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

[George Kirikos]

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-copyri-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/