Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlang23 | Hacker News Reader

I've said that in a comment about a similar article recently, and it needs to be repeated here: Google is actually helping big players to harass small groups into submission. And they are using their copyright system as a weapon. But nobody questions the sloppy execution of that self-declared law enforcement. I guess they are deliberately trying what they can get away with, to set the ground for future harassment.

View on HN

I don't think Google is the main culprit here.

The big players have big lawyers. And they fell on YouTube like vultures the moment Google bought it. Google essentially had no choice if they wanted to keep YouTube alive in a way that isn't a massive loss for them. Small groups don't have what it takes to defend themselves, so it is obvious which way Google is going.

The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is very little penalties for bogus claims.

Still, I don't think what Google does now is good, and I think it will be their downfall if they don't correct course. It is understandable, but it definitely looks like the company is run by robots running a Monte-carlo simulation. It is a very good way of solving computational problems, but it not really compatible with the way human work.

In the future, I expect tech giants dominance to erode thanks to companies that actually look like they are being run by humans who care about their customers/partners/users. There are stories all over the web about customers being shut down with no reason given. Technically, Google may have excellent security and reliability, but I don't want my business to depend on what is from my point of view, a dice-rolling company.

Let us be clear: what Google does has nothing to do with DMCA. This is entirely out of their own volition.

Google's ContentID came as a result of Viacom's lawsuit in 2007. It's used to hang on to their "safe harbor" status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

One of the provisions is that the service provider isn't directly profiting from infringing content.

A publisher would argue it's unfair for Google/Youtube to be considered a safe harbor if they make money from ad revenue between the time the infringing content is published and taken down by a DMCA claim. They'd also claim Google makes money using infringing content if users know that content is being hosted on Youtube.

Their safe harbor status is maintained through their obligations under the DMCA. Content ID may have come about to placate publishers, but it has nothing to do with section 512 of the DMCA and everything to do with stemming lawsuits.

I think it's entirely the result of trying to get deals with the major record companies to allow YouTube to continue to exist. In it's early days YouTube completely ignored copyright, and the music industry had all the cards when it came to negotiations.

The settlement is inspired by the DMCA, but goes beyond it.

Google's system for handling copyright claims is largely disconnected from provisions of the DMCA law. Google created its system in order to avoid contact with the legal system.

The problem is that trying to talk to Google, or even have a meaningful dialogue is like trying to talk to a stone wall. You can talk but no one is there to listen. I doubt even there is anyone from Google here on HN who can do anything about this.

>The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is *very little penalties for bogus claims.*

I would have to disagree here. The penalty for knowingly filing a DMCA claim is perjury. Since it is typucally used as a weapon against the little guys though, we've never got to see this actually enforced.

My understanding is that it is a bit more subtle than that. For more exact information, consult a lawyer, instead of random non-lawyers on the Interwebz.

If you file a DMCA claim on behalf on entity E, while knowingly not being entity E, or an authorised agent of entity E, you are committing perjury.

If you file a DMCA claim, you must have done a fair assessment that the material is actually under your copyright. If you know that you do not have the rights to the alleged infringing material, you are (I think) committing perjury.

If you file a DMCA claim, you must consider if fair use applies (but, crucially, I don't think there's a requirement that you reach a correct conclusion.

All of this makes cases like "I have licensed a song by creator C, for use as my intro" and a management firm DMCA-claiming all of your videos for using it a bit dodgy, as they really REALLY should check that before they react to any ContentID-originated "this may infringe". In at least one case[0], the management firm apparently thought the onus was on the licensee to proactively register each uploaded video with the management firm, which seems wrong to me. I would like to see one of those instances taken to court, and (preferably) end up with the conclusion that it is on the filer to consider licensing before making DMCA claims.

[0] No, I don't even recall the name of the creator, but I think he was mostly doing gaming content. There's bound to be more, though.

> In at least one case[0], the management firm apparently thought the onus was on the licensee to proactively register each uploaded video with the management firm, which seems wrong to me.

I would have thought that would be a matter for the contract between the management firm and the licensee. It seems reasonable for a management firm to put such a requirement into a license if that's how they want to keep track of who not to file takedowns against.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com