Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 426557498338574346
nigga that doesent mean they are going to respect fair use
they do though
people were waiting months for counter DMCAs to go through
now it takes weeks at most
and even when Google makes an incorrect verdict
you are liable
Ping's mostly correct here
The purpose of the DMCA is to protect a platform based on the procedures
As long as they follow the procedure outlined by the DMCA, they cannot get sued because of participants on their platform.
That prevents Youtube from getting sued, Server farms from getting sued, Etc. Etc.
Now, youtube's had to tweak their policies a little bit
But when someone gets a DMCA through youtube now
they're given a notice, and a realistic period to respond
If they respond, they either take down the video, or submit a counter-claim.
The point of this, is that the claimant is now legally engaged with the creator of the video.
instead of the company(ies) hosting it.
From there, it's up to the claimant to decide to bring it to court or not.
http://prntscr.com/iv3rop safe harbor
Clarification is necessary, was that a rebuttal?
logicly if youtube has the ability to monitor copyright data then they have not only the ability to find it on their platform after its been uploaded but i think at some point it will be argued they should assign a function of its service design rather than as requested by the copy right claiment. and by that i mean not that a copyright holder should not need to tell youtube to enforce their copyright but however that the standard of enforcing that copyright by the service would be raised to a level that the system permanently checks for it until the copyright is no longer valid
bascly using the demonitization bot as a copyright bot
See, I do disagree to the point that they try to automate the system
again, automation, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
but
Their bot won't be able to detect context to argue fair use.
In my opinion, rights holders should be the one with the burden of proof
im not saying i want them to do it, but im saying i think that copyright will try to argue they should do it
^ ^ ^
If you own the rights to some music, it's on you to prove that it's not being used according to fair use
Mmmhmm
I'm a photographer
and one thing that I do with any photo I put on social media
I find places and ways
Same with movies, photos, etc.
to put watermarks on a photo in a way that won't be noticed unless you're SPECIFICALLY looking for it.
i think at some point they will win that arguement consitering that if youtube has the power to enforce the copyright even more than they currently do and youtube doesent then they can argue youtube is knowingly not using their full power to enforce their rights on their platform
but if someone were to use my photo without my permission
and think that they'll get away with it
they won't.