As I understand it, the Content ID system catalogs potentially infringing videos but it is the suggested rights holder who must ultimately issue a takedown. At this step, the rights holder (i.e. Warner Music Group) should make a good faith effort to determine whether the identified video is infringing or fair use.
Unfortunately, though I can't say for certain, it appears that they are simply issuing takedowns for everything identified. In order to preserve their safe harbor status, YouTube has to disable access to the video upon receipt of a claim. The foulest piece, as I've experienced it, is YouTube's refusal to accept counter-claims for automatically ID'd video: http://www.kevindriscoll.info/todomundo/2009/01/16/youtube-unable-to-accept-my-counter-notification/ Surely a result of overwhelming numbers of claims and IANAL but this appears unlawful. Kevin On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Tim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > It's no army of interns, it's Content ID, Google's automated content > identificaiton-and-removal system. Also an auto-intimidation system, > since it's effectively programmatically spawning legal threats. No > DMCA takedown required, Google and WMG have agreed to bypass that > pesky law here. > > More: > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/youtubes-january-fair-use-massacre > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/hey-warner-leave-those-kids-alone > > =T= > > > > > On Mar 9, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Kevin Driscoll wrote: > >> Fair enough. YouTomb data always represent a subset contingent on our >> somewhat arbitrary search criteria. >> >> >> Kevin >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Elizabeth Stark <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Kevin, I hesitate to quote that stat, as we're not tracking all YT >>> videos, >>> and given that the scanner was down for quite a long time in 08. >>> We could >>> say "YouTomb tracked 3 times as many claims..." but that still may be >>> misleading. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Kevin Driscoll >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Cutest puppycam video ever, for sure. >>>> >>>> Per my earlier thread regarding fair use, I'm positively tickled to >>>> re-read the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss written by Judge Fogel: >>>> >>>> "...in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with 'a >>>> good faith belief [...],' the owner must evaluate whether the >>>> material >>>> makes fair use of the copyright." >>>> >>>> http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/ >>>> lenzorder082008.pdf >>>> >>>> Unless there is an army of interns working overtime, it seems >>>> reasonable to suspect that Warner Music Group may not be >>>> proceeding in >>>> "good faith" as they have submitted 1000s of claims to YouTube's >>>> Copyright Office each month since December 08. >>>> >>>> YouTomb stats show that in the first few months of 2009, more than >>>> three times as many claims were made than during all of 2008! >>>> http://youtomb.mit.edu/blog/?p=32 >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ryan Prior <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Kevin Driscoll >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone have updates on Lenz v. Universal? I haven't heard >>>>>> anything new >>>>>> in a few months. >>>>> >>>>> It bears mentioning that the video >>>>> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ) is still up and the >>>>> little >>>>> guy >>>>> is cute as a button. >>>>> >>>>> Aside from that, you might try contacting Stanford Law and >>>>> asking if >>>>> they >>>>> are still involved. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal >>>>>> >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
