Dodgey DMCA Use May Lead To 'YouTube Veto Power'

BillGatesLoveChild writes "Bob Cringely reports that an interview potentially embarrassing to Steve Jobs was taken off YouTube. The interview was from Cringely's 1990s show Triumph of the Nerds. YouTube said it responded to a DMCA complaint made by NBD Television Ltd in London. Trouble is, NBD is not the copyright holder. They have nothing at all to do with the show and don't even sell it. PBS, who made and holds the copyright said they knew nothing of the complaint. Cringely tried to contact NBD Television Ltd who wouldn't respond. Neither would Youtube, who only speaks by form letter. 'Why did NBD Television make the complaint? Why did YouTube blindly enforce it? Is Steve Jobs behind this, or is it just another media company misusing the DMCA, at that, not even with their own copyrighted material? Why should a London-based company be able to issue DMCA takedowns, yet not be liable when they abuse the law?'"

Comments

because.

[User 956]

Why did YouTube blindly enforce it?

Because they're required by law to. A DMCA takedown request is basically a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the information is correct.

Re:because.

[supersat]

From what I understand, they aren't actually required to act on a takedown notice. However, if they fail to do so, they are no longer shielded from liability if the claim is valid. On the other hand, if they do act on the notice, they can't be held liable if the claim is bogus. So, most service providers will act on ANY DMCA notice, regardless of validity, just to be on the safe side.

However, I do know that some service providers have refused to act on certain DMCA notices where it's clear that issuer of the notice has no rights to the material in question.

Yeah. That's because the DMCA sucks

[91degrees]

YouTube are obliged to do this. It's unreasonable for them to track down the copyright holder.

The response is to file a DMCA counter notice, on the grounds that it doesn't infringe NBD's copyright. YouTube will put it back. NBD can then take it up withthe person who posted it.

Re:Not entirely.

[rohan972]

London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England.

Actually, British copyrights are enforceable in the US, and vice versa. It's called the Berne Convention

Re:Not entirely.

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, that is untrue. The Berne Convention -- which is utter crap, btw, and should be gotten rid of and not replaced -- does not claim to make a copyright granted in country A enforceable in country B. Rather, it deals with the granting of copyrights; if a work is created in country A, and is copyrightable in country B, then country B must also grant a copyright on the work. It also deals with setting a minimum for what is copyrightable, and how long those copyrights last, etc.

So if you are a British author, then you likely have a US copyright, but it is only that copyright, and not your UK copyright, that can be enforced in the US.

Indeed, you cannot make a claim in the US founded on the Berne Convention; it is not a source of US copyright law. (See 17 USC 104(c) for this)