When YouTube Sues YOU – YouTube Fights Copyright Troll?

When YouTube Sues YOU – YouTube Fights Copyright Troll?

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

– This video was brought
to you by Legal Eagle’s CopyrightCourse.com, giving
all creators the tools they need to fight bogus copyright claims. (eagle screams) YouTube stands up for creators everywhere and fights back against
an alleged copyright troll who not only apparently tried
to extort fellow YouTubers, but tried to have one killed. Yep, it may be true. This case is wild. (regal music) Hey, Legal Eagles. It’s time to think like all of the lawyers that YouTube just hired to
go after a copyright troll who may have been trying to extort a bunch of individual creators. YouTube has filed a federal lawsuit against a YouTube creator
who they claim was trying to extort fellow creators and actually may have swatted one of them. Now, before I begin I want to emphasize that these are only allegations. All of these facts come from the complaint that YouTube filed in federal court. A complaint is the document
that you use to start a lawsuit and it contains your side of the story. YouTube is the plaintiff here. That means they started the lawsuit. And because we’re still
in the very early stages of this particular lawsuit, all of the facts are
gonna come from YouTube. So take everything with a grain of salt. Now first lemme give you some background to help understand this
lawsuit that YouTube has filed. Congress passed the DMCA in 1998 to deal with copyright-infringing
material online. It allows websites to not be responsible for copyright-infringing material that its users upload under
certain circumstances. The DMCA is one of two laws that give websites a safe harbor, the other being the
Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which is something I will definitely cover in the future because it is in the news
every single day these days. The bottom line is that, under the DMCA, a website isn’t liable for
copyright-infringing material so long as they take down
the offending material when they receive a notice from the person that owns the copyright. This is called a DMCA takedown notice. You’ll find it in 17 USC 512, which is a totally easy law to understand. You can look it up by searching
Google for 17 USC 512. Now, YouTube asserts in its complaint that one Christopher Brady issued a false DMCA takedown notice
to extort certain YouTubers, people that made Minecraft videos. Basically the complaint alleges that he claimed he owned the copyright to Minecraft and therefore demanded that YouTubers pay him money or he would issue a DMCA
takedown, a third one. Now, YouTube has a system where if you receive three DMCA takedown notices your channel is deleted. When a DMCA takedown notice is
levied against your channel, YouTube gives you a strike, and three strikes and you’re
out of the YouTube game. Now, allegedly Brady would
issue two DMCA takedown notices and then try to extort hundreds of dollars from those creators by threatening a third takedown notice, which would result in
potentially the deletion of these people’s channel. Now, if true, this is illegal and violates the DMCA Section 512. This happens. I’ve talked to creators who have dealt with false DMCA takedowns. I, myself, have been the
victim of a false DMCA claim. So this is definitely something
that exists in the world. But it’s also relatively unusual. The big boys, the music
labels and the movie studios, rarely mess around with DMCA claims. Now, sure they abuse the content ID system that YouTube has created, but a DMCA takedown notice
is a little bit different. It’s created by copyright law and YouTube doesn’t have a
whole lot of control over it. Basically from the people that I’ve talked to behind the scenes, none of the big players
will file a DMCA takedown without talking to a lawyer first, or often they’ll have the
lawyer issue the DMCA takedown. Why is that? Because it’s a big (beeps) deal. As paragraph eight of
YouTube’s complaint states, to submit a takedown
notice using the form, parties must affirmatively check a box next to a statement that reads, “I acknowledge that under Section 512 f “of the DMCA takedown, any person “who knowingly material misrepresents “that material or activity
is infringing may be subject “to liability for damages.” If you issue a false takedown, not only are you liable for damages, in other words the loss of revenue that comes from the videos, but you’re also liable
for attorneys’ fees, and when you’re talking about
YouTube, that’s a lot of fees. Now, I know YouTube gets a lot of flak for taking down videos pursuant to the DMCA takedown request, but YouTube actually doesn’t really have much choice in the matter that’s apart from the
whole content ID system which YouTube controls. Paragraph nine of YouTube’s complaint says that YouTube receives thousands of DMCA takedown requests each week through its online web form. It also received notices by email, postal mail, and facsimile. I’d guess that, if anything, this is probably an understatement. I’d guess that YouTube probably deals with on the order of millions
of DMCA takedowns per year, and YouTube doesn’t really have much choice in how to deal
with these particular claims. It’s all enshrined in copyright law, both the timeframes and the consequences. So if YouTube gets a DMCA takedown, they don’t really have much choice but to take the video off of YouTube, otherwise YouTube would potentially lose their copyright safe harbor and become liable for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of copyright infringement
actions per year. So let’s talk about the
actual facts of this case. In paragraph 21 of the complaint, YouTube alleges that in January 2019, defendant Brady, using
several falsified identities, sent YouTube multiple notices of alleged copyright infringement
pursuant to the DMCA, claiming that two videos uploaded by Kenzo and two videos
uploaded by ObbyRaidz supposedly infringed
copyrights that he owned. In the next paragraph, YouTube asserts he represented that he
was the original creator of those videos and that he
held the copyright to them. The complaint goes on to assert that Brady tried to
extort a third YouTuber, and in fighting one of those allegedly false DMCA takedown notices, that YouTuber provided
his true home address as required by law. That makes sense. That is one of those
statutory requirements to being able to fight
a DMCA takedown notice. The problem, as alleged in this complaint, is that part of the DMCA allows you to issue a subpoena to get that information when it’s uploaded, the purpose of which is that, if you are issuing a DMCA takedown, you need to be able to take these people to court if they file a counter-notice and put the video back up. The complaint goes on to assert that on July 10th the third
YouTuber announced via Twitter that he’d been the victim of
a swatting scheme that day. And they go on to define swatting as the act of making a bogus call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the
dispatch of a large number of armed police officers
to a particular address. If that’s true that this
guy did use the information he gained by abusing the
DMCA takedown process to issue a false SWAT call
against a fellow YouTuber in the hope that the
SWAT team would be called to this guy’s actual house, that’s a felony and this
guy should be in jail. This is a despicable act, if true. People have died because of swattings, because if you’re playing a video game that involves gunfire and the
SWAT team hears the gunfire from the outside, they might come in with guns drawn and people have died in the course of being falsely swatted. The bottom line is that YouTube alleges that this particular individual, Brady, falsified DMCA takedowns, committed perjury, and
used that information that he gained to extort fellow YouTubers and may have even tried to
kill one of those YouTubers. Frankly I was astounded when I saw this lawsuit being filed by YouTube. 17 USC 512 f does in fact
give service providers like YouTube a private right of action to sue over false DMCA takedown notices. I’ve just never seen a service provider actually file a suit like this. If true, this seems like a very, very good thing on
behalf of most YouTubers and a blow against potential people who are trying to abuse
the copyright process for their own ends when
they don’t own the copyright to allegedly infringing material. This could be the first of many lawsuits on behalf of YouTube
protecting its YouTubers, and if indeed the allegations
in the complaint are true, I think YouTube is doing all of us a favor by getting rid of some of
these YouTube copyright trolls. I think YouTube is
trying to send a message against this troll and potentially others. They have the resources to do it, and I will repeat that we
don’t know all of the facts. This is all one-sided, so please do not dox the defendant, Brady, or attack him in any way online. Let this legal process play out. YouTube, in its prayer for relief, is asking for compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction, in other words, a court order that forces the defendant to stop. This is probably bad enough. I checked and this case is being litigated by a local firm in Omaha,
where the defendant lives, and also by a very well-known attorney with one of the top-tier law firms, Wilson Sonsini, which is the law firm that has handled Google and YouTube’s most important and famous cases. And I was curious how much
Wilson Sonsini charges, and according to court documents, if you can get a 10%
discount for a lead partner at Wilson Sonsini, you
will only pay $900 an hour. In other words, if this defendant loses, he’ll probably pay on the order of $1,000 per hour for hundreds
of hours of attorney time. Also a parenthetically
that Phil DeFranco covered this lawsuit earlier today, and although he did generally a great job covering it, he put some special attention
to the end of the complaint, specifically the prayer which asks for such other further
and different relief as the court deems proper
under the circumstances. – Kind of a question mark, saying that they pray for such other, further, and different relief as
the court deems proper under the circumstances. So something even potentially bigger here. – He kinda freaked out about this. That’s a totally normal
thing to put in a complaint. It’s just a catch-all, a lawyer’s CYA, to allow them to ask for something else not specifically
mentioned in the complaint. So Phil, my dude, reach
out to me next time. I’ll let you know what is notable or not in a complaint like this. As an attorney I have
dealt with copyright trolls for a very, very long time, and I am tired of creators getting pushed around by bogus copyright claims. So I decided to do something about it. I made CopyrightCourse.com to give all creators the tools they
need to fight meritless claims and stand up for their rights online. It’s not only an entire law school course on copyright distilled into a few hours, but it’s also a system that I developed to fight claims on YouTube
and other platforms. I should know because I get a lot of claims against my videos, even though they are clearly fair use, and spoiler alert, made by
an actual copyright attorney and trial lawyer. CopyrightCourse.com is all the tips and strategies that I use to beat claims and make sure my videos are safe. I think it’s time that we fought back against the copyright trolls and made fair use actually fair. You can check it out at
CopyrightCourse.com right now and you can get early
access to the beta course, which will be half the
price of the final course. You’ll get every module
as soon as it comes out and your comments will help
shape the final product. I am really looking forward to being able to help creators and fight back
against the copyright trolls because there are a lot of them out there. So do you agree? Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist that has all of my other real
law reviews over here, where we deal with all of
the pressing legal issues of the day. So click on this playlist, and as always, I will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “When YouTube Sues YOU – YouTube Fights Copyright Troll?

  • LegalEagle Post author

    If you're a creator and you're looking for help with bogus claims, check out https://copyrightcourse.com

  • 12DAMDO Post author

    be careful, he's going to give you DMCA claim you lmao

  • ThatMykl Post author

    I'd be interested in what you have to say about the Take Two vs. Supmatto case. Part of their move were false copyright takedowns, but they went way further than that. They hired goons to intimidate him and more..

  • aohige Post author

    This was the first time "I will see you in court" was actually literal lol.
    Targeting an actual copyright lawyer with false copyright claims is the dumbest move these trolls have ever made.

  • Synli Post author

    Real talk, what kind of dumbass would try to falsely copyright strike an actual lawyer, lmao

  • Randomly Entertaining Post author

    Nope, Youtube isn't standing up for us. If they were, they'd deal with the mass abuse of the Content ID system. They're only doing this because if knowledge of it became widespread that they stood by and did nothing while someone harassed others using the services of their website, they'd have a worse PR nightmare than they already have with the Content ID system.

  • Michael Wittmann Post author

    The real badguys here are Warner Bros, Sony, Nintendo ect

  • A Floyd Post author

    So when does Youtube get sued? The automated online filing form needs removed and only offline means should be used.

  • Dorian Gray Clampitt Post author

    Do some of the funds of the copy right course go to funding a defence fund for some
    Of those you tubers, who unfortunately have to go to court?

  • Instantout Post author

    I like how it gives Them your information. But you don’t get their information if they request a Dmca Takedown. I say Equivalent exchange. But, One way or the other they will find a way to abuse that.

  • DOSBoxMom Post author

    My attorney spouse only charges $325/hour tops; however, he wouldn't have been able to represent YouTube (or the defendant either) in this matter, since he's only admitted to the federal bar in the Central District of Illinois. (His partner is in the process of getting admitted to the federal bar in the Northern District of Illinois as well, since their law firm is on the border between the two districts — but that still wouldn't help a federal litigant based in another state.)

  • Manuel Gil Post author

    The guy that did a false dmca claim on a lawyer thought he was an invincible script kiddy

  • Zara Pamboukhtchian Post author

    Freaking love YouTube

  • John the Bastard Post author

    Objection: Using the word "troll" as an umbrella term for everything from criminal activity to merely stating a unpopular or negative opinion is a clear attempt to demonize voices of dissent.

  • Meow Holly Meow Post author

    You look like Mr. Waterford (handmaids tale) today, not sure why I just noticed this… but can’t unsee.

  • willray animates Post author

    send this vid to mumbo jumbo because he is having some legal trouble

  • Unhappy Attendant Ughh Post author

    You upload like once a month if that and have like 3 sponsors. I wish I was that handsome

  • Joseph DESTAUBIN Post author

    That was a really nice touch, using the Phil DeFranco clip within the guise and scope of the fair use doctrine. Very nice indeed.

  • Jeff Lacy Post author

    If the DMCA did not exist this would not happen. Copyright infringement happens every minute of everyday. It was written by lawyers for lawyers.

  • Waterdust Post author

    Hmm.. now if only more legal advice was made free..

  • SkyWade Post author

    To be honest, YouTube just doing this because someone that had influence in the YouTube community is a victim of the false copyright, there are plenty of small channels getting false copyright and can't do anything about it due to not having influences at all.

  • Ciborium Post author

    Considering YouTube are alt-left lying scumbags, everything they say in the lawsuit should be taken with a car-sized grain of salt. YouTube is only upset at Brady because he is infringing on their bailiwick.

    I am looking forward to Brady's response. I am also looking forward to if his state's attorney general files criminal charges for the swatting. I'm not holding my breath about the latter as swatting is a daily crime but has only been prosecuted once.

  • Ciborium Post author

    Swatting is only illegal in Missouri. IMHO, "swatting" should be treated at least as harshly as attempted murder since the motive of swatting is to have the victim murdered by police. It's not like "swatters" call in a code violation and have the victim sent a citation to pay a fine. They do it so that people with guns will bust in and shoot the victim.

  • Ciborium Post author

    Up until now, YouTube has placed the burden of suing on the individual YouTuber. People who post on youtube are definitely not 1%-ers. They can't afford to sue, even when they have an air-tight Fair Use case. YouTube should be the one going after the violators of DMCA.

  • Ciborium Post author

    Why would anyone fight a false DMCA Claim? Giving the troll your real address when the troll doesn't have to do the same means you WILL be swatted with impunity. The troll should have to provide the victim their real, verified name and address, and the troll should have to provide Youtube with proof that they own copyright. Not just checking a box on a form.

  • _/PGF_ Post author

    In SoViEt RuSsIa

  • Jammit Timmaj Post author

    The big problem with DMCA is when a person has just uploaded a video. The video gets temporarily taken down while the creator gets it straightened out. After a while the video can go back up but the ad revenue was taken away already, and most videos make their money in the first few weeks of being uploaded.

  • Ding Dong Post author

    Absolutely fantastic video! I am going to be giving a day course on copyright law and issues for scientists later this year and will defs be referring people to this video.

  • Cubelarooso Post author

    "Trolls" are different from "con artists."
    If they gain anything other than sadistic glee, it's not trolling.

  • Sub Optimal Post author

    If the alleged Copyright Troll acted as reported, I hope that exemplary damages are awarded against him and if he's guilty of swatting, then I hope he goes to jail.

  • Orangebike666 Post author

    Ah yes the old false DMCA claim against a f***ing LEGAL YouTube channel. Very bright.

  • CommunistEuckhaus Post author

    Filing a false DMCA claim on someone who studies and practices law for a living is probably one of the dumbest things you can do, that’s just Darwin Awards material right there.

  • Sean Barnes Post author

    Lol, ‘spoiler alert’ the point that followed made me think “shits about to go down with legal eagle”

  • XTFist XtremelyAwesome Post author

    Next thing u now false DMCA claim on this video

  • Timothy Chapman Post author

    DMCA works on a guilty until proven innocent mentality. You cannot have a law that works on that mentality AND prohibits abuse of that system! The system has more holes than a sieve and the fact that YouTube is FORCED by law to take action BEFORE any guilt is proven shows just how ILLEGAL the DMCA laws are!

  • Young Royalty Post author

    The Things people will do for a piece of that Sweet, Sweet Ad Revenue.

  • Ag silver Radio Post author

    You would think that a coppyright claim would be required to be proven in cort, before it can legaly be issued.

    All are innocent untill proven guilty, right?

  • Desecration Post author

    Well with any luck he'll get 40 years for the swatting thing or shot on the way to court. Either will do.

  • Curt D Post author

    Patent trolls and copyright trolls are such scum and a drain on society. The only thing worse is the robocall scammers that pray on older people.

  • Homer's Iliad Post author

    That's why you don't have so many tactical police.

  • TemporaryINTER135 Post author

    The problem is that your can only Def and take 3 hits, Copyright Trolls can Atk continuity because there is no consequences to filing as many bogus claims as possible.

  • jack cough ben dover Post author

    If only YouTube did this to enes batur

  • Jonathan Lavoie Post author

    it's fraud and extortion, not a troll.

  • Los Time Post author

    Hey Legal Eagle. Could you review the court trial from the HBO series "The Night Of"? It's a great show.

  • Gabbrain Podcast Post author

    someone was dumb enough to send a false dmca takedown thing to YOU? a lawyer? what a moron.

  • AnonyGuy Post author

    Hopefully this will set an example for copyright abusers/trolls to stop their malicious actions.

  • Chris Crowther Post author

    I can't help but think a lot of the blame in this lies with lawmakers for passing laws that are so easily abused.

  • gynyzyss3 Post author

    Your show is called legal Eagle and you've done episodes about Harvey "Birdman" and "Phoenix" Wright… Maybe you should consider specializing in Bird Law!

  • Visage Liquifier Post author

    Objection: I agree(?)

    Fair Use is very nebulous and somewhat hard to be precise with, but that is (unsurprisingly (YMMV)) by design. It provides room for courts to determine what they deem fit in the place and time they examine a work. Its character does however make it difficult for people to know if they are running afoul of it, as nearly anything online will rest on the last provision. It can take a lot of work to understand and I think most people do not want to clock those hours on what they hoped would be a ten minute check. I've looked in to and written a bit about this. Copyright's journey itself from the 1970s until now, tracking the advance of personal electronics and shifts in public opinion, has been rather interesting. People need a few simple tests or a guidebook, since publishing (and duplicating) works is now so easy.

  • Craig Post author

    They really need to remove that three strike policy

  • Simon H. Post author

    silly youtubers, chris brady didn't make minecraft. hatsune miku made minecraft.

  • Golden Retriever Post author

    You know I’ve heard of an interesting thing about how YouTubers are apparently starting to unionize against the site

    First off I wanna know is that even possible

    Second I wanna know if it’s well legal

    And third how can they do it

  • Thegamingteen44 Post author

    Someone who targets minecraft channels.
    So basically he is like a hit man but only goes for the channels that deserved the most honour

  • Dr. M. Hfuhruhurr Post author

    Objection; you never mentioned Search For A Cause far as I know ( https://tab.gladly.io/search/ ) but even moreso I object to the new wallpaper, were you just in a hurry to pick something out or not particular or under duress or something? What's wrong with Bridget Riley ( https://www.maxhetzler.com/news/2017-07-06-bridget-rileythat-70s-show-cool-art-collection-group-show-columbia-museum-art-columbia-23-june-17-september-2017 ) ? Other than that keep up the good fight councilor

  • G&R Gaming Post author

    I was just thinking… one day you should do a team up video with Video Game Attorney (@Morrison on twitter). He regular goes on reddit to provide legal facts, tips & what not about copyright in video games. When I first discovered your channel it made me think of him and that's why I subscribed.

  • Steve The Philosophist Post author

    It would be really funny if Brady got swatted. The Family thinks that Jesus wants it to be that way too.

  • GerikDT Post author

    Good first steps for Devin's future presidential candidacy.

  • zaczane Post author

    How are you gonna file copywrite against a copywrite lawyer?
    That’s like going into a Dragons lair and saying you’re gonna kill it with fire!
    It’s just NOT gonna work man.

  • Benji De Aula Post author

    scammer: false dmca's a lawyer's channel
    lawyer: *sues
    scammer: 😮

  • No thankyou Post author

    Great video. I like how he explained it all without any silly attempts at humor and trendy editing nonsense, Just the facts and relevant info.10/10

  • AustynSN Post author

    I've been wondering what branch of law you specialized in.

  • 50k3r2 Post author

    Its like watching Ryan Reynolds do a legal briefing. Good stuff. Subbed

  • cloud 90909 Post author

    Wow did not know this was a thing :0

  • a24396 Post author

    So… Let me get this straight: what you're saying is it's a big f-ing deal?
    okay… noted!

  • a24396 Post author

    So… When you deal with a false DMCA yourself, do you bill yourself so when you inevitably win you can recover lawyers fees?

  • Maarten Prys Post author

    i was looking away at around 3:40 so when i heard you swear i had to pause the video and back it on up

  • BrickIntyre Post author

    10:39 Best part of the video! 😂

    I also took a look through your Copyright Course…thank you for that!

  • yay2993 l Post author

    I tried to use this video to entertain my one year old cousin

  • Benjamin Hethmon Post author

    7:05 there's a answer to this, just use headphones

  • Killercomma Post author

    I've always wondered why YouTube didn't at the very least require some form of legal proof that the person making the DMCA claim is (at the very least) the holder of the copyright they claim is being infringed. Does the DMCA law have some stipulation preventing that? I feel like that would halt a lot of these false claims before they can even start.

  • Australian Spartan Post author

    the main problem I see with the youtube copyright system is that it works the opposite way that the law does. "guilty until proven innocent", and in the cases of smaller youtubers there is little to no way to "prove innocence", i would be more appropriate for the copyright owners to prove they own said copyright, as that logically would be easier and cheaper.

  • Mazzy The MazdaTiger Post author

    i object, there are DMCA trolls out there that easily get away with because they are outside the US

  • Benjamin Baril Post author

    You get a like for copyrightcourse.com.

    It's something the youtube community needs, and I love that you're making it more accessible so that other creators can fight for themselves. I just hope that the price is reasonable enough to justify taking the course and putting in the time to fight rather than outsourcing the work to professionals.

    I signed up for the beta group, partly out of curiosity, partly because you never know when it could be useful.

  • JustKevin Post author

    DMCA is terrible, way too lenient on the host. We constantly have people copy our entire website, host it on DigitalOcean, hidden behind Cloudflare. DigitalOcean is very slow to reply to a DMCA notice… And should such a blatant copyright infringement really require a formal DMCA takedown notice? Anyhow…

  • Mac Guy3135 Post author

    I made a remix for the childish gambrino meme when it was popular and it got an automatic block. So I remixed some more and it bypassed the automatic system. Then a month later that was also blocked. This time manually. Bear in mind this video had around thirty views. I then reuplaoded the one that just got manually claimed with completely random metadata, as of yet, this hasn’t been claimed. I also uploaded a random video I took of a castle with no audio from my desktop and simply named it “redbone” and guess what it was manually blocked by Sony despite having literally nothing to do with the childish gambrino meme. I might add I was a bit harsh counter claiming that one.

  • Old Guy Does Stuff Post author

    I'm glad to hear the YouTube is starting to take a stand. But I doubt if it's entirely altruistic. DMCA takedowns not only cut into the channel's revenue, they also cut into YouTube's. I'd hazard a guess that YouTube gets the lion's share of the advertising revenue from the videos posted by content creators. So it would make sense for them to choose to defend some of the most egregious violators of the takedown process. If they can notch a few wins in court, that would be a good deterrent to those who might want to abuse the takedown process.

  • SK Post author

    I love these videos!

  • Anime king Post author

    If a lawyer is on trial for something are they more or less likely to be their own lawyer or do you know?

  • K-11 Lightning Post author

    Wow. I sub

  • Falconic Katadora Post author

    Honestly, given YT's history with the channels I follow, I am BEYOND astounded… One of whom, Mumbo Jumbo, had to edit THOUSANDS of videos to cut his intro and outro because of a song he has permission by the creator to use…

  • Oddman Outre Post author

    Interesting that the allegations state that Mr. Brady went after Minecraft videos. I would have thought that going after unboxing videos with fake DMCA claims for thousands of dollars (rather than hundreds of dollars) would have been a more lucrative scheme.

  • Alexander69Nevermind Post author

    It would be awesome to see you react to It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season 8 Episode 10.

  • Eric Wagner Post author

    $900/hour? I'm in the wrong type of work.

  • ShadowedNight Post author

    Seeing as both Article 13/15 and the CASE act are so anti-internet I think it's less Google seeing the light and more "OMG, these laws could bankrupt us" Yes, CASE and Article 13 suck, but in the end Google's looking out for themselves first and formost

  • ShadeofMagenta Post author

    Would you ever consider doing a review over the case between Google/Youtube and Prager U? Prager U announced that they are taking them to court over putting over 200 of their videos into restricted mode and they are going to “defend free speech online”. I’m quite curious about what can actually come out of this if anything.

  • rwdplz1 Post author

    There are so many false copyright takedown claims, couldn't this be a VERY lucrative new source of revenue for a law firm?

  • Jerry Garcia Post author

    I wonder if this would be a trend in the future for the platforms can protect their creators?

  • GnI1991 Post author

    All of this makes me wonder:

    1) Since DMCA takedown notice essentially means "take down the video, or we'll sue you", and loser of the lawsuit, typically, needs to pay the legal fees, and we are certain, that the person issuing false DMCA takedown notice is talking out of their ass, why don't the majority of people just don't say "fine, sue me", knowing that they'll win, and the claimant will waste significant portion of their money? That way, the amount of people issuing false DMCA takedown notices, would diminish, since, they would know, that there might be consequences for such actions, due to the precedent.

    2) Why Youtube deletes the channel after 3 DMCA takedown notices? Can't it just suspend it, until the issue was resolved, legally? It is a window, that can be (and is) used for such extortion schemes.

  • Andrew Kang Post author

    I feel like at this point they're not even trolls anymore, they're just criminals

  • Matt Slater Post author

    I would like to learn more about "fair use content."

  • 「Socialist Nyarlathotep」 Post author

    I not even interested in law why am I watching these amazing videos?

  • Edwin Post author

    Easy Fix, have Google the owner of Youtube should require all of us who use the Youtube platform to submit debit card account to your channels. If you make a false claim and you are caught. Youtube should be allowed to take away the money they lost in doing the investigation from your BANK ACCOUNT and at the same time takeaway DOUBLE the amount from your account and pay it to the person you falsely claimed from. NO ONE wants their hard earned money taken away, it's that easy to prevent false claim trolls.

  • Osmium Post author

    This is ironic considering he's a copyright attorney, but that's the one subject I don't trust Legal Eagle (LE) on. He lost credibility after the Fortnight dance fiasco with Game Theory (GT), claiming that videos put up nearly simultaneously about a subject that had been in the news was an infringement of LE's video based on shoddy circumstantial evidence. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the GT guy could have sued LE for slander and copyright infringement for making that Willy Wonka video a few weeks later that contained very similar subject material to a year old GT video. I'm not even a GT fan, but it was shocking that when the tables were turned, LE was just like "whoops, honest mistake" and then left the Fortnight accusation up.

  • No One Of Consequence Post author

    What are "potential people"?

  • Howard Murphy Post author


  • John S Post author

    Wait until this hits mainstream platforms. The Twitter mob could be huge.

  • KVandMariee Post author

    I wanna dress like you while I’m in law school

  • Patrick Ogle Post author

    Did anyone else not know that fax was short for facsimile until just now?

  • adidas78937 Post author

    I am glad somebody is trying to fight back against the copyright claim I hate some of my favorite creators don't get paid for the work they've done just because a studio wants to make all the money they can and is scared to get bought by Disney.

  • iSmartMan1 Post author

    I wonder, how long would it take an individual to confirm the legitimacy of a randomly chosen DMCA claim? Also, by extrapolating that number, how many claims could a single intern verify the legitimacy of in a day, and assuming YouTube could make an algorithm that accurately processes 2/3rds of all claims (number chosen at random), how many interns would it take to process the remaining claims in a timely manner? Variant hypothetical question, how many interns would it take to verify the basic legitimacy of only the DMCA claims that have counterclaims filed against them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *