Since Viacom has broad power under the DMCA's takedown provision then the liability for abusing that power should fall on them (even though the abuse is, presumably, accidental). They should have done a better job identifying their copyrighted works (I find it pretty sad when they don't know what's theirs and what isn't!) What's there not to understand?

Funny, seems to me that by claiming they're eligible under DMCA's 512, YouTube has broad power. Viacom, the victim of massive infringement, has to track each infringment and notify each individual one to YouTube (note, YouTube as a policy doesn't even allow you to email notices, you have to fax or mail them!). Talk about transaction costs, in this case transaction costs being imposed on the producer and distributor of content, not the site hosting infringed copies.

What's there not to understand?

"Viacom, the victim of massive infringement, has to track each infringment and notify each individual one to YouTube"

If they'd successfully done that, we wouldn't have a problem. It's too bad the law doesn't impose any liability on them for making a mistake. With the threat of legal action at their back they can effectively claim copyright over anything and force it off YouTube -- there's no real motivation to be accurate. What's it to them if the rights of a few other copyright holders are trampled in the process? True, YouTube could resist, but the choice between complying and paying nothing versus resisting and possibly being sued seems pretty clear. Who can blame them?

I agree that YouTube needs better internal controls to keep this stuff off in the first place.

First, a little perspective.

With the massive number of infringing files on YouTube (and billions more in P2P networks), which is the real problem: (a) the sheer amount of piracy occurring on the Internet, or (b) the fact that, out of millions of takedown notices sent by copyright holders, a tiny percentage - a mere handful - have proven incorrect?

Second, I'd like to echo and amplify Patrick's response. The comment that "Since Viacom has broad power under the DMCA's takedown provision then the liability for abusing that power should fall on them" simply misapprehends the effect of the DMCA. Section 512 of the DMCA, in which the "take down" provisions are located, LIMITS Viacom's powers, rather than grants powers.

Prior to enactment of Section 512 through the DMCA, a number of court cases (Sega v. Maphia; Playboy v. Frena; RTC v. Netcomm) indicated that, even WITHOUT having received notice from a copyright owner, Internet sites faced secondary liability for infringing works posted to the site by others. As a result, prior to enactment of the DMCA, Internet sites had to affirmatively police their own sites for infringing material WITHOUT having received a takedown notice from the copyright owner. Section 512 largely RELIEVES qualifying Internet sites of this fear of secondary copyright liability, and puts the burden largely on copyright owners, like Viacom, to send takedown notices in order to make Internet sites take action.

As to the following point in the other comment: "It's too bad the law doesn't impose any liability on them for making a mistake", this is also wrong. The statute allows a poster of allegedly infringing material to file a counter notification if the poster believe the material was removed incorrectly, and a copyright holder has to file its notice under penalty of perjury.

An estimated 60-70 noninfringing videos were taken down out of the 100,000 at Viacom's request. Thus, approximately .07% of videos were mistakingly removed, a 99.93% level of accuracy.