5 ms·

We need more posts like this and some education to the public. Until people are educated about their rights, crap like the NFL disclaimer will pass for facts.

Shivetya 12y ago
the public? Hell how about educating google/youtube who do take downs against videos that don't even infringe. I can imagine the fun they will have Monday with people uploading content
- geofft 12y ago
  Google is legally obligated to do so by the DMCA's safe-harbor provision (otherwise they lose their safe-harbor status). The problem is with the people who request the takedowns. In particular, the DMCA (17 USC 512) requires that, in the takedown notice, the sender must state that they have a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law", and anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, both to the person who posted the not-actually-infringing content, and to the service provider in their act of taking down and reinstating the content. This should be a safeguard, and a sufficiently enthusiastic legal team ought to be able to make the argument that there is a lot of knowing material misrepresentation going on. (It's hard for robots to have good-faith beliefs!) But I think very few people have been trying this argument in court. The EFF has been involved in a few, relatively tiny cases, which seem to have been successful, but nobody's been fighting this at scale. https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. 17 USC 512 is pretty readable: I'd recommend reading through it so you understand what the law is and how best to use it to our ends. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Google does it because otherwise it would harm their business relationship with the NFL, not because of the DMCA.
    - mynameisvlad 12y ago
      No, they do do it because of the DCMA. The only reason they are provided safe harbor is by taking down the content upon request. If they didn't, they could potentially be liable for what they host.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Google has a non-DMCA takedown process as well.
      - foobarqux 12y ago
        If the DMCA didn't exist they would still take it down.
        thanksgiving 12y ago
        If copyright rules were more lax, I'd doubt they'd be willing to cede nearly as much ground to NBC Universal and the like with Content ID and Content Verification Program.
        mynameisvlad 12y ago
        But only for the same reason, so that they wouldn't be sued for hosting copyrighted material. The DMCA simply gives an official way to not have liability. The problem of overzealous litigation would still be there without the DMCA, unless we tackle that, then content providers are going to be quick to take things down so as to not be liable for hosting the content in the first place. What I'm saying is that no, they won't do it to not harm their business relationship, they'll do it because otherwise, they'd be potentially sued for hosting copyrighted material without authorization.
  - 12y ago
- marincounty 12y ago
  I wish Youtube would take my videos down? When Google couldn't leave a decent login in system alone, and had to tie it to "I want it in my name daddy!", I can't access my account to delete my old videos. Yea, I tried all the stuff they recommended, but I can't access the videos. I contacted Google, but they didn't have a clue, and told me to go to the boards. It was a very polite email. (I used Youtube as a personal diary of things I need to do, or projects that needed further work. One video had a product brand name in it and gained attention. I never thought they would be kidnaped? They are boring videos, but there's one I want off for multiple reasons).
icantthinkofone 12y ago
The disclaimer IS fact. That they may play it up for more than what it is, as do others, is a different story.

Shivetya 12y ago

the public? Hell how about educating google/youtube who do take downs against videos that don't even infringe. I can imagine the fun they will have Monday with people uploading content

geofft 12y ago
Google is legally obligated to do so by the DMCA's safe-harbor provision (otherwise they lose their safe-harbor status). The problem is with the people who request the takedowns. In particular, the DMCA (17 USC 512) requires that, in the takedown notice, the sender must state that they have a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law", and anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, both to the person who posted the not-actually-infringing content, and to the service provider in their act of taking down and reinstating the content. This should be a safeguard, and a sufficiently enthusiastic legal team ought to be able to make the argument that there is a lot of knowing material misrepresentation going on. (It's hard for robots to have good-faith beliefs!) But I think very few people have been trying this argument in court. The EFF has been involved in a few, relatively tiny cases, which seem to have been successful, but nobody's been fighting this at scale. https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. 17 USC 512 is pretty readable: I'd recommend reading through it so you understand what the law is and how best to use it to our ends. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Google does it because otherwise it would harm their business relationship with the NFL, not because of the DMCA.
  - mynameisvlad 12y ago
    No, they do do it because of the DCMA. The only reason they are provided safe harbor is by taking down the content upon request. If they didn't, they could potentially be liable for what they host.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Google has a non-DMCA takedown process as well.
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      If the DMCA didn't exist they would still take it down.
      - thanksgiving 12y ago
        If copyright rules were more lax, I'd doubt they'd be willing to cede nearly as much ground to NBC Universal and the like with Content ID and Content Verification Program.
      - mynameisvlad 12y ago
        But only for the same reason, so that they wouldn't be sued for hosting copyrighted material. The DMCA simply gives an official way to not have liability. The problem of overzealous litigation would still be there without the DMCA, unless we tackle that, then content providers are going to be quick to take things down so as to not be liable for hosting the content in the first place. What I'm saying is that no, they won't do it to not harm their business relationship, they'll do it because otherwise, they'd be potentially sued for hosting copyrighted material without authorization.
- 12y ago
marincounty 12y ago
I wish Youtube would take my videos down? When Google couldn't leave a decent login in system alone, and had to tie it to "I want it in my name daddy!", I can't access my account to delete my old videos. Yea, I tried all the stuff they recommended, but I can't access the videos. I contacted Google, but they didn't have a clue, and told me to go to the boards. It was a very polite email. (I used Youtube as a personal diary of things I need to do, or projects that needed further work. One video had a product brand name in it and gained attention. I never thought they would be kidnaped? They are boring videos, but there's one I want off for multiple reasons).

icantthinkofone 12y ago

The disclaimer IS fact. That they may play it up for more than what it is, as do others, is a different story.