Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Defending Select Videos Against DMCA Abuse

Posted by timothy on from the where-bread-is-buttered dept.

Galaga88 writes: It's not a complete solution, but YouTube is going to begin stepping up to defend select videos in court on fair use terms, including covering court costs. Will this help stem the tide of bad DMCA takedown requests, or just help the select few YouTube doesn't want to lose? From the blog post linked: We are offering legal support to a handful of videos that we believe represent clear fair uses which have been subject to DMCA takedowns. With approval of the video creators, we’ll keep the videos live on YouTube in the U.S., feature them in the YouTube Copyright Center as strong examples of fair use, and cover the cost of any copyright lawsuits brought against them. ... In addition to protecting the individual creator, this program could, over time, create a “demo reel” that will help the YouTube community and copyright owners alike better understand what fair use looks like online and develop best practices as a community.

3 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Defense will be based on advertising dollars by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users. All they care about is advertising money. Now that there are some alternatives to Youtube, big channels are threatening to leave if the flood of false DCMA notifications does not stop.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  2. rights should not depend on a Corporation charity by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's what this is - a large corporation deciding to charitably pay huge amounts of money to defend it's customer's rights.

    While I understand their desire to do this, we need a legal system that does it automatically.

    Most privacy violations are clear. No one puts someone else's songs up there 'accidentally'.

    If all DMCA cases, we should have loser pays rule. Right now, the poster can be required to pay huge damages, so why shouldn't the claimant be required to pay double the court costs.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  3. Re:Between a rock and a hard place... by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google had no choice.
    Originally, YouTube was fueled by piracy, but content owners didn't really care : low quality videos and YouTube didn't have enough money to make a lawsuit profitable.
    It changed the instant Google bought it. The content owners, now realizing that behind YouTube was sitting billions in cash quickly turned to Google and basically asked for their share. Google had no choice if they wanted to keep the service and not run it at a loss.