DMCA

YouTube argued that this contradicts the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prevents claims based on a lack of affirmative monitoring and places the burden of policing copyright infringement on the copyright owner, which in this case, would be Vasallo.

"Under the DMCA, this is an easy case: the statute bars plaintiff's effort to hold YouTube liable for direct or secondary infringement," YouTube said.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1554148/youtube-wants-anti-piracy-suit-tossed?copied=1

More of the same and why

Textbook publishers vs Shopify

In January, Shopify fought back against the allegations, maintaining that it diligently responded to the more than 5,000 infringement notices and that it follows all the procedure laid out by the U.S. Congress under the DMCA.

"Congress decided to preclude suits for money damages against the companies that host the infrastructure that those individual infringers might use, so long as the companies generally comport themselves responsibly � expeditiously taking down content that rights-holders flag as infringing, and terminating the accounts of users who repeatedly misuse internet services to infringe the rights of others," Shopify argued in its reply brief.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1537037/shopify-settles-educational-textbook-publishers-piracy-suit?copied=1

Shutterstock:

George Steinmetz for suing the platform over a photo of a cloudy forest view.

But U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein awarded summary judgment to Shutterstock in September, finding the platform is protected from liability under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision.

Safe harbor applies to a defendant that is a "service provider," has a policy that terminates repeat infringers on its platform and does not interfere with measures used to protect copyright owners' work.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1537329/shutterstock-seeks-sanctions-for-ill-advised-copyright-suit?copied=1

law360 is a pay legal site, you can only read headlines without an account.

What all of these have in common is how sites that supposedly terminate repeat infringers are protected from being liable for the damage done. What's missing is, the individual has to file the claim, and the violators can respond, and the company hosting the works, don't have to look for violations, we have to file, and only the creator can do that. What a pail of hogwash.

The case Shutterstock won, after the claim was denied, is to recover legal defense fees and claims that is to protect Shutterstock. Just another way to discourage anyone from defending their rights and their own images by making them afraid to file. The case with Shopify has some interesting details, where they eventually agreed, on both sides, and the places that sell illegal copies of educational text books, are banned and Shopify agrees to stop allowing them.

The Youtube case is a little twisted.  "When Vasallo approached YouTube in 2015, the company acknowledged the issue and said it had the ability to detect and take down the infringing posts "very easily" through its Content ID system, he said. But it offered to employ the tool only if he agreed to one of three options, all of which required him to release the company from all possible claims arising from prior piracy and let his films remain on the platform � either through official channels or ongoing piracy � while splitting ad revenue generated from the postings with YouTube."

And YT argued "YouTube is not required to monitor its site for copyright infringement � that should be Vasallo's job."