3 ms·

Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? Somebody read your e-mail, looked up the video in question,

Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? Somebody read your e-mail, looked up the video in question, searched for a contract proving they had the copyright. Finding none, they determined either you were right, or someone else was, but it wasn't them either way, so might just as well leave it with you. And that's why it took a few days?

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? // That's entirely possible but the company making the claim that they owned copyright is committing a [serious IMO] fraud and should be punished severely for it. If copyright infringement is a such a crime as the corporate world tries to suggest then false claim on copyright is far worse. The company knows that they will get false positives but continues. One reason it's worse than mere infringement is it's an attempt to deprive either the public domain or the original owner in order to make financial gains whilst mere infringement is usually just for use. It's much closer to theft than plain infringement as it seeks to deprive the owner (or public domain) of the enjoyment (i.e. use or licensing) of the work whilst mere infringement generally does not. AFAIK such fraudulent claims to ownership are not treated at all harshly in IP law? This is a case where it should be considered criminal [rather than just as a tort] as generally it's the action of a larger organisation against a content creator - the state should protect its citizens particularly when there are such imbalances of power.
- misnome 11y ago
  The problem is that these youtube claims do not approach the law; the companies have private contracts with youtube that effectively let them have free reign; so it at no point goes anywhere near the DMCA system (not that it is any better at handling fraudulent claims)
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Indeed but if a company says to YouTube "this is our IP" and it's not and they don't have proof that it is then they have likely knowingly committed a fraud. The fact that the fraud is in a private arena is neither here-nor-there - it's still fraud and still impacts the public and/or actual IP rights holders. If YouTube send you a DMCA takedown notification and those calling for the takedown can be easily confirmed to have acted falsely - eg you created the IP then the law _should_ enable you to successfully get punitive damages awarded. That would balance the current law and go someway to ensuring companies/people would only claim ownership of IPR they were sure they owned. At the moment a company can just take a splatter-gun approach, claim everything is theirs, get paid. When you prove they made false claim all they get is less money paid to them - without punitive damages [and criminal proceedings] there is nothing to stop this sort of abuse.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? // That's entirely possible but the company making the claim that they owned copyright is committing a [serious IMO] fraud and should be punished severely for it. If copyright infringement is a such a crime as the corporate world tries to suggest then false claim on copyright is far worse. The company knows that they will get false positives but continues. One reason it's worse than mere infringement is it's an attempt to deprive either the public domain or the original owner in order to make financial gains whilst mere infringement is usually just for use. It's much closer to theft than plain infringement as it seeks to deprive the owner (or public domain) of the enjoyment (i.e. use or licensing) of the work whilst mere infringement generally does not. AFAIK such fraudulent claims to ownership are not treated at all harshly in IP law? This is a case where it should be considered criminal [rather than just as a tort] as generally it's the action of a larger organisation against a content creator - the state should protect its citizens particularly when there are such imbalances of power.

misnome 11y ago
The problem is that these youtube claims do not approach the law; the companies have private contracts with youtube that effectively let them have free reign; so it at no point goes anywhere near the DMCA system (not that it is any better at handling fraudulent claims)
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Indeed but if a company says to YouTube "this is our IP" and it's not and they don't have proof that it is then they have likely knowingly committed a fraud. The fact that the fraud is in a private arena is neither here-nor-there - it's still fraud and still impacts the public and/or actual IP rights holders. If YouTube send you a DMCA takedown notification and those calling for the takedown can be easily confirmed to have acted falsely - eg you created the IP then the law _should_ enable you to successfully get punitive damages awarded. That would balance the current law and go someway to ensuring companies/people would only claim ownership of IPR they were sure they owned. At the moment a company can just take a splatter-gun approach, claim everything is theirs, get paid. When you prove they made false claim all they get is less money paid to them - without punitive damages [and criminal proceedings] there is nothing to stop this sort of abuse.