Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gridaphobe 3027 days ago
Why should it be YouTube’s responsibility to enforce copyright? Shouldn’t the beneficiaries of copyright be the ones to pay for its enforcement? If that were the case we might see many fewer claims, simply because it’s not worth the time/effort.

This doesn’t directly address false positives, or the problem of fair use (which seems to be a real issue on YouTube), but it could be a start.
2 comments
sp332 3027 days ago
Are YouTube beneficiaries of copyright? I think they'd make more money if users were allowed to copy and remix video.

Edit: And Viacom sued them for a billion dollars because YouTube executives knew most of their money was coming from straight-up movie rips anyway. Viacom only lost the lawsuit because the memos didn't name specific videos.

link
icebraining 3027 days ago
Without YouTube's system, you'd have automatic takedowns based on nothing but keywords in the title: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/warner-admits-it...

There's no cost when you have bots sending emails. You'd have to fix the law first.

link
cup-of-tea 3027 days ago
But as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request. The problem is Youtube have their own version of the law and just automatically believe the claimant.
link
icebraining 3027 days ago
there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request

Can you find a single entity that has ever been hit with these "legal repercussions"?

link
ubernostrum 3027 days ago
The responses to you will mostly be people who haven't read the details of the Diebold case and assume that it set a precedent for false claims of infringement; it didn't, and it's still basically impossible to get someone penalized for that.

The issue, as other commenters noted, is that the only claim made under penalty of perjury is that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of a copyrighted work.

The claim that someone has infringed your rights (or the copyright holder's rights) is not made under penalty of perjury. The only way to get someone penalized for it is, essentially, to get them to admit in court "Yeah, I knew it wasn't infringing, but I sent a notice anyway out of malice". Which is, well, pretty much what happened in the Diebold case. Other issuers of mass automated takedown notices are dumb, but not quite that dumb.

link