Editing User:Big Mac (section)

==== 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<sup>40</sup> ====
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.</blockquote>Many owners of copyrighted material are wilfully misusing the DMCA law and ignoring their Section 107 responsibilities. The main two reasons for this are:

* A non-legal desire to get reviews or other fair use videos that feature their content removed from the Internet or
* An equally non-legal desire to hijack the YouTube royalties of someone making a fair use video.

An example of the first thing is included in the Proven Industries vs Trevor McNally legal case. I'm actually more concerned about the second thing.

YouTuber Rick Beato recently put out a video called [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBq_krhKbW4 This Record Label Is Trying To SILENCE Me] in the video he talks about how Universal Music Group's is using bogus copyright strikes to prey on YouTubers. He has been making fair-use educational videos that explain how songs work and the record label was using YouTube's system to take away his video royalties. In the end he got fed up and started to fight the royalty grab requests on fair use grounds, fought back and won every single time. But the royalty grab claims kept coming. He had to hire a lawyer to deal with the claims. He says he has personally had thousands of claims. And now Universal Music Group has switched to using copyright stikes, with three strikes getting his YouTube channel defeated. Another YouTuber, called Top Music Attorney has a video about this up, called [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0p0hYoWwWI This Record Label Is Trying To SILENCE Me | Lawyer Reacts To Rick Beato]. She is a music artist who went to law school to protect herself from being ripped off. She says she has lots of clients, who are musicians who have also been hit with bogus copyright claims.

The main thing that is wrong with how this system is this:

* If a ''YouTuber breaks the rules three times they can loose their YouTube channel'' but
* If a ''big company makes thousands of bogus copyright campaigns, there is no consequence''.

After loosing so many bogus claims to take Rick Beato's royalties, Universal Music Group must understand that they are misusing YouTube's royalty transfer system. They have now switched from doing that to requesting copyright strikes on every single old video they have not yet made a claim from. Rick Beato's lawyer must now spend a ton of time overturning these claims quickly, so that Rick's channel is not deleted. This is malicious misuse of the system.

Louis recently said he wanted to campaign against the DMCA (although he was concerned about a different bit being abused). I think that if ''Louis could team up with Rick Beato'' (who has previously lobbied for rights for musicians with US government officials) and if ''Louis could also team up with Top Music Attorney'', and if her clients are willing to publicly share details of bogus claims against them, a large number of instances of DMCA abuse could be added to Consumer Rights Wiki as evidence that the law does not function as intended and is being used to cause harm to people creating fair use videos.

If the DMCA is going to be reformed, rather than scrapped, companies who constantly make bogus claims against fair use videos should receive their own "DMCA misuse strikes" and be banned from making further copyright claims.