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

They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 795 posts

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#311

Post by n_u_l_l »

throwayws wrote: post #17

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en > It’s important that creators always have detailed knowledge about who is claiming content in their videos, where it appears, and what they can do to resolve the claim. That’s why all new manual claims will require copyright owners to provide timestamps to indicate exactly where their copyrighted content appears in videos they claim, and we’ve updated our editi…

Disclaimer: I have extensive knowledge about YouTube Content ID (CID) and DMCA notices, but I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice.

He received a DMCA takedown, which is different from a copyright claim. Copyright claiming is a system made by YouTube for copyright owners to easily monetize/monitor reuse of their content instead of having to take down the content. It also allows splitting revenue in cases where one party owns copyright in specific territories. When you put content in CID, it will automatically claim videos and provide timestamps to the uploader. Sometimes CID fails to claim a video, and the copyright owner can then manually claim a video. There was a time where copyright owners didn't have to provide timestamps when they manually claimed a video. Nowadays, all manual claims need to provide a timestamp. Only highly trusted companies have access to CID, and getting a claim doesn't result in termination of your account.

The DMCA is a law that makes it easier to remove copyright content from the internet. It also makes it so that a service provider isn't responsible for the content they host. It is basically a legal action to take down content you own from the internet without having to start a lawsuit.

It works like this: when a copyright owner sends a DMCA takedown, the service provider needs to take down the content. If the uploader disagrees, they can send a counter notification. Unless the copyright owner that filed the takedown files a lawsuit within 14 days, the service provider needs to reinstate the content. You can be sued for damages in case of an incorrect DMCA takedown.

If YouTube would reject a DMCA, it would make YouTube responsible.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#312

Post by FridgeSeal »

chii wrote: post #281
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction. Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their ow…

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism?

In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#313

Post by RandallBrown »

sio8ohPi wrote: post #226
RandallBrown wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, covers aren't fair use. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... Thousands (millions?) of people post covers on YouTube with no issue, but sometimes people get unlucky. I don't think monetization makes a difference in the eyes of the law (maybe it would for proving damages? I'm not a lawyer.) What's unusual is that he said he got 5 copyright strikes without telling him why. I'…

Looking at his other videos this seems like a clear cut case of copyright infringement, if he's not obtaining mechanical licenses. I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this.

I think people are (rightfully) mad that YouTube is applying the rules so haphazardly. There are millions of similar videos on that aren't resulting in the creator getting their channel taken away.

But you're right that the guy is probably in the wrong. Part of the issue too is how opaque YouTube is about this kind of thing. It would be cool to see them build better appeals systems or at least treat their creators a little better than they treat copyright trolls (which may or may not be who gave him the strikes in the first place.)

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#314

Post by smogcutter »

seph-reed wrote: post #260
hengheng wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard this type of speech at a bar when I asked why somebody wasn't shown the door. I guess they didn't have a greater principle. One core value that a platform could have is common decency, which is not the same as censorship, but it is given up even easier than what your argument calls free speech.

Terrible metaphor. How do you suggest making a platform which allows good content while disallowing bad? Also, how do you expect to be able to define these things? Remember: every person you pay to moderate has to be able to discern good from bad in as little time as possible. Even less time than that.

Ironic argument to post on such a heavily moderated forum. Also kind of beside the point with regards to a site that seems to be intentionally designed as a safe harbor for venomous trash. Not quite the same thing as throwing up your hands over moderation being hard.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#315

Post by zmk_ »

ehsankia wrote: post #256
nemothekid wrote: post #61

I've seen this on Twitter, Reddit and now HN, so I assume there will be enough buzz for Google to do something. I expect his channel to be undeleted, then a Twitter apology, then to repeat this all over again with another channel with sufficient clout in 5-6 months. It's a complete shitshow.

Here's the other way to look at it, videos like this are becoming fairly rare comparatively, maybe 2-3 a year. They definitely used to be more common before. Considering the millions or creators you have, and even with the fact that only a small number of them would make a video like this and blow up, it still is surprising that it's happening so infrequently. The thing is, for all we know, 99.99% of cases could be h…

The only thing you can say is that the number of videos that get traction is decreasing. You don't know how many are shut down.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#316

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

retsibsi wrote: post #156
birdmanjeremy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can it be both a small business and "non-commercial in nature"? Because that's at the crux of his fair use claim I think.

That's the bit that doesn't ring true to me, his "non-commercial" claim. I'm not at all suggesting that he deserves the treatment he's getting, but it doesn't seem like he's being entirely straightforward here. Can anyone who knows the law weigh in on whether I'm missing something about the distinction between 'commercial' and 'monetized via advertising'?

My sense from listening to him talk is that he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube, means that he's in the clear. I fear that this is not exactly how the law works, but I'm also not a lawyer.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#317

Post by kelnos »

chii wrote: post #281
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction. Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their ow…

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them.

Either way: still not censorship.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#318

Post by young_unixer »

hengheng wrote: post #240
core-questions wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you've rediscovered the publisher vs. platform dichotomy! Those of us who believe in free speech understand that people will say things we don't like, and further understand that the sacrifice of ignoring content we dislike is worth it for the greater principle. I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative that doesn't resul…

I've never heard this type of speech at a bar when I asked why somebody wasn't shown the door. I guess they didn't have a greater principle. One core value that a platform could have is common decency, which is not the same as censorship, but it is given up even easier than what your argument calls free speech.

If a bar started kicking people out for what they say, then it would be a shitty bar, and not one I would like to visit.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#320

Post by zmk_ »

RandallBrown wrote: post #60
notacoward wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

He posts both pure covers as well as lessons. Does he mention in the video that it was his educational videos that were the reason for this?

In a previous video on his original channel he talks about the first strike which was made against on of his tutorials by a company who published their tabs a few years AFTER he posted the video.
Post reply on HN