The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees.
As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).
Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.
Then maybe someone needs to sell DMCA insurance to small creators that could never afford to retain a lawyer individually. The majority of the invalid claims would get reversed the second a suit is filed and they wouldn’t go further than that.
I'm sure that based on the amount of copyright trolling going on on YT there would be a lot of money to be made suing YT and the companies/individuals making the copyright strikes
IANAL but I thought there was no way to lose those rights, regardless of what contract you sign or web form you click on. That's why they're called rights.
Large companies should be required to have a full-time consumer advocate (paid by the company, but selected by users) who can effectively have a say in matters.
>> Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people.
Doesn't that mean that the whole justice system in US is broken? Courts of law exist for this very purpose, so that every citizen can fight for their rights, including defending themselves against this type of extortion. If the cost of lawsuit is prohibitive then you might as well live in some third world dictatorship, with no justice system at all.
It's not quite that drastic; we do have organizations like the ACLU and EFF that bring lawsuits for the public good. Though relying on foundations to fight for the same idea of "public good" as you do is a shaky footing to base a society around.
It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam.
Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc.
A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights.
To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.
What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault.
The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist.
In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties.
To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).
If you want punitive action, balance and justice in one package, aim high: eye for an eye.
For each case of copyfraud, have the defrauder lose copyright for one item in their catalogue and placed into public domain. The item? Victim's choice.
When legislatures come up with a penalty that depends on say a percentage of global turnover, HN lights up at the iniquity of it. Despite that being in a jurisdiction that demands proportionality in penalties, so it's a maximum that will rarely if ever levied, and only on the largest corporates.
"The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist."
This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?
It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".
Sure, but I was referring to a spill. If I spill hot water on myself, I don't expect the consequences to be the same as being immersed in it at constant temperature. Both because the time is short and it cools as it falls and spatters.
I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns.
When you drive a car you probably don't feel like you're risking fatal road accidents happen either but it happens.
Third degree burns happen with boiling hot water, any boiling water is dangerous and potentially lethal if mishandled. People underestimate the energy stored in that water.
You can't do this on YouTube because YT satisfied the big copyright manipulators by adding their own system in front of the DMCA. As a result these claims don't go through the DMCA process and the legal penalties (toothless to begin with) built into the DMCA aren't available to you. Content ID killing your content or claiming it because someone misused Content ID isn't a legal matter so you are powerless. This is how it is intended to be: It's what Viacom/Disney/etc wanted and Google gave it to them.
AFAIK DMCA notices only produce a takedown, not monetization. If you want to monetize you go through Content ID, which is not the DMCA.
A false DMCA also exposes you to real legal threat, and a big player with money for a lawyer will dismantle you.
What happens if there's two claims? Could a YouTuber do something along the lines of just lodging claims against their own videos in order to prevent others from lodging claims?
I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned.
As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).