Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#31

Post by deckar01 » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

Plasmoid2000ad wrote: post #6

Great for making your video ad-free. But things have moved on since then, you can now guarantee 50% of the ad revenue. https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w

The point is to prevent ads. If you can set the monetization preference to "not allowed" on your own song, then the new trick might work. It seems rather bazaar for 50% ads + no ads = no ads rather than just being taken down. I wouldn't be surprised if this edge case was fixed already and the system just leaned towards take downs. When people used to add copyrighted music to videos at one of my previous companies (2016), YouTube would immediately take the video down. Rarely did they allow it to stay up with monetization.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#32

Post by winkeltripel » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #27

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is…

There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube:

1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of these at once, their entire channel gets taken offline. The dispute resolution mechanism leaves the video in whatever state the copyright owner chose (for possibly 2 months), and they get to keep the revenue from the dispute period, even if they lose (its possible that youtube has changed this).

2. ContentID. Copyright-Owners just give Youtube a copy of your copyrighted works, and tell it if you'd like videos containing your content to be left alone, monetized for your adsense account, or have the video taken down until the offending content is removed. This can be manual, or automatic. Contesting these is basically impossible (its possible that youtube has changed this).

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#33

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

winkeltripel wrote: post #32

ikeboy wrote: post #27

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is…

There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube: 1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of these at once, their entire channel gets taken offline. The dispute resolution mechanism leaves the video in whatever state the copyright owner chose (for possibly 2 months), and they get to keep the revenue from the dispute period, even if they lose (its possib…

It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now.

If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn. See my post at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... which goes into extensive detail on the process with sources. See also the eff links in my above comment which has the same information.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#34

Post by munk-a » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #27

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is…

For people who make their livelihood through YT disputing a claim can be quite dangerous - the brand that you're maintaining (so many subscribers following such and such a name) can easily evaporate if the account is banned - then you need to build it all back up from scratch.

Yea, you're in the right, and yea, that absolutely sucks - but that's the way YT works right now, in part due to the hilariously terrible DMCA but also due to internal policies to minimize costs.

YT doesn't care if you get banned (unless you're going to lose them a bunch of eyeballs) so they're not going to defend you - and how much money do you think most content creators have to throw around in lawsuits against big corporations?

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#35

Post by kej » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #29

throwawayffffas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the terms pcj50 quotes, I wouldn't think you have any grounds to sue anyone. To me it reads you give them a license to do whatever they please with the uploaded content, that would include monetizing the content and giving the proceeds to someone else.

You wouldn't be able to sue YouTube (but you can sue abusers). Abusing DMCA takedowns allows for civil liability (Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated). The problem is that nobody has bothered suing YouTube DMCA plunderers, because it could get expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a class, so it's surprising that it hasn't happened yet.

My understanding is that copyright holders aren't typically filing DMCA complaints against YouTube. They're using YouTube's internal resolution mechanisms which lack the DMCA's disincentives for abuse.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#36

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #30

delfinom wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His use of others copyrighted content falls under fair use since he's doing reviews. It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. Fair use does not mandate the original copyright owner be paid in anyway.

> It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. But it's precisely because YouTube is a megacorp attached to another megacorp that Jim can even upload videos without paying for distribution.

Sure, and Time Warner is currently the only (practical) reason I can access the internet, though I can imagine a better way.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#37

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #34

ikeboy wrote: post #27

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is…

For people who make their livelihood through YT disputing a claim can be quite dangerous - the brand that you're maintaining (so many subscribers following such and such a name) can easily evaporate if the account is banned - then you need to build it all back up from scratch. Yea, you're in the right, and yea, that absolutely sucks - but that's the way YT works right now, in part due to the hilariously terrible DMCA…

This is incorrect. The account will not be banned if you submit counternotices to all complaints.

You don't need to sue: as I explained, it's the company alleging infringement that needs to sue to keep the claim going. This is astonishingly unlikely for a clear case of fair use.

DMCA is a great policy: it's what permits YouTube to reinstate videos after a counternotice is received. Otherwise they'd just keep everything removed for fear of liability.

I'm currently suing a large company [0] for false IP claims against my Amazon account. Those are under trademark law, not copyright law, and so there's no similar ability to send a counternotice and get the claim reversed. I wish there was a similar DMCA framework applied to trademarks, it's just so much better than the status quo.

Also, YouTube has a fund to defend fair use.

[Case is Thimes Solutions Inc v Tp-link et al if you want to follow it]

#38

Post by ggggtez » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

tomashubelbauer wrote: post #23

This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well…

This is a neat trick. I had already heard about the article's technique, but I like this one better because it at least lets you monetize.

#39

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #30

delfinom wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His use of others copyrighted content falls under fair use since he's doing reviews. It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. Fair use does not mandate the original copyright owner be paid in anyway.

> It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. But it's precisely because YouTube is a megacorp attached to another megacorp that Jim can even upload videos without paying for distribution.

Is this relevant? The bastards are constantly changing the terms of our interactions with them, while banking billions and destroying the fabric of human life. They can't also complain that we're not "honoring the spirit" of those terms.

#40

Post by kube-system » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #29

throwawayffffas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the terms pcj50 quotes, I wouldn't think you have any grounds to sue anyone. To me it reads you give them a license to do whatever they please with the uploaded content, that would include monetizing the content and giving the proceeds to someone else.

You wouldn't be able to sue YouTube (but you can sue abusers). Abusing DMCA takedowns allows for civil liability (Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated). The problem is that nobody has bothered suing YouTube DMCA plunderers, because it could get expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a class, so it's surprising that it hasn't happened yet.

ContentID is not DMCA. It is a voluntary company policy which Youtube implemented to appease the lawyers at Viacom. You can't abuse DMCA if you never submit a DMCA takedown request.