The DMCA issue has been a huge problem for at least 2 years now. That, and the way people have been abusing the site's Flagging system.
see http://www.censortube.eu/
Of course there are problems with the DMCA law itself, but that is another fight in an entirely different arena. YouTube, in the mean time, could have made a few relatively minor changes that would have eased the pain of this abuse considerably, whilst still conforming to the requirements of the law. For example, when it comes to DMCA claims it is, of course, required by law to take down the video whilst claimant and recipient sort out their dispute in court, but there is no legal requirement for the "strikes" that YouTube imposes automatically on the recipient of any DMCA claim. THAT is an internal matter of how the site is operated. YouTube could, quite easily, implement a policy in which DMCA claims that are NOT accompanied by confirmed personal details of the claimant will not proceed beyond taking down the video. No strikes. No penalties against the YouTube account of the recipient. And they could also implement a minor change to their procedures that would ensure that personal details sent to them in a COUNTER claim are only forwarded to a confirmed physical location such as a home address, thus ensuring that a recipient of a false DMCA claim can proceed to sue the claimant if they refuse to follow on the claim by legal proceedings - something they committed to when they made the original claim, or report the claimant for committing perjury - something they had to indicate they understood when they made the claim. The problem with the current YouTube implementation of the DMCA system is the lack of accountability imposed on the claimant.
Similarly, flagging can be handled differently. YouTube claim that they review all flags, so in what follows I will argue on the basis that humans in YouTube WILL review flagged content. At the moment it's too black and white. If a flag is rejected, nothing will happen, if it's upheld, you receive a strike against the account. It would not be too hard to implement a system in which flaggers could opt to accept accountability for their decisions, and punitive action (i.e. strikes against the account) is only taken if flags are made by people who do so. Anonymous flags may still be upheld, but can at most result in a take down of an individual video. Again, not a HUGE change in procedure, but one that takes the "anonymous coward" element away.
Etcetera.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA issue has been a huge problem for at least 2 years now. That, and the way people have been abusing the site's Flagging system. see http://www.censortube.eu/ Of course there are problems with the DMCA law itself, but that is another fight in an entirely different arena. YouTube, in the mean time, could have made a few relatively minor changes that would have eased the pain of this abuse considerably, whilst still conforming to the requirements of the law. For example, when it comes to DMCA claims it is, of course, required by law to take down the video whilst claimant and recipient sort out their dispute in court, but there is no legal requirement for the "strikes" that YouTube imposes automatically on the recipient of any DMCA claim. THAT is an internal matter of how the site is operated. YouTube could, quite easily, implement a policy in which DMCA claims that are NOT accompanied by confirmed personal details of the claimant will not proceed beyond taking down the video. No strikes. No penalties against the YouTube account of the recipient. And they could also implement a minor change to their procedures that would ensure that personal details sent to them in a COUNTER claim are only forwarded to a confirmed physical location such as a home address, thus ensuring that a recipient of a false DMCA claim can proceed to sue the claimant if they refuse to follow on the claim by legal proceedings - something they committed to when they made the original claim, or report the claimant for committing perjury - something they had to indicate they understood when they made the claim. The problem with the current YouTube implementation of the DMCA system is the lack of accountability imposed on the claimant. Similarly, flagging can be handled differently. YouTube claim that they review all flags, so in what follows I will argue on the basis that humans in YouTube WILL review flagged content. At the moment it's too black and white. If a flag is rejected, nothing will happen, if it's upheld, you receive a strike against the account. It would not be too hard to implement a system in which flaggers could opt to accept accountability for their decisions, and punitive action (i.e. strikes against the account) is only taken if flags are made by people who do so. Anonymous flags may still be upheld, but can at most result in a take down of an individual video. Again, not a HUGE change in procedure, but one that takes the "anonymous coward" element away. Etcetera.