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

41–50 of 58 posts

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

#41

Post by neurotech1 »

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?

Interesting idea. The proxy service would most likely be in the form of a "copyright agent" service for copyright/DMCA takedowns, with some degree of privacy protection for site owners. This would enable large scale monitoring of abuse.

The "act on their behalf" might be considered legal representation. As I understand (IANAL), the EFF as an organization doesn't provide legal representation to others, and more commonly refer them to a lawyer or law school clinic for further assistance.

Righthaven got struck down because they were only assigned "right to sue" and not ownership or exclusive rights to the copyrighted work.

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

#42

Post by eridius »

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.

YouTube is (inadvertently) aiding other people in an attempt to harass her, and the only recourse they provide requires her to reveal her full name to her attackers, thus opening her up to offline harassment. Seems like a good reason to sue.

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

#43

Post by freeslave »

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…

should websites outside of the U.S also do this?

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

#44

Post by Goladus »

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…

do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way

No, I don't agree. Anger at harassment and injustice isn't juvenile. Use of jargon familiar to her audience isn't juvenile either. Although I can see why others would see it that way.

apparent unwillingness to learn about them

I do agree this seems apparent.

To a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it

I don't know enough to judge.

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

#45

Post by ubernostrum »

beezee wrote: post #40
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 y…

I don't really understand why so many people seem to see an entitlement issue here (other than knowing from other contexts how many people really strongly dislike this woman, and so might be looking for ways to blame the situation on her).

YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.

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

#46

Post by 0x0 »

eridius wrote: post #42
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.

YouTube is (inadvertently) aiding other people in an attempt to harass her, and the only recourse they provide requires her to reveal her full name to her attackers, thus opening her up to offline harassment. Seems like a good reason to sue.

I don't know american law, but to me that would be just as silly as suing the post office because someone sent you a postcard with the message "fuck you".

Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case?

IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.

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

#47

Post by aeturnum »

ubernostrum wrote: post #45
beezee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

I don't really understand why so many people seem to see an entitlement issue here (other than knowing from other contexts how many people really strongly dislike this woman, and so might be looking for ways to blame the situation on her). YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.

So, because they're a free video hosting service, they have the right to handle DMCA takedown notices any way they want. They can just ban you right away, offer no appeals process, and decide they want to have nothing to do with you.

Being upset that the free service that you use is refusing to do stuff for you for nothing is entitlement.

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

#48

Post by redthrowaway »

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…

>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

This actually seems like a great idea for a business: DMCA takedown protection. Register your works with us, and we'll take care of the disputes and counterclaims. You pay us a signup fee for each work, and a fee for each work we successfully defend. In return, you get peace of mind and an agent familiar with the system to wrestle with claimants on your behalf.

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

#49

Post by chives »

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…

So what your saying is her post is false and she is just trying to drive traffic to her YT account/Blog? I'm sorry I am reading between the lines and I think that's what your saying. Innocent question, no offense intended.

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

#50

Post by Natsu »

uxp wrote: post #31
engtech wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not quite. Righthaven did not receive an assignment of the copyrights themselves, they tried to get only a bare "right to sue" that is not recognized by law. The copyright holders were none to eager to give up the entire copyright, after all, but this reluctance doomed their lawsuits.

If he were to fully assign the copyrights to the EFF, they would not run into the same trouble Righthaven did.

Post reply on HN