Just what I was thinking. I also recall that there's case law that simply ignoring fair use in a copyright/trademark claim can demonstrate the claim wasn't made in good faith and can lead to sanctions/award of attorney's fees.
"If Youtube would lift the claim immediatly they would make themself liable, considering it would be akin Youtube making a judgement on the topic."
I would disagree. (Respectfully, of course) As Bruce C. also mentions, if YouTube lifts the claim, then "Under DMCA, if the alleged infringer contests the claim, the next step should be for the claimant to go to court using the identifying info provided during the contestation."
YouTube has already fulfilled their obligation under the DMCA by blocking the potentially infringing content. Any remaining liability is now on the user who uploaded the potentially infringing content. YouTube would still be on the hook for facilitating contact details for the user, but they wouldn't have any underlying liability for any infringement.
(*Not a lawyer, just my opinion on how the law should be interpreted)
"DMCA = if you don't take down content upon notice you become liable for said content.
EU Copyright = You have to do your best (decided by court) to prevent any infringement (ContentID came to be, based on such or similar laws/rulings)
But yeah, keep blaming Youtube for following the laws they are subject to, and yes EU law (and those of all the member states Youtube offers services TO) does apply for Youtube."
But this doesn't mean that YouTube has to use their current process. A counter-notice from a YouTube creator should be enough to lift the block from the original DCMA or EU copyright notice. Then if the party filing the original DCMA or EU copyright notice wants to file a claim in court, they can go ahead.
This may require a user be "verified" or something similar on the front end, but that just makes it easier to hold any YouTube creator liable if it's later determined that there was actual infringement.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Another "Anonymous" Coward.
Re:
Just what I was thinking. I also recall that there's case law that simply ignoring fair use in a copyright/trademark claim can demonstrate the claim wasn't made in good faith and can lead to sanctions/award of attorney's fees.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If Youtube would lift the claim immediatly they would make themself liable, considering it would be akin Youtube making a judgement on the topic."
I would disagree. (Respectfully, of course) As Bruce C. also mentions, if YouTube lifts the claim, then "Under DMCA, if the alleged infringer contests the claim, the next step should be for the claimant to go to court using the identifying info provided during the contestation."
YouTube has already fulfilled their obligation under the DMCA by blocking the potentially infringing content. Any remaining liability is now on the user who uploaded the potentially infringing content. YouTube would still be on the hook for facilitating contact details for the user, but they wouldn't have any underlying liability for any infringement.
(*Not a lawyer, just my opinion on how the law should be interpreted)
Re: Re: Re:
"DMCA = if you don't take down content upon notice you become liable for said content.
EU Copyright = You have to do your best (decided by court) to prevent any infringement (ContentID came to be, based on such or similar laws/rulings)
But yeah, keep blaming Youtube for following the laws they are subject to, and yes EU law (and those of all the member states Youtube offers services TO) does apply for Youtube."
But this doesn't mean that YouTube has to use their current process. A counter-notice from a YouTube creator should be enough to lift the block from the original DCMA or EU copyright notice. Then if the party filing the original DCMA or EU copyright notice wants to file a claim in court, they can go ahead.
This may require a user be "verified" or something similar on the front end, but that just makes it easier to hold any YouTube creator liable if it's later determined that there was actual infringement.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Another "Anonymous" Coward.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt