There isn't and will never be a "strikes" system for false copyright claims.
so while they cant just ignore a claim, they can make it harder to make a claim.
> large quantities of mail to Google's legal department to get handled manually. Complete non-starter,
Why is it an acceptable excuse for trillion-dollar-companies that compliance and manual oversight would incur costs? Like, it costs Ford tens of thousands to make each truck. Why shouldn't Google have to hire some people to oversee their program?
If so, they'd need lawyers in the loop for any decision about denying a fraudulent copyright claim. The cost of that is likely enough to make them prefer the current setup.
1. Claimant files a copyright claim with Google against a video owner. This immediately causes the video to be taken down / revenue to be redirected.
2. Video owner can contest the claim. This immediately causes the video to go back up / revenue to be refunded (or perhaps escrowed pending further procedures).
3. Claimant can now re-file the claim, but putting up enough money to have a real, trained human actually look at the case (I'm thinking on the order of $1000). Video is again immediately taken down, and revenue redirected.
4. The video owner can now re-contest the claim by putting up the same amount of money.
- If the video owner doesn't re-contest the claim, the money is refunded and the process is over.
- If the video owner contests the claim, they put up the same amount of money. A real, trained copyright lawyer looks at the case and decides. Whoever wins gets their money back.
Overall, I’m not sure all of this addresses the asymmetric impact since it could disrupt the primary income stream of a creator, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
A shame if the historical ones are no longer available for anyone to enjoy because of spam copyright claims that nobody's present to contest.
1. It's still better than the current situation, where you're screwed regardless
2. Not even a large corporation is going to be willing to lose $1000 over and over again. The only time it's rational to put up the $1000 is if you're pretty sure you're going to win, or if you're pretty sure the other guy can't pay. I think the chances of any random person being unable to come up with $1000 are reasonably low. So most re-claims should generally be actually valid.
3. Theoretically one could imagine services like bond lenders starting up, which will look at your case and front you the $1000; and if you win you pay them a cut of the refund ($50? $100?). If my predection at the end of #2 turned out to be false, there should be a reasonable market for this sort of thing.
I want to live in the world you live in! In the one I live in 1k is a lot of money to a lot of people to gamble on an uncertain process.
Requiring money up front from either party isn't really a good way to achieve justice.
Blocking legit claims also would not threaten legal protections if done correctly. Under normal circumstances if a content creator is subject to a fraudulent claim they can file a DMCA counter notice, and the creator is required to sue to keep the content down. YouTube just asks the claimant 'is this legit'? And then tells the creator to go screw themselves, even though all they did was ask the claimant whether their fraudulent claim is fraudulent. They're not really following the normal process you're required to follow, they're following a special one they made to stop big companies from harassing them.
Can someone explain how the copyright trolls are able to steal the ad revenue? Do they upload a different video with the "copyrighted" material, or make money off of the one uploaded by the defendant?
Since there's no penalty for the troll, and possible upside, why not do if you have no ethics anyway?
The copyright claimant, which may or may not actually own any such right.
Also, how many TOS and laws would this violate?
Yes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w
> That is, what happens when you file copyright claims against your own works from a second account?
You split half and half with the copyfraudster. If you make more sockpuppets to copystrike yourself, you get proportionally more and deprive the cf, e.g. 4 puppets vs 1 cf splits 80%/20%.
> Also, how many TOS and laws would this violate?
lolwhocares, I'm with emplemon - no respect for broken tos and laws
There are a different set of laws for the wealthy, including wealthy corporations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo
There are several more.
While that was very true 1-2 year ago, I believe the tides have actually shifted and Youtube has done a lot to re-balance this dynamic. Especially since Youtube v Brady [0], which was an exact example of the abuse you described.
From my understanding, the person receiving the copyright claim now has more power to contest it. So much so that there recently was drama from the other side, with a creator claiming their account was in danger because they tried to take down a copied video and the person contested it [1]. Take a look at the email from Youtube in that video for a taste of how the new system works [2].
It's still far from perfect, and as shown above, it can also backfire the other way around, but it does seem like they are providing more tools for creators to defend themselves. Previously the only option was to get a lawyer and go to court. Clearly not ideal.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/man-sued-for-usi...
Einstein said that "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything". This probably puts most of passive non-users of google as culprits in their wrong-doings.
But the case of people who voluntarily partake in the perpetration of google services is different. There's no "probably", here; their moral standing is clear-cut. I'm unable to feel any sympathy towards them. Not even to say "it's unfortunate, but they had it coming". If you have a google account or use google services you are directly responsible of their evil deeds. At this point, complaining that they are unfair towards you is hypocritical.
Google is nothing without its users.
Since you reference federal law and not a Google-specific policy here, perhaps the issue is Congress, nto Google.
The reference to federal law wasn't to the DMCA safe harbor, but to the repeat-infringer termination rule. The Google termination process fulfills that requirement rather than preempting it.
> Congress has already considered fraudulent claims, but Google has/will not.
Insofar as the first part is true, its only in the sense that Congress essentially gave carte blanche to fradulent claims since the only consequence for false takedown notices apply only to the assertion of ownership or representation of the owner of some asserted copyright, not the part where you claim that someone is using the copyright protected material in an infringing manner.
Edit: OK, ThrustVectoring and thanksforfish already pointed out the flaws in that argument.
If creators have to work under a "3 copyright strikes" Sword of Damocles[1], the accounts of people making copyright claims need similar restriction. If you submit 3 fraudulent copyright claims, you lose your account. You cannot submit any more claims, "content id" no longer flags your works, and you no longer receive payments from any ad revenue claims on other videos. This may sound harsh, but so is deleting someone's channel after 3 copyright claims.
[1] 17 U.S. Code § 512 (i) (1) ...The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers