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

191–200 of 201 posts

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

#191

Post by jedberg »

prmoustache wrote: post #190
jedberg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's pretty severe if your entire income is from said platform But that is also pretty dumb to base your entire income in a platform that can delete your account for any reason at any point in time.

Do you have a job where you rely on a single employer for most of your income? An employer that can fire you at any time? At least creators have more control over their income.

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

#192

Post by mcfedr »

kmeisthax wrote: post #123
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…

That exists, it's called a DMCA 512 counternotice; if you're particularly monied you can even sue under 512(f) for perjury. The problem is that the videos are actually infringing , but the owner of the content does not want to sue. Under very basic principles of law, only the owner or exclusive licensee of a copyright has standing to sue for copyright infringement. Furthermore, copyright law does not obligate copyrig…

Surely if you sue fake Nintendo, you don't need to discuss the licensing, you'd be sueing them for filling a claim they have no standing to claim

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

#193

Post by lupusreal »

undersuit wrote: post #170
lupusreal wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crimes are prosecuted by the government.

Never denied this fact.

To be clear, I am suggesting that fraudulent DMCA claims should be a crime, the government should investigate and prosecute these claims after you report the crime to them.

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

#194

Post by strken »

FireBeyond wrote: post #157
strken wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just ridiculous. If everyone in town is allowed to send telegrams except for the one gay couple, is their speech not being suppressed?

I don't mean in the legal US sense of the legal right to free speech, I mean the actual speech itself. If most people can speak but you cannot, and completely absent any question of rights and legality, how is that not suppression?

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

#195

Post by ternnoburn »

do_not_redeem wrote: post #39
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.

It's not immediately clear to me that this is true. Video games are designed to be played interactively. Streaming a single playthrough via a non-interactive medium strikes me as transformative. Would you say a screen capture of Microsoft Excel is also copyright infringement? If not, what would you say is the legal basis for treating that differently than a video game?

Why wouldn't a screenshot of excel be a copyright infringement? It contains copyrighted visual design and text elements.

That said, it would be absolutely petty and foolish to pursue any action against it.

Games contain art, music, sound fx, text/story, motion design, and other elements that are copyrighted.

Again, it would be petty and foolish to pursue it.

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

#196

Post by prmoustache »

jedberg wrote: post #191
prmoustache wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's pretty severe if your entire income is from said platform But that is also pretty dumb to base your entire income in a platform that can delete your account for any reason at any point in time.

Do you have a job where you rely on a single employer for most of your income? An employer that can fire you at any time? At least creators have more control over their income.

> Do you have a job where you rely on a single employer for most of your income?

I can look for another employer if I have issue with mine. There is more than youtube but the number of alternative platforms where you can monetize your stuff are much smaller than the number of companies where I could find a job so there is that.

> An employer that can fire you at any time?

There are many places in this world where an employer can't fire you at any time and for any reason. There are even jobs where you really can't get fired unless you are really looking for it.

> At least creators have more control over their income.

Not sure control is the right word. They are bound to the market.

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

#197

Post by FireBeyond »

strken wrote: post #194
FireBeyond wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's just ridiculous. If everyone in town is allowed to send telegrams except for the one gay couple, is their speech not being suppressed? I don't mean in the legal US sense of the legal right to free speech, I mean the actual speech itself. If most people can speak but you cannot, and completely absent any question of rights and legality, how is that not suppression?

Well, if YT is suppressing a user's video _because of their sexual orientation_, then yes, it would be.

If you have the option to send a letter, then your speech is not being suppressed. And if the telegram company is being considered a common carrier, your speech will not be suppressed.

All of these things (protected classes, common carriers, etc.) have already been considered.

Reverse it. Why do -I-, a private citizen or company, have an obligation to amplify your speech for you, often without compensation?

I don't.

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

#198

Post by strken »

FireBeyond wrote: post #197
strken wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just ridiculous. If everyone in town is allowed to send telegrams except for the one gay couple, is their speech not being suppressed? I don't mean in the legal US sense of the legal right to free speech, I mean the actual speech itself. If most people can speak but you cannot, and completely absent any question of rights and legality, how is that not suppression?

Well, if YT is suppressing a user's video _because of their sexual orientation_, then yes, it would be. If you have the option to send a letter, then your speech is not being suppressed. And if the telegram company is being considered a common carrier, your speech will not be suppressed. All of these things (protected classes, common carriers, etc.) have already been considered. Reverse it. Why do -I-, a private citi…

You don't have an obligation not to suppress my speech. However, when you do choose to suppress my speech, you are, in fact, suppressing my speech.

I'm not asking you, or YouTube, to stop suppressing speech. I'm objecting to the weasel-words. When you apply a special case to a user to reduce the reach of their content, that's targeted suppression. Suppression can be good! I'm grateful that YouTube suppresses spam and violence, but I'm not going to call it some newspeak term like unamplification.

I'm not sure why adding the reason of sexual orientation changes speech from being not-amplified to suppressed. Both cases are suppression. A fire suppression system doesn't turn into a fire unamplification system when it's used on the homes of heterosexuals.

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

#199

Post by pavel_lishin »

onionisafruit wrote: post #63
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tough shit, you shouldn’t have sent the three fraudulent ones then. It’s all in the terms of service you have agreed to.

Youtube would probably be violating dmca safe harbor if they required claimants to agree to their terms of service.

Ideally, this would be written into law.

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

#200

Post by FireBeyond »

strken wrote: post #198
FireBeyond wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if YT is suppressing a user's video _because of their sexual orientation_, then yes, it would be. If you have the option to send a letter, then your speech is not being suppressed. And if the telegram company is being considered a common carrier, your speech will not be suppressed. All of these things (protected classes, common carriers, etc.) have already been considered. Reverse it. Why do -I-, a private citi…

You don't have an obligation not to suppress my speech. However, when you do choose to suppress my speech, you are, in fact, suppressing my speech. I'm not asking you, or YouTube, to stop suppressing speech. I'm objecting to the weasel-words. When you apply a special case to a user to reduce the reach of their content, that's targeted suppression. Suppression can be good! I'm grateful that YouTube suppresses spam and…

But the thing is, ultimately, that your speech does not need a platform, let alone a specific platform, to be speech.

"I can't speak freely because Platform A won't carry it" isn't a thing when Platforms B through ZZZ exist. And if B through ZZZ have less reach, well, so be it.

Post reply on HN