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

Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#131

Post by zamadatix »

JohnMakin wrote: post #83
zamadatix wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I don't like the current rules either "I never got a notice until recently" is a very different thing than "It was fine until recently".

It was fine until recently. Crossposting another reply: > We've had the capability to detect audio for a long time. What changed suddenly in the last few years to deploy/enforce this at scale? Certainly not any improvements to detection. I've made a whopping total of $46 in something like 12 years on these platforms. Something tells me this level of enforcement is ridiculous and against the spirit of the law, and I'm…

Again, the absence of a negative consequence at the time cannot be used as evidence something was actually fine to do, only that it was possible to get away with. That's regardless of whether it was actually truly fine or not.

If a new automated speed camera catches you on a road you've been speeding on for 7 years it doesn't mean speeding used to be fine it means you'll now receive consequences for doing things which were never fine to do! It also doesn't mean the speed limit always used to be the current value or anything like that. This is because "when regular enforcement began" has no causal relation one way or the other about what used to be fine or whether that was different than what's fine now. It is only an effect, one where "what was fine changed" is only one possible cause.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#132

Post by JohnMakin »

Aunche wrote: post #126
JohnMakin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all creators have the means and resources to hire a lawyer to fight forces much more powerful and wealthier than they are. This is blaming the victim.

Welcome to being a business owner. Nobody is going to protect your business more than yourself. A tenant refuses to pay rent and eviction takes a year? Too bad. Next time, do a better job of screening for risky tenants. The problem with the victim first mentality is that it causes you to underestimate how much agency people actually have (e.g. being unaware of how excessive tenant protections decrease the supply of h…

You know not all content creators are out for money, right? If you want a trivial example, I am one of them. It may even shock you to learn that in the before-times, people even created content purely for fun and the entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now, especially reading this post I am replying to.

That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? Why is the onus on them, rather than the platforms that enable this kind of behavior? Like, I'm not trying to be overly sarcastic here, I'm genuinely curious how you make sense of this in your head. Is it like "oh well, that's the way of the world, fuck em?" kind of thing, or is it based on some kind of sound principle? Because the way things are do not really help anyone, except behemoth media interests, and especially hurts the quality of content online, which if I can make an assumption, you and I both consume. Which also, ironically, hurts the very platforms that (I suspect) you are trying to stan for here. Make it make sense?

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#133

Post by deletedie »

ternnoburn wrote: post #29

I worry about let's plays (especially let's plays without commentary). They pretty clearly exist in a "yes, this is copyright infringement but yes, they are generally considered positive for a game" space. The moment some game creator decides to test this will get very interesting. Not good interesting.

Nintendo (and some others) used to do this in the early days of Let's Play. People stopped doing Nintendo Let's Plays for a while until Nintendo somewhat relented.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#134

Post by AnthonyMouse »

FireBeyond wrote: post #103
Vampiero wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody has a right to an audience. That's literally what copyright is

No, it's literally not. Copyright is that you have the right to potentially benefit from your work. You can broadcast it. You don't have any kind of right to an audience to watch it. I don't even know what that would look like.

A plausible interpretation of "you don't have a right to an audience" is that people don't have to watch your dross if they don't want to, and this is the meaning which is normally meant to be implied (the motte in the motte and bailey).

Then people want to use it in the sense of, you don't have a right against someone else interfering with your interaction with your willing audience, i.e. you don't have a right not to be censored by a government or corporate oligopoly. But that is a far less defensible proposition.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#135

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #84
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I wish there was a decent competitor to YouTube. They get away with so much horseshit because there's just nobody else that can match their service scale and network effects.

And how long do you think it would take until the competitor would end up in the same situation? How can the god help with it? And which god?

> And how long do you think it would take until the competitor would end up in the same situation?

YouTube ended up in that situation for two reasons. First, the original YouTube before Google bought it was playing fast and loose with the law and was in the process of getting sued over it after Google bought them. Second, Google wants to license Hollywood content for YouTube TV etc. So between wanting to settle the lawsuit and wanting to sell their soul and become Comcast, Google agreed to do a lot of this draconian BS that isn't otherwise required by law.

A competing service that just wants to be YouTube without being YouTube TV could plausibly follow the law without steamrolling the little guy quite as much.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#136

Post by jandrese »

omolobo wrote: post #111

So the first email was from a Protonmail account, and the second one was spoofed and obviously had incorrect headers. Are you saying Youtube doesn't check for these when processing take-down requests?

What incentive does Youtube have to get this right? They have a major disincentive to ever push back on the content cartels because even one false negative could put them on the hook for trillions of dollars worth of damages, even if it was due to sloppy work on the cartel's part. It is no skin off of Google's back if they take their cut of the revenue from the wrong person, it's all the same to them.

The only way to get Google to care would be for content creators to start abandoning the platform on mass, but they don't really have anywhere to go (sorry Vimeo). Even then Google views content creators as a dime a dozen, so to get the numbers you need to make them notice would be exceptional.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#137

Post by jandrese »

namrog84 wrote: post #74
ternnoburn wrote: post #29

I worry about let's plays (especially let's plays without commentary). They pretty clearly exist in a "yes, this is copyright infringement but yes, they are generally considered positive for a game" space. The moment some game creator decides to test this will get very interesting. Not good interesting.

My first very ever attempt at making a let plays video. Immediately got taken down for copyright infringement. Completely destroyed my desire to ever make a let's play video again. And it was for a 10+ year old game. It is unfortunate

It was for the music wasn't it? The music industry is extremely efficient at flagging videos to claim the revenue.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#138

Post by miki123211 »

I'm surprised Russia / China / North Korea aren't using this process against dissidents and activists. If you're not reachable by American law enforcement, it seems like such a low-effort way to remove any content off the internet that you don't like.

Getting access to the real names and addresses of these people is a nice bonus too; I'm sure their intelligence services would have plenty of uses for this information.

If there's one way of making the DMCA (and similar legislation around the world) go away, spinning it as an anti-free-speech law with national security concerns is probably it, especially considering the upcoming US administration.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#139

Post by JohnMakin »

zamadatix wrote: post #131
JohnMakin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was fine until recently. Crossposting another reply: > We've had the capability to detect audio for a long time. What changed suddenly in the last few years to deploy/enforce this at scale? Certainly not any improvements to detection. I've made a whopping total of $46 in something like 12 years on these platforms. Something tells me this level of enforcement is ridiculous and against the spirit of the law, and I'm…

Again, the absence of a negative consequence at the time cannot be used as evidence something was actually fine to do, only that it was possible to get away with. That's regardless of whether it was actually truly fine or not. If a new automated speed camera catches you on a road you've been speeding on for 7 years it doesn't mean speeding used to be fine it means you'll now receive consequences for doing things whic…

I don’t think you understand how the DMCA works or what it was intended to do - again, these are not takedown requests, as is the normal mechanism here, which there are guidelines for - this is platforms preemptively deciding for potential dmca takedown requests to takedown/censor content. If your position is that every single piece of content should never be hosted in fair use online, that is not only not how copyright law works, it’s not how the DMCA works, and I’m not sure how to progress this discussion further since we seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of how the law works, or what this thread is even about.

To trivially prove your point wrong - I actually do have the right under fair use to make content of my own with copyrighted material. This has literally always been ok. Platforms are taking these actions to protect themselves from potentially hosting copyrighted content on their platform that would not consistute fair uses, and since I, a user of their platform, have to abide by their policies, it's their decision. Assuming we are now on the same page here, continuing your speeding ticket example - this is not so much like that, as getting pulled over in a labeled 40 zone and the cop goes "well, we didnt know if you'd be breaking the law later or before this, so just to be safe, here you go" or, "actually that's not really the speed limit." take your choice here, they both apply.

So yea, it has always been ok.

Re: Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear YouTube can stop it

#140

Post by JasserInicide »

101008 wrote: post #2

The system is broken and I can't see a way to fix it. Maybe pay to send a takedown notice?

The system is broken and I can't see a way to fix it.

With blood.

No I'm not being edgy. That is the only way anything is going to change regarding the litany of fucked up corporate practices in our country. Our governments are ineffective at best and are active abettors at worst (read The Chickenshit Club for why they won't ever seriously prosecute execs). Boeing (completely different scenario from the OP but it's recent) has no qualms with killing to maintain the status quo, why should people that want actual change be any different?

Post reply on HN