[blendergeek]

> We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.

So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?

[sneak]

DMCA’s perjury provision is completely toothless; it might as well not be there. It doesn’t even require you affirm a copyright violation, just that you act on behalf of the rightsholder.

This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Barratry law does cover this. I eagerly wait for the day a lawyer is censured for violating their oath with this BS.

[1oooqooq]

misdemeanor. up to 1k fine. if even exists in your state.

so toothless also.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The point is to besmirch their record with the bar association.

[x-complexity]

> The point is to besmirch their record with the bar association.

That effectively means nothing if every copyright lawyer eventually gets one.

In fact, I personally bet that it would be treated as a dividing mark between a newbie copyright lawyer & a professional copyright lawyer.

[krisoft]

> Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video?

Probably not. Youtube has their own system which is not DMCA claim based.

[infinitesoup]

Sounds like he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown, not a Content ID claim.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106

[krisoft]

> not a Content ID claim.

That is my understanding too. We do not have a disagreement on that.

> he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown

Here is where we disagree. A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.

The DMCA takedown process as described in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Title II. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act provides more rights for the content owner whose work got maliciously or mistakenly taken down. They have access to a counter notification process and §512(f) makes those who knowingly materially misrepresent content as infringing liable for damages. You don't have the same rights and affordances with the youtube copyright notification system.

It is similar. If you squint it looks the same. But it is not the same.

[infinitesoup]

> A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.

Yes it is. YouTube doesn’t magically get to ignore the DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with layering Content ID on top to allow for a middle ground where videos can stay up but redirect some or all monetization to the copyright holder).

If you click through the link I posted above, you’ll get to this page which shows the complete process, including the counter-notification step: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830 Do you have reason to believe 3blue1brown can’t file a counter-notification in this case?

[filoeleven]

Does YouTube's system also make a malicious complainer liable for damages? The DMCA does. Here's the relevant section of the law mentioned by krisoft:

(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer [...]

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

The "knowingly" makes it useless.

[krisoft]

Hmmm. I see what you say. You convinced me! Thank you.

[Terr_]

> If so, would this not be perjury?

IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own or aren't authorized to protect.