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.
But if a Youtube says it falls under fair use then Youtube is suddenly the arbiter of truth of the companies claim, and guess what happens? Youtube gets sued, for either not complying with DMCA or for Copyright Infringement.
-
-
Just fwiw, in the Ninth Circuit (where most of these companies are based), any company issuing a takedown strike MUST in good faith consider fair use before issuing it. They cannot handwave it as a courtroom defense.
-
Fair use is not a defense to infringement in the 9th Cir; it is straight up not infringement at all. It's only an affirmative defense as a matter of procedure.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they ARE the arbiter of truth - it’s their effing responsibility, in fact! the whole issue is that they leave checking it to an utterly worthless automated system, and pretend that humans are doing it. your insistence that their arms are tied by the law is disingenuous at best.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
what you’re doing here is explaining something that nobody really needs explained - that corporations are thin-skinned, and lack any ethics outside of business ethics. what people are angry about is how much they’re failing to protect their own content creators. it’s pathetic.
-
But if protecting their own content creators no longer allows them the safe harbour of DMCA and they they either go bankrupt or see no point in allowing any questionable content on their platform then content creators aren't protected anyway.
- 1 more reply
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.