Unjust and extraterritorial law: DMCA: Difference between revisions

Line 36:

An American freelance content creator uploads a reaction video after a Formula 1 race. In his analysis, he includes a five-second clip of a key moment from the broadcast. The excerpt is used under the rules of fair use. It is not monetized directly, and it appears in a clearly transformative and critical context, which is protected by US copyright law.

Despite this, the video is flagged and removed within minutes by an automated system operated by the rights holder. The creator receives a copyright strike. His ~~content~~ disappears, his ~~channel visibility drops~~, and ~~several clients cancel ongoing work because of the perceived legal risk~~. ~~Within a few days~~, his ~~freelance~~ business collapses. All of this because of five seconds of footage used legally.

Despite this, the video is flagged and removed within minutes by an automated system operated by the rights holder. The creator receives a copyright strike. If it is his third, the channel is terminated automatically. His income disappears overnight. He loses access to his platform, his content, and his audience. With no way to earn money, he can no longer pay his rent, buy food, or cover basic expenses. There are no clients to contact or recover. The entire business collapses instantly. All of this happens because of five seconds of footage used legally.

There is no review process. No human being examines the case. The decision is made by an automated system trained to match pixels and audio patterns, without considering the legal context. The company that issued the takedown is based overseas. If the creator wants to contest the strike, he must submit personal information, accept legal liability, and prepare to defend himself in a foreign jurisdiction.

Hiring a lawyer involves not just legal fees~~, but potentially~~ booking a flight ~~(he might be in~~ Florida, which is 5,000 kilometers from ~~Silicon Valley)~~, ~~hiring~~ an interpreter~~, and navigating~~ a legal system he has never ~~interacted~~ with. All of this ~~just~~ to ~~argue that he used~~ content he ~~had a legal right~~ to use in his own country.

Hiring a lawyer involves not just legal fees. It may also require booking a flight, for example from Florida to California, which is over 5,000 kilometers. If the accused is from another country, an interpreter may also be needed. He must navigate a legal system he has never dealt with. All of this happens only to defend the use of content he was legally allowed to use in his own country, if he is a foreign user.

This is how the DMCA handles fair use. It is not treated as a right but as an exception you have to defend manually, at your own risk and cost, with no guarantee that anyone will listen.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 An American freelance content creator uploads a reaction video after a Formula 1 race. In his analysis, he includes a five-second clip of a key moment from the broadcast. The excerpt is used under the rules of fair use. It is not monetized directly, and it appears in a clearly transformative and critical context, which is protected by US copyright law.
-Despite this, the video is flagged and removed within minutes by an automated system operated by the rights holder. The creator receives a copyright strike. His content disappears, his channel visibility drops, and several clients cancel ongoing work because of the perceived legal risk. Within a few days, his freelance business collapses. All of this because of five seconds of footage used legally.
+Despite this, the video is flagged and removed within minutes by an automated system operated by the rights holder. The creator receives a copyright strike. If it is his third, the channel is terminated automatically. His income disappears overnight. He loses access to his platform, his content, and his audience. With no way to earn money, he can no longer pay his rent, buy food, or cover basic expenses. There are no clients to contact or recover. The entire business collapses instantly. All of this happens because of five seconds of footage used legally.
 There is no review process. No human being examines the case. The decision is made by an automated system trained to match pixels and audio patterns, without considering the legal context. The company that issued the takedown is based overseas. If the creator wants to contest the strike, he must submit personal information, accept legal liability, and prepare to defend himself in a foreign jurisdiction.
-Hiring a lawyer involves not just legal fees, but potentially booking a flight (he might be in Florida, which is 5,000 kilometers from Silicon Valley), hiring an interpreter, and navigating a legal system he has never interacted with. All of this just to argue that he used content he had a legal right to use in his own country.
+Hiring a lawyer involves not just legal fees. It may also require booking a flight, for example from Florida to California, which is over 5,000 kilometers. If the accused is from another country, an interpreter may also be needed. He must navigate a legal system he has never dealt with. All of this happens only to defend the use of content he was legally allowed to use in his own country, if he is a foreign user.
 This is how the DMCA handles fair use. It is not treated as a right but as an exception you have to defend manually, at your own risk and cost, with no guarantee that anyone will listen.