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

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

#51

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #46

ikeboy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn.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…

3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown.

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

Note that per https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en

>If your channel is in the YouTube Partner Program, you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy period after 3 copyright strikes before your channel is disabled. During this period, your copyright strikes won’t expire and you won’t be able to upload new videos. Your channel will remain live and you will be able to access it to seek a resolution for your strikes. If your strikes are resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful, your channel will not be disabled.

The Youtube Partner Program is the system that allows for monetization, so everyone that's making money off Youtube ads is in it. I.e., everyone who's making money off Youtube ads has 7 days from receiving the strikes to file counternotices, and by my reading their account will remain active until those are resolved one way or the other. It says the channel won't be disabled if the notices are successful, implying that it isn't disabled even temporarily.

Regarding your examples, yes, if there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble. But that's true regardless of whether they got strikes or filed a counternotice. I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare".

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

#52

Post by abbadadda » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

What a garbage website. Please autoplay video advertisements for me. That is so helpful. Oh wait, who owns it?

p.s. Jim Spanfeller is an herb: Slate Web results The Media-Sensational Rise and Fall of “Jim Spanfeller Is a Herb”: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-i...

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

#53

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

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?

What part of the comment you're replying to do you classify as an opinion, as opposed to a factual claim?

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

#54

Post by mavhc » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:15 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…

Could you make 99 original songs, and make 99 Content ID claims, and share 99/1 with the abuser?

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

#55

Post by fyrabanks » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #22

iamaelephant wrote: post #13

I can't get past this guy's Nazi aesthetic. I know gamers love Nazis but damn at least be subtle about it.

It's played up in jest. He's acting like he's some great authority that everyone worships but in reality he isn't (and he knows it, that's the joke). Jim Sterling is big on showmanship, so much so that he eventually got into being a wrestler on the side despite having terrible back problems. It's like Jack Black's band Tenacious D claiming to be the greatest band that ever lived, knowing full well that they aren't, b…

Just to play devil's advocate, Tenacious D doesn't use imagery that, say, evokes ISIS.

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

#56

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

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?

What's interesting about the two positions you conflate is that they're actually complete opposites.

The prevailing narrative on Amazon is that it's overrun by infringement and it's too difficult to file complaints and too easy to avoid them.

The prevailing narrative on YouTube is that it's overrun with false infringement complaints and that it's too easy to file complaints and too difficult to dispute.

My position on Amazon is that it's more complicated than the prevailing narrative says, that there's a large amount of abuse of the complaint system. And in fact I've filed a lawsuit against someone who abused the system.

My position on YouTube is that, due to the DMCA shifting the burden of proof, the whole problem is much smaller. There's no provision on Amazon to shift the burden of proof of infringement back to the person alleging infringement, instead, it's guilty until proven innocent. While on YouTube as a direct result of the DMCA, one can force the other side to prove their case.

I would absolutely love if DMCA was extended to trademark infringement allegations. It would make the problems on Amazon shrink by orders of magnitude. You'd no longer have 7 and 8 figure businesses destroyed by some brand that would like their product to sell for more money and is willing to lie to achieve that goal.

Now I don't know how you can take these two positions and lump them together as "pro-corporate". Surely if one is pro corporate then the position I'm arguing against on the other company is pro corporate?

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

#57

Post by floatingatoll » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

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.

If you email the mods using the footer Contact link, they’ll append (2016) to it.

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

#58

Post by Ill_ban_myself » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

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.

If you solve a technology problem and ignore the legal one and it hasn't resulted in a profitable enterprise then capitalism should do its job.

#59

Post by tomc1985 » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

Content ID is such bullshit. Here we are years later and it still doesn't permit fair-use like critique; one of the shown matches is barely 21 seconds in length. How is that a substantial copyright infringement?

#60

Post by falcolas » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #51

falcolas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown. >Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. Note that per https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en >If your channel is in the YouTube Partner Program, you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy period after 3 copyright strikes before your channel is disabled. During this period…

Once again, I would point out that most of these creator friendly policies and programs are quite new. Angry Joe has a video that covers when they were put in place, and most of those occurred in the last year, after a decade of creator-hostile policies.

> you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy

Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters)

Also, why doesn't the copyright claimants also only have a maximum of 7 days to respond? We're talking about Content ID claims here, as a reminder, not DMCA.

> resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful

Which can take upwards of 30 days per step in the process, no matter how quickly the creator moves. So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. This is an eternity in a business which relies on consistent and frequent content output to remain soluble.

> there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble

Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube.

> I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare".

Does that really matter, if Content ID claims alone have devastated the channel's viewerbase?

Jim Sterling from the article has many a horror story of spending between 6 months and 2 years fighting copyright claims and associated from corporations and CEO's. So does sidalpha and Angry Joe. Can we really claim in good faith that they're lying by pointing at Google FAQs?