undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeorgemcbay13y ago0 comments

Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.

0 comments

DannyBee13y ago

There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not. There is no "kinda legal but maybe not". While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is.

So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action.

You could also try personal suits for tortuous interference with contractual relationships (Lionsgate is deliberately interfering with your relationship with Youtube). It may be viable in some states (others, definitely not).

There are plenty of options here, youtube shouldn't be deciding this stuff any more than anyone else (for example github complies with DMCA requests, and counter-notifications, despite what they think of the actual situation).

georgemcbayOP13y ago

I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where:

Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use.

Studio X files DMCA to Google.

Google automatically disables the video

Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved.

(So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account)

But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile.

This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.

DannyBee13y ago

So, something is not non-infringing just because someone drops a single DMCA claim.

Sadly, even in that case, the future DMCA's are just as valid, and Google would likely be just as liable, even if they are doing it abusively.

Again, the abuse is something to get a judge to look at, not Google.

Without a declaratory judgement of non-infringement in hand, there is actually nothing to say it's non-infringing, all you've done is get someone to drop a DMCA claim.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

DannyBee13y ago

There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not. There is no "kinda legal but maybe not". While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is.

So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action.

georgemcbayOP13y ago

I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where:

Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use.

Studio X files DMCA to Google.

Google automatically disables the video

Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved.

(So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account)

DannyBee13y ago

So, something is not non-infringing just because someone drops a single DMCA claim.

Sadly, even in that case, the future DMCA's are just as valid, and Google would likely be just as liable, even if they are doing it abusively.

Again, the abuse is something to get a judge to look at, not Google.

Without a declaratory judgement of non-infringement in hand, there is actually nothing to say it's non-infringing, all you've done is get someone to drop a DMCA claim.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse