Bungie slams YouTube DMCA system in lawsuit against Destiny takedown fraudsters | Hacker News Reader

Bungie slams YouTube DMCA system in lawsuit against Destiny takedown fraudsters

arstechnica.com

30 pointsMR4D13 comments

Not a lawyer but this seems to be the DMCA system as described by Congress not YouTube.

Perhaps Congress could modify 512 to require proof that you own the copyright / etc instead of just a signature.

See 512c3A (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512)

Yes it’s terribly flawed, but most copyright holders see that as a feature.

That probably defines the minimum legal standards for companies to adhere to, I guess? Companies should be free to implement their own additional improvements (identity verification, for example).

Adding too many legal requirements could make it more challenging for competitors to build their own compliant implementations.

My understanding is that its the _maxiumum_ legal standards. Any DCMA notice that meets the criteria in section 512 is a valid notice and if you ignore it then you may lose the immunity.

> Perhaps Congress could modify 512 to require proof that you own the copyright / etc instead of just a signature.

Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity?

Demonstrating ownership of copyright in front of a judge often takes literally months at trial, there's no plausible mechanism to do this.

> Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity?

I'd suggest an affidavit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit).

This is, of course, not a proof in the strict sense, but should come near to it.

I'm not too sure what the difference between that and the signature requirement is.

> (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I only have shallow knowledge of the US law, but in German law, if you give the analogue of an affidavit (eidesstattliche Versicherung) instead of just a signed statement, you will face harsh legal consequences if the statement in it turns out to be false.

It's a perjury offense in the US under the existing DCMA.

You basically suggested the current practice.

But then I am surprised that considering the many false DCMA claims, there are so few perjury lawsuits against the responsible persons.

I think leaving it vague would be a feature.

Somebody like Bungie it should be sufficient if the request came from somebody@bungie.net. But it seems to me if you want to run a commercial venture whose viability depends on others not infringing on your copyright you should do some legwork first to make it easily known that this is your work (I'd imagine it would make any future lawyer's job easier too). The downside is that YouTube could decide a signature is sufficient proof.

I'm not sure what option YouTube, etc have in this case?

My understanding of the DMCA is that it essentially requires blindly trusting any claims received or you open yourself up to liability?

it's sad that issues like this which are widely known and affect many content creators doesn't get any attention until a big company decides to make a stink.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com