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

131–140 of 188 posts

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

#131

Post by ciabattabread »

danso wrote: post #95

It's interesting that Angry Joe got taken down; AFAIK, RedLetterMedia's review didn't get taken down, and it featured decent chunks of non-trailer footage (not sure if any of them were 10+ seconds consecutively) [0]. And, like AJ's, it was a very negative review. I don't doubt AJ was the victim of manual review, I'm just surprised RLM wouldn't be on CBS's shit list as well. (and tangentially: both are right; the "Pic…

> the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep,

I don’t understand how you can pass judgment on a series based on one episode.

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

#132

Post by redis_mlc »

shadowgovt wrote: post #69
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…

Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control via legal remedy). YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.

You're both wrong.

The biggest uploaders of copyrighted content - are the copyright holders.

Also, Google spent about $1 billion on legal fees after the YT purchase, so there was no "agreement" without a war.

HN downvoters ... learn to read. Here, I'll spoonfood you:

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-yo...

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

#133

Post by themacguffinman »

chc wrote: post #40
quest88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did they do wrong in this case?

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?

> who would you hold responsible?

The legislature? Corporations obviously pursue profits within the legal framework, and this is the most profitable path within the legal framework. Lawmakers can challenge or reduce this sort of abusive pressure by content publishers in a number of ways but they don't. The current legal framework seems to tacitly allow publishers to effectively move as a bloc in punishing any platform, whether it's by Google or someone else, that refuses to accept their anti-consumer practices.

But of course you can keep blaming one corporation. Bad Google, why don't you just voluntarily do what I want, profits be damned?! See if that changes anything.

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

#134

Post by Aunche »

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…

> If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.

If you're a big media company, you don't want to file a DMCA notice every time someone uploads a pirated video on Youtube. Even if you use the most sophicated bots to file real DMCA takedowns, you're bound to have at least a 1% error rate and get sued a bunch of times.

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

#135

Post by henryfjordan »

ikeboy wrote: post #118
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…

>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims. "If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear." So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then the…

You can get a strike from a DMCA notice or YouTube's internal system.

The difference between the two systems is that the DMCA has language about fraudulent claims, whereas wading through the ToS and contracts you have with YouTube will be nigh impossible. A lawyer might take your DMCA case where youtube wouldn't really be directly involved, but nobody is up for a fight with YouTube directly. It's never worth the money to these YouTubers at their current scale.

Either YouTubers need a union as powerful as the major media cabal to bargain with YouTube on their behalf or some particular publisher needs to be making movie studio money before this system is fixed.

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

#136

Post by ikeboy »

henryfjordan wrote: post #135
ikeboy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims. "If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear." So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then the…

You can get a strike from a DMCA notice or YouTube's internal system. The difference between the two systems is that the DMCA has language about fraudulent claims, whereas wading through the ToS and contracts you have with YouTube will be nigh impossible. A lawyer might take your DMCA case where youtube wouldn't really be directly involved, but nobody is up for a fight with YouTube directly. It's never worth the mone…

A copyright claim not made through the DMCA does not lead to a strike, full stop. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en, which differentiates between takedowns through a formal notice (i.e. DMCA), and content ID takedowns.

And if you dispute a content ID claim, the claimant must either retract it or convert it into a DMCA notice. So they have no additional legal protections if they want to keep it down permanently.

I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. Money is kept in escrow while claims are disputed, and ultimately the rights owner must allow the content to be reinstated or file a lawsuit.

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

#137

Post by gareim »

iso1631 wrote: post #77
dx87 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Alphabet made $86b last year.

They did not, and I'm curious where the mixup came from. They did $46.1b in revenue fiscal year 2019, and $10.7b in profits.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-goo...

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

#138

Post by catalogia »

Aunche wrote: post #134
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…

> If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear. If you're a big media company, you don't want to file a DMCA notice every time someone uploads a pirated video on Youtube. Even if you use the most sophicated bots to file real DMCA takedowns, you're bound to have at least a 1% error rate and get sued a bunch of times.

Has a company ever successfully been penalized for false DMCA claims? I was under the impression that those penalties have rarely if ever been put into practice.

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

#139

Post by catalogia »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33
jbob2000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily…

> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."

In creating an automated indiscriminate system that has no mind for false positives or public domain songs, they've established themselves as idiots at best.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

redis_mlc wrote: post #132
shadowgovt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control via legal remedy). YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.

You're both wrong. The biggest uploaders of copyrighted content - are the copyright holders. Also, Google spent about $1 billion on legal fees after the YT purchase, so there was no "agreement" without a war. HN downvoters ... learn to read. Here, I'll spoonfood you: "For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN