> Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims.

[rant]

Youtube *can't* have a better system, because it's based on (A) how DMCA takedowns work, (B) how Safe Harbor platforms are supposed to work, and (C) how Viacom vs Youtube made YT extremely reliant on Safe Harbor to prevent another stupid lawsuit from big corps.

To have a better system in the first place, *at the very least*:

- Safe Harbor protections must be boosted so that ALL copyright problems must be passed over to users, and thus shield the platform from being in *any way* liable for those violations. Lawsuits that target platforms should be automatically dismissed if they're about copyright complaints, unless it's about enforcement of the above procedure.

- DMCA takedowns must require the claimant to submit public evidence of both (a) the offending snippet & (b) the contrasting source.

- DMCA takedowns cannot be made for any content slice shorter than 20 seconds.

- (Most importantly) Copyright claims must be "innocent until proven guilty", i.e. the claimant must be the one to prove fault, and not requiring the defendant to prove innocence.

[/rant]

Viacom vs YouTube is how we ended up here, unfortunately. The system didn't just spring forth from nothing.

What incentive do they have to make one though? What are people who get falsely struck going to do, move to Kick?

Why?