With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

Re:With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake ... by LatteLazy on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @03:31AM (#23016429)

I believe the DMCA defacto REQUIRES youtube (and others) to work like this. Once the DMCA take-down comes in, if they leave something up, they become liable if the court case goes against them. So if 1000 takedowns come in, and you correctly leave 999 videos up as fair use etc, you still get demolished on the other 1. Meanwhile the company requesting 999 incorrect takedowns owes you nothing.

This is a key problem with DMCA, it shifts all the risk/cost of deciding cases onto platforms, their only logical response is to take things down, so everything gets taken down.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake ... by icebraining on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @06:31AM (#23017582)

The DMCA process also includes a counter-claim provision: the uploader can simply contest the takedown and have the content reinstated.

But YouTube doesn't follow the DMCA process at all, they have their own procedure, with no such recourse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake ... by LatteLazy on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:46AM (#23018009)

My understanding is that if a uploader does that, youtube has to decide whether to keep it up. If they do, they can then be sued by the right holder if it does infringe. If they take it down, no one can sue them.

So that's a huge incentive to just take everything down.

Effectively the whole point of DCMA (this part at least) is to pierce the common carrier protection platforms have.

Am I wrong? If so, any idea what Youtube don't just let people counterclaim and leave everyone else to argue it out in court?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake ... by icebraining on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @08:13AM (#23018185)

Under the DMCA (technically Section 512), they have to reinstate access to the content at least 10 days and at most 14 days after receiving the counter-notice, in order to keep the safe-harbor (they have to wait 10 days to give time for the rights holder to decide if they want to sue the uploader).

> any idea what Youtube don't just let people counterclaim and leave everyone else to argue it out in court?

Essentially YouTube in the pre-Google days was purposefully uploading infringing videos, and Viacom (and others) used that to sue them and under the settlement agreement forced YouTube to build the Content-ID system and have a more lax takedown system.

[ Parent | on HN ]