451
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
451 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
6306 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just because a claim doesn't stand in court, doesn't make it fraudulent. Actual fraudulent claims have landed people in prison.
ETA: Once again, I have no idea why I am being down-voted. The copyright fanatics here are really something else.
You are missing the point.
Well, what is the point?
The burden of proof is on the wrong party and convictions for fraudulent dmca claims are extremely rare.
Most false claims are not fraudulent. The burden of proof is where US law puts it.
Thanks for explaining how people see this.
You're talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you'd see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don't have to deal with so much shit.
I understand the insanity. They want a private company to prosecute "fraud". Yikes. Less Ayn Rand and more civics lessons, please.
The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody's copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.
However, that's not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody's legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.
So your concern is legitimate, but it's ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it's unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That's what I'd say we should be pushing for, but it's also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.
Thanks for the explanation. You are certainly more polite and productive than most people here.
The DMCA gives explicit rules on takedowns in section c here. Complying with DMCA notices is not adjudicating the law, nor prosecuting anyone. It is simply taking the necessary steps to avoid liability. If youtube were to prosecute fraudulent DMCA notices, then it would be engaging in (probably) criminal vigilantism.
Courts have ruled that merely reacting to DMCA notices is not sufficient to avoid liability. Youtube was taken to court over this, and Content ID is the result. (EU law is considerably harsher and positively demands something like it,)
It was a predicted consequence of these laws that they would favor major rights-holders. Mind that the same people here, who want youtube to adjudicate the law, also are against fair use. They would have cheered these lawsuits against youtube/Big Tech, just as cheer now cheer lawsuits against fair use. They want more capitalism. Maybe they delude themselves into thinking that more of the same will have a different outcome.
Just FYI. I downvoted you for the whiny edit.