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

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

kotaku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

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

#41

Post by dtech »

mrunkel wrote: post #14
dtech wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Youtube allows his videos to be on the platform without ads, which he does. The problem is other parties claiming copyright on his videos, placing ads, and getting the payment from those ads.

Read the post you are replying to again, you're not disagreeing with each other.

The parent was insinuating that Youtube required all videos to have ads through 1 and "free riding on Youtube", and Sterling was somehow cheating Youtube by having ad-free videos. This is incorrect, since Youtube allows ad-free videos.

Sterling's problem is with 3rd parties placing ads on his videos through copyright claims, not Youtube themselves placing ads. I'm sure he'd react differently if it was Youtube themselves mandating the ads.

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

#42

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

kej wrote: post #35
zamalek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is correct.

Additionally (possibly off-topic) people often misunderstand what sort of abuse the DMCA penalizes.

The DMCA prohibits claiming you own the copyright on some work that you don't. It does NOT prohibit claiming that anything infringes that copyright.

For example, pretend I'm Nintendo. I own the copyright on Mario. Someone posts a video of Mario. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Valid claim. No perjury penalty.

Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Invalid claim. No perjury penalty! (This is the scenario people think is prohibited.)

Someone posts a video of Doom. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Doom. Invalid claim. Perjury penalty! I don't own any copyright to Doom!

It's the latter (rarely seen) case that the DMCA prohibits. AFAIK YouTube also prohibits that in their ToS.

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

#43

Post by jessaustin »

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…

'ikeboy I've known for some time that you have firm, novel, and pro-corporate opinions about selling on Amazon. TIL you also have firm, novel, and pro-corporate opinions about publishing on YouTube. In your estimation, is there any massive online firm that does any of the horrible things its users have documented it doing?

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

#44

Post by MichaelEstes »

jessaustin wrote: post #39
jldugger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Video hosting is expensive, like really expensive. I started a site (scrim.tv) to try and disrupt YouTube for the reasons that are often expressed in posts like these and I'm pretty convinced at this point that YouTube basically breaks even in terms of profit.

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

#45

Post by Slippery_John »

shadowgovt wrote: post #18

Note: story is from 2016. It's been three years, so it's unclear how relevant this story is to the current status of ContentID, copyright identification, and monetization on YouTube.

I regularly follow the relevant creator, he definitely still does this and still occasionally talks about it. From the handful of YouTube creators I follow it seems like the problem has only become worse in intervening years.

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

#46

Post by falcolas »

ikeboy wrote: post #33
winkeltripel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

This doesn't go into the "three strikes and you're shutdown" which has been used extensively against small creators. For example (and notwithstanding the rest of the issue) how 2k Games knocked the Borderlands 3 leaker (SupMatto) off YouTube, permanently, by making dozens of copyright notices against their channel. There's also the case of Alex Mauer (a song writer) who took several channels offline as a side effect of her legal battle with a videogame creator.

Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline.

As a side note, the revenue escrow is very new. It took YouTube over a decade (Content ID was introduced in 2007) to come to this fairly reasonable middle ground. Just... don't take a vacation, OK?

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

#48

Post by Mirioron »

jldugger wrote: post #10

So if I understand correctly: 1. Youtube makes money from ads. 2. Jimquisition is funded from Patreon, and despises ads on his content. 3. To resolve this paradox, Jim has found a way to (allegedly) infringe on multiple parties' copyright 4. Youtube's technology doesn't allow multiple monetizers, and therefore in this situation allows none. If Jim disagrees with the funding stategy of YouTube, why bother with YouTube…

The problem isn't YouTube per se. The problem is third parties abusing the copyright claiming system to claim what is not theirs. YouTube is only involved because it's their system that allows such abuse.

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

#49

Post by derivagral »

MichaelEstes wrote: post #44
jessaustin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Video hosting is expensive, like really expensive. I started a site (scrim.tv) to try and disrupt YouTube for the reasons that are often expressed in posts like these and I'm pretty convinced at this point that YouTube basically breaks even in terms of profit.

Youtube isn't broken out from Google in their quarterlies/annuals, so outsiders can't easily know. I think the common belief is that YouTube the video service operates at some amount of a loss, supported by other parts of Google. This is justified (by Google the business) on the basis of market share, free video test data, ads, etc. This does make it particularly difficult to compete with in isolation, of course...

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

#50

Post by ikeboy »

jessaustin wrote: post #43
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…

'ikeboy I've known for some time that you have firm, novel, and pro-corporate opinions about selling on Amazon. TIL you also have firm, novel, and pro-corporate opinions about publishing on YouTube. In your estimation, is there any massive online firm that does any of the horrible things its users have documented it doing?

>is there any massive online firm that does any of the horrible things its users have documented it doing?

The multibillion dollar one I'm currently suing for doing horrible documented things to me (Thimes Solutions Inc vs TP-Link et al, also mentioned elsewhere in this thread)

I'm not particularly pro or anti corporate. It depends on the individual case. In these cases, I know a lot about the topics from personal experience or extensive research (re Amazon, extensive personal experience, re Youtube, research: you'll note I linked a post of mine from almost a year ago that is sourced extensively on the topic).

The standard media narrative is laughably wrong in both cases, and, I assume based on Gell-mann amnesia is similarly wrong in cases I don't have extensive knowledge about. Whenever I comment accusing the media or others of getting it wrong, I try to stick to pointing out the facts that can be easily sourced. And yet, I constantly see people apparently determined to back up the prevailing narrative. Even on this thread, someone replied to my post with sources with outdated information (that money is not escrowed and that content ID can't be disputed).

Amazon does plenty of horrible things as well. The most corrupt I've seen is asking sellers for invoices purportedly to prove authenticity and using those to go around the seller and source from their supplier, but there's plenty of others. Here's links to articles I've submitted that are anti-Amazon or at least pointing out issues with or abuse of their system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484250, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21127715, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20834972, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20716059, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20615756, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20404674, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19865355, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17999282

But instead of focusing on those documented abuses, all too often I see people pushing conspiracy theories about how Amazon supposedly can't track commingled inventory. And even when I point out that their policy explicitly says otherwise and that it's actually rather trivial to track, people right here on HN have asserted that they must be lying without any evidence.

People have a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Post reply on HN