YouTube and Uploaded Could Be Liable For Pirating Users, Court Rules (torrentfreak.com) 36
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Platforms such as YouTube and Uploaded could be directly liable for the copyright-infringing uploads of their users. The German Federal Court of Justice came to this conclusion based on advice from the EU's top court. Several liability lawsuits will now be sent back to the lower court to decide whether damages are indeed warranted.
The Federal Court's decision opens the door to a potential liability ruling. Whether damages are indeed warranted depends on the situation, which will require review by the lower courts. In essence, the courts will now have to decide whether the measures YouTube and Uploaded have taken in response to the reported copyright infringements are sufficient. As such, it will be among the first cases where the "upload filter" requirements of the Copyright Directive will be put to the test.
The Federal Court's decision opens the door to a potential liability ruling. Whether damages are indeed warranted depends on the situation, which will require review by the lower courts. In essence, the courts will now have to decide whether the measures YouTube and Uploaded have taken in response to the reported copyright infringements are sufficient. As such, it will be among the first cases where the "upload filter" requirements of the Copyright Directive will be put to the test.
Guess time to attack copyright laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess time to attack copyright laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright law has not kept up with the evolution of our technological and cultural landscape. It is now causing more harm than good. It needs an overhaul.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the existence of video sharing sites like YouTube mean that person shouldn't be able to control the creation of copies of videos they make any more?
You want more DMCAs? Keep asking for copyright reforms that handle new technologies. You won't get what you're asking for...
You don't seem to get you live in a lawless oligarchy, copyright laws have been extended every time over the last 200 years whenever big business asked, democrats and republicans gave away the store.
You don't seem to grasp they are not going to give up, they are in a war to dispossess you of the right to own and buy stuff. You seem to be unaware of the war on software ownership over the last 23+ years, starting with ultima online in 1997.
Up until that point 99% of software was honest text based binaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Man fuck that (Score:2)
Not that I am going to cry over YouTube's margins but media companies already exert so much control over these platforms, not a lick of media gets uploaded without it passing through their approval filters and videos are routinely taken down by their bots.
If someone is clever enough to slip something through they want money from the platforms now? They'll just never be fucking happy until all media is under their control.
If I'm correct this won't fly in the US, does Section 230 cover video uploads?
Re:Man fuck that (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm correct this won't fly in the US, does Section 230 cover video uploads?
Yes. YouTube (and all the others) cannot be sued for copyright infringement if they take down videos when a complaint is made.
But, this has an unintended side-effect. There is no meaningful penalty or enforcement against people who make false copyright claims. A very large amount of content that should be protected by Fair Use gets taken down every day because that's the fastest/easiest way to deal with a copyright claim.
If you don't like someone, it's relatively easy to get their stuff taken down by making false copyright claims. I know because it has happened to me.
Re: (Score:2)
A very large amount of content that should be protected by Fair Use gets taken down every day because that's the fastest/easiest way to deal with a copyright claim.
Fair use is a defense you can claim when sued for copyright infringement. A judge rules on the merits of the defense.
It's not up to YouTube to decide which way a judge would rule on it if the copyright holder were to sue.
That's what a counternotice is for (Score:5, Insightful)
Under DMCA, you can assert fair use BEFORE a suit is even files with the court and YouTube has to restore the content, ifnot you can sue YouTube for failing to do so.
Someone sends in a "this is copyright infringement" letter under DMCA, the uploader can similarly send one right the back saying "no, it isn't infringing" the site has to put the content back. It's a counternotice.
At that point, the complainant can take it to federal court if they want to send the time and money.
Back in the 1990s, that seemed like a fair process to most of us. We didn't anticipate that some assholes would start blasting out reckless legal notices via automated processes. If they did, abuse of process was already actionable anyway. We didn't think we needed that existing law repeated within DMCA. Obviously, we did. It's now clear there should have been statutory damages for recklessly sending bogus notices.
Re: (Score:1)
ifnot you can sue YouTube for failing to do so.
But, but, but it's their platform and they can do what they want under free speech, including not allowing you to upload!
Re: (Score:2)
Under DMCA, you can assert fair use BEFORE a suit is even files with the court and YouTube has to restore the content
The counter-notice only means that YouTube can't be sued for copyright relating to your upload. That may make them feel safe to make your upload available again but they're under no obligation to do so.
Did you cut it off in mid-sentence intentially? (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize you cut that sentence off in the middle, right?
If they do not restore the content after counter-notice, they lose the safe harbor - you can sue them for damages.
HOW MUCH you'll get, what damages you can prove, varies case by case. It could be anywhere from zero million of dollars. (With the vast majority being close to zero).
Re: (Score:2)
If they do not restore the content after counter-notice, they lose the safe harbor - you can sue them for damages.
Unless the rights holder notifies YouTube that they're suing you.
But the technicalities of the DCMA don't often matter. YouTube has contracts with large rights holders under which they simply notify YouTube which content they want taken down with no formal DCMA notifications required. That's the reason behind a large percentage of take-downs and there's no counter-notice procedure available in those cases.
SImply not true (Score:2)
Neither of those statements is true.
Youtube DOES have a button for you to click to do a counter-notice.
Here's the step-by-step, click-by-clik process for Youtube:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
The form that large rightsholders use with Youtube contains the URL and the assertion, so it IS a DMCA notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Under DMCA, you can assert fair use BEFORE a suit is even files with the court and YouTube has to restore the content
How? What's the process...?
In Youtube, click the button (Score:2)
I don't know if you're asking about the counter notice process generally, or Youtube specific. Youtube has a button to click. More generally, you send a letter / email something like this:
https://gimmelaw.com/sample-fo... [gimmelaw.com]
For Youtube specifically:
Sign in to YouTube Studio.
From the left menu, select Content.
Select Filter and then Copyright claims and find impacted video.
In the Restrictions column, hover over Copyright claim.
Click SEE DETAILS.
Under Actions, click SELECT ACTION and then Submit counter notific
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use is a defense you can claim when sued for copyright infringement. A judge rules on the merits of the defense.
It's not up to YouTube to decide which way a judge would rule on it if the copyright holder were to sue.
I had a video taken down because it contained 10 seconds a of 3-hour movie made in the 1950s. The clip was of historical interest because it showed an old Indian exercise technique.
I fail to see how anything could be more "fair use" than that. Youtube has no humans in the loop and no appeals process, do I really have to take Youtube to court and sue them? Who's going to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, this has an unintended side-effect. There is no meaningful penalty or enforcement against people who make false copyright claims. A very large amount of content that should be protected by Fair Use gets taken down every day
Also a lot of stuff that is original content. I know a guy who played a single synthesizer sound in a video and Youtube took it down claiming it was a Daft Punk song.
What's needed is a working appeals process and penalties for wrongful takedowns. Penalties that are as stiff as the penalties for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly the there are multiple problems on all sides, but to narrow things down:
1. Youtube can not correctly identify anything.
a) It can not identify public domain sounds or music
b) it can not identify a user who lifts a public domain copyrighted work and puts it in their own
c) it can not correctly identify the correct owner of music that has been remixed or nightcore'd
d) it can not correctly identify the correct owner licensed music when it's in a video game or a film
Like just to bring home the point abou
the DMCA BS is why some old aracde games are not i (Score:2)
the DMCA BS is why some old aracde games are not in MAME but they should be what is going to happen when the hardware / rom / hdd dies and there are no more replacements.
Re: (Score:1)
- The Copyright Cartels.
Well there's only one option (Score:3)
Shut down German YouTube to save the rest of the worlds content
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of EU though. Would probably have to shut down all of Europe's youtube?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever is necessary
Full article more nuanced (Score:5, Insightful)
Hosts have an obligation to take down pirated materials in a timely fashion, and if they think they're too big to bother respecting the law, then I look forward to them being clobbered by the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it is mostly about the huge volume of uploads and copyright claims, some of the latter justified and others not. For YouTube, it would be quite expensive to have those sorted out by humans. Perhaps to the point where their business model would become unsustainable. So they try to do it the cheap way, and only if they get push-back they will do something else.
Bullshit anyways (Score:1)
So they require uploaded to police their content. That will not work. Basically technology will advance a bit and we will be back were we are. The problem with the copyright mafia is that they are firmly stuck in a broken business model. The classic entertainment model is that the entertainers perform and if it was good, a _part_ of the audience gives. If it is crap (as so much "AAA" content these days), the audience does not give. The classic model works and has kept the arts alive for thousands of years a
clickbait title (Score:2)