Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeifCarrotson | Hacker News Reader

It has been restored. Here is the email chain:

EDIT: The following paragraph is incorrect, I was misinformed - see the child post.

Also, this was almost certainly a YouTube takedown request, not a DMCA request. YouTube is free to take down whatever it likes, and Samsung is free to request a takedown for whatever it likes - whether it's a valid copyright claim or not. It's only when Samsung brings it through the courts rather than through YouTube's system that it becomes a DMCA request with legal requirements. Not that censorship or siding with certain companies is good for YouTube's reputation, or that submitting legally-meaningless take down requests is good for Samsung's, but it's important to distinguish the DMCA from simple requests.

View on HN

You're spreading misinformation.

The DMCA requires carriers like Youtube to:

>[A service provider shall not be liable if] (E) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

The Youtube Copyright Strikes system being employed here (which is NOT the ContentID system) IS the DMCA Safe-Harbor compliant take-down system which was designed, developed and used exclusively because of the DMCA law!

The DMCA law does not provide for a government based form or system for takedowns, rather, it places the onus of a takedown system on the safe harbor who wishes to be safe.

This is DMCA request! You just apparently do not realize that the DMCA makes providers like Youtube create their own in-house DMCA take-down mechanisms.

I wouldn't want to spread misinformation! It appears you are correct:

> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

So where in this system is the good faith belief actually evaluated?

The issue is that the burden of validation is so great that the government demanded Google do it themselves, and Google realized the burden is so great that they basically treat all complaints as valid and in good faith, because the effort to actually hand validate each request would make it one of the most labor intensive divisions in all of Alphabet.

In terms of liability, Google would rather prematurely remove content (no penalty) than accidentally leave up covered material (violation of safe harbor, could be used by Verizon et al to indicate in another lawsuit that the entire system is flawed, thus safe harbor protection doesn't apply at all, and Google can be directly sued for violation of copyright, something Verizon would love!)

Good faith is assumed if the complainant is a large corporation. It is only evaluated if the target is owned by a large corporation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com