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

Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

owningyourshit.blogspot.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#21

Post by Ihavenoname »

Retric wrote: post #11
girlvinyl wrote: post #9

That is not how the DMCA works. All she has to do to file a counter claim is submit contact information of someone authorized to act on behalf of the works submitted, be that an attorney, friend or other business agent (the only requirement is a US address). Do you think Britney Spears puts her personal phone number on RIAA take down requests? The RIAA doesn't even own the copyrights they get taken down themselves, t…

Youtube obeys the DMCA rules, but also has a vastly streamlined process that's being somewhat openly abused that lacks anyway to effectively fight back.

Considering how prevalent abusive and wildly inaccurate automatic take downs are one must consider google itself is exploiting the process to obtain personal information. Google absolutely doesn't want you to remain anonymous it diminishethree value of their analitics. I think they should provide more tools to the uploader so they can make informed choices and defend their rights. I fear google will avoid this this as google benifits from the abusive system.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#22

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #19
knowtheory wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?

No. You put the details of your legal representative on that form.

[deleted]

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#23

Post by runhomequick »

DanBC wrote: post #19
knowtheory wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?

No. You put the details of your legal representative on that form.

Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#24

Post by dllthomas »

runhomequick wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You put the details of your legal representative on that form.

Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.

Your legal representative need not be local. I just had someone across the country file court docs on my behalf.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#25

Post by danielweber »

runhomequick wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You put the details of your legal representative on that form.

Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.

There are lawyers who take on cases like these just on principle (assuming the facts are as described). They would usually want to get co-council who is licensed in your jurisdiction, but if it really comes down to it they might accept being primary on the claim.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#26

Post by rmc »

0x0 wrote: post #6

Interesting technique, and I see how the behaviour of the opponents can be annoying. But the lawsuit threat is ridiculous. Is youtube required to provide free anonymous video hosting to this person? Perhaps she should ask for her money back instead.

Just because she is not paying money, doesn't mean she has no rights. YouTube are still under contractual and moral obligations regardless of how much money she gave them.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#27

Post by cheez »

roel_v wrote: post #18
knowtheory wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?

Regardless of what the (obscure) legal reality is in this matter, do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way, and shows a general lack of understanding of the real-world procedures (as opposed to how keyboard warriors imagine things are or should be) in matters like this, and an apparent unwillingness to learn about them, to a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion…

The people who filed the request are obviously trolling in order to:

1) Get the videos removed. 2) Potentially get real-life identifying information in order to enact a campaign of harassment. I would hate for GWW to be harassed. She is a breath of fresh air.

The DMCA is fine when the complaints are legit. This penalizes both YouTube and the content creator.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#28

Post by Symmetry »

rmc wrote: post #26
0x0 wrote: post #6

Interesting technique, and I see how the behaviour of the opponents can be annoying. But the lawsuit threat is ridiculous. Is youtube required to provide free anonymous video hosting to this person? Perhaps she should ask for her money back instead.

Just because she is not paying money, doesn't mean she has no rights. YouTube are still under contractual and moral obligations regardless of how much money she gave them.

Contractual obligation? What contract? I guarantee you that the clickthrough agreement the blogger signed explicitly said that Google might do what it's doing now.

Moral obligation? If you start saying that someone providing a service has a moral obligation to open themselves to civil suits on behalf of the people they serve then you'd see a lot fewer people offering free services.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#29

Post by girlvinyl »

zokier wrote: post #20
girlvinyl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube is simply following the DMCA here and this is precisely how the process works. If it worked any other way, the hosting provider (youtube in this case), would not enjoy safe harbors under the law. This aspect of the DMCA is specifically created to protect hosting companies from lawsuits involving automated upload of copyrighted material. Essentially, Prima makes an accusation - "I swear your user is hosting my…

I think this is not DMCA request. Google has it's own takedown mechanism, which afaik what this is about.

When you submit a takedown notice to youtube or google for user content hosted there, their takedown mechanism IS a DMCA takedown. They explicitly state that when using the wizard. They just accept via email, fax, postal mail and additionally via their own mechanism that they created which allows for self-service creation.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#30

Post by icebraining »

Ihavenoname wrote: post #21
Retric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube obeys the DMCA rules, but also has a vastly streamlined process that's being somewhat openly abused that lacks anyway to effectively fight back.

Considering how prevalent abusive and wildly inaccurate automatic take downs are one must consider google itself is exploiting the process to obtain personal information. Google absolutely doesn't want you to remain anonymous it diminishethree value of their analitics. I think they should provide more tools to the uploader so they can make informed choices and defend their rights. I fear google will avoid this this a…

How does not having your name diminish the value of their analytics?
Post reply on HN