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

761–770 of 795 posts

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

#761

Post by kllrnohj »

ALittleLight wrote: post #407
simias wrote: post #378

It sucks that Google doesn't offer better support, but are they really to blame here? Isn't the root of the issue IP and copyright laws and this very nebulous notion of "fair use" that seems extremely easy for IP owners to dispute and win? I see people in this comment section posting alternatives to Youtube but I really wonder if, should they become equally as successful, they could end up behaving any different. Whe…

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Google is completely to blame here. Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc." As the video points out, in orde…

> Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc."

Other than the timestamps that IS what happened here. The creator knows the exact videos that were flagged, and the creator had the option to dispute it - which they did, and the channel was never actually deleted as a result. It's still up: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf5WyhQHoYKy2ZcY1l51w7A

The situation is now that the claimants can either drop the copyright claims or sue him (this is stated in the video at timestamp 2:40). Neither of which involves YouTube, and YouTube isn't going to delete the channel unless the claims remain. That is, if the claimant opts to sue the creator.

As for timestamps, not all takedown notices must include such information. Notably DMCA takedown requests do not, and Google cannot require more than the law does on those. If Google failed to forward the notice along, or refuses to, that'd be something to be upset about. But we don't have evidence that they didn't, only that the data from that claim was not manually entered into a database to be shown in a pretty UI. But given the channel in question, it seems likely that it's just the entire video in violation.

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

#762

Post by kllrnohj »

avianlyric wrote: post #441
kllrnohj wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are manual claims via YouTube's non-DMCA system. YouTube still has to respect DMCA claims and YouTube cannot impose requirements on DMCA notices. If it's a valid legal DMCA complaint, YouTube must comply. Google's policy is irrelevant here as it's not law. The point of confusion here is that there's multiple ways to issue a copyright strike on YouTube. If this is via YouTube's internal mechanisms, then yeah thi…

DMCA notices must include: > (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. [1] Now a timestamp isn’t required in a DMCA notice, but a description of the copyrighted work being infringed upon (i.e. a description of what has been stolen, not just…

The creator should have requested the notice be forwarded to them for further inspection. We don't have the notice, we just know the details of it were not entered into YouTube's UI.

But given the channel in question, the notice & details are really not a mystery? If you cover a song, and get a copyright strike, is it not fairly obvious what the strike is about?

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

#763

Post by wolfgke »

tmpz22 wrote: post #741
wolfgke wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument. If there is a single customer , it is not a monopoly, but a monopsony: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopsony&oldid=9...

I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".

> I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".

Would the "average" Google employees really care about this? I would rather imagine that only executive level employees of Google could be happy about this. And these people play much deeper political games than caring about a wrong word.

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

#764

Post by neotek »

monocasa wrote: post #750
neotek wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels. You're conflating two different things, perhaps intentionally. Content ID, which is the additio…

This guy this whole thread is about is getting his channel shutdown "with no recourse." You still get copyright strikes after they restore your content. The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID). Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).

That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.

>Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

From a parent comment at the start of this thread, which I've only now realised wasn't made by you, so please ignore the phrase "as you suggest" and focus on the substantive portions of my comment that address the inaccuracies in your claim.

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

#765

Post by finer9 »

Google234 wrote: post #759
seanyesmunt wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be hidden from our official apps (but turned off by commenting out a single line in the UI code[0]). That content is still accessible via the LBRY sdk[1], and it is not possible for the company to remove it from the network. [0]: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/blob/master/ui/index.... [1]: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-sdk

What if the content is actually really criminal? Child exploitation and the like.

It would be blocked by all LBRY INC apps. Someone would have to build an app to view it either in a country where it is not illegal, or they'd be breaking the law.

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

#766

Post by ilikehurdles »

heartbeats wrote: post #756
ilikehurdles wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a point to any of these ridiculous questions? Do you remember what the argument was about? Are you implying that black people choose to be black like someone saying racist, firable things at work chooses to say those things?

Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association. If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"? If it's about someone making statements at work , would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?

Why are you advocating for a world where you’re never held to account for your misdeeds (so long as you can link them to some form of speech)? Why do you believe everyone should be required to tolerate you for being vile to others?

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

#767

Post by ilikehurdles »

heartbeats wrote: post #755
ilikehurdles wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/04/can-the-bank-unilaterally-c...

That is about changing an agreement. The bank can fire you as a customer, pursuant to the existing agreement, usually without specifying a reason. This has happened in the past.

Of course they can fire you. They cannot force you to pay up your full mortgage tomorrow or be evicted.

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

#768

Post by hnick »

Google234 wrote: post #760
hnick wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but if it's a real DMCA claim won't Google be obligated to reinstate the content? https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counterclaim There's a summary but it links to a more detailed PDF. If it is a "real" DMCA claim, then according to this Google must put the content back up within 10 to 14 business days. If it's Google's house rules then they don't, but that would mean it's not a real DMCA claim. Now I under…

It doesn’t seem like they are obligated to reinstate the content

Since the current thread of discussion is operating under the assumption that it's a false claim, under DMCA, and a counterclaim has been correctly filed, the US Copyright Office summary certainly seems to say otherwise. What is your reading of their statement?

"If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification."

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

#769

Post by dalbasal »

Klinky wrote: post #591
eru wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, yes. That's a big part of why I suggest that regulation, if we want any at all, should focus on lowing the barriers to entry and shy away from mandating specific behaviour. The latter can be gamed by the people who can afford the good lawyers, and makes entry for newcomers even harder. Your comparison to finance is apt. It's one of the worst examples of regulatory capture. And many people have very dangerous id…

You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit. Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change. The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if no…

Financial regulators have teeth.

That's besides the point though. Large banks and regulators are, effectively, a single entity.

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

#770

Post by dalbasal »

Klinky wrote: post #728
eru wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers. Yes, exactly. I am suggesting that competition and low barriers to entry to ensure that it's _customers_ that are regulating the markets, w…

I want to add that consumers are weak and voting with your wallet is often not possible in a constrained market, plus many consumers are stupid or "not rational" and make poor choices and are easily swayed by marketing. Obviously we don't want to remove all avenues for self determination, but I don't think adhoc regulation or relying on consumers to reign in global corporations who now have market caps greater than G…

It's not about honest individuals, nor smart consummers. It's about structures.

Trying to fix monopolies with regulators is like trying to fix monarchy with princes.

Regulators harden market structures.

Post reply on HN