so what are you saying, exactly? is youtube being forced to obey a law as written, or simply failing to do their due diligence?
-
-
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
No, they are compiling with DMCA such that they are not held responsible. All DMCA is designed to do is protect hosts from being liable for people who use their platform for copyright infringement. If Youtube rejects the claim they become liable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
what part of this takedown is valid? they have no obligation to accede to invalid requests for takedowns.pic.twitter.com/Kc7Xt4p6ye
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
It's valid in that the company believes it is. IE they are not using the DMCA to try to takedown something they don't own or something along those lines. As long as the company believes infringement happened its enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
what’s the point of including a clause that says a claim must be valid, if, by your definition, the very act of making a claim validates the claim? utterly asinine, circular logic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
Well, if youtube sees that Warner Brothers DMCA'd something that contains not a single Warner Brothers copyright property, it's not valid. This isn't up for debate because no part of the video can even possibly belong to Warner Brothers and thus the DMCA is invalid.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
also, by your definition, if WB even BELIEVED they owned something in the video, the claim would be valid.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
Yes, if WB believed they owned something it would be valid. But in order to support that belief they would have to have some kind of copyright. If their belief was something that obviously they don't own they would get sued for falsely using the DMCA takedown system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
do they own the content if it falls under fair use?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
We don't know if it falls under fair use until a court decides it. Obviously we can see how the court would most likely rule here, but we don't have to, because it seems UMG will sue the content creator or drop it. Thus proving if it was fair use or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
sorry? a court? but in your own link, wordpress states that THEY determine what counts as fair use before allowing claims to go through. why isn’t youtube able to do this?pic.twitter.com/WRBPMOEPL8
-
-
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
Oh, im sorry if I misled you. Youtube can in fact do whatever they like they will just be liable for any damages in the case they lose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
back to my original question, then. is youtube being forced to follow a law as written, or are they simply failing to do their due diligence? i think you just answered it for me though. that’s the whole point of the criticism they’re receiving, isn’t it?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.