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. 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.

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. '''<u>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</u>'''.

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.

@@ 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. 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.
+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. '''<u>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</u>'''.
 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.