Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 10 posts ] 
Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?
Author Message
CaseUser avatarPosts: 1080Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:40 pm Gender: Cake

Post Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

Youtube just needs to change the DMCA policy according to the principle "Innocent until proven guilty". Some jackass makes the claim, same jackass needs to provide proof.
Is that too much of a hassle to YT? Do they think it was?
I am determined that my children shall be brought up in their father's religion, if they can find out what it is.
Charles Lamb (1775 - 1834)

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:47 am
TheFlyingBastardUser avatarPosts: 787Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:17 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

They probably have this policy so legit copyright owners (such as the music industry) won't take them to court for any preliminary injunctions.
Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:52 am
WWW
damaxmanPosts: 7Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:33 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

I must concur, it is not the fault of YouTube (or Google as it were.) They are just legally covering their asses, as we would all do in this same situation. Yes it would be nice if they took into account the massive amount of false DMCA notices, but we can't expect to push them beyond their legal responsibilities. Besides, us atheists have an unwritten pact on YT, where when one video falls, we unite to counter-act the effect by method of multiple mirrors. Take it any way you choose, but I LOVE you guys. =)
Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:21 pm
Ce4orUser avatarPosts: 10Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:45 pm

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

Would google accept volunteer moderators for the various genre's on youtube to view DMCA'd videos and pass it on if they think it appropriate ?
I am not concerned that I have no place, I am concerned how I may fit myself for one.
I am not concerned that I am not known, I seek to be worthy to be known.
Be true to the principles-of our nature and the benevolent exercise
of them to others.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:46 am
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3527Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

damaxman wrote:I must concur, it is not the fault of YouTube (or Google as it were.) They are just legally covering their asses, as we would all do in this same situation. Yes it would be nice if they took into account the massive amount of false DMCA notices, but we can't expect to push them beyond their legal responsibilities. Besides, us atheists have an unwritten pact on YT, where when one video falls, we unite to counter-act the effect by method of multiple mirrors. Take it any way you choose, but I LOVE you guys. =)

There was a public google doc a while back that included a long list of suggestions for ways for google to modify the DMCA thing so that they could both avoid getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA/**AA, *and* hinder the false DMCAs. I can't remember where it went to, or what it was called, and I sadly don't have time to try to find it, right now.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:14 am
TheFlyingBastardUser avatarPosts: 787Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:17 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

damaxman wrote:Take it any way you choose, but I LOVE you guys. =)

I'm gay. I will.

Ce4or wrote:Would google accept volunteer moderators for the various genre's on youtube to view DMCA'd videos and pass it on if they think it appropriate ?

Don't think so. They'd be afraid of bias. Imagine what would happen if NephilimFree volunteered as a moderator. :D
Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:33 pm
WWW
AmeristPosts: 73Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:34 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

It would be nice if there were statutory damages attached to DMCA perjury. "By signing this document you are submitting an affidavit that everything you have stated above is true. And should it be determined at a future date that you willfully misrepresented your ownership of the materials, you could become culpable for statutory costs of $X (a set amount the recoup processing costs) + $Y per hour that the recipients video is offline due to the execution proceeding from your affidavit."

The primary reason why YouTUBE and other safe-haven media distributors must take down first and ask questions later is really to protect copyright holders from predicted oncoming monetary damages (via the continuation of the crime of infringing on their copyright); however, a person perjuring themselves about material they do not own therefore inflicts damages (either social or monetary) through the use of the DMCA. While most videos would not produce losses because most of us don't make money on our videos, both the time and energy of the government and YouTUBE get wasted, and the person who suffered a suppression of their speech at the hands of the government does represent something. So some sort of statutory punishment would be nice.

It may be a logistics problem that this wasn't written in, or it was expected that basic perjury charges would cover the false affidavit part.

I am working under the assumption that a DMCA notice is an affidavit of truth by the submitter and that it would in fact carry some sort of punishment for lying if someone chose to pursue it. And that the current threshold for anyone to ever pursue that has never been met -- i.e. no overworked bureaucrat cares that Joe from Tempe with her 600 subscribers had her video taken down for a month because someone filed a false affidavit and/or she doesn't have the resources, knowhow, or energy to attempt to file charges herself (if she even has standing to do so).

Right now the reward for lying is much higher than the risk and this creates a culture of brats who abuse that power.
Vex's Arsenal Volume 1: THE BYZANTIUM OUTCAST (ebook) - In Phoenix, when you buy things at yard sales, you never know what you'll get.
Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
DeathofSpeechUser avatarPosts: 220Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:28 pmLocation: I can't know with certainty Gender: Tree

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

Case wrote:Youtube just needs to change the DMCA policy according to the principle "Innocent until proven guilty". Some jackass makes the claim, same jackass needs to provide proof.
Is that too much of a hassle to YT? Do they think it was?



YT doesn't need to do anything that would impede timely action. Nowhere in the DMCA are they required to process a claim that is not backed by positive ID.

YT is expressly forbidden to distribute personal info without a federal court subpoena DMCA Section 512 (C), which must meet the standard of 512 (H), which requires verified legal ID, and a show cause to believe not only that lesser measures than direct legal action against the poster are required, but that the claim made is valid on its face.

The full text of the DMCA is posted online. I don't believe that anyone need assume anything about this issue. The document is very clear about what is required and what is allowed. Preemptive takedown is not required it need only be "timely." Takedown is only required when a burden of proof of identity is met, it does not require necessarily that proof of ownership also be presented, but that the claim made be accountable. Distribution of personal info is forbidden without a defined legal process.

Our attention seems to have been redirected away from YouTube with vague claims that the DMCA requires what they are doing. It does not.
YouTube is engaged in a low cost expedient solution that places their users in actual physical danger.
Reason Bran, with two scoops of Objectivity in every box and loaded with Bran fiber goodness...
...you'll never be full of shit again.


Science - You can see why it works.
Religion - You can't see why it doesn't work
Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:45 pm
MithcorielPosts: 86Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:59 pm

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

I can see that they can't accept volunteers to look through their vids to see if the DMCA is justified.
But I wish they would hire employees to do so. And if you file a counter-claim, you agree to pay 5$ or whatever to have the video looked at (and maybe if there is no copyright-violating content, the party making the DMCA has to pay).
Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:09 pm
DeathofSpeechUser avatarPosts: 220Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:28 pmLocation: I can't know with certainty Gender: Tree

Post Re: Solution to false DMCA is so simple... isn't it?

Mithcoriel wrote:I can see that they can't accept volunteers to look through their vids to see if the DMCA is justified.
But I wish they would hire employees to do so. And if you file a counter-claim, you agree to pay 5$ or whatever to have the video looked at (and maybe if there is no copyright-violating content, the party making the DMCA has to pay).


They don't need to do any of that. All they need to do is require positive legal identification before the form is accepted. This can be done by digital notary. I make frequent use of one myself. She comes to my door. It costs me a whole $25 per document. The difficulty in finding one in the area, requires that real estate must be habitually for sale in a range of a few hundred miles. So people who live in places like Mars might have a legitimate issue.

Legitimate corporate interests either have a notary they contract with, or one on staff.

Accountability will prevent anonymous claims.

YouTube already has a mechanism in place to proxy personal information. You see this each time you email address is notified of comment response or channel activity.
There is absolutely no excuse for YT to hand out personal information unless and until a subpoena is issued. Proxying account identity would allow a legitimate claimant to file, and inform the user of the specific violation, and would also allow the channel owner to respond informally... Polite requests in legitimate cases usually result in compliance. Exposing identity information however does not make this any more likely and exposing identity information to anonymous persons, increases the likelihood of abuse.

YouTube has all the tools already in place. All that is required is that they use them. The only motivation they need, is the cost of the liability suit and bad press that will result the first time a cyberstalker gains access to, and abuses the information that YT is forbidden to distribute without a subpoena.
Reason Bran, with two scoops of Objectivity in every box and loaded with Bran fiber goodness...
...you'll never be full of shit again.


Science - You can see why it works.
Religion - You can't see why it doesn't work
Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:20 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 10 posts ] 
Return to Fighting Censorship

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests