Hacker News Reader

Comment by icebraining | Hacker News Reader

Except legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim. So a lawsuit has no leg to stand on. While, on the other hand, they do have an obligation to take copyright infringement complaints very seriously - in fact, ContentID came from one of those "expensive lawsuits".

You need to change the law first.

View on HN

Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. Since they choose to provide monetary compensation based on accusations instead of evidence with a system they created, they would also be responsible for the system that they created facilitating said copyfraud that is knowingly taking money from legitimate copyright holders and giving it to false claimants. If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator, say a book creator, this would be obvious fraud, as it is in this case. I think the case is stronger against YouTube than it will would initially appear.

> Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections.

[citation needed]

> If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator

YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.

The creators uploaded their videos under the premise that they would receive a share of ad revenue. Given that creators retain copyright to the materials keeping all the money and continuing to distribute would seem problematic.

Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.

> legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim

Well, maybe law has to change.

For example, in my country if you offer a service to the public you cannot refuse a customer for no reason. It's intended as an anti-discrimination law, but also as a way to protect customers from abuse.

I think you don't understand what the anti-discrimination law means. That law lists reasons which you can't use to refuse service - and you're free to use any other reason to refuse service. This anti-discrimination law most probably does not force all businesses to provide services to everyone but only businesses with physical public presence.

How do you know how the law works in parent's country?

Because it works the same in most countries, for a good reason. If they were from one of the very few (less than 10) countries where it's that wildly different, I assume they:

1) can't write on Hacker News (more likely)

2) would say it

3) would not use the country as an example of a functioning country

And we don't like Chinese law for a good reason.

There are multiple legs for a suit to stand on, either against Google or the claimants. Bonus points if you registered the works with the corresponding IP department in your country (I think it's the Library of Congress in the US)

Talk to a lawyer

It seems people on the internet try to solve everything with buttons and emails and forget there's a world out there with laws and rights and everything else

Reply on news.ycombinator.com