Re:Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not cl...
by cmeacham98 on Friday December 27, 2024 @12:30PM
(#42524104)
> You can't just say that you don't want to host any content that goes through a counter notice.
Why not? (at least legally speaking, it'd be a PR disaster I'm sure)
YouTube is not obligated to host any videos on their platform and US law allows for businesses to discriminate for almost any reason (except specific protected classes like race or sex).
Re:Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not cl...
by stackskipton on Friday December 27, 2024 @03:01PM
(#42525516)
They have to comply with DMCA. However, YouTube commonly strikes stuff without DMCA claims or when they get DMCA claim, they remove the video and will not give video owner a chance to counter claim. They will just say "Yea, we got DMCA but now we are exercising our provision to refuse to host anything we don't want to so video is never going back up."
* YouTube has no liability for incorrect take-downs (17 USC § 512 (g) (1))
* That limitation on liability only exists if they restore access to the disabled material within 10-14 business days of receipt of a counter-notice (17 USC § 512 (g) (2) (C))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
YouTube doesn't have to host any content they don't want to. However, it seems likely that a court would say "that doesn't absolve you of complying with the counter notice provisions of the DMCA. You can't just say that you don't want to host any content that goes through a counter notice." There are always limitations on the whole "we don't have to host things we don't want to." I doubt a court would let them use that as an excuse to ignore an explicit mandate of the DMCA, but IANAL.
I think the problem is more likely that creators don't want to sue YouTube or have the resources to go up against Google.