[forrestthewoods]

This is in an incredibly frustrating conversation. You keep responding to statements I didn't make.

I know how copyright law works. I know how the DMCA works. I know what legal obligations all involved parties do and do not have. I am not an ignorant child. For us to have an adult conversation you'll have to give me some benefit of the doubt.

Now. To say it again. I did not claim that Udemy had a legal obligation to flag or identify copyright infringing content. What I did say is that their 125 DMCA figure is meaningless bullshit. It's bullshitness is orthogonal to their responsibility (or lack thereof).

Moving on. I, again, did not say that Facebook had a legal obligation. I said that, in my opinion, they had a moral obligation. Freebooting is a major problem. I provided a video you can watch to learn more about it.

Next. I never said anything that implied I was surprised over a mere hundred notices. I have no idea how you inferred surprise. I said that number is significantly lower than the actual number of copyright infringing videos on their site. Which is a statement to be taken at face value. The number of notices other companies, such as Google, receive is not relevant.

[Natsu]

I'm not sure of another way to point out that your belief in some nebulous moral responsibility was not given any foundation other than your own opinion. Even if something like Freebooting is a problem, it is not logical to impose obligations, whether moral or legal, on people who lack the information required to accurately judge the situation. This is why I keep pointing out that only the copyright holder and those they inform (say, via DMCA notices) has any actual knowledge of what is and is not infringement.

I cannot take that statement about the "actual number" of infringing videos being much higher at face value. It requires making too many assumptions without evidence, not the least of which is that none of the notices they have received is bogus. It does not appear to be based on evidence, as the actual notices mentioned are not on Lumen for public review. Given that your profile claims that you work for Uber Entertainment and not someone close to this story, I have to ask how you can claim that as fact when it does not appear that the general public has access to the information required to claim that as fact, given that said facts do not appear to be publicly available.

Interestingly, in attempting to find a way to review the notices more objectively, I found what appears to be your company. From the notice text, it would appear that you're using the DMCA to assert trademark claims and possibly EULA violations without making any clear case for infringement in the notice, whether or not you actually had any such claims: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/616095#

So it might be interesting to discuss the implications of Crossfit, Inc. v. Alvies with your attorney sometime: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=13f9814f-b56e-...

Of course, I realize that I can't be sure that's actually your company as there might be some other Uber Entertainment out there other than the one listed in your profile. If that were that the case, though, you'd have trademark issues that need sorting out.

But if that notice does belong to your company, they don't seem to know as much about the DMCA as you do. There's no registered DMCA agent, for example - http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/u_agents.html - and you do have forums where users can submit content. Compare that with YC: https://news.ycombinator.com/dmca.html