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

171–180 of 201 posts

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

#171

Post by rad_gruchalski »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #135
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

So like dailymotion? Why won't people use that instead of youtube?

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

#172

Post by kmeisthax »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #38
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…

They wouldn't even need to go that far. The current way YouTube's system works is so deck-stacked against the creator to a ludicrous degree. Basically any "copyright holder" just has to say "this belongs to me" and YouTube immediately funnels all revenue for the video to that holder, with basically no oversight whatsoever, and as anyone in the space will tell you, a video makes 90% of it's money in the first few days…

It's not a DMCA thing at all. DMCA 512 is actually pretty straightforward, you're referring to YouTube Content ID, a completely separate parallel takedown system that YouTube made at the behest of their content licensors.

If the media companies had their way, everything would work like YouTube Content ID, because that's the system that minimizes their enforcement cost. What they want is to make everything Someone Else's Problem.

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

#173

Post by Aunche »

nullc wrote: post #116
blueflow wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then hire a lawyer & sue, you have to enforce your rights.

Google shields the false-DMCA complainers and will absolutely not reveal their identities.

The identity is in the takedown request. It's Tatsumi Masaaki from Nintendo USA. The problem is that it's fake.

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

#174

Post by dclowd9901 »

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…

Yep. Really very sick of these content platforms throwing up their hands and waving all responsibility on everything. We would never entertain newspapers violating copyright or fake news bullshit.

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

#175

Post by jasomill »

webmaven wrote: post #120
onionisafruit wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago somebody at Kinko’s refused to make copies of a draft software manual because it had screenshots of our software’s Windows interface. She said it would violate Microsoft’s copyright. This led to a fun discussion of how copyright on rectangles would even work. Obviously this wasn’t Kinko’s official stance. Just one obstinate, over zealous employee. Ironically, it was a bible software manual and the screensho…

> Obviously this wasn’t Kinko’s official stance. Just one obstinate, over zealous employee. You might think that's obvious, but you'd be wrong. Software publishers were cracking down on duplicating manuals as a means of trying to curb software piracy. I can practically guarantee that the "obstinate employee" was given clear direction by their manager on the subject. Though you do have to keep in mind that depending o…

I once had a Kinko's employee, in consultation with the manager on duty, refuse to slice the binding off a textbook because "copyright".

They were, however, willing to three-hole punch the resulting pages if I removed the binding myself.

Later that day at another, nearby Kinko's, an employee, who happened to be the manager on duty, cut and punched the pages with no questions asked other than "have you seen our selection of binders and report covers?"

This was around 2008, so many years after the corporate consolidation, subsequent acquisition, and rebranding as FedEx Kinko's.

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

#176

Post by jasomill »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #142
JohnMakin wrote: post #53

The DMCA has absolutely ruined a decade+ long hobby of mine, which was streaming/content creation. I used to have really fun streams not that long ago that featured a variety of relaxing/cool music set to the backdrop of me messing around on the computer, or in some game. Everyone was fine with this arrangement for a long time. Then, things suddenly changed a few years ago. First your VODs would get yanked and you'd…

You can just ignore the DMCA claims, are you really afraid of getting sued ? Meanwhile if you're still using platforms to host these videos, and not something like PeerTube, you're part of the problem.

You can just ignore the DMCA claims, but your service providers cannot, at least not without the risk of assuming legal liability themselves.

Also, cynical as it may sound, I assume the rise of a popular, successful peer-to-peer YouTube alternative would, in the US at least, result in the passage of even more consumer-hostile legislation, think "three strikes"-style anti-torrent laws with actual teeth (e.g., rather than requiring ISPs to make mostly idle threats to cut off Internet service against their own interests, imagine if ISPs were instead empowered to collect fines resulting from default judgements against repeat infringers, with a percentage of each fine collected paid to the ISP).

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

#177

Post by zamadatix »

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…

My comment isn't in regards to how the DMCA is supposed to work or what content I'd like to restrict from hosting online. If you've gone that far you've already long passed my point and seriously misinterpreted my opening statement "As much as I don't like the current rules either".

As the other commenter mentioned, my point was having done something for many years does without receiving a notice does not inherently imply it was fine to do all those years prior. That does not mean I agree that's how large hosting platforms should work, just that their stance has always been "fuck what the user should be able to easily do with content" rather than some new policy the day you got your first notice.

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

#178

Post by 1propionyl »

JohnMakin wrote: post #82
shakna wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As things stand, there's a difference between purchasing for personal consumption, and for publishing. That's been standing, for a very long time. It might be as old as copyright itself. Just because you own the game, doesn't mean you have the rights to use it in more than a personal setting. That's basically always been the case. You bought a personal license, not a broadcasting one. The main reason for not attackin…

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 certainly not an expert on the DMCA or a lawyer, but I'd…

A modest proposal: sell "streamer" licenses for a game that include audio/video watermarking features, or require an active internet connection and redisplay a sequence of numbers like a security key over the corner of the screen. Any footage without this would be taken down automatically.

Publishers could charge upwards of $200 for these. Larger publishers could offer package subscription deals for you to be able to stream content from their games.

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

#179

Post by jedberg »

prmoustache wrote: post #159
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.

That's pretty severe if your entire income is from said platform. And I was talking about severe consequences for the platform, not the creator.

The platform could become liable for all the content across the entire platform if they don't act on a single DMCA notice, if they lose their protection as a platform because of it.

Post reply on HN