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

151–160 of 188 posts

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

#151

Post by jimktrains2 »

wostusername wrote: post #101
mnm1 wrote: post #87

The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate. Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other words, it really doesn't exist anymore for…

Google does not have the power to determine if something is fair use or not, that is up to the courts. You might think something is fair use, and I might disagree. We are supposed to go to court and have a trial to determine which one of us is right. Google is not judge and jury, they can't make that determination.

Isn't the issue that they're depriving the user of income based solely on a non-legal (not not-legal) complaint? If YouTube really justed wanted to have people Duke it out in court, they wouldn't have their own system that is massively tilted towards the studios. They're effectively allowing one side to be judge and jury.

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

#152

Post by JohnFen »

ikeboy wrote: post #136
henryfjordan wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed.

As I understand it, for YouTubers who rely on monetization of their videos, the system is completely broken. A ContentID strike takes down or demonetizes the video immediately. The YouTuber disputes the strike. Once processed, that video goes back up -- but it's too late, the monetary damage has already been done, as most of the money a video will make is made in the first few days. Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue.

That said, I think that anyone who has a business that relies so heavily on income from from YouTube has a very precarious business to begin with. I'd advise them to get the majority of their nickels in some other way.

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

#153

Post by ikeboy »

henryfjordan wrote: post #148
ikeboy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ContentID is not the only only other way to issue a takedown. See the opaque tools described here: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... Strikes are not perfectly 1:1 with DMCA requests. I don't know how to prove that, but I don't trust some reductive Google support pages to have the whole picture either.

I've read through that EFF page and also written my own guide to the process (at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h...)

I'm fairly confident in what I've said (there's content ID claims, both manual and automatic, and then there's DMCA claims). The EFF does not mention any third option. They mention ToS issues, which are strikes but which aren't because of copyright. And there's a brief mention of contractual obligations, which I mention in my post as well. Those aren't a separate way to take down content, but rather an agreement not to consider disputes from certain rights owners (as far as I know, the only one that's been identified is UMG). This is rare and I have not heard of widespread abuse of this.

It's somewhat confusing because Youtube doesn't always use the term DMCA in their documentation. But it's fairly clear when they say "formal notice", mention that it's a legal requirement, and link to the counternotice page.

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

#154

Post by ikeboy »

JohnFen wrote: post #152
ikeboy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. As I understand it, for YouTubers who rely on monetization of their videos, the system is completely broken. A ContentID strike takes down or demonetizes the video immediately. The YouTuber disputes the strike. Once processed, that video goes back up -- but it's too late, the monetary damage has already been done, as most of the money a video will…

> Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue.

If disputed within 5 days, the money is held in escrow and disbursed upon reinstatement. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en&ref_...

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

#155

Post by JohnFen »

ikeboy wrote: post #154
JohnFen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. As I understand it, for YouTubers who rely on monetization of their videos, the system is completely broken. A ContentID strike takes down or demonetizes the video immediately. The YouTuber disputes the strike. Once processed, that video goes back up -- but it's too late, the monetary damage has already been done, as most of the money a video will…

> Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue. If disputed within 5 days, the money is held in escrow and disbursed upon reinstatement. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en&ref_...

If the video has been taken down, then the video earns no money, so there's nothing to be held in escrow.

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

#156

Post by tempestn »

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…

I expect you're getting downvoted for your attitude more than your content. Leading with a blanket "You're wrong" doesn't encourage a productive dialogue. Neither do "learn to read" and "I'll spoonfood you".

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

#158

Post by henryfjordan »

ikeboy wrote: post #153
henryfjordan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ContentID is not the only only other way to issue a takedown. See the opaque tools described here: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... Strikes are not perfectly 1:1 with DMCA requests. I don't know how to prove that, but I don't trust some reductive Google support pages to have the whole picture either.

I've read through that EFF page and also written my own guide to the process (at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... ) I'm fairly confident in what I've said (there's content ID claims, both manual and automatic, and then there's DMCA claims). The EFF does not mention any third option. They mention ToS issues, which are strikes but which aren't because of copyright. And there's a brief men…

You are probably right about all takedowns being done through DMCA. I wish Google was more clear about it.

Your Reddit guide was very good but I would still not call a strike the same thing as a DMCA notice. YouTube doesn't have to have a strike system, they do that to placate the major rights holders who don't want to deal with serial offenders so that there's not a big court battle about whether YouTube knows they are uploading copyrighted content. ContentID serves the same purpose, to shield YouTube from liability. But YouTube lets copyright holders abuse these tools and so far has gotten away from trouble for doing so.

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

#160

Post by wolco »

ikeboy wrote: post #124
kube-system wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube "manual claims" are not DMCA claims. You can follow these instructions here to file one -- the process does not include filing a DMCA request: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_...

That's correct, but those manual claims, as well as automatic content ID claims are not strikes and have no negative effect on the channel.

It removes the video for a period of time thus losing money.
Post reply on HN