[gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP

[Paul Keating]

George,

I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my
quick thoughts.

I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical.  In fact the
roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process.  The DMCA merely
provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the
posting.  Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the
notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation.  The UDRP/URS
however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not.  In the
case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file.  In the case the
complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the
copyright owner in the DMCA example).

PRK

On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos"
<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:

>Hi folks,
>
>There was an interesting article published today about a copyright
>dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
>
>https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr
>i-1821804093
>
>which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
>
>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
>
>Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they
>even have a "Copyright School", see:
>
>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
>
>(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to
>it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect
>for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
>
>Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
>
>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
>
>where importantly it says:
>
>"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the
>claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with
>evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content
>down."
>
>and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
>
>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
>
>""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the
>district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside
>of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is
>located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
>
>As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and
>UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the
>URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of
>action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign
>immunity").
>
>With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the
>onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit,
>in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution
>procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of
>plaintiff/defendant arise.
>
>I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also
>give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
>
>Food for thought.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg