Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes(owningyourshit.blogspot.ca)
owningyourshit.blogspot.ca
Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca/2012/08/abuse-of-youtubes-copyright.html
11 comments
Youtube obeys the DMCA rules, but also has a vastly streamlined process that's being somewhat openly abused that lacks anyway to effectively fight back.
Considering how prevalent abusive and wildly inaccurate automatic take downs are one must consider google itself is exploiting the process to obtain personal information. Google absolutely doesn't want you to remain anonymous it diminishethree value of their analitics.
I think they should provide more tools to the uploader so they can make informed choices and defend their rights. I fear google will avoid this this as google benifits from the abusive system.
Great link, and anyone with a site should file. I'm not sure that someone with only a youtube account can file as he's not actually hosting things himself, youtube is. (edit: actually in their list there are 11 individual youtube channel owners who have registered using their youtube channel address. Some of these also have their own separate sites though. Example: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/h/hyundai_motor.pdf. Also, the Copyright Office's list there is abysmal - if the person lists the site starting with "http" or "www" then it is indexed under H or W and not the actual site name. Since they have no search capabilities, it's rather likely many won't be found by someone looking to file a complaint.)
Also, according to that page and schedule of fees, prices have been raised, and it's $105 now, plus $30 more if you have more than one domain name to register for, up to 10.
Also should note that the person in the link doesn't want to reveal his address or his legal name, and although the "Designation of Agent" form only asks for the address of the agent, the "full legal name" of the service provider, which would be him if he was self-hosting and unincorporated, is also required.
Also, according to that page and schedule of fees, prices have been raised, and it's $105 now, plus $30 more if you have more than one domain name to register for, up to 10.
Also should note that the person in the link doesn't want to reveal his address or his legal name, and although the "Designation of Agent" form only asks for the address of the agent, the "full legal name" of the service provider, which would be him if he was self-hosting and unincorporated, is also required.
>All she has to do to file a counter claim is submit contact information of someone authorized to act on behalf of the works submitted, be that an attorney, friend or other business agent
This actually seems like a great idea for a business: DMCA takedown protection. Register your works with us, and we'll take care of the disputes and counterclaims. You pay us a signup fee for each work, and a fee for each work we successfully defend. In return, you get peace of mind and an agent familiar with the system to wrestle with claimants on your behalf.
This actually seems like a great idea for a business: DMCA takedown protection. Register your works with us, and we'll take care of the disputes and counterclaims. You pay us a signup fee for each work, and a fee for each work we successfully defend. In return, you get peace of mind and an agent familiar with the system to wrestle with claimants on your behalf.
should websites outside of the U.S also do this?
Regardless of the truth of this woman's specific claims... This seems like the point at which youtube has to make decisions about who their automated takedown system actually serves.
Reddit's CEO refers to Reddit as akin to a city-state and himself as mayor. Youtube has essentially the same problems in governance. They have to juggle a host of competing interests ranging from free speech rights, to copyright infringement, to the right to privacy. It has constituents large and small, individual users on up to multimillion dollar companies. Their constituents are not aligned on a host of issues, and this is clearly one of them.
So we know whose side the federal government is on, the question is, whose side is Youtube on?
Reddit's CEO refers to Reddit as akin to a city-state and himself as mayor. Youtube has essentially the same problems in governance. They have to juggle a host of competing interests ranging from free speech rights, to copyright infringement, to the right to privacy. It has constituents large and small, individual users on up to multimillion dollar companies. Their constituents are not aligned on a host of issues, and this is clearly one of them.
So we know whose side the federal government is on, the question is, whose side is Youtube on?
I'd say they're on the side that doesn't expose them to a massive lawsuit by media companies.
What exactly do you want Youtube to do? Under the DMCA, they don't get to decide what content is infringing or not.
The requirement to provide your name/address is so the DMCA complaints can be handled in a court, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
The requirement to provide your name/address is so the DMCA complaints can be handled in a court, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Interesting technique, and I see how the behaviour of the opponents can be annoying. But the lawsuit threat is ridiculous. Is youtube required to provide free anonymous video hosting to this person? Perhaps she should ask for her money back instead.
Just because she is not paying money, doesn't mean she has no rights. YouTube are still under contractual and moral obligations regardless of how much money she gave them.
Contractual obligation? What contract? I guarantee you that the clickthrough agreement the blogger signed explicitly said that Google might do what it's doing now.
Moral obligation? If you start saying that someone providing a service has a moral obligation to open themselves to civil suits on behalf of the people they serve then you'd see a lot fewer people offering free services.
Moral obligation? If you start saying that someone providing a service has a moral obligation to open themselves to civil suits on behalf of the people they serve then you'd see a lot fewer people offering free services.
YouTube is (inadvertently) aiding other people in an attempt to harass her, and the only recourse they provide requires her to reveal her full name to her attackers, thus opening her up to offline harassment. Seems like a good reason to sue.
I don't know american law, but to me that would be just as silly as suing the post office because someone sent you a postcard with the message "fuck you".
Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case?
IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.
Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case?
IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.
Perhaps they should refer to 17 USC § 512 (f). She can sue for misrepresentation. Frankly, I'm surprised that nobody has! I'm sure if she wanted she could extract a lot of money. It would sure stop frivilous takedown requests, too!
The EFF famously sued a DMCA troll, it was quite dramatic. https://www.eff.org/cases/diehl-v-crook
Wow, I didn't know that aspect of the DMCA had ever been used. Do you know of any other cases of that happening?
I wish I could care about this, but the 'doxx' and lulz and generally childish writing make me assume this is another case of internet entitlement issues.
I'm not sure which you take issue with. Do you think:
-she has no right to privacy?
-she deserves to be harassed?
-she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her?
-or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant?
Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms.
I would expect some informal language in a transcript to a youtube video. However, after reviewing the entire transcript again, I don't see much informal writing at all. I have no idea what you're referring to with "lulz" and I'm still looking for this "childish writing."
-she has no right to privacy?
-she deserves to be harassed?
-she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her?
-or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant?
Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms.
I would expect some informal language in a transcript to a youtube video. However, after reviewing the entire transcript again, I don't see much informal writing at all. I have no idea what you're referring to with "lulz" and I'm still looking for this "childish writing."
Generally I find myself in the "pro-harrasee" camp. But honestly not this time. Obviously she does have the right to expect Google not to reveal her private information. And they don't. And any harrassment being done (as I read it, there is none actually alleged) must stop.
But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by their rules, one of which is the (in this case, abusable) copyright counterclaim process. She doesn't have to give the claimants her info just like Google doesn't have to host her data. Stick it on Vimeo, or put it up in an S3 bucket.
And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.
But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by their rules, one of which is the (in this case, abusable) copyright counterclaim process. She doesn't have to give the claimants her info just like Google doesn't have to host her data. Stick it on Vimeo, or put it up in an S3 bucket.
And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.
>And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.
Same here, but I'm thinking the "little enclave" is youtube. Several hundred videos have discussed doxing/doxxing in the past year, so it may be assumed to be common knowledge there among the more active vloggers. She makes youtube videos and she seems to be appealing solely to a youtube audience since it's a youtube specific issue (again, this is just a transcript).
I'm agreeing with you on most everything else. I don't particularly care for her legal approach here, but I don't think what she said should be ignored because of novel word usage either.
Same here, but I'm thinking the "little enclave" is youtube. Several hundred videos have discussed doxing/doxxing in the past year, so it may be assumed to be common knowledge there among the more active vloggers. She makes youtube videos and she seems to be appealing solely to a youtube audience since it's a youtube specific issue (again, this is just a transcript).
I'm agreeing with you on most everything else. I don't particularly care for her legal approach here, but I don't think what she said should be ignored because of novel word usage either.
It wasn't the novel word usage, it was the writing style in general. I can generally recognize what reasoned, researched, well-thought-out arguments look like.
Usually they do not include whole paragraphs in capital letters, or multiple instances of words in caps for emotional affect. Perhaps less telling but still strange was the reference to a user 'ZOMGitscriss' - this, combined with the repeated 'doxx' usage, lends me to believe the writer has about the intellectual level of a script kiddie on irc, which I am extremely familiar with due to spending years wasting my life with people who say things like "oh dongues. i been doxxd by a fed. ZOMG"
Reading the whole article after I left my comment, and reading HN's subsequent comments, it became clear this was some kind of off the cuff rant about the consequences of the DMCA-related censors built into youtube, and a misunderstanding of their policy. In other words, I was right.
Usually they do not include whole paragraphs in capital letters, or multiple instances of words in caps for emotional affect. Perhaps less telling but still strange was the reference to a user 'ZOMGitscriss' - this, combined with the repeated 'doxx' usage, lends me to believe the writer has about the intellectual level of a script kiddie on irc, which I am extremely familiar with due to spending years wasting my life with people who say things like "oh dongues. i been doxxd by a fed. ZOMG"
Reading the whole article after I left my comment, and reading HN's subsequent comments, it became clear this was some kind of off the cuff rant about the consequences of the DMCA-related censors built into youtube, and a misunderstanding of their policy. In other words, I was right.
Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?
Regardless of what the (obscure) legal reality is in this matter, do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way, and shows a general lack of understanding of the real-world procedures (as opposed to how keyboard warriors imagine things are or should be) in matters like this, and an apparent unwillingness to learn about them, to a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it, and certainly ill-suited to be the flag bearer for a contentious topic like this one?
See how that works?
See how that works?
do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way
No, I don't agree. Anger at harassment and injustice isn't juvenile. Use of jargon familiar to her audience isn't juvenile either. Although I can see why others would see it that way.
apparent unwillingness to learn about them
I do agree this seems apparent.
To a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it
I don't know enough to judge.
No, I don't agree. Anger at harassment and injustice isn't juvenile. Use of jargon familiar to her audience isn't juvenile either. Although I can see why others would see it that way.
apparent unwillingness to learn about them
I do agree this seems apparent.
To a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it
I don't know enough to judge.
The people who filed the request are obviously trolling in order to:
1) Get the videos removed. 2) Potentially get real-life identifying information in order to enact a campaign of harassment. I would hate for GWW to be harassed. She is a breath of fresh air.
The DMCA is fine when the complaints are legit. This penalizes both YouTube and the content creator.
1) Get the videos removed. 2) Potentially get real-life identifying information in order to enact a campaign of harassment. I would hate for GWW to be harassed. She is a breath of fresh air.
The DMCA is fine when the complaints are legit. This penalizes both YouTube and the content creator.
No.
You put the details of your legal representative on that form.
You put the details of your legal representative on that form.
Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.
There are lawyers who take on cases like these just on principle (assuming the facts are as described). They would usually want to get co-council who is licensed in your jurisdiction, but if it really comes down to it they might accept being primary on the claim.
Your legal representative need not be local. I just had someone across the country file court docs on my behalf.
[deleted]
It's funny that you phrase it that way. I didn't know the author was a woman (does it matter?).
As others have noted, this form doesn't need your personal information, so no I don't agree that this is an "exploit". You never have to give your personal information.
The situation reminds me of people who make anti-Scientology videos and then cry about freedom of speech when the cult's legal juggernaut descends. Is it fair to get a DMCA or lawsuit threat just because someone disagrees with your content? No (assuming you did not violate copyright protection laws). But getting bit by a shark because you're wading in its pool isn't fair either - just inevitable.
As others have noted, this form doesn't need your personal information, so no I don't agree that this is an "exploit". You never have to give your personal information.
The situation reminds me of people who make anti-Scientology videos and then cry about freedom of speech when the cult's legal juggernaut descends. Is it fair to get a DMCA or lawsuit threat just because someone disagrees with your content? No (assuming you did not violate copyright protection laws). But getting bit by a shark because you're wading in its pool isn't fair either - just inevitable.
The posting implies that the RL information required to make a counterclaim will be supplied to the party making the complaint.
Is this indeed how YouTube's process works? If so, it certainly would seem to be problematic. A proxy, such as a shell company, or simply a friend, would seem to be plausible alternatives.
Is this indeed how YouTube's process works? If so, it certainly would seem to be problematic. A proxy, such as a shell company, or simply a friend, would seem to be plausible alternatives.
Youtube is simply following the DMCA here and this is precisely how the process works. If it worked any other way, the hosting provider (youtube in this case), would not enjoy safe harbors under the law. This aspect of the DMCA is specifically created to protect hosting companies from lawsuits involving automated upload of copyrighted material.
Essentially, Prima makes an accusation - "I swear your user is hosting my copyrighted material via your site." Host informs Secunda. Secunda has two options, either 1) Have the material removed by host or 2) submit sworn statement to host that they did not violate copyright and that Prima can come sue them at this address.
At that point the host re-instates the material in question and will remove it only upon receipt of initiation of a lawsuit.
This provision of the DMCA was created by the ISPs and specifically the cable companies because they didn't want to be liable for things their users did on their networks. This is the result.
Essentially, Prima makes an accusation - "I swear your user is hosting my copyrighted material via your site." Host informs Secunda. Secunda has two options, either 1) Have the material removed by host or 2) submit sworn statement to host that they did not violate copyright and that Prima can come sue them at this address.
At that point the host re-instates the material in question and will remove it only upon receipt of initiation of a lawsuit.
This provision of the DMCA was created by the ISPs and specifically the cable companies because they didn't want to be liable for things their users did on their networks. This is the result.
I think this is not DMCA request. Google has it's own takedown mechanism, which afaik what this is about.
When you submit a takedown notice to youtube or google for user content hosted there, their takedown mechanism IS a DMCA takedown. They explicitly state that when using the wizard. They just accept via email, fax, postal mail and additionally via their own mechanism that they created which allows for self-service creation.
Also, to add: Yes, you are completely right. Any rights holder can designate an agent to work on this on their behalf.
Transfer the ownership to EFF and put their info on the form?
Interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has stepped up to prevent the chilling effect of DMCA takedown notices?
It seems like a non-profit could handle this role where they act as a proxy where the victim of the notice asserts they have copyright, sends the information to the proxy and then the proxy acts on their behalf?
It seems like a non-profit could handle this role where they act as a proxy where the victim of the notice asserts they have copyright, sends the information to the proxy and then the proxy acts on their behalf?
Interesting idea. The proxy service would most likely be in the form of a "copyright agent" service for copyright/DMCA takedowns, with some degree of privacy protection for site owners. This would enable large scale monitoring of abuse.
The "act on their behalf" might be considered legal representation. As I understand (IANAL), the EFF as an organization doesn't provide legal representation to others, and more commonly refer them to a lawyer or law school clinic for further assistance.
Righthaven got struck down because they were only assigned "right to sue" and not ownership or exclusive rights to the copyrighted work.
The "act on their behalf" might be considered legal representation. As I understand (IANAL), the EFF as an organization doesn't provide legal representation to others, and more commonly refer them to a lawyer or law school clinic for further assistance.
Righthaven got struck down because they were only assigned "right to sue" and not ownership or exclusive rights to the copyrighted work.
Isn't that basically what Righthaven was doing, on the other side of the legal courtroom? Taking control of the copyrighted work and suing infringers on behalf of content owners?
Not quite. Righthaven did not receive an assignment of the copyrights themselves, they tried to get only a bare "right to sue" that is not recognized by law. The copyright holders were none to eager to give up the entire copyright, after all, but this reluctance doomed their lawsuits.
If he were to fully assign the copyrights to the EFF, they would not run into the same trouble Righthaven did.
If he were to fully assign the copyrights to the EFF, they would not run into the same trouble Righthaven did.
YouTube's policy is beyond broken and is clearly being abused at this point. On the other hand, it a free site giving you unlimited hosting bandwidth for video. I don't think you get to sue the hell out of them for having internal policies you don't like - feel free to host your videos on your own server.
You have a blog, post your videos there. Stay off of Youtube, because it has shitty policies like this. Easy peasy.
Don't complain when people or companies abuse the control you voluntarily gave them over your content and creations. Take that control back, and own your shit.
Don't complain when people or companies abuse the control you voluntarily gave them over your content and creations. Take that control back, and own your shit.
It actually bugs me the sense of entitlement- YT is a free service, technically can take stuff down for no reason at all and nothing anyone can say about it. I can understand why this woman is frustrated, but expecting YT to have human resources in place for DMCA takedown requests is totally unrealistic- chances are that channel would be flooded if it existed.
Either way, if you're not paying for something, what do you expect.
Either way, if you're not paying for something, what do you expect.
I don't really understand why so many people seem to see an entitlement issue here (other than knowing from other contexts how many people really strongly dislike this woman, and so might be looking for ways to blame the situation on her).
YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.
YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.
The problem isn't entitlement, but ignorance. Everyone should know by now that when you post content on a web service, you're saying "Take this, it's yours. No really, take it, do what you want with it. If you want to delete it without explanation because you're afraid of a threatening email, that's your prerogative. I voluntarily give up all recourse."
If you don't realize that's what you're doing when you post content on a web site you don't own, you should. The web was designed specifically so that crap like this wouldn't be a problem. But people want to give up ownership for convenience every single time.
It's easier to be an audience or a user than to take 20 dollars and 20 minutes to learn HTML, buy a domain and become a peer with equal standing on the internet. Take your website, email links to your friends, set up RSS, and you've replaced Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumbler, Youtube and Flicker with something you actually own and control. And it really isn't that hard.
Case in point, the OP loses her videos for no reason, but the Pirate Bay is still online. Guess who owns their house and who is still renting?
If you don't realize that's what you're doing when you post content on a web site you don't own, you should. The web was designed specifically so that crap like this wouldn't be a problem. But people want to give up ownership for convenience every single time.
It's easier to be an audience or a user than to take 20 dollars and 20 minutes to learn HTML, buy a domain and become a peer with equal standing on the internet. Take your website, email links to your friends, set up RSS, and you've replaced Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumbler, Youtube and Flicker with something you actually own and control. And it really isn't that hard.
Case in point, the OP loses her videos for no reason, but the Pirate Bay is still online. Guess who owns their house and who is still renting?
So, because they're a free video hosting service, they have the right to handle DMCA takedown notices any way they want. They can just ban you right away, offer no appeals process, and decide they want to have nothing to do with you.
Being upset that the free service that you use is refusing to do stuff for you for nothing is entitlement.
Being upset that the free service that you use is refusing to do stuff for you for nothing is entitlement.
Several problems with your views here.
One is conflating "I have a right to do this thing" with "It is right for me to do this thing". There is no such equivalence, and much of the argument seems to come from people who believe there is. There are many things we all have a right to do which are not right to do.
Second, and much more frightening, is the assumption that abuse of a person is acceptable or excusable on the grounds that a person using a free service somehow deserves such abuse for not being a paying customer, or that not being abused is some sort of special privilege of which not all people are deserving. Perhaps you'd like to step back and think a bit about your own ethical framework before continuing this discussion?
One is conflating "I have a right to do this thing" with "It is right for me to do this thing". There is no such equivalence, and much of the argument seems to come from people who believe there is. There are many things we all have a right to do which are not right to do.
Second, and much more frightening, is the assumption that abuse of a person is acceptable or excusable on the grounds that a person using a free service somehow deserves such abuse for not being a paying customer, or that not being abused is some sort of special privilege of which not all people are deserving. Perhaps you'd like to step back and think a bit about your own ethical framework before continuing this discussion?
She thinks she's entitled to be treated like a human being. Seems reasonable to me.
The people I know at YouTube are very nice people. They presumably didn't say, "Hey, we'd like to host video for the entire world. And also do our best to fuck them over if they're being harassed." This is a weird corner case, and I hope they'll find a way to rejig their system to prevent this sort of takedown abuse.
The people I know at YouTube are very nice people. They presumably didn't say, "Hey, we'd like to host video for the entire world. And also do our best to fuck them over if they're being harassed." This is a weird corner case, and I hope they'll find a way to rejig their system to prevent this sort of takedown abuse.
The easy solution to this is to simply delete your account - and not engage in this little game, and then move your videos to Vimeo or some other video hosting site.
As far as I understand, Youtube operates the following copyright tools [1],
A. Content owners: Copyright Infringement Notification (modelled on US DMCA takedown).
- content owners fill out a form with specific pre-stated legalese expressions for specific content.
- contact: email address is preferred, no specific contact information is mandated.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
B. Content owners: Copyright Verification Programme.
- this seems to be an expedited and broader version of the CIN tool for mass content removal.
- need to identify agents for your ownership. Identity process unknown.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
C. Content owners: Content ID (nothing whatsoever to do with US DMCA).
- an automated or semi-automated process to flag content according to any of a number of policies that content owners decide.
- this includes deciding what is or is not "Fair Use"...
- unlike the CIN and CVP processes, accounts of matching content are not issued Strikes, which would ultimately close the account if sufficient number received, but the content is blocked.
D. Content owners: Retractions.
- process that requires specific content identification, and content owner name as signature from original claimant account.
- removes claims and restrictions of CIN and CVP. Unclear how, if at all, it interacts with Content ID.
E. Users: Copyright Counter-Notifications.
- form that, among other things, requires full address information that is always relayed to original claimant.
- note. copyright laws of user's country of residence are irrelevant. The form of allowable counter-notification is based on the "location" [2] of the original claimant.
- Youtube "may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion".
In this case, the two claimants likely used the CIN which will result in Strikes without action by the user with Copyright Counter-Notifications.
In short and in my opinion, it is clear that this process is highly asymmetrical and prone to abuse - in this case as a form of harassment, if as claimed the user had zero infringing content in her videos.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners
[2] Ambiguous if whether that could refer to jurisdiction of any of the registered agents under the CVP, for example.
A. Content owners: Copyright Infringement Notification (modelled on US DMCA takedown).
- content owners fill out a form with specific pre-stated legalese expressions for specific content.
- contact: email address is preferred, no specific contact information is mandated.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
B. Content owners: Copyright Verification Programme.
- this seems to be an expedited and broader version of the CIN tool for mass content removal.
- need to identify agents for your ownership. Identity process unknown.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
C. Content owners: Content ID (nothing whatsoever to do with US DMCA).
- an automated or semi-automated process to flag content according to any of a number of policies that content owners decide.
- this includes deciding what is or is not "Fair Use"...
- unlike the CIN and CVP processes, accounts of matching content are not issued Strikes, which would ultimately close the account if sufficient number received, but the content is blocked.
D. Content owners: Retractions.
- process that requires specific content identification, and content owner name as signature from original claimant account.
- removes claims and restrictions of CIN and CVP. Unclear how, if at all, it interacts with Content ID.
E. Users: Copyright Counter-Notifications.
- form that, among other things, requires full address information that is always relayed to original claimant.
- note. copyright laws of user's country of residence are irrelevant. The form of allowable counter-notification is based on the "location" [2] of the original claimant.
- Youtube "may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion".
In this case, the two claimants likely used the CIN which will result in Strikes without action by the user with Copyright Counter-Notifications.
In short and in my opinion, it is clear that this process is highly asymmetrical and prone to abuse - in this case as a form of harassment, if as claimed the user had zero infringing content in her videos.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners
[2] Ambiguous if whether that could refer to jurisdiction of any of the registered agents under the CVP, for example.
Also, if you're a site owner or content owner, you need to go right now to http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/ and register as a designated agent for content and notifications. Get ahead of this before it becomes a problem. It's $35.