YouTube’s dispute with this particular defendant was first brought in August under s 512(f)(1) of the DMCA, which imposes liability for damages on any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is copyright infringement. One can definitely see how this would put content creators on edge to have a person weaponise DMCA takedown notices to make false claims to extort money would place their accounts and potentially livelihood at even greater risk. Receive three strikes, and the user’s channel could be shut down entirely. In the case of YouTube, removal of infringing material also results in a copyright strike against the user’s channel. The ISP will then remove access to the copyrighted material, so that they are exempted from liability. Usually, when a copyright holder finds infringing material uploaded by a user on an ISP, they’ll send a DMCA takedown notice to officially notify the ISP of the infringement. Importantly, YouTube has to promptly remove access to the infringing material when it is put on notice (17 USC § 512). Among other things, the part that’s relevant to ISPs like YouTube is the “safe harbor” provision that protects them from copyright infringement liability, provided they meet certain requirements. statute that was enacted in 1998 to update copyright law to deal with challenges in the digital age, and to balance the interests of copyright holders, consumers and internet service providers (‘ISPs’). The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’) is a U.S. The defendant in the lawsuit had been repeatedly making false copyright infringement claims to harass and extort money from content creators, threatening them with DMCA takedown notices for content that wasn’t his. YouTube recently settled a dispute with a man who abused the platform’s DMCA takedown system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |