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

31–40 of 58 posts

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

#31

Post by uxp »

engtech wrote: post #16
__alexs wrote: post #5

Transfer the ownership to EFF and put their info on the form?

Interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has stepped up to prevent the chilling effect of DMCA takedown notices? It seems like a non-profit could handle this role where they act as a proxy where the victim of the notice asserts they have copyright, sends the information to the proxy and then the proxy acts on their behalf?

Isn't that basically what Righthaven was doing, on the other side of the legal courtroom? Taking control of the copyrighted work and suing infringers on behalf of content owners?

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

#32

Post by retr0rocket »

icebraining wrote: post #30
Ihavenoname wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

it makes their social push much more streamlined nothing to do with analytics

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

#33

Post by peterwwillis »

knowtheory wrote: post #4
peterwwillis wrote: post #2

I wish I could care about this, but the 'doxx' and lulz and generally childish writing make me assume this is another case of internet entitlement issues.

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?

It's funny that you phrase it that way. I didn't know the author was a woman (does it matter?).

As others have noted, this form doesn't need your personal information, so no I don't agree that this is an "exploit". You never have to give your personal information.

The situation reminds me of people who make anti-Scientology videos and then cry about freedom of speech when the cult's legal juggernaut descends. Is it fair to get a DMCA or lawsuit threat just because someone disagrees with your content? No (assuming you did not violate copyright protection laws). But getting bit by a shark because you're wading in its pool isn't fair either - just inevitable.

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

#34

Post by drucken »

As far as I understand, Youtube operates the following copyright tools [1],

A. Content owners: Copyright Infringement Notification (modelled on US DMCA takedown).

- content owners fill out a form with specific pre-stated legalese expressions for specific content.

- contact: email address is preferred, no specific contact information is mandated.

- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.

B. Content owners: Copyright Verification Programme.

- this seems to be an expedited and broader version of the CIN tool for mass content removal.

- need to identify agents for your ownership. Identity process unknown.

- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.

C. Content owners: Content ID (nothing whatsoever to do with US DMCA).

- an automated or semi-automated process to flag content according to any of a number of policies that content owners decide.

- this includes deciding what is or is not "Fair Use"...

- unlike the CIN and CVP processes, accounts of matching content are not issued Strikes, which would ultimately close the account if sufficient number received, but the content is blocked.

D. Content owners: Retractions.

- process that requires specific content identification, and content owner name as signature from original claimant account.

- removes claims and restrictions of CIN and CVP. Unclear how, if at all, it interacts with Content ID.

E. Users: Copyright Counter-Notifications.

- form that, among other things, requires full address information that is always relayed to original claimant.

- note. copyright laws of user's country of residence are irrelevant. The form of allowable counter-notification is based on the "location" [2] of the original claimant.

- Youtube "may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion".

In this case, the two claimants likely used the CIN which will result in Strikes without action by the user with Copyright Counter-Notifications.

In short and in my opinion, it is clear that this process is highly asymmetrical and prone to abuse - in this case as a form of harassment, if as claimed the user had zero infringing content in her videos.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners

[2] Ambiguous if whether that could refer to jurisdiction of any of the registered agents under the CVP, for example.

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

#36

Post by lubujackson »

YouTube's policy is beyond broken and is clearly being abused at this point. On the other hand, it a free site giving you unlimited hosting bandwidth for video. I don't think you get to sue the hell out of them for having internal policies you don't like - feel free to host your videos on your own server.

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

#37

Post by droithomme »

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…

Great link, and anyone with a site should file. I'm not sure that someone with only a youtube account can file as he's not actually hosting things himself, youtube is. (edit: actually in their list there are 11 individual youtube channel owners who have registered using their youtube channel address. Some of these also have their own separate sites though. Example: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/h/hyundai_motor.pdf. Also, the Copyright Office's list there is abysmal - if the person lists the site starting with "http" or "www" then it is indexed under H or W and not the actual site name. Since they have no search capabilities, it's rather likely many won't be found by someone looking to file a complaint.)

Also, according to that page and schedule of fees, prices have been raised, and it's $105 now, plus $30 more if you have more than one domain name to register for, up to 10.

Also should note that the person in the link doesn't want to reveal his address or his legal name, and although the "Designation of Agent" form only asks for the address of the agent, the "full legal name" of the service provider, which would be him if he was self-hosting and unincorporated, is also required.

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

#38

Post by drcube »

You have a blog, post your videos there. Stay off of Youtube, because it has shitty policies like this. Easy peasy.

Don't complain when people or companies abuse the control you voluntarily gave them over your content and creations. Take that control back, and own your shit.

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

#39

Post by jere »

peterwwillis wrote: post #2

I wish I could care about this, but the 'doxx' and lulz and generally childish writing make me assume this is another case of internet entitlement issues.

I'm not sure which you take issue with. Do you think:

-she has no right to privacy?

-she deserves to be harassed?

-she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her?

-or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant?

Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms.

I would expect some informal language in a transcript to a youtube video. However, after reviewing the entire transcript again, I don't see much informal writing at all. I have no idea what you're referring to with "lulz" and I'm still looking for this "childish writing."

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

#40

Post by beezee »

drcube wrote: post #38

You have a blog, post your videos there. Stay off of Youtube, because it has shitty policies like this. Easy peasy. Don't complain when people or companies abuse the control you voluntarily gave them over your content and creations. Take that control back, and own your shit.

It actually bugs me the sense of entitlement- YT is a free service, technically can take stuff down for no reason at all and nothing anyone can say about it. I can understand why this woman is frustrated, but expecting YT to have human resources in place for DMCA takedown requests is totally unrealistic- chances are that channel would be flooded if it existed.

Either way, if you're not paying for something, what do you expect.

Post reply on HN