." The point of the takedown system under the DMCA is that compliance with it guarantees (to some extent) safe harbor so I'm not sure how to separate the two.

MWil 13y ago

Caveat: I am an actual lawyer, I'm just not providing any legal advice to anyone. "but they offer this tool to content owners that register with them. As such, it is not a DMCA takedown notice" The first part of what you said is exactly who DMCA takedown systems are for so I'm not sure I see the "as such" logic. The DMCA takes the uploading user into account almost never, except when they become repeat offenders or "red flags" otherwise. It's sole purpose for existing is to appease content owners. You're intertwining "notice and takedown" with "safe harbor". They are two different sides of the coin. The former gives content owners power and the latter gives service providers a defense.

aptwebapps 13y ago
Yeah, the "as such" was superfluous. And you're correct (if I may put words in your mouth) that the DMCA was drafted for (and by) content owners first, service providers second, and the public at large a distant third. What I thought, but I now have doubts about, was that because this takedown service that Youtube provides was in addition to compliance with regular DMCA takedown notices it would not be subject to the same rules. "You're intertwining "notice and takedown" with "safe harbor"." The point of the takedown system under the DMCA is that compliance with it guarantees (to some extent) safe harbor so I'm not sure how to separate the two.