Thread: Duplicate Content - Do you wait for a takedown notice?

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “safe harbor” protects online service providers from copyright infringement claims based on infringing posts on blogs and forums by users. Prior to the Second Circuit’s ruling, the DMCA “safe harbor” was viewed as virtually bullet proof. Not so, anymore.

Source: Site Pro News

This was an ongoing battle between Viacom and Youtube. Viacom was suing Youtube for copyright infringement and for knowing that their users were adding the content to Youtube.

That is not the real issue here though Do you take the necessary steps to avoid being in a similar situation? Or do you think that using the "safe harbour" loophole in the DMCA will help when you are found to have duplicate content on your site.

Or, do you think the only reason why this is even mentioned is because Youtube is so popular.

Read through the post, I would love to hear your comments.

In these cases, ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE is what it is all based on and as it was seen in the case, it was kicked back down for a jury to decide. So, it's all a case by case consideration. In this case, youtube idiots basically provided proof about KNOWLEDGE by emailing about it and proceeding to not do anything about it (post said they left it up to gain publicity? why?). In other cases, knowledge may be harder to prove. This is similar in other copyright cases like people copying others' music melodies, etc... where knowledge and access are important facors.

In the real world, if you were contacted about infringing material or it is somewhere in record that someone emailed, commented, etc... that it was infringing or even if the content caused a spike in your traffic and analytics were subpeonaed (arguing you should've known, etc...), then taking it down asap is definitely a good idea. So many tech records (emails, anayltics, etc...) are recorded these days that I'd be extra cautious.

Definitely. I think something like this would now place extra strain on a site owner that allows people to place content on their site, be it article directories, guest blogs etc. If something like this can effect youtube, what's stopping others from going through the same course. What bothers me most about that article is that the content was left in place so that it could generate publicity. I guess asking why do that seems rather pointless, but it raises one question. When is it necessary to take down copyrighted content. If it were up to me, I would nuke it the minute I lay eyes on it, but that's just me. There are too many scenarios to consider, too many situations people could be in at the time maybe. What do you think?

In this case, Youtube was just being pompous, I think...a little G-flexing. It was basically 2 giants from conflicting industries facing-off. It's like continuation of SOPA. I guess whether people nuke faster or slower depends on their ability and willingness to defend such issues. Here, G has money and can afford to make a point / take a chance. You or me, not so much... We would get bled to death from shark fees. I mean lawyer fees...

The WHEN question is tied to the KNOWLEDGE question. So, when it seems to you that a jury could deduce that you had knowledge of the infringing content, would be the when it should've been taken down. In the case above, it was when the YT manage emailed about.

Like you, I would not take the chance. Copyright infringement is no joke...

Nope its not, especially if you can't afford the consequences of it. I already saw the publicity angle present. Viacom trying to better youtube and get a little (or a lot) of compensation on the side, yet, strangely enough, the members responsible seem to have come off it all unscathed, because they aren't mentioned in the article, but I guess they have been taken care of in some way. What do you think a person's rights would be if someone placed this kind of content on your site, and you were hauled over the coals for it. Should there not be something you can do to get your own sort of justice for what happened to you? Or would you let them get away with it?