Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

311–320 of 320 posts

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

#311
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we fight them back? Can't we collectively submit our own DMCA requests on all their videos? Break the system so they have come to up with a new one.

No. Companies have a legally defensible narrative: 1. People were using Rhinna's songs without permission in large numbers. 2. The company wrote a program to automatically send out a takedown notice to violators 3. Whoops, the program made a mistake. We didn't mean to. If you, dalore, write a takedown bot, it's obvious from the start you are acting in bad faith because there is no epidemic of people pirating dalore s…

How many times do you think step 3 has to be repeated before they're no longer able to claim good faith?

More on this topic: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take...

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.

It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".

No, it didn't, unless it was a terrible definition. It isn't about charred skin, it's about the depth of the damage.

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

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.

On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.

Youtube has a monopoly on the online video market. There are other ways to publish but not other ways to get viewers.

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

#314
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Class action? There are (tens/hundreds of?) thousands of creators affected.

I'm sure you signed away any rights even remotely related to class action suits when you hit "I Agree" on your Google account.

IANAL but I thought there was no way to lose those rights, regardless of what contract you sign or web form you click on. That's why they're called rights.

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

#315
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.

>> Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people. Doesn't that mean that the whole justice system in US is broken? Courts of law exist for this very purpose, so that every citizen can fight for their rights, including defending themselves against this type of extortion. If the cost of lawsuit is prohibitive then you might as well live in some third world dictatorship, with no justice system at a…

> Doesn't that mean that the whole justice system in US is broken?

Plea bargains. That is all.

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

#316
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Manually processing DMCA takedown requests would be a huge hassle, but this is still on Google - even without the DMCA and just with regular IP law they would still have a system like this if for no other reason than to appease the companies they want on Play Movies / Youtube rentals. They have deals with the MPAA / mafia that certainly include draconian contentID as a prerequisite of you being able to "rent" movies…

Seems to me that Google is increasingly vulnerable to a class-action suit over this.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this. There should be enormous consequences for false reports, and there should be an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible).

> an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible). How do you get an AI to evaluate what is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" ? Fair use is hard enough for lawyers and judges.

True. If I was google I'd spend millions getting lawyers and lobbyists to try to change how fair use is applied and interpreted in the U.S. so it is as clear cut as "an excerpt of up to this percent size of the total work is fair use regardless of context" combined with "excerpts are not permitted to be pieced or packaged together in such a way that the entire or most of the original work can be consumed". So you wouldn't be allowed to just make a playlist of 30 second clips on youtube that equals the entire movie, but a stupid script could figure out if a clip counts as fair use.

To clarify, this would work the same way classified information works in the DoD -- many small pieces of information can be one classification level (or even unclassified), but if you aggregate them, they can become a higher classification level in aggregate. Similarly, small fair-use clips on an individual level would retain fair-use status, but if you start aggregating them, via a playlist or some other method, the playlist would not be fair use and would count as infringement.

The ballsier move than simply lobbying forever would be for Google to just go ahead and do this -- go ahead and write a script/AI that rejects infringement reports and/or DMCA requests on excerpts that are less than 5% of the total work on the basis that such a small excerpt necessarily must be fair use no matter the context because of the small size of the clip, and then battle each case out in court on behalf of the infringing user. I think they would win every single case, and once they have won a few in a row, precedent would take care of the rest and predatory media companies would stop trying.

This isn't impossible. Google is in a position to clarify / influence how copyright law is applied, and they should do it.

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

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been mentioned many times that there were "third degree burns". When I long ago read a definition, it said 3rd degree burns involve charred skin. That may not be quite accurate, but something still seems off. When I brew coffee or handle a pot of boiling water in the kitchen, I don't feel as though I'm risking "third degree burns".

Regardless of whether you feel you're risking third degree burns, you are. http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 > Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º.

Sure, but I was referring to a spill. If I spill hot water on myself, I don't expect the consequences to be the same as being immersed in it at constant temperature. Both because the time is short and it cools as it falls and spatters.

I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns.

Although maybe I'm just comfortably numb.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. Since they choose to provide monetary compensation based on accusations instead of evidence with a system they created, they would also be responsible for the system that they created facilitating said copyfraud that is knowingly taking money from legitimate copyright holders and giving it to false claimants. If any other publisher were to give money owe…

> Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. [citation needed] > If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.

The creators uploaded their videos under the premise that they would receive a share of ad revenue. Given that creators retain copyright to the materials keeping all the money and continuing to distribute would seem problematic.

Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.

Post reply on HN