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

CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#71

Post by jimbob45 »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

I really don't think Google even wants YouTube. I think they'd be more than happy to buy the personal data of customers from a competitor. I think their problem is that no one wants to compete because it costs unreal amounts of money to store the amount of data that YouTube does, let alone the legal fees they must swallow each year. At this point, I imagine that they simply take the anti-consumer choice whenever a dilemma comes up in the hopes that it might finally be the bullet to put them out of their money-losing misery.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#72

Post by j-c-hewitt »

monadic2 wrote: post #28
j-c-hewitt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can file a counter claim through Youtube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claima…

> because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. What about damages to the target of the claim? It doesn't seem like there's a penalty for bad-faith claims that wouldn't ever lead to a suit.

Perjury, defamation, maybe tortuous interference, depends on the nature of the situation.

Not sure what you mean exactly in your last sentence because of the double negative. They would sue the target of the claim for copyright infringement if they believe that they will win.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#73

Post by Keverw »

henryfjordan wrote: post #65
smacktoward wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged…

Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.

There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a bit worried something might have had happened to him.

I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/vid...

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#74

Post by falcolas »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #48
chc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system

Content ID is above and beyond the DMCA. Media companies asserted that, due to the size of YouTube, utilizing the DMCA reactively was insufficient. To avoid the media companies taking legal action (and possibly setting bad legal precedent), Google voluntarily created Content ID to proactively identify copyright misuse.

It worked - the media companies backed off. It's also a massive failure, in that it's been abused to the detriment of the content creators since it came into being.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#75

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

rasz wrote: post #55
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this once, reversed because famous https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-...

BlindWave is doing it now.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#76

Post by chc »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #48
chc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system

No, there was no such requirement in the DMCA. Remember, we're talking about legislation that was written in the late '90s — the idea of Content ID would have been completely alien to them. YouTube has actually implemented a completely parallel system to the DMCA's takedown process.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#77

Post by iso1631 »

dx87 wrote: post #52
colejohnson66 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system

Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google relying on algorithms to do everything.

> because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything.

Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything.

Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b.

Alphabet made $86b last year.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#79

Post by gbrown »

rasz wrote: post #55
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this once, reversed because famous https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-...

It seems like that might offer a good target for anti-trust action.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#80

Post by j-c-hewitt »

Keverw wrote: post #47
monadic2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. What about damages to the target of the claim? It doesn't seem like there's a penalty for bad-faith claims that wouldn't ever lead to a suit.

Wonder if your claim fell under fair use and it harmed your channel if you could sue for tortious interference? There's some theme park in New Hampshire threatening to go after drone operators even though they don't own the private airspace, however, if it's a business day and full of crowds that a general no no anyways to fly over people. Be funny if that guy sued CBS in some small town court, I doubt they'd even sh…

Youtube in general is not liable for copyright infringement on content posted by users.

People love to talk about standing up to legal bullies, but lawyers are expensive. Copyright law is extremely friendly to plaintiffs and generous in terms of damages: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

CBS would totally show up in a small town if they knew that they had a good chance of winning. Their lawyers are already on salary. It doesn't cost them anything and they will get a lot of money. They may also just try to get the venue changed. In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in the future. So, it's unwise to do the equivalent of coating yourself in butter and serving yourself up to be devoured by Viacom IP attorneys.

In the 2019 case of Epic Games, Inc. v. Lucas in which a 14 year old boy counter-claimed a copyright claim filed by Epic over the defendant's posting of Youtube footage involving cheats in Fortnite. While the case did not go all the way, Epic did successfully extract a punitive settlement from the defendant. If he had not counter claimed, the lawsuit might have never happened, or they could have settled it before it was filed.

Post reply on HN