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

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Clarification is necessary, was that a rebuttal?

The screenshot, I mean.

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copyright by the service would be raised to a level that the system permanently checks for it until the copyright is no longer valid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.

you have to understand the rights of individuals are secondary to the rights of business in the usa

First, the photo I post is cropped. Second, it has a watermark with my company's name

and google/youtube is a usa business

very VERY faintly, hidden in a shadow.

I agree, Corporatism is a problem.

thats why im saying youtube is in trouble because i think youtube will have to face giving the power of indiscriminent bots to the hands of copyright enforcers or have those enforcers try to get safe harbor pulled out from under them and the reason this is even a problem is because youtube is creating more and more accurate bot ai's to monitor youtube for their revinue stream

the best case scenario youtube has is the former and i dont think we have any idea just how much that will change things

most of my music playlists wil lbe gone im sure