Within moments of uploading the video, I got an email from Youtube that IODA claimed to own the song. The piece was recorded in 1945 and is no longer subject to copyright. So I responded via their automated form, and surprisingly a couple hours later I got an email that said, "IODA has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video"
So it worked out in this case, but what if they hadn't released their claim? I'd have no recourse. The system is heavily lopsided in favor of the record companies.
How would a court help? YT makes the rules. It's a free service. Their rules may be stupid and biased, but I don't see any legal case.
The reason I think they would like to lose it is that they know they are pissing off users, but their content strategy is walking (or perhaps running) under the shadow of a falling dinosaur (the labels) and they need to be sure not to be there when the corpse hits. This would give them an excuse to run faster.
Many more details here:
For video, I don't really see anything wrong with Vimeo aside from its lack of critical mass. YouTube still has 99% of the content you want.
If you want to share film of yourself lighting farts, you put it on youtube.
Whereas if you want to make an detailed animation about philosophy's relationship to the colour blue, then you put it on vimeo, and if it is any good then someone else will put a badly transcoded version of it on youtube, which is where most people will watch it.
I'd say no, because I'd expect the labels to keep throwing lawsuits at a serious YouTube competitor until they were. Moreover, the labels have a new piece of ammunition they didn't have against YouTube: YouTube meets our requirements, why can't you?
I use Firefox with the usual privacy plugins: NoScript, RequestPolicy, AdBlockPlus, and Ghostery. No matter how I configure the settings, including disabling all of them, I can't get Vimeo player to work.
Maybe the contract between YouTube and the labels contains punishments for labels wrongfully disabling songs they don’t own – but I very much doubt that.
There, I fixed that for you.
Please don't do that.
Unfortunately, perjury requires willful false statements, made in bad faith, which is very, very hard to prove. In fact, to my knowledge, nobody has ever successfully sued a major label for making bogus takedowns.
Perhaps a negligence clause should be added to the DMCA.
YT identifies possibly infringing content via ContentID. Notifies the label.
Either at this stage or the reassertion stage, the label must file a DMCA notice, under penalty of perjury (the requirements for filing a notice are de minimis, a simple text template would suffice).
If the label is correct in its claim, it (and YT) are protected. If not, the falsely-accused infringer may seek remedy under 17 USC 512(f).
Unfortunately, that's limited to attorney's fees and damages, there are no additional penalties stipulated.
The damage performed is restriction of the entire populations ability to enjoy a PD work. So 50¢ per head of population should be reasonable damages. That should stop such fraud against the populace pretty quickly I'd think?
In which case I disagree; it is an insidious harm inflicted on the entire citizenship.
If that harm is shared by a large group of persons, any one person may not have standing to demonstrate harm to that group, unless a class action can be brought.
I do entirely agree with your point that this is a harm against, not only the citizenship, but all persons who may lawfully use public domain or otherwise unencumbered works. That's unfortunately not the question addressed by standing, and law (often, though not always) hinges on specifics.
Law isn't my specialty, though I dabble in some research on the topic.
The harm per capita is slight in financial terms I'd agree. But demonstrating the harm is simple - I did something with a PD work, this company acted to prevent my free exercise of using that PD work.
It's akin to blocking a public right of way (not sure about law concerning such things outside the UK sorry) - you block access on a path or road that should be free to access by the public, you're preventing a person from exercising their rights.
Possibly there is a libel issue too - the company [maliciously] claim you're copyright infringing, you show the work used is out of copyright and that the company would have [on the balance of probabilities] known that.
¹ I gather that's the measure used for torts in the UK courts.
(1) Some artist covers a public domain song, it's on a record. That performance is still subject to copyright.
(2) Google's software matches the audio in the video with the copyrighted performance and auto applies a note that it "contains music from xyz corp", either directly or indirectly notifying xyz corp of potential infringing videos.
(3) Someone at xyz corp gets hundreds of notifications and presses the takedown button without following up to verify actual infringement.