>Anyway, regarding my original point, I think that it's not reasonable to expect someone like YouTube to provide a tool that is easy to use to take down videos. I think this was developed out of some big idea to try to gain favour with the MAFIAA, and I'd be very surprised if YouTube was in fact required by any law to develop a tool that makes it convenient for rights holders to pull content.
I think I see where the misunderstanding came from here. I never meant to say that the DMCA explicitly said they have to provide a tool for ease of use, what I meant is that given the volume of requests they likely deal with the only economical option is to automate the process somehow. I don't agree with the decision, I don't know if I would make the same one, but given the volume and mandatory time-frame I don't think there are many other acceptable scenarios.
With regard to your anecdote, it sounds to me like the volume of take-down requests you deal with is manageable by a group of one or more people, I'm just saying I don't think throwing a group of people at the volume of requests YouTube gets would be enough to meet the safe-harbor time-frame and we both know they will do whatever it takes to get indemnity.
I think I see where the misunderstanding came from here. I never meant to say that the DMCA explicitly said they have to provide a tool for ease of use, what I meant is that given the volume of requests they likely deal with the only economical option is to automate the process somehow. I don't agree with the decision, I don't know if I would make the same one, but given the volume and mandatory time-frame I don't think there are many other acceptable scenarios.
With regard to your anecdote, it sounds to me like the volume of take-down requests you deal with is manageable by a group of one or more people, I'm just saying I don't think throwing a group of people at the volume of requests YouTube gets would be enough to meet the safe-harbor time-frame and we both know they will do whatever it takes to get indemnity.