4 ms·
This is not true. It is the DMCA which requires disclosing name, address, and telephone number in order to fight a takedown notice. If the work was not infri
by cloudwalking 12y ago
This is not true. It is the DMCA which requires disclosing name, address, and telephone number in order to fight a takedown notice.
If the work was not infringing and the notice was either
in error or malicious, the client can then file what is
known as a counter-notice. That notice must contain the
following elements:
...
4. The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number,
and a statement that the subscriber consents to the
jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial
district in which the address is located, or if the
subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for
any judicial district in which the service provider may be
found, and that the subscriber will accept service of
process from the person who provided notification.
http://brainz.org/dmca-takedown-101/ http://brainz.org/dmca-takedown-101/
- anigbrowl 12y agoThat doesn't have to be their personal home address - the intent of the law is to provide claimants with a method of establishing contact that will allow them to serve notice of legal action directly if the matter is not resolved negotiations break down. A PO box would be sufficient. Suppose you think I infringed your copyright with something I uploaded to YouTube, so you file a takedown notice. I think I'm well within the fair use exemption so I file a counter-notice. You don't agree with my reasoning so you decide to sue me. If you don't have any way to contact me, how would you go about it? You can't get a lawsuit going without proof of having given notice to the other party.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoIt's obvious what it's supposed to be for, the problem is that it can be so easily abused for other purposes. And listing a PO box does a fat lot of good when you still have to provide your name.
- anigbrowl 12y agoTrue, but you could say that about anything. Look how much information you can dig up from property tax records or court filings. The alternative is to invest YouTube with the function of legal arbitrator, in which case it would probably just default to supporting the original claimant.
- rlpb 12y agoSurely that's the claimant's problem, not Youtube's?
- tedunangst 12y agoYouTube could waive their safe harbor provisions on a case by case basis if they cared. If the takedown is egregiously false, YouTube can just say "fuck it, sue us if you still think it's infringement."