No I don't get you . If Youtube doesn't have the authority to determine whether someone is guilty of intellectual property infringement , then how do they "check" to see if the account is found of guilt as a "repeat violator" , especially seeing as though dmca is the first steps to legal process rather than one which is done after a finding of guilt ? You make literally no sense . You are in lala land . You are BVG JD Youtube law . You make shit up and it somehow makes sense to you .
YouTubers are PO'ed and had enough. #WTFU
- Thread starter Hyperglide
- Start date
Lawsuits often don't make it to court , they often don't leave lawyer offices . In the event a case actually goes to court , it can take years . Lentz versus Universal has been litigated since 2007 . You literally have no idea what you're saying . You want Youtube to determine judgements , do nothing for accounts receiving multiple dmca take downs until they have multiple court judgememts which can take years and escrow money which can also be held for years and all the while you think that they will not be liable for any of these direct disregardments of stipulations set out in the dmca ?
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2013
- Messages
- 3,970
- Reaction score
- 1
It's not about Youtube deciding whether or not a claim is fraudulent, much like it's not about Youtube deciding whether or not a claim is actually infringing copyright. It's about having the option, so at the very least some form of database can be made of those suspected of making fraudulent copyright claims. That way at least people can identify people like David Savage in the original video who are abusing the process and pool together if they wish to fight it in court.
Like you said maybe "it wasn't financially worth taking legal action further over", but the idea that Joe Schmo YouTuber is going to even have the resources to take a company like Universal before a judge is absurd, especially for something less than $100. Yet the idea that a big company can monetize thousands of peoples videos and profit from something that they shouldn't be is equally absurd.
No, it is an example of precedent for companies that are acting illegally and an example how big corporations are abusing the process. A process that does not allow users a fair chance at appealing (not a legal appeal) but instead allows companies to unfairly and repeatedly allege infringement knowing it is not.
I am implicating Youtube because they have slanted policy that needs to be changed (again not legally, but it would be a sign of good will)
Jesus fucking christ how many times do I have to literally spell it out...
I repeat YOUTUBE IS UNDER NO FUCKING LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY!
This is not a question of whether YouTube should legally do anything differently, it's a matter of YouTube doing something morally to protect it's users from outside corporations abusing processes for their own profit or gain.
They have a shitty policy, not based on their legal obligation to take down infringing copyrighted material. They do an adequate job at that. They do a shitty job at allowing their users a fair chance to collaboratively dispute and record blatantly fraudulent claims, and based on morality and good faith towards the people that actually contribute and make their site worth visiting they should remedy it. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
If you think that an average person spending tens of thousands of dollars to chase a corporation with legal budgets in the millions to recover $20 is a fair system, you are retarded.
Facebook does the opposite, in that they are turning the other cheek to people stealing YouTube videos. But the principle is the same. The idea that an individual is going to be able to successfully get anywhere close to a fair legal battle is laughable. Legal battles often aren't who is right, but who can win a war of financial attrition. The current system allows massive corporations to easily target individuals, but makes it especially difficult for individuals to join together in order to target corporations acting not only immorally but illegally.
I get it, YouTube cannot be a judge in copyright disputes, yes the DCMA is flawed, yes better legislation is needed to remedy it. However at this point I feel like you are arguing for arguments sake, you obviously barely read these responses as evidenced by the "no legal obligation" thing, and if you think YouTube's copyright policies are ideal as they currently are, well more power to you I guess.
I'm tapping out. Carry on.
You keep saying that YouTube is not legally obligated to change the dmca procedure but at the same time you are suggesting that they can make changes that they can not . Every procedure that they currently have is verbatim following the dmca . They can't do anything different to "protect" their users unless they disregard the dmca or the dmca stipulations change . That is why I keep telling you that they can't do what you're suggesting but you just keep insisting that they can .
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 46,850
- Reaction score
- 29,138
No what people are disputing is YouTube's easily exploitable automated systems and absurd wait times. It's too easy to tie up a channel for thirty days with a fake claim.
How else would they respond to every single takedown notice in quick succession without automation ?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,202
- Reaction score
- 431
Well, when i'm looking for a fight, it's a pain in the ass to sift through all the crap, like predictions, highlights, countdowns, blah blah blah. I imagine people looking for a tv episode or whatever also get annoyed as shit from having to scroll through all these who-gives-a-fuck-about dudes' reviews or their whiny videos in general. Imagine if porn was like that? You typed in your favorite girl's name and DP or whatever you're into and you got hundreds of random fat-asses reviews on her last scene or better yet, a "reaction" vid w/ that black dude whacking off and making faces while watching her vid. It's really a sad state of affairs.
Do you know why he doesn't expect Google to offer any solutions any time soon ? Because as long as they are following the dmca , there is none .
@4:10 " The suggestion that there should be higher penalties or more penalties for false claims is good in theory , but I don't expect Google to get involved in that . "
Why ? Because they then forego the safe harbor rules of the dmca and become liable to legal action along with the alleged infringer . Maybe those big companies will stop at 30 days of take down and diverted revenue for a content maker but as soon as Youtube gets involved by not following the stipulations in the dmca , then they will sue the content maker AND Youtube . It then becomes worth while to pursue because the cost associated with further action against a company like Youtube can be recovered while most content makers aren't worth pursuing by themselves .
Great old article on Wired about this very topic . A content maker makes a video implicating Youtube and everyone has their blinders on . Even one of the very politicians who helped pass the DMCA law asked Youtube to disregard the DMCA provisions so that his campaign videos wouldn't get pulled . There are problems with the law but it isn't Youtube that can solve them . Despite what some of you want to believe , no company has pockets deep enough to be liable to be sued by thousands if not millions of copyright holders . I know you want to believe that Google is too big to fail or they have magical powers to pull political strings to get laws amended but that's not the case .
10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web
http://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/
10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web
http://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,890
- Reaction score
- 0
Sucks for youtubers. Google should hire more employees instead of automatic 30 day suspensions.
It doesn't really help because you need to give each side a reasonable amount of time to respond (some people will be jerks and leave the dispute unanswered for the full 30 days) and a lot of allegations of infringement are not necessarily blatant . Hiring people with no legal experience to "police" claims would also make Youtube liable along with the alleged infringer . So even if they hired live agents that you could talk to , they can't necessarily resolve claims , it's not as simple as if you were to call paypal and dispute a transaction because infringing intellectual property doesn't have black and white rules . With a dispute process like paypal , you either got your item or you didn't or it was the item you ordered or it was a totally different item . These are all black and white applications to dispute resolution that an agent can easily make . But intellectual property infringement and the fair use provision is a broad and vague law and only a judge can determine if you can use other people's intellectual property and how fair use may apply to your situation . Even IP lawyers don't have definite answers . People are forgetting that the internet is not really that old . And the laws we apply to things like Intellectual Property or even Defamation don't always transition well or fast enough to reflect and protect the growth and of use the web . I believe in these are called growing pains .
