4 ms·

I'm not sure that strategy would work. Her only recourse would be to file DMCA take down notices on unauthorized content uploads. As long as Google complied wit

• mdasen 12y ago
  Content ID brings up an interesting twist on the DMCA. If a provider has "actual knowledge" of infringement, safe harbor doesn't apply. When Viacom sued Google/YouTube, they claimed that Google/YouTube had "general knowledge" of infringement. That isn't enough. Google is paying this person for use of their work. They have knowledge and it could be argued that they obtained a license. They want to renegotiate the terms of that license. The DMCA isn't a tool to be used to force artists to license their content on terms that favor YouTube. The actual safe harbor text (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)): i. does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; ii. in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or iii. upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material. It's certainly questionable whether Content ID gives Google "actual knowledge" of infringement happening. But the rule isn't that content only has to be taken down when given a DMCA notice. Once Google has "actual knowledge", they need to take action. And I think that's the alternative that Google would do. Videos that match the Content ID would be removed. I think the issue is that the artist doesn't want to be so punitive to fans who are caught in the middle. Google knows that artists don't want to hurt their fans and is leveraging that against them. I don't think this would become a DMCA issue at all. It's more an issue of Google having the market power to be a price/terms setter. Google seems more than willing to use Content ID to block infringement, but also has the positioning to reply to the user, "this artist has decided you, the uploader who worked hard on that video, that you're not allowed to use their music. Maybe you should hate that artist and like one of these other artists. . ." A bit of hyperbole, but you can see how an artist wouldn't want to position themselves that way.
  • wtallis 12y ago
    Google needs more than actual knowledge that the video is a copyrighted work–they need to know that it is unauthorized or be "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent". If they no longer have a formal relationship with the artist and no longer have the artist's original works to have the Content ID system compare to, then they have very few ways other than DMCA complaints to become sufficiently aware or certain of infringement. What I find more interesting is 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i): (1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider — (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures. (2) Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and— (A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process; (B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and (C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks. ---- Thus, they don't have to provide Content ID themselves, but they have to allow for a third-party Content ID that doesn't have all the strings attached.
    • peteretep 12y ago
      > If they no longer have a formal relationship with the > artist and no longer have the artist's original works to > have the Content ID system compare to Google threatening to remove their ability to identify copyrighted music, simply because they can't negotiate the business terms they want? For future releases, sure, but for content they can currently identify, they plan to say "Nah, we're going to pretend we can't identify it any more"? That sounds like the mother of all punitive damages lawsuits waiting to happen. Somewhere a scumbag attorney's wallet is getting warm, and he has no idea why.
• Silhouette 12y ago
  Even if the DMCA protects Google themselves from legal action as long as they properly comply with the takedown procedures, can she not still sue uploaders personally? Whether she'd want to or not is a different question, of course. But let's assume she has some of those "special cases" she mentioned -- an unauthorised advertising campaign or two, maybe -- as handy targets with no moral or commercial dilemma attached. I imagine YouTube would suddenly get a lot fewer contributions if legitimate copyright lawsuits resulting high awards of statutory damages started landing on uploaders' doorsteps, even if Google themselves only participated by providing evidence under some sort of disclosure procedure or court order.