Comments on: DMCA Saga Act II: Counter-Notification http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html Musings of a techie lawyer Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:18:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Allen Asch http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-630 Allen Asch Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:05:45 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-630 Actually, if you look at the YouTube terms of use, you'll find they give users more DMCA rights than you might expect. Some research I did shows that for YouTube to be protected by the DMCA, YouTube must detail their users DMCA rights. See 17 USC § 512(i)(1)(A) My interest in the matter, by the way, is detailed somewhat in the articles at: <a href="http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19532" rel="nofollow">http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19532</a> And at: <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/107/story/119967.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sacbee.com/107/story/119967.html</a> Actually, if you look at the YouTube terms of use, you’ll find they give users more DMCA rights than you might expect. Some research I did shows that for YouTube to be protected by the DMCA, YouTube must detail their users DMCA rights. See 17 USC § 512(i)(1)(A)

My interest in the matter, by the way, is detailed somewhat in the articles at:

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19532

And at: http://www.sacbee.com/107/story/119967.html

]]> By: chris newman http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-629 chris newman Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:37:58 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-629 I see only two conceivable motives for YouTube to restore access to your file: 1) To protect itself from any liability to you based on its removal of the clip. As I can't think of any theory under which it has any such liability to you in the first place, section 512(g)(1)-(2) really provides no motive for restoration at all. 2) To protect its reputation as an open forum in which people can speak freely without unjustified interference from others. But judging from YouTube's general behavior in this regard (summary removal of material that is flagged as "offensive", etc.), I don't think they care much about that. The only motive I can see for them to care would be if that became a serious locus of competition between them and other similar sites, i.e., if large numbers of users decided on principle not to visit YouTube because of its policies in this regard. Which seems unlikely, though not impossible. So my prediction is that they won't restore your clip. I look forward to seeing whether I'm right. I see only two conceivable motives for YouTube to restore access to your file:

1) To protect itself from any liability to you based on its removal of the clip. As I can’t think of any theory under which it has any such liability to you in the first place, section 512(g)(1)-(2) really provides no motive for restoration at all.

2) To protect its reputation as an open forum in which people can speak freely without unjustified interference from others. But judging from YouTube’s general behavior in this regard (summary removal of material that is flagged as “offensive”, etc.), I don’t think they care much about that. The only motive I can see for them to care would be if that became a serious locus of competition between them and other similar sites, i.e., if large numbers of users decided on principle not to visit YouTube because of its policies in this regard. Which seems unlikely, though not impossible.

So my prediction is that they won’t restore your clip. I look forward to seeing whether I’m right.

]]> By: Peter Daly http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-628 Peter Daly Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:00:23 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-628 I could be mistaken, but I believe the YouTube terms indicate that anything you upload becomes property of YouTube. Following that logic, they are taking down their own content and not your content. You no longer own it. They have every right to take down their own content for any reason. Those may be the rules this game is (or could be) played by. -Pete <a href="http://www.mythpvr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mythpvr.com</a> I could be mistaken, but I believe the YouTube terms indicate that anything you upload becomes property of YouTube.

Following that logic, they are taking down their own content and not your content. You no longer own it. They have every right to take down their own content for any reason.

Those may be the rules this game is (or could be) played by.

-Pete
http://www.mythpvr.com

]]> By: Tracy Mitrano http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-627 Tracy Mitrano Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:44:47 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-627 Professor Seltzer, You have my full support. If there is anything I can personally do to help in this counter notice/campaign, please let me know. This message does not constitute a message from Cornell University, but personally from me. Sincerely, Tracy Mitrano Professor Seltzer,

You have my full support. If there is anything I can personally do to help in this counter notice/campaign, please let me know.

This message does not constitute a message from Cornell University, but personally from me.

Sincerely,

Tracy Mitrano

]]> By: Douglas Galbi http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-626 Douglas Galbi Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:16:49 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-626 I'm amazed that companies like youtube don't work harder to have a fair, informal process of dispute adjudication. A start would be responding to relevant user emails. See <a href="http://purplemotes.net/2006/03/09/youtube-and-indecency/" rel="nofollow">http://purplemotes.net/2006/03/09/youtube-and-indecency/</a> Actually providing humans to interact with users increases the cost of rapidly scaling a (web service) business. That's probably part of the problem. Perhaps potentially huge liability in a formal legal proceeding may also chill willingness to respond informally. I’m amazed that companies like youtube don’t work harder to have a fair, informal process of dispute adjudication. A start would be responding to relevant user emails. See
http://purplemotes.net/2006/03/09/youtube-and-indecency/

Actually providing humans to interact with users increases the cost of rapidly scaling a (web service) business. That’s probably part of the problem. Perhaps potentially huge liability in a formal legal proceeding may also chill willingness to respond informally.

]]> By: Anonymous http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-625 Anonymous Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:30:25 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-625 This is True is editorializing in your favor, and reports on a similarly overreaching copyright notice that the Associated Press has, and how AP did a C&D against them (and lost): <a href="http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-the_nfls_copyright_round_two.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-the_nfls_copyright_round_two.html</a> Kudos to you in your fight, which protects the rights of us all. This is True is editorializing in your favor, and reports on a similarly overreaching copyright notice that the Associated Press has, and how AP did a C&D against them (and lost): http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-the_nfls_copyright_round_two.html

Kudos to you in your fight, which protects the rights of us all.

]]> By: Wendy http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-624 Wendy Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:55:35 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-624 trsm.mckay: I didn't see anything in YouTube's request that isn't in 512(g), so I believe my response contained all the information requested by either (and no more). What were you thinking of? trsm.mckay: I didn’t see anything in YouTube’s request that isn’t in 512(g), so I believe my response contained all the information requested by either (and no more). What were you thinking of?

]]> By: trsm.mckay http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-623 trsm.mckay Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:51:26 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-623 I noticed that YouTube asked for more details than the counter-notice provides. Just for sake of clarification - are you providing the additional information to YouTube or just relying upon the normal counter-notice? Do you have any thoughts about the additional information YouTube asked for? I noticed that YouTube asked for more details than the counter-notice provides. Just for sake of clarification - are you providing the additional information to YouTube or just relying upon the normal counter-notice?

Do you have any thoughts about the additional information YouTube asked for?

]]> By: Anonomous http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html#comment-622 Anonomous Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:16:54 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=386#comment-622 This story is on TechDirt! <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/154327.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/154327.shtml</a> This story is on TechDirt!

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/154327.shtml

]]>