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

151–160 of 201 posts

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

#151

Post by BlueTemplar »

cesarb wrote: post #130
ndiddy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube already has that system. I had to go through the process due to a similar situation with someone falsely content ID'ing my video. In that case it was someone uploading music they didn't own to some online music distribution service. Basically the way it works is after you dispute the content ID claim and whoever filed it still says the content is theirs, you can escalate the dispute to an actual DMCA countern…

> the DMCA counternotice process requires the person filing the counternotice to provide their full name and address so they can be served if the rightsholder decides to sue them. It's even worse than that: the DMCA counternotice also requires the person filing the counternotice to agree to the jurisdiction of the USA courts, even if they live somewhere else. I think many people would be reluctant to take that additi…

And for many other people isn't this actually less of a legal risk than if their own courts were involved ?

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

#152

Post by BlueTemplar »

JohnMakin wrote: post #132
Aunche wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then there's even less reason to keep using a platform for this, use something like PeerTube.

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

#154

Post by strken »

FireBeyond wrote: post #144
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. Or even "you don't have a right to a platform". You can speak your mind. That doesn't mean YouTube is obligated to broadcast it for you, nor does it mean your speech is being suppressed if they choose not to.

On a factual level, your speech is being suppressed every time someone refuses to broadcast it for non-commercial reasons.

YouTube isn't obligated to broadcast it, and in some cases it's debatable whether they're the ones suppressing it, but it is still being suppressed.

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

#155

Post by AnthonyMouse »

FireBeyond wrote: post #144
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. Or even "you don't have a right to a platform". You can speak your mind. That doesn't mean YouTube is obligated to broadcast it for you, nor does it mean your speech is being suppressed if they choose not to.

The premise being that you have lots of other equally-viable alternatives. Which was probably true on the old internet -- just use a different host.

The modern one where the adversarial video host is owned by the search engine with 90% market share that disfavors competitors in the search results? That's a different story.

Of course, the better solution there might be antitrust rather than common carriage requirements, but something's got to give.

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

#156

Post by BlueTemplar »

Vampiero wrote: post #42
probably_wrong wrote: post #30

It is perfectly clear that YouTube can stop it. As the article points out, we know there are things YouTube can do because those are the very same things The Verge asked about and YouTube refused to answer. The DMCA is broken, yes, but YouTube has made it worse with their kind-of-but-not-actually-DMCA counter-claim process. If they really wanted to solve it, here's an idea: if you get a takedown notice you also get a…

Consider the following: I make a form of parody that is known as a Youtube Poop. It was all the rage last decade, but now it's a dying art. In part because of these stupid DMCA rules preventing people like me from expressing their creativity. I can appeal the strikes, but every time I do so I risk losing my channel forever. I don't monetize, and I only make parodies of stuff that came out over 10 years ago. So I've a…

But here it's not so much even about DMCA, as about YouTube's own para-legal system and trolls abusing it.

At this point, if you are still using YouTube (or another platform), you're part of the problem (we've already been talking about this specific issue for 15 years already !!), use something like PeerTube instead !

Even more so if you're in Europe, heck, we even have the example of VLC basically violating DMCA and US patent laws for decades and they are still online - notably because they're not under US jurisdiction :

https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_a...

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

#157

Post by FireBeyond »

strken wrote: post #154
FireBeyond wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Or even "you don't have a right to a platform". You can speak your mind. That doesn't mean YouTube is obligated to broadcast it for you, nor does it mean your speech is being suppressed if they choose not to.

On a factual level, your speech is being suppressed every time someone refuses to broadcast it for non-commercial reasons. YouTube isn't obligated to broadcast it, and in some cases it's debatable whether they're the ones suppressing it, but it is still being suppressed.

That isn't accurate. Unless they are physically stopping you from speaking, they are not suppressing it. They're just not amplifying it.

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

#158

Post by prmoustache »

JohnMakin wrote: post #139
zamadatix wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 copyri…

nope it hasn't.

People have been used to infringe copyright on the internet for decades but this has never been right.

If you want to be able to share stuff you don't own the right for, change the laws.

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

#159

Post by prmoustache »

jedberg wrote: post #102

The DMCA is totally broken, and has been from the beginning. There are no consequences for anyone making a fake claim. However there are severe consequences for someone who receives one and doesn't take action. There are counter-claims processes, but that puts a heavy burden on both the creator and the platform. I myself am guilty of abusing the DMCA. When I was fighting fraud for eBay and PayPal, if we found someone…

Please define severe. At worst your account on a platform is deleted. This is not severe.

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

#160

Post by ascagnel_ »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141
ndiddy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea for a "single button to immediately restore the video" system would violate the takedown process outlined in the DMCA. The way it works is that after someone sends a takedown request, the content can't be restored until 10 business days after the person who uploaded it sends a counter-notice. This gives whoever sent the takedown request enough time to decide whether they want to file a lawsuit and keep the…

> The way it works is that after someone sends a takedown request, the content can't be restored until 10 business days after the person who uploaded it sends a counter-notice. I'd be curious to know if this has ever been challenged in court as an unconstitutional prior restraint. Pretty obvious problems if you get people e.g. issuing fraudulent takedowns 10 days before an election.

YouTube is a private entity; as long as they comply with the DMCA, they're under no obligation to take content down or even make content available (outside of contracts they enter into voluntarily). The DMCA doesn't provide strict timelines (just that the initial takedown requires the provider to "act expeditiously", and nothing for restoration).

The bigger issue is that Content ID has always been a way for YouTube to side-step the DMCA in a way that's beneficial to big copyright holders -- channel operators assume risk fighting a takedown in a way that was never a part of the DMCA.

Post reply on HN