YouTube Sued AGAIN - DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

Ladybbird · 30-11-18, 16:17

Movie Company Demands €200,000 From YouTube Over Pirated Film

TF 30 Nov 2018.

On an average day, roughly half a million hours of video are uploaded to YouTube.
As with any user-generated content site, this also includes pirated works, including full-length films.

This is not a new problem and YouTube does its best to remove infringing videos and accounts when they’re reported. However, Dutch film production company ‘Farmhouse TV & Film says that it’s not enough.

The company produced the film “Redbad” which premiered locally this summer. With one of the largest ever budgets for a Dutch film, it didn’t provide the success the makers had hoped for.

During the first month, it recouped less than €400,000 of the €8 million budget, making it one of the biggest flops in Dutch theaters.

While the film failed to draw the masses to the big screen, it did much better on YouTube. According to Farmhouse TV & Film, a full copy of the movie reached half a million views after it was uploaded. The only problem is that this copy wasn’t authorized.

The production company isn’t happy with this unlicensed consumption and is now demanding €200,000 in compensation. Producer Klaas de Jong states that YouTube should take responsibility, noting that the pirated copy was displaying advertisements as well.

“This way, YouTube has created a revenue model out of the illegal distribution of content,” De Jong says, quoted by Nu.nl.

“Enough is enough. We’re talking about an illegal and criminal offense, and YouTube is not taking responsibility,” he adds.

YouTube hasn’t commented on this individual case. However, the company explains that rightsholders can ask the video platform to take an infringing copy offline. This is what happened with the pirated copy of Redbad.

The producer believes that this is irrelevant. The harm was already done when they spotted the copy and the takedown system has its limitations, especially when infringing content swiftly reappears.

“This leads to a situation in which we as producers have to check for illegal links to our films on YouTube every week and beg to have them removed, after which they immediately reappear through another channel,” De Jong says.

Tim Kuik, director of the local anti-piracy outfit BREIN which isn’t involved in the matter, says that it’s the first time a Dutch producer takes this step. Kuik also notes that the availability of pirated films on YouTube is a known problem.

In the present matter, it’s unlikely that Farmhouse TV & Film will get anything from YouTube without going to court. Previously, Austrian television channel Puls 4 did just that, with success.

This summer a court in Vienna concluded that YouTube can indeed be held directly liable for users’ copyright infringements. The video service is not a neutral intermediary and should do more to prevent infringing uploads, the court ruled. The verdict in question is not yet final.

Ideally, Farmhouse TV & Film and other rightsholders would like YouTube to start filtering all content proactively. That sounds a lot like the EU’s Article 13 proposal, which YouTube is currently campaigning against.

Interestingly, the production company was also tied up in another YouTube brawl earlier this year. According to the producer, YouTube had asked them to remove the trailer of the film because it would be “offensive to large populations.”

No further details were given but, reportedly, YouTube took offense to the general theme which showed how Redbad and Vikings fought against the Christians who forced their faith upon the people.

The trailers were never removed though.

Ladybbird · 26-08-19, 00:25

Can YouTube Be Liable For Copyright Infringing Videos?
EU Court to Decide..

TF..25 AUG 2019

Week in and week out YouTube’s users upload millions of hours of videos. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content.

YouTube tackles this by processing takedown notices and using its Content-ID system to automatically remove allegedly infringing content. However, according to some prominent copyright holders, this is not good enough.

In Austria, this complaint is at the center of a lawsuit between the local television channel Puls 4 and YouTube. In an initial order last summer, the court ruled that the video platform can be held directly liable for users’ copyright infringements. YouTube was not seen as a neutral intermediary and should do more to prevent infringing uploads.

The court noted that YouTube takes several motivated actions to actively organize and optimize how videos are displayed. By doing so, it becomes more than a neutral hosting provider. Therefore, it can’t rely on a safe harbor defense.

This ruling was overturned by the Higher Regional Court of Vienna earlier this year. According to the appeal court, YouTube doesn’t have an “active role” as its search, categorization, and advertising service are seen as part of the normal business models of hosting platforms, which do not make the company liable.

Puls4 was disappointed with this ruling and immediately decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. This case is still pending but before it rules on the matter, the highest Austrian court is seeking input from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on several crucial questions.

The questions haven’t been published publicly on CJEU’s website yet, but TorrentFreak obtained a copy of the Portuguese versions and IP KAT did the same with the German questions. These questions reveal, as expected, that the EU’s highest court will have to decide the boundaries of Europe’s safe harbors.

The first question, for example, asks if a video host, under Article 14 of the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive 2000, takes on an “active role” that can make it liable for copyright infringements when it categorizes videos, makes suggestions by topic, and uses targeted advertising, among other things.

The EU Court is further asked to clarify whether Articles 12 to 14 of the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive mean that providers are shielded from liability, even when their activity is seen as a communication to the public.

In addition, the Austrian Supreme Court wants to know if a court-ordered injunction only applicable if a service provider has actual knowledge of infringements which have been confirmed by a court?

The latter appears to deal with the question of whether sites such as YouTube have to remove content merely based on metadata (to prevent repeated uploads), as opposed to pointing out specific infringing content. That’s important because, in the Puls4 case, YouTube was not aware of any the contested infringements.

The CJEU’s decision will be a crucial one in the ongoing legal debate about the potential liability of third-party intermediaries such as video hosting providers.

Puls4 previously stressed that it believes that EU law is on its side. Among other things, the company pointed out other relevant CJEU decisions, including the case regarding the infringing nature of The Pirate Bay. In addition, it believes that recent developments regarding liability under the proposed Article 17 of the new EU copyright directive will help its cause.

Interestingly, this isn’t the only YouTube-related case on CJEU’s agenda. A German court also referred various copyright infringement-related questions last year. The Austrian Supreme Court was aware of this referral but believes that its questions deserve to be handled separately.
END..

De da De Dum Folks.. & Who is paying all these Courts & Countries Thousands of US$ Bribes to try to DESTROY Pirates?

Piracy started in the 1960's in the UK.. It will never die...

>>> Up to you guys, if this site does not receive at least $200 in donations, before the end of Sept. > THIS SITE WILL CLOSE..

Server & Privacy costs have risen so much lately that we can no longer afford the costs to protect your privacy & ours...

Simple as that......

Ladybbird · 06-10-19, 14:46

As RIAA Targets Yet More YouTube-Ripping Sites, Here’s the State of Play

Posted: 6 Oct 2019 TF

Over the past few years, users ripping music from sites like YouTube has been portrayed by the industry as a bigger problem than torrent sites.

According to stats published by industry group IFPI last year, 32% of all Internet users were stream rippers, up from 30% in 2016. This, according to the group, made it the leading form of music piracy.

Last week, however, a new report revealed that the practice is actually on a downward trend, with 23% of those surveyed admitting to using stream-ripping services. Despite the big decrease, the RIAA isn’t likely to step away from its enforcement efforts anytime soon, as evidenced by a new application filed at a US court.

The application for a DMCA subpoena filed in the District of Columbia targets three sites that are either directly or indirectly linked to YouTube-ripping.

In common with several previous applications, this one also requires domain registry Namecheap to hand over the personal details of their operators, providing names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, payment information and more.

The first, YouTubeMP4.biz, recently suffered a drop in traffic according to SimilarWeb stats but that blip aside, has been pulling in up to 1.2 million visits per month throughout 2019. It is most popular in the United States, followed by the UK, Thailand, India and Turkey.

Next up is Keepvid.ws, which at around three million visits per month is the most popular in the application. Perhaps unusually given the close interest of the RIAA, the YouTube-ripping platform is most popular in South Africa, with around 16% of its traffic coming from the region. India and the United States follow with around 10% each.

The last of the RIAA’s latest targets is HDMP4.net, which on the surface seems different from the rest. When accessing the site’s URL directly, visitors are greeted with a blank page, which is unusual for a stream-ripping platform.

Furthermore, Google reveals that HDMP4.net has had just a handful of DMCA notices filed against it over the past several years, the last in 2015, with none coming from the music industry. However, checking in Google’s indexes reveals that the site isn’t indexed, so that makes sense.

The RIAA does mention some specific URLs carrying its content, including tracks by Cyndi Lauper and ZZ Top, which raises the question of whether other sites are using it in some way. Indeed, checks using various resources indicate that the site, which only gained significant traffic in June this year, seems connected to a number of other ripping services.

The big question remains whether the raft of DMCA subpoenas obtained by the RIAA against companies such as Namecheap and Cloudflare are having any direct effect on the operations of these platforms. While things are probably going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about, in the main most previously-targeted sites seem unaffected.

In May, the RIAA tried to extract the personal details of huge ripping site Y2Mate.com from Cloudflare and Namecheap. At the time the site had around 60 million monthly visits and despite the efforts, remains stubbornly online today.

The only real difference now is that SimilarWeb reports the site enjoying in excess of 130 million monthly visits, more than double the traffic reported back in May. The company recently changed the way it calculates traffic but it seems unlikely to have had this much of an effect, particularly since other online measurement sites also show a big upward trend.

On the flip side, a separate effort in May to unmask the operator of YouTubNow.com, a site with 15 million monthly visits, may have paid off. The site currently carries a “maintenance” message and its traffic has tanked to almost zero. That can probably go in the success column for the RIAA.

Back in June, the RIAA homed-in on 10Convert.com, Amoyshare.com, AnythingtoMP3.cc, IMP3Juices.com, BigConverter.com, YouTubeMP4.to, QDownloader.net, GenYouTube.net, Break.TV, DL-YouTube-MP3.net, ConvertBox.net, and Downloaders.io.

At the time of writing, only ConvertBox.net seems completely down while BigConverter.com might have resorted to blocking UK traffic for reasons unknown. The rest are operational, which doesn’t sound like a notable success rate. That being said, the RIAA may have other goals in mind so the bigger picture may play out in time.

By the industry’s own accounting, stream-ripping is on a downward trend but whether that’s attributable to the RIAA’s takedown efforts remains open to speculation. That being said, the RIAA will argue it has to do something, so the pressure is likely to continue.

The latest DMCA subpoena granted by the court can be found here (pdf)
,

Ladybbird · 17-10-19, 17:32

YouTube Settles Lawsuit With Alleged DMCA Extortion Scammer for $25,000

Posted: 17 Oct 2019 TF

YouTube’s copyright takedown policy poses one of the biggest threats to the streaming platform’s content creators.

YouTubers who receive three copyright infringement strikes can easily lose their channel, which for some equates to their livelihood.

This looming threat also provides an opportunity for scammers. As we reported a few months ago, YouTube’s copyright takedown process was being abused to extort YouTubers, including ‘ObbyRaidz’ and ‘Kenzo.’ Both repeatedly received ‘strikes’ against their channels.

The scammer in question pretended that he was the legitimate owner of the videos uploaded by the users and requested money to retract the false claims.

Quote:

.
“We striked you. Our request is $150 PayPal, or $75 btc. You may send the money via goods/ services if you do not think we will cancel or hold up our end of the deal,” the scammer wrote.

This abuse didn’t go unnoticed by YouTube, which tracked down the alleged offender and took action.

Last month the video streaming service sued Nebraska-resident Christopher Brady, accusing him of violating the DMCA by falsely claiming the content of other YouTubers as his own.

According to YouTube, Brady repeatedly attempted to harass and extort money from content creators through his bogus copyright infringement claims.

The company believes Brady went as far as using the address of YouTube user Cxlvxn, which is shared with a rightsholder for the purpose of filing a lawsuit, in an attempt to dispatch a large number of police officers to his home.

In the complaint, YouTube demanded a jury trial but it didn’t get that far. A few hours ago they submitted an agreed judgment and permanent injunction to the Nebraska federal court, which settles the matter without any further bloodshed.

Under the proposed injunction (pdf), Brady is prevented from filing any bogus copyright claims going forward. In addition, he separately agreed to pay $25,000 for his misconduct, offering a public apology to all the people who were hurt by his actions.

“I, Christopher L. Brady, admit that I sent dozens of notices to YouTube falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights,” reads the apology, which YouTube shared with The Verge.

“I apologize to the YouTube users that I directly impacted by my actions, to the YouTube community, and to YouTube itself,” Brady adds.

The proposed judgment and injunction have yet to be signed off by the court, but this is expected to happen later this week. It’s not clear whether any of the affected users will receive compensation, but YouTube says that it’s happy with this outcome.

“This settlement highlights the very real consequences for those that misuse our copyright system. We’ll continue our work to prevent abuse of our systems,” a YouTube spokesperson said.

Ladybbird · 03-04-20, 07:29

‘YouTube is Not Required to Share Email and IP-Addresses of Movie Pirates

Ernesto, TF, 03 Apr

YouTube’s users upload millions of hours of videos every month. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content.

This abuse is a thorn in the side of some copyright holders. Although they can send takedown requests to remove pirated content, some companies want to go after the infringers.

This is what happened in Germany, where the local company “Constantin Film” went after three YouTube users. These account holders had uploaded copies of the movies “Scary Movie 5” or “Parker” without permission, which were then viewed thousands of times.

The movie company demanded that Google and YouTube should share the email addresses, IP-addresses, and phone numbers that were tied to these accounts and took the matter to a local court.

Initially, this request was turned down by the Frankfurt District Court, but the Higher Regional Court later ruled that YouTube should hand over the associated email addresses, but not the IP-addresses and phone numbers.

Neither party was happy with this outcome and the case was sent to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice for another ruling. Before making a final judgment, the German court sent some questions to the EU Court of Justice, asking for input on how to interpret EU law in this matter.

While both German and EU legislation grant copyright holders the right to know who the copyright infringer is, it’s not clear what information should be handed over. Article 8 of the EU Copyright Directive from 2004 doesn’t go any further than mentioning “names and addresses” without any further specification.

To clarify the position, Germany’s Federal Court asked whether the law should be interpreted in a way that also covers email addresses, phone numbers, and IP-addresses. In an advisory opinion released by EU Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, this should not be the case.

The Advocate General believes that the ‘names’ and ‘addresses’ mentioned in Article 8 should be interpreted literally. In other words, it refers to the usual meaning in everyday language, which doesn’t cover email addresses, IP-addresses, and certainly not phone numbers.

“There is little doubt that, in everyday language, the concept of a person’s ‘address’, about which the referring court asks in particular, covers only the postal address, as YouTube and Google have rightly submitted,” Saugmandsgaard Øe writes.

The Advocate General understands that Constantin Film would like this language to be updated, so it also includes digital addresses, but he adds that this is something that lawmakers must address, not the court.

“Article 8(2) […] must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘names and addresses’ set out in that provision does not cover, in respect of a user who has uploaded files which infringe intellectual property rights, the email address, the telephone number, the IP address used to upload those files or the IP address used when the user’s account was last accessed.

“Accordingly, the Member States are not obliged, under that provision, to provide for the possibility, for the competent judicial authorities, to order that that information be provided in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right.”

This means that, based on this opinion, Germany’s Federal court can order YouTube and Google to hand over the names and postal addresses of the uploaders, but not the emails, IP-addresses, and phone numbers.

The Advocate General’s advice is not binding. However, in most cases the recommendations are followed by the EU Court of Justice, which will likely issue its final verdict later this year.

Ladybbird · 16-04-20, 23:08

YouTube Fights Off Lawsuit Over ‘Retaliatory’ Copyright Strikes

Ernesto, TF 15 Apr 2020

For many content creators of YouTube, copyright strikes are a major problem.

When users receive three ‘strikes’, YouTube can remove all videos, take down the channel permanently, and prevent the creator from making any new ones.

This is a significant threat for those who make a decent living off the video platform including Erik Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, who ran two popular YouTube channels totaling over 250,000 subscribers.

This achievement earned him a “Silver Creator Award” and generated $310,000 in revenue over a period of five years. However, Mishiyev’s relationship with the video platform was far from rosy.

Despite having over a quarter million subscribers, the DJ felt that the views of his videos were low when compared to similar channels. When some subscribers informed him that they received no alerts for new uploads, Mishiyev contacted YouTube support.

This inquiry didn’t go well and ultimately resulted in the creator supposedly threatening to take legal action against the video giant. Soon after that happened, he reported being bombarded by copyright takedowns and strikes, which effectively shut down his channels.

Mishiyev believes that these takedowns were retaliation for his legal threats. And when YouTube chose not to accept his DMCA counter-notices – which he sent in an attempt to get rid of the strikes – he took YouTube to court.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in California last summer, the YouTuber demanded $720,000 in compensation for lost income, among other things. In addition, he wanted to prevent YouTube from ever banning him again.

At the center of the lawsuit is a breach of contract claim. Mishiyev argued that YouTube failed to live up to its duties as it failed to process his DMCA counter-notices, a point contested by the video giant.

In a response filed a few weeks ago, YouTube noted that its Terms of Service allows the company to remove any content “without prior notice” and “in its sole discretion.” This agreement allows the company not to restore a video following a copyright claim, even when it is challenged.

“YouTube has no obligation to ever restore that material to its service, even when a user protests, and the agreement expressly highlights its discretion not to do so,” YouTube informed the court.

In other words, YouTube doesn’t have to restore content after it receives a counter-notice. It can simply ignore it, based on the agreed terms of service.

This is also the conclusion reached by the court. In an order released last month, US District Court Judge William Alsup notes that users are given the opportunity to submit counter-notifications but Google is not required to act on them.

“[O]nce a user submitted a counter-notice, the agreement reserved to YouTube’s sole discretion the decision to take any further action, including whether to restore the videos or even to send the counternotice to the purported copyright owner,” Judge Alsup wrote.

“Thus, YouTube did not agree to act as a neutral processor of notices and counter-notices. YouTube retained control to evaluate counter-notices and infringement on its own.”

Mishiyev didn’t go into detail on what grounds the notices were inaccurate. The main claim was that the videos were ‘struck’ by YouTube as retaliation. However, even if that’s true, YouTube is still not in the wrong for terminating the account.

“Even taking the retaliation allegations as true, however, the complaint fails to overcome YouTube’s express right to terminate plaintiff’s account for repeat copyright infringement,” Judge Alsup notes.

Based on these and several other arguments, the Judge granted YouTube’s request to dismiss the complaint. While that’s good news for the video service, the legal battle isn’t completely over yet.

As highlighted by Reclaim The Net, Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, has appealed the decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

—
Here is a copy of US District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to dismiss Mishiyev’s complaint against YouTube..

Order to dismiss Mishiyev’s complaint against YouTube..

,

Ladybbird · 04-07-20, 07:43

YouTube Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Copyright Enforcement, Repeat Infringer Policy

For many years, Google-owned YouTube has been wrestling with the vast amounts of copyright-infringing content being uploaded by users to its platform.

Andy Maxwell, TF 03 Jul

The challenge is met by YouTube by taking down content for which copyright holders file a legitimate infringement complaint under the DMCA. It also operates a voluntary system known as Content ID, which allows larger rightsholders to settle disputes by either blocking contentious content automatically at the point of upload or monetizing it to generate revenue.

Content ID Should Be Available to All Copyright Holders

A class action lawsuit filed Thursday in a California court by Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider tears apart YouTube’s efforts. It claims that the video-sharing platform fails on a grand scale to protect “ordinary creators” who are “denied any meaningful opportunity to prevent YouTube’s public display of works that infringe their copyrights — no matter how many times their works have previously been pirated on the platform.”

The 44-page complaint leaves no stone unturned, slamming YouTube as a platform designed from the ground up to draw in users with the lure of a “vast library” of pirated content and incentivizing the posting of even more material. YouTube then reaps the rewards via advertising revenue and exploitation of personal data at the expense of copyright holders who never gave permission for their work to be uploaded.

The lawsuit further criticizes YouTube for not only preventing smaller artists from accessing its Content ID system but denouncing the fingerprinting system itself, describing it as a mechanism used by YouTube to prevent known infringing users from being terminated from the site under the repeat infringer requirements of the DMCA.

Content ID Allows YouTube to Avoid Terminating Repeat Infringers

“Content ID is not only unavailable to Plaintiffs and the Class, but it actually insulates
the vast majority of known and repeated copyright infringers from YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, thereby encouraging its users’ continuing upload of infringing content”, the complaint reads.

Highlighting Google’s claims that 98% of YouTube copyright issues are resolved with Content ID, the action turns this statement on its head, stating that what the company really means is that all but a fraction of copyright-infringing material is “entirely insulated” from its repeat infringer policy.

“This two-tiered system essentially trains YouTube’s billions of uploading users that there is essentially minimal risk to uploading to their hearts’ content,” it reads.

“And while YouTube’s Content ID partners are protected from these repeat infringers because their uploads will always be screened against the Content ID catalog before publication, Plaintiffs and the Class remain at risk of recurring infringement by these same repeat infringers.”

The complaint says this undermines YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, which mandates that users will be terminated when they accrue three active strikes in a 90 day period. Its claim to safe harbor protection is also nullified, the complaint adds, due to YouTube placing a limit on the number of takedown notices it will process and restricting access to “certain automated tools” designed to locate infringing content on the platform.

No Takedown / Staydown Mechanism

Turning to how YouTube has affected Schneider herself, the action lists a number of songs that have been posted to YouTube without her permission. She claims to have applied to be included in the Content ID system twice but was rejected, so must now “self-police” for infringement instead of enjoying the “automatic and preemptive blocking” afforded to larger rightsholders via Content ID.

Schneider is joined in the action by a British Virgin Islands company called Pirate Monitor Ltd, which reportedly obtained the rights back in January to several non-U.S. movies first published in Hungary. One of those works, titled Immigrants – Jóska menni Amerika, was registered with the US Copyright Office earlier this year.

All of the Pirate Monitor works have been previously uploaded to YouTube in violation of copyright and the company was also denied access to Content ID. Takedown notices were processed by YouTube but the company says that removal took several days, with titles being subsequently reposted by infringers.

“Put simply, copyright holders should not be forced to repeatedly demand that the same platform take down infringing uses of the same copyrighted work, while other rights holders are provided access to standard digital fingerprinting and blocking tools,” the complaint adds.

“By not allowing Plaintiffs to block the upload of infringing materials at the time of upload, Defendants force Plaintiffs and the Class into a time consuming, cumbersome, inaccurate, and flawed ‘manual’ process to enforce their copyrights, all to the benefit of Defendants’ money-making machine.”

No Respect for Copyright Management Information

The complaint also takes a deep dive into YouTube’s alleged misconduct in respect of Copyright Management Information (CMI), metadata that can be found in lawfully sold copyright works which can provide a means to discover who owns it, in YouTube’s case at the point of upload to its platform.

“YouTube neither encourages nor protects the original CMI metadata during the upload process, even though YouTube knows it exists and its value for protecting the rights of creators,” the plaintiffs write.

“Defendants have created a system that not only disregards, but eliminates or conceals, and/or encourages uploaders to eliminate or conceal, CMI from the video files published on the YouTube platform.”

YouTube Not Entitled to Safe Harbor Protection Under the DMCA

Due to its actions, YouTube cannot rely on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, the complaint alleges. These include placing limits on the number of takedown notices it will process, preventing plaintiffs from properly enforcing their rights. When these limits are exceeded, the lawsuit states that rights holders risk losing access to YouTube’s infringement mitigation tools.

It further alleges that YouTube now requires some notice senders to identify what part of an allegedly-infringing work infringes their rights by supplying time stamps. While this is automated under Content ID, those outside the system find themselves with additional work.

“By conditioning these notification and takedown procedures on the provision of additional information — information not required under the DMCA — YouTube has violated the requirements of the DMCA and forfeited its safe harbor protections.”

The action further alleges that YouTube’s ‘three strikes in 90 days’ termination policy is deficient since when timed appropriately, it allows users to safely upload eight copyright infringing works in a year without being terminated.

“By erasing copyright strikes after 90 days, YouTube has not satisfied the safe harbor requirements of the DMCA and forfeited its safe harbor protections,” it adds.

Piling on the pressure, the complaint says that YouTube has constructive knowledge that repeat infringers are infringing works of the plaintiffs’ and class since these are being shielded from termination by the Content ID system which does not deliver ‘strikes’. It further adds that YouTube is profiting from infringements that it could control, another disqualifier from the safe harbor provisions.

Potentially Billions in Copyright Infringement Damages

In summary, the complaint alleges direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious infringement, and removal of CMI, contrary to the Copyright Act. As a class action, many more rights holders could now pile on, with the potential for calculator-busting claims for damages.

The full complaint can be obtained here (pdf)

30-11-18, 16:17	#1
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	YouTube Sued AGAIN Movie Company Demands €200,000 From YouTube Over Pirated Film TF 30 Nov 2018. On an average day, roughly half a million hours of video are uploaded to YouTube. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes pirated works, including full-length films. This is not a new problem and YouTube does its best to remove infringing videos and accounts when they’re reported. However, Dutch film production company ‘Farmhouse TV & Film says that it’s not enough. The company produced the film “Redbad” which premiered locally this summer. With one of the largest ever budgets for a Dutch film, it didn’t provide the success the makers had hoped for. During the first month, it recouped less than €400,000 of the €8 million budget, making it one of the biggest flops in Dutch theaters. While the film failed to draw the masses to the big screen, it did much better on YouTube. According to Farmhouse TV & Film, a full copy of the movie reached half a million views after it was uploaded. The only problem is that this copy wasn’t authorized. The production company isn’t happy with this unlicensed consumption and is now demanding €200,000 in compensation. Producer Klaas de Jong states that YouTube should take responsibility, noting that the pirated copy was displaying advertisements as well. “This way, YouTube has created a revenue model out of the illegal distribution of content,” De Jong says, quoted by Nu.nl. “Enough is enough. We’re talking about an illegal and criminal offense, and YouTube is not taking responsibility,” he adds. YouTube hasn’t commented on this individual case. However, the company explains that rightsholders can ask the video platform to take an infringing copy offline. This is what happened with the pirated copy of Redbad. The producer believes that this is irrelevant. The harm was already done when they spotted the copy and the takedown system has its limitations, especially when infringing content swiftly reappears. “This leads to a situation in which we as producers have to check for illegal links to our films on YouTube every week and beg to have them removed, after which they immediately reappear through another channel,” De Jong says. Tim Kuik, director of the local anti-piracy outfit BREIN which isn’t involved in the matter, says that it’s the first time a Dutch producer takes this step. Kuik also notes that the availability of pirated films on YouTube is a known problem. In the present matter, it’s unlikely that Farmhouse TV & Film will get anything from YouTube without going to court. Previously, Austrian television channel Puls 4 did just that, with success. This summer a court in Vienna concluded that YouTube can indeed be held directly liable for users’ copyright infringements. The video service is not a neutral intermediary and should do more to prevent infringing uploads, the court ruled. The verdict in question is not yet final. Ideally, Farmhouse TV & Film and other rightsholders would like YouTube to start filtering all content proactively. That sounds a lot like the EU’s Article 13 proposal, which YouTube is currently campaigning against. Interestingly, the production company was also tied up in another YouTube brawl earlier this year. According to the producer, YouTube had asked them to remove the trailer of the film because it would be “offensive to large populations.” No further details were given but, reportedly, YouTube took offense to the general theme which showed how Redbad and Vikings fought against the Christians who forced their faith upon the people. The trailers were never removed though. __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

26-08-19, 00:25	#2
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	YouTube Liable For Copyright Infringing Videos? EU Court Decides Can YouTube Be Liable For Copyright Infringing Videos? EU Court to Decide.. TF..25 AUG 2019 Week in and week out YouTube’s users upload millions of hours of videos. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content. YouTube tackles this by processing takedown notices and using its Content-ID system to automatically remove allegedly infringing content. However, according to some prominent copyright holders, this is not good enough. In Austria, this complaint is at the center of a lawsuit between the local television channel Puls 4 and YouTube. In an initial order last summer, the court ruled that the video platform can be held directly liable for users’ copyright infringements. YouTube was not seen as a neutral intermediary and should do more to prevent infringing uploads. The court noted that YouTube takes several motivated actions to actively organize and optimize how videos are displayed. By doing so, it becomes more than a neutral hosting provider. Therefore, it can’t rely on a safe harbor defense. This ruling was overturned by the Higher Regional Court of Vienna earlier this year. According to the appeal court, YouTube doesn’t have an “active role” as its search, categorization, and advertising service are seen as part of the normal business models of hosting platforms, which do not make the company liable. Puls4 was disappointed with this ruling and immediately decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. This case is still pending but before it rules on the matter, the highest Austrian court is seeking input from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on several crucial questions. The questions haven’t been published publicly on CJEU’s website yet, but TorrentFreak obtained a copy of the Portuguese versions and IP KAT did the same with the German questions. These questions reveal, as expected, that the EU’s highest court will have to decide the boundaries of Europe’s safe harbors. The first question, for example, asks if a video host, under Article 14 of the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive 2000, takes on an “active role” that can make it liable for copyright infringements when it categorizes videos, makes suggestions by topic, and uses targeted advertising, among other things. The EU Court is further asked to clarify whether Articles 12 to 14 of the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive mean that providers are shielded from liability, even when their activity is seen as a communication to the public. In addition, the Austrian Supreme Court wants to know if a court-ordered injunction only applicable if a service provider has actual knowledge of infringements which have been confirmed by a court? The latter appears to deal with the question of whether sites such as YouTube have to remove content merely based on metadata (to prevent repeated uploads), as opposed to pointing out specific infringing content. That’s important because, in the Puls4 case, YouTube was not aware of any the contested infringements. The CJEU’s decision will be a crucial one in the ongoing legal debate about the potential liability of third-party intermediaries such as video hosting providers. Puls4 previously stressed that it believes that EU law is on its side. Among other things, the company pointed out other relevant CJEU decisions, including the case regarding the infringing nature of The Pirate Bay. In addition, it believes that recent developments regarding liability under the proposed Article 17 of the new EU copyright directive will help its cause. Interestingly, this isn’t the only YouTube-related case on CJEU’s agenda. A German court also referred various copyright infringement-related questions last year. The Austrian Supreme Court was aware of this referral but believes that its questions deserve to be handled separately. END.. De da De Dum Folks.. & Who is paying all these Courts & Countries Thousands of US$ Bribes to try to DESTROY Pirates? Piracy started in the 1960's in the UK.. It will never die... >>> Up to you guys, if this site does not receive at least $200 in donations, before the end of Sept. > THIS SITE WILL CLOSE.. Server & Privacy costs have risen so much lately that we can no longer afford the costs to protect your privacy & ours... Simple as that...... __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

06-10-19, 14:46	#3
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	DMCA/RIAA Targets More YouTube-Ripping Sites As RIAA Targets Yet More YouTube-Ripping Sites, Here’s the State of Play Posted: 6 Oct 2019 TF Over the past few years, users ripping music from sites like YouTube has been portrayed by the industry as a bigger problem than torrent sites. According to stats published by industry group IFPI last year, 32% of all Internet users were stream rippers, up from 30% in 2016. This, according to the group, made it the leading form of music piracy. Last week, however, a new report revealed that the practice is actually on a downward trend, with 23% of those surveyed admitting to using stream-ripping services. Despite the big decrease, the RIAA isn’t likely to step away from its enforcement efforts anytime soon, as evidenced by a new application filed at a US court. The application for a DMCA subpoena filed in the District of Columbia targets three sites that are either directly or indirectly linked to YouTube-ripping. In common with several previous applications, this one also requires domain registry Namecheap to hand over the personal details of their operators, providing names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, payment information and more. The first, YouTubeMP4.biz, recently suffered a drop in traffic according to SimilarWeb stats but that blip aside, has been pulling in up to 1.2 million visits per month throughout 2019. It is most popular in the United States, followed by the UK, Thailand, India and Turkey. Next up is Keepvid.ws, which at around three million visits per month is the most popular in the application. Perhaps unusually given the close interest of the RIAA, the YouTube-ripping platform is most popular in South Africa, with around 16% of its traffic coming from the region. India and the United States follow with around 10% each. The last of the RIAA’s latest targets is HDMP4.net, which on the surface seems different from the rest. When accessing the site’s URL directly, visitors are greeted with a blank page, which is unusual for a stream-ripping platform. Furthermore, Google reveals that HDMP4.net has had just a handful of DMCA notices filed against it over the past several years, the last in 2015, with none coming from the music industry. However, checking in Google’s indexes reveals that the site isn’t indexed, so that makes sense. The RIAA does mention some specific URLs carrying its content, including tracks by Cyndi Lauper and ZZ Top, which raises the question of whether other sites are using it in some way. Indeed, checks using various resources indicate that the site, which only gained significant traffic in June this year, seems connected to a number of other ripping services. The big question remains whether the raft of DMCA subpoenas obtained by the RIAA against companies such as Namecheap and Cloudflare are having any direct effect on the operations of these platforms. While things are probably going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about, in the main most previously-targeted sites seem unaffected. In May, the RIAA tried to extract the personal details of huge ripping site Y2Mate.com from Cloudflare and Namecheap. At the time the site had around 60 million monthly visits and despite the efforts, remains stubbornly online today. The only real difference now is that SimilarWeb reports the site enjoying in excess of 130 million monthly visits, more than double the traffic reported back in May. The company recently changed the way it calculates traffic but it seems unlikely to have had this much of an effect, particularly since other online measurement sites also show a big upward trend. On the flip side, a separate effort in May to unmask the operator of YouTubNow.com, a site with 15 million monthly visits, may have paid off. The site currently carries a “maintenance” message and its traffic has tanked to almost zero. That can probably go in the success column for the RIAA. Back in June, the RIAA homed-in on 10Convert.com, Amoyshare.com, AnythingtoMP3.cc, IMP3Juices.com, BigConverter.com, YouTubeMP4.to, QDownloader.net, GenYouTube.net, Break.TV, DL-YouTube-MP3.net, ConvertBox.net, and Downloaders.io. At the time of writing, only ConvertBox.net seems completely down while BigConverter.com might have resorted to blocking UK traffic for reasons unknown. The rest are operational, which doesn’t sound like a notable success rate. That being said, the RIAA may have other goals in mind so the bigger picture may play out in time. By the industry’s own accounting, stream-ripping is on a downward trend but whether that’s attributable to the RIAA’s takedown efforts remains open to speculation. That being said, the RIAA will argue it has to do something, so the pressure is likely to continue. *The latest DMCA subpoena granted by the court can be found here (pdf)* , __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

03-04-20, 07:29	#5
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	YouTube Not Required to Share Info of Movie Pirates ‘YouTube is Not Required to Share Email and IP-Addresses of Movie Pirates Ernesto, TF, 03 Apr YouTube’s users upload millions of hours of videos every month. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content. This abuse is a thorn in the side of some copyright holders. Although they can send takedown requests to remove pirated content, some companies want to go after the infringers. This is what happened in Germany, where the local company “Constantin Film” went after three YouTube users. These account holders had uploaded copies of the movies “Scary Movie 5” or “Parker” without permission, which were then viewed thousands of times. The movie company demanded that Google and YouTube should share the email addresses, IP-addresses, and phone numbers that were tied to these accounts and took the matter to a local court. Initially, this request was turned down by the Frankfurt District Court, but the Higher Regional Court later ruled that YouTube should hand over the associated email addresses, but not the IP-addresses and phone numbers. Neither party was happy with this outcome and the case was sent to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice for another ruling. Before making a final judgment, the German court sent some questions to the EU Court of Justice, asking for input on how to interpret EU law in this matter. While both German and EU legislation grant copyright holders the right to know who the copyright infringer is, it’s not clear what information should be handed over. Article 8 of the EU Copyright Directive from 2004 doesn’t go any further than mentioning “names and addresses” without any further specification. To clarify the position, Germany’s Federal Court asked whether the law should be interpreted in a way that also covers email addresses, phone numbers, and IP-addresses. In an advisory opinion released by EU Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, this should not be the case. The Advocate General believes that the ‘names’ and ‘addresses’ mentioned in Article 8 should be interpreted literally. In other words, it refers to the usual meaning in everyday language, which doesn’t cover email addresses, IP-addresses, and certainly not phone numbers. “There is little doubt that, in everyday language, the concept of a person’s ‘address’, about which the referring court asks in particular, covers only the postal address, as YouTube and Google have rightly submitted,” Saugmandsgaard Øe writes. The Advocate General understands that Constantin Film would like this language to be updated, so it also includes digital addresses, but he adds that this is something that lawmakers must address, not the court. “Article 8(2) […] must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘names and addresses’ set out in that provision does not cover, in respect of a user who has uploaded files which infringe intellectual property rights, the email address, the telephone number, the IP address used to upload those files or the IP address used when the user’s account was last accessed. “Accordingly, the Member States are not obliged, under that provision, to provide for the possibility, for the competent judicial authorities, to order that that information be provided in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right.” This means that, based on this opinion, Germany’s Federal court can order YouTube and Google to hand over the names and postal addresses of the uploaders, but not the emails, IP-addresses, and phone numbers. The Advocate General’s advice is not binding. However, in most cases the recommendations are followed by the EU Court of Justice, which will likely issue its final verdict later this year. __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

16-04-20, 23:08	#6
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	YouTube Fights Off ANOTHER Lawsuit >Copyright Strikes YouTube Fights Off Lawsuit Over ‘Retaliatory’ Copyright Strikes Ernesto, TF 15 Apr 2020 For many content creators of YouTube, copyright strikes are a major problem. When users receive three ‘strikes’, YouTube can remove all videos, take down the channel permanently, and prevent the creator from making any new ones. This is a significant threat for those who make a decent living off the video platform including Erik Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, who ran two popular YouTube channels totaling over 250,000 subscribers. This achievement earned him a “Silver Creator Award” and generated $310,000 in revenue over a period of five years. However, Mishiyev’s relationship with the video platform was far from rosy. Despite having over a quarter million subscribers, the DJ felt that the views of his videos were low when compared to similar channels. When some subscribers informed him that they received no alerts for new uploads, Mishiyev contacted YouTube support. This inquiry didn’t go well and ultimately resulted in the creator supposedly threatening to take legal action against the video giant. Soon after that happened, he reported being bombarded by copyright takedowns and strikes, which effectively shut down his channels. Mishiyev believes that these takedowns were retaliation for his legal threats. And when YouTube chose not to accept his DMCA counter-notices – which he sent in an attempt to get rid of the strikes – he took YouTube to court. In a complaint filed at a federal court in California last summer, the YouTuber demanded $720,000 in compensation for lost income, among other things. In addition, he wanted to prevent YouTube from ever banning him again. At the center of the lawsuit is a breach of contract claim. Mishiyev argued that YouTube failed to live up to its duties as it failed to process his DMCA counter-notices, a point contested by the video giant. In a response filed a few weeks ago, YouTube noted that its Terms of Service allows the company to remove any content “without prior notice” and “in its sole discretion.” This agreement allows the company not to restore a video following a copyright claim, even when it is challenged. “YouTube has no obligation to ever restore that material to its service, even when a user protests, and the agreement expressly highlights its discretion not to do so,” YouTube informed the court. In other words, YouTube doesn’t have to restore content after it receives a counter-notice. It can simply ignore it, based on the agreed terms of service. This is also the conclusion reached by the court. In an order released last month, US District Court Judge William Alsup notes that users are given the opportunity to submit counter-notifications but Google is not required to act on them. “[O]nce a user submitted a counter-notice, the agreement reserved to YouTube’s sole discretion the decision to take any further action, including whether to restore the videos or even to send the counternotice to the purported copyright owner,” Judge Alsup wrote. “Thus, YouTube did not agree to act as a neutral processor of notices and counter-notices. YouTube retained control to evaluate counter-notices and infringement on its own.” Mishiyev didn’t go into detail on what grounds the notices were inaccurate. The main claim was that the videos were ‘struck’ by YouTube as retaliation. However, even if that’s true, YouTube is still not in the wrong for terminating the account. “Even taking the retaliation allegations as true, however, the complaint fails to overcome YouTube’s express right to terminate plaintiff’s account for repeat copyright infringement,” Judge Alsup notes. Based on these and several other arguments, the Judge granted YouTube’s request to dismiss the complaint. While that’s good news for the video service, the legal battle isn’t completely over yet. As highlighted by Reclaim The Net, Mishiyev, aka DJ Short-E, has appealed the decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — Here is a copy of US District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to dismiss Mishiyev’s complaint against YouTube.. Order to dismiss Mishiyev’s complaint against YouTube.. , __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

04-07-20, 07:43	#7
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,557 Thanks: 27,624 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	Re: YouTube Sued AGAIN YouTube Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Copyright Enforcement, Repeat Infringer Policy For many years, Google-owned YouTube has been wrestling with the vast amounts of copyright-infringing content being uploaded by users to its platform. Andy Maxwell, TF 03 Jul The challenge is met by YouTube by taking down content for which copyright holders file a legitimate infringement complaint under the DMCA. It also operates a voluntary system known as Content ID, which allows larger rightsholders to settle disputes by either blocking contentious content automatically at the point of upload or monetizing it to generate revenue. Content ID Should Be Available to All Copyright Holders A class action lawsuit filed Thursday in a California court by Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider tears apart YouTube’s efforts. It claims that the video-sharing platform fails on a grand scale to protect “ordinary creators” who are “denied any meaningful opportunity to prevent YouTube’s public display of works that infringe their copyrights — no matter how many times their works have previously been pirated on the platform.” The 44-page complaint leaves no stone unturned, slamming YouTube as a platform designed from the ground up to draw in users with the lure of a “vast library” of pirated content and incentivizing the posting of even more material. YouTube then reaps the rewards via advertising revenue and exploitation of personal data at the expense of copyright holders who never gave permission for their work to be uploaded. The lawsuit further criticizes YouTube for not only preventing smaller artists from accessing its Content ID system but denouncing the fingerprinting system itself, describing it as a mechanism used by YouTube to prevent known infringing users from being terminated from the site under the repeat infringer requirements of the DMCA. Content ID Allows YouTube to Avoid Terminating Repeat Infringers “Content ID is not only unavailable to Plaintiffs and the Class, but it actually insulates the vast majority of known and repeated copyright infringers from YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, thereby encouraging its users’ continuing upload of infringing content”, the complaint reads. Highlighting Google’s claims that 98% of YouTube copyright issues are resolved with Content ID, the action turns this statement on its head, stating that what the company really means is that all but a fraction of copyright-infringing material is “entirely insulated” from its repeat infringer policy. “This two-tiered system essentially trains YouTube’s billions of uploading users that there is essentially minimal risk to uploading to their hearts’ content,” it reads. “And while YouTube’s Content ID partners are protected from these repeat infringers because their uploads will always be screened against the Content ID catalog before publication, Plaintiffs and the Class remain at risk of recurring infringement by these same repeat infringers.” The complaint says this undermines YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, which mandates that users will be terminated when they accrue three active strikes in a 90 day period. Its claim to safe harbor protection is also nullified, the complaint adds, due to YouTube placing a limit on the number of takedown notices it will process and restricting access to “certain automated tools” designed to locate infringing content on the platform. No Takedown / Staydown Mechanism Turning to how YouTube has affected Schneider herself, the action lists a number of songs that have been posted to YouTube without her permission. She claims to have applied to be included in the Content ID system twice but was rejected, so must now “self-police” for infringement instead of enjoying the “automatic and preemptive blocking” afforded to larger rightsholders via Content ID. Schneider is joined in the action by a British Virgin Islands company called Pirate Monitor Ltd, which reportedly obtained the rights back in January to several non-U.S. movies first published in Hungary. One of those works, titled Immigrants – Jóska menni Amerika, was registered with the US Copyright Office earlier this year. All of the Pirate Monitor works have been previously uploaded to YouTube in violation of copyright and the company was also denied access to Content ID. Takedown notices were processed by YouTube but the company says that removal took several days, with titles being subsequently reposted by infringers. “Put simply, copyright holders should not be forced to repeatedly demand that the same platform take down infringing uses of the same copyrighted work, while other rights holders are provided access to standard digital fingerprinting and blocking tools,” the complaint adds. “By not allowing Plaintiffs to block the upload of infringing materials at the time of upload, Defendants force Plaintiffs and the Class into a time consuming, cumbersome, inaccurate, and flawed ‘manual’ process to enforce their copyrights, all to the benefit of Defendants’ money-making machine.” No Respect for Copyright Management Information The complaint also takes a deep dive into YouTube’s alleged misconduct in respect of Copyright Management Information (CMI), metadata that can be found in lawfully sold copyright works which can provide a means to discover who owns it, in YouTube’s case at the point of upload to its platform. “YouTube neither encourages nor protects the original CMI metadata during the upload process, even though YouTube knows it exists and its value for protecting the rights of creators,” the plaintiffs write. “Defendants have created a system that not only disregards, but eliminates or conceals, and/or encourages uploaders to eliminate or conceal, CMI from the video files published on the YouTube platform.” YouTube Not Entitled to Safe Harbor Protection Under the DMCA Due to its actions, YouTube cannot rely on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, the complaint alleges. These include placing limits on the number of takedown notices it will process, preventing plaintiffs from properly enforcing their rights. When these limits are exceeded, the lawsuit states that rights holders risk losing access to YouTube’s infringement mitigation tools. It further alleges that YouTube now requires some notice senders to identify what part of an allegedly-infringing work infringes their rights by supplying time stamps. While this is automated under Content ID, those outside the system find themselves with additional work. “By conditioning these notification and takedown procedures on the provision of additional information — information not required under the DMCA — YouTube has violated the requirements of the DMCA and forfeited its safe harbor protections.” The action further alleges that YouTube’s ‘three strikes in 90 days’ termination policy is deficient since when timed appropriately, it allows users to safely upload eight copyright infringing works in a year without being terminated. “By erasing copyright strikes after 90 days, YouTube has not satisfied the safe harbor requirements of the DMCA and forfeited its safe harbor protections,” it adds. Piling on the pressure, the complaint says that YouTube has constructive knowledge that repeat infringers are infringing works of the plaintiffs’ and class since these are being shielded from termination by the Content ID system which does not deliver ‘strikes’. It further adds that YouTube is profiting from infringements that it could control, another disqualifier from the safe harbor provisions. Potentially Billions in Copyright Infringement Damages In summary, the complaint alleges direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious infringement, and removal of CMI, contrary to the Copyright Act. As a class action, many more rights holders could now pile on, with the potential for calculator-busting claims for damages. The full complaint can be obtained here (pdf) __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)