Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 320 posts

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#261

Post by teraflop »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #258
jml7c5 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link is for actual DMCA notices. With the Content ID take-downs, Google never actually receives a DMCA request. The music company (etc.) politely asks YouTube to take down the video, and YouTube complies out of the goodness of its heart. (Well, and a bunch of contracts that give some sort of quid pro quo for the arrangement between YouTube and these companies.) It looks like these are all Content ID takedowns (w…

All of which makes Google liable for theft. They created the system, they run the system, they transfer the money. It's all facilitating copyfraud. Just because Google agrees to host the content doesn't mean that they are incapable of being able to be sued for their intentional actions.

It's not legally theft if Google makes a decision to start paying party B instead of party A.

You're choosing to let YouTube publicly host the video until further notice, and in exchange they agree to pay you whatever cut of ad revenue they deem appropriate. There's no question that under the terms you agree to, they can demonetize your videos at will. And if they also see fit to start paying somebody else when your videos get played, that's not something you have legal standing to complain about.

What it probably is, is fraud on the part of whoever's falsely claiming to Google that they have a copyright interest.

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#262

Post by developer2 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #249
makecheck wrote: post #186

Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goon…

> Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation? Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system). And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know…

This is the whole problem. Sick and tired of people complaining about YouTube/Google. For them to "fix the problem" just for their own platform would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in man hours to process every single last takedown request manually with no automation. Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour to defend their content, when it will take 50-500+ hours to defend a single request? Maybe the 0.01% of content creators, that's who. And those issuing the takedowns are not stupid enough to go after the 0.01%.

The laws are broken. It doesn't matter how "big" Google is. They cannot afford to protect the small guy. It's a choice between "hurt the small guy" vs. "go bankrupt". Fix the laws. Don't blame Google.

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#263

Post by kalleboo »

panpanna wrote: post #3

The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees. As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).

> monetize on their content for a while

I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned.

edit:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en

Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#264

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

developer2 wrote: post #262
jaredklewis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation? Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system). And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know…

This is the whole problem. Sick and tired of people complaining about YouTube/Google. For them to "fix the problem" just for their own platform would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in man hours to process every single last takedown request manually with no automation. Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour…

Would it be reasonable for average person to suspect Big Co. with huge Vested Interestᵀᴹ had / has the lions share of lobbying power in this scenario?

I don't know whether this is true in fact, in this specific case, but as a fairly average sort of person I suspect it might be.

Therefore, it may be reasonable to blame Big Co., but you're probably right in that it won't do much good at this point.

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#265

Post by kalleboo »

DuskStar wrote: post #132
erikpukinskis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like basically what's happening. I guess the only place where YouTube might be non-conforming is that they break down the complaints by individual piece of content, rather than by claimant. Maybe youtube should by default bundle the complaints? Ideally you'd have rich tools for slicing and dicing a complaint and responding to different slices in different ways.

That's very much not what's happening. The 'content owner' made a claim and because of that gets all the ad revenue from the works in question, until YouTube decides in the uploader's favor. (but the uploader doesn't get the money back) The content is never taken down.

> but the uploader doesn't get the money back

Not true

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en

Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.

The case where an uploader loses all their revenue is if the video is completely demonetized (or completely taken down in the case of a DMCA request)

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#266

Post by nwallin »

icebraining wrote: post #240
nwallin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. Money. If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyrig…

> they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.

The keyword is "contested".

If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far.

Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly.

Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need" applies here.

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#267

Post by TeMPOraL »

6nf wrote: post #212
Animats wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube seems to claim that the DMCA counter-notice procedure applies.[1] [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684

It's a two step process. The first step happens within YouTube's guidelines and do not involve the DMCA. It then can escalate to an actual DMCA notice / counter. Critically though, going to DMCA is really bad for the uploader because Youtube does not remove the 'strike' against your account when it gets escalated. So content uploaders almost never go here.

Do I read this correctly? Using available legal options for protecting content you genuinely own labels you as "troublemaker" and will cost you your account when done repeatedly?

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#268

Post by lysp »

djmips wrote: post #201
jccalhoun wrote: post #5

Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious. I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are…

It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the public domain... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Show...

Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#269

Post by inetknght »

developer2 wrote: post #262
jaredklewis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation? Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system). And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know…

This is the whole problem. Sick and tired of people complaining about YouTube/Google. For them to "fix the problem" just for their own platform would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in man hours to process every single last takedown request manually with no automation. Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour…

> Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour to defend their content, when it will take 50-500+ hours to defend a single request? Maybe the 0.01% of content creators, that's who. And those issuing the takedowns are not stupid enough to go after the 0.01%.

Why not Google themselves? If they're willing to take on the responsibility for false takedown claims by actively taking steps to remove a content creators': why can't Google themselves pay for enforcement of truth in the matter? They are creating EULAs and contracts around users basically having no choice in the matter, after all?

Re: “A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

#270

Post by nate_meurer »

robocat wrote: post #254
nate_meurer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a p…

She was 79 and she actually wanted milk/cream with it so she could drink it. But, yes, it was her fault. However it was also McDonald's fault. That was the reason for sueing, and the jury agreed. > but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use Why would you argue that it is a binary choice between personal responsibility, or complete…

> However it was also McDonald's fault.

At the risk of repeating myself: when Stella was injured, McDonalds' corporate policy required coffee to be held at 180-190 deg F [1]. This is pretty well in line with the range recommended by professional coffee associations like the NCA, who currently recommend that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C) [2].

This temperature range was, and still is, used by nearly every coffee shop, restaurant, and domestic coffee machine. Starbucks regularly serves even hotter coffee. My Mr. Coffee machine holds coffee at around 185 deg F. So does your's. Look it up. And like I said, any good tea shop will serve you a pot of much hotter, nearly boiling water. Well over 200 deg F.

So if you really think McDonalds was negligent in serving coffee in compliance with recognized industry standards, then you must think every other coffee shop, tea shop, restaurant, and home coffee machine maker is also potentially guilty of negligence. Is that what you think?

Thankfully, the verdict against McDonalds in Stella's case was a pretty isolated result, and personally injury lawyers have moved on to suing over defective lids, rather than excessive temperatures [3]. Notice that in the linked case, Starbucks served 190 deg coffee, hotter than what Stella was injured by, yet they were not sued for the temperature, but rather a lid that came off too easily.

> Why would you argue that it is a binary choice between personal responsibility, or complete abrogation of responsibility?

That's the choice forced on us by frivolous lawsuits like this. Thankfully, that false choice has been thoroughly ignored, and we can still get appropriately hot coffee from establishments and our own coffee machines.

1 - http://web.archive.org/web/20031223003746/http://www.reedmor...

2 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

3 - https://www.eater.com/2017/5/19/15662790/starbucks-hot-coffe...

Post reply on HN