Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

For one thing they could require people to submit real DMCA notices. YouTube's system isn't DMCA-based, and as much as I dislike the DMCA, it still provides greater protections than YouTube's system does.

That's how bad YouTube's draconian copyright system is, the DMCA is an "upgrade."

View on HN

Note that if 'real' DMCA notices were to be the norm, then YouTube, by law, would be unable to give back access to materials before 10 business days expired, and only after receiving a valid DMCA counter-notice[0].

Compare this to the current system where they actually have the ability to evaluate the content ID notice independently and then make adjustments. They may not always use that ability, but at least they have it. With DMCA, their hands are tied.

Specifically, 17 US code 512 (g)(2)(C) (emphasis mine):

"(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network."

That's two full weeks (not including weekends and holidays), where even if the DMCA is clearly bogus, they have no choice but to keep the content offline if they want to keep their safe harbour status.

So it may not be the best system, but the DMCA isn't either.

[0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 section (g)

That's not quite true. YouTube does have to follow the DMCA as required by law, and so they do so accordingly.

They also have a separate automated system ("Content ID"), which can automatically block videos or put ads on them and pay the content owner (the latter being a unique feature not possible with just the DMCA), and because it's controlled by YouTube and is more flexible than the law, it provides a generally better experience to the uploader compared to getting a DMCA takedown notice.

If an uploader gets a Content ID claim, then they can dispute it, and if the person making that claim is forced to file a regular DMCA takedown if they want the video to be taken down. Content ID is just the initial step in some cases, but at any point in the process, the DMCA takedown process can be invoked.

> If an uploader gets a Content ID claim, then they can dispute it, and if the person making that claim is forced to file a regular DMCA takedown if they want the video to be taken down.

I don't believe that's true. The claimant can merely tell YouTube, "no, my claim is legit" and YouTube trusts them implicitly without requiring a DMCA notice. While the claimant could produce a DMCA notice at any point, ContentID doesn't require them to to knock the video offline.

After the uploader disputes an automated claim, the claimant can uphold it as you described, but the user then has the option to appeal that claim. The only way to settle that appeal is for the claimant to either drop the claim or at that point file a DMCA takedown. That's the process I was describing. YouTube has information on the process here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en (look under "What happens after I appeal?")

Agreed, not to mention that to fight any notice in YouTube, you have limited options - as in, you are presented with a form that has radio buttons, of which none of the responses are 'this claim is without merit'.

I've had to battle YT multiple times over music or content which I owned the rights to. In many cases, I was the creator of the content in question.

I just looked on some of the claims I've gotten on my own videos, an one of the options for a dispute is "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.", which I think sums up the problem you were facing.

It's not to do with what the other options are though, the issue is that they have been forced to operate in the way they currently are. Commercially speaking the benefits to making the system fairer to creators are clear for YouTube - I am sure they are aware of just how unpopular their current systems are.

No, they are not. In fact they are aggressively defending themselves against the music industry (big-time manager Irving Azoff wrote and open letter yesterday) and claiming everything they do is awesome. Azoff points out their approach is actually more of a strong-arm tactic and, in some respects, an abuse of the DMCA, which YouTube chooses to simply shrug off. It's a contentious issue but making it sound like "poor little ol' YouTube is getting bullied!" is simply wrong, as they have serious profit motive to keep their questionable approach going as long as possible.

how does something like that scale to the size of youtube?

It doesn't, not without lots of labor, and that's sort of the crux of the issue...

A YouTube replacement will be better in this respect only as long as they remain small and under the radar of the movie/record industry. :/

At some point, Google might have to hire (gasp!) actual human beings to provide customer support, instead of just relying on their crappy unfriendly automated systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com