tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post2536979551610031523..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: More detail on Kevin Lee YouTube takedowns from Ars Technica (which flubs the law)Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-38094067172522728802009-01-18T06:58:00.000-08:002009-01-18T06:58:00.000-08:00Mr. Seitz --Do you have any specific examples of Y...Mr. Seitz --<BR/><BR/>Do you have any specific examples of YouTube replacing videos immediately upon receipt of a counternotice (i.e., without waiting at least 10 business days to see if the copyright owner files a lawsuit)? In our discussions with YouTube during the McCain campaign, YouTube said they would not budge from their stated policy, which tracks the DMCA, of keeping the videos down during the 10-14 day window. I'd be very interested in knowing about any deviations from this practice.<BR/><BR/>I don't think this is a matter of YouTube "giving copyright owners the benefit of the doubt" or not -- they simply refuse to be in the business of making infringement determinations at all. They automatically take down videos upon receipt of a DMCA notices, and automatically repost 10-14 days after receipt of a counternotice (if no lawsuit is filed).Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-24666208248475977132009-01-17T18:44:00.000-08:002009-01-17T18:44:00.000-08:00"This is wrong. YouTube does not automatically rep...<I>"This is wrong. YouTube does not automatically repost the video upon receipt of a counternotice.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Maybe YouTube's official policy is to keep all taken-down videos away from the public space for 10-14 days. But in my experience with DMCA takedown notices, while they immediately take down the video (or mute the soundtrack, depending on the case) they do repost immediately upon contention. <BR/><BR/>Then, of course, they take it down if they decide it infringes, or leave it up indefinitely if it doesn't. <BR/><BR/>I think Ars Technica is right on this point. <BR/><BR/>As to the larger consensus that YouTube can do whatever it wants because it's a private company, that might be true in a general sense. But in giving copyright owners the benefit of the doubt in pretty much every instance -- even when the copyright owner itself clearly has not looked at the work in question before saying it infringes copyright -- YouTube has gotten itself into a situation where it's a regular accomplice to countless instances of one party (a copyright holder) falsely accusing another party (the filmmakers whose work YouTube invites) of federal crimes related to intellectual property. <BR/><BR/>Falsely accusing someone else can be a criminal offense, particularly if the accuser is willfully ignorant of whether a crime has, in fact, been committed. The defense of this behavior by YouTube and copyright holders (and those who are predisposed to defend them in cases like Kevin's) is something along the lines of, "No, we don't check the video before making such accusations, finding the filmmaker guilty of copyright violation, taking the work down and effectively branding the filmmaker a criminal -- this stuff is all handled by software, nobody actually looks at any of it, and besides, it takes a lot of time and money to be more careful, and we're really, really busy."<BR/><BR/>That doesn't sound like a very good defense to me. <BR/><BR/>"We're a private company, if you don't like it go somewhere else" will only get you so far. Not just because people might actually so somewhere else, but because the specifics of the company's conduct are so contrary to the principles upon which YouTube was originally founded. <BR/><BR/>I agree it's a big Internet out there, and expecting YouTube or copyright holders to watch every single video before accusing filmmakers of copyright violation (sight-unseen in some cases) is too much to ask. <BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean the system is fine as-is, and people making fair-use protected video criticism have no substantive grounds to complain about it. <BR/><BR/>The notice-and-takedown system should probably be amended, or perhaps suspended, until the digital watermark-detecting technology can be fine-tuned into making rudimentary distinctions between piracy and commentary.Matt Zoller Seitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16921028537989131859noreply@blogger.com