[infinitesoup]

But YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law. Their Content ID system provides an automated way to detect potential infringement by large copyright holders and redirect ad revenue to them, but if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA claim to take down the video, and the uploader can respond with a counter notice to put the video back up. Of course, the copyright holder can choose to jump ahead to filing a DMCA notice at any point, bypassing some or all of the Content ID process. I'm guessing that most wouldn't do that, though, because the DMCA process is not automated, has strict timelines built in, and only allows for takedown (whereas Content ID allows for videos to stay up but make ad revenue for them). Without Content ID system, I'm guessing we'd be back in the days where the big copyright holders would just spam DMCA notices and end up with a lot more videos taken down.

(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).

[jjoonathan]

> if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA

I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."

Is this true?

[infinitesoup]

Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the case you're describing.

[slavik81]

That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to it either.

[jjoonathan]

Yes, and if there is official lawyerly language about certifying the truth of your choices, the distinction is important. Sounds like a dark pattern.

[infinitesoup]

There's a different option for if the video is public domain or otherwise not copyrightable to handle this case. I assume that that "lawyerly language" is to dissuade users from abusing the process and choosing an option when it's not really true.

[jjoonathan]

Nearly every video is going to be an amalgamation of original content, licensed work, and public domain work, yet the listed alternatives you've presented both clearly apply to entire videos, forcing the content creator to lie if they want to go forward with a dispute.

It seems quite bonkers that you disagree with the "disputes are discouraged by forced lying" narrative yet keep posting evidence to support it.

Ah well. It's not my fight. I should be grateful for that.

[rasz]

Why would the care tho? Its between YT uploader and alleged IP owner.

[0xcde4c3db]

> YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law.

As far as I know, it's not required. Rather, if a provider doesn't do it, they can be found liable for contributory infringement when a user posts infringing content.

[infinitesoup]

Yes, sorry, you're right -- they do it to keep the safe harbor protection (which is the only sane option when running a video sharing website).