[bryanrasmussen]

Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright infringement slander him? The damage can be shown in the money he lost out on, but I mean I guess his reputation is also damaged with Google by the accusation. It was definitely a realistic accusation that someone might believe as Google evidently believed it.

[darkpuma]

> "Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright infringement slander him?"

Probably, but who is he supposed to sue over it? It's far from clear who the 'company' is. He could sue John Doe and then get youtube to reveal what they know, but he may very likely discover that the 'company' is just some guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit about him or his plight.

[bryanrasmussen]

Maybe, but I guess the guy has some assets now.

I mean if it is a guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit I don't think that suit will drag on that long and probably wouldn't be too expensive to litigate. It's only if the guy has assets in a country that does give a shit that will want to fight, and if that's the case they're probably screwed.

[thirdsun]

I guess the right thing for Youtube to do is to simply suspend any payouts, but continue monetization until the dispute is resolved. Once that happens the rightful owner of the content should receive any pending payouts.

[londons_explore]

Doesn't slander only apply to public statements, rather than something privately told to another company?

[icebraining]

It depends on the jurisdiction, but I believe in many countries and US states there is no such restriction, it just has to be false and harm the reputation.