Live data from Hacker News

Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

torrentfreak.com

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#41

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see…

Dear Google: This is about as evil as you can get.

I can think of at least... three... things more evil than this.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's not that black and white. If google didn't agree to the ContentID system, Viacom would have most likely been able to strip them of their safe harbor status. And that means the end of Youtube. Yeah, something needs to be done, but having humans review takedowns just doesn't work at this scale, and if they aren't extremely over zealous about taking things down, they will be shut down. Google is under the thumb…

Even if it's true that they are under the thumb of the evil media companies, Google has billions in their war chest to fight legal battles like these. Why aren't they? Apple seems willing to fight legal battles on moral grounds; why won't Google?

Mickey Nouse is unfortunately more powerful than Uncle Sam.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#43
post #8

SmarterEveryDay told a story in one of his videos about slow-mo clip of tatoo machine in action being ripped from one of his movies by the large press publisher, Bauer, and reuploaded on Bauer's Facebook page. Then Bauer moved on to claim DMCA on his original uploaded by him on his Facebook page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA

This was one of the main reasons I am no longer on Facebook. Because Facebook is happy to profit off of the creative works of others, without properly compensating them.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#44

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see…

ContentID is the DMCA. It isn't a DMCA takedown, but it is a scheme designed to satisfy Google's DMCA obligations. Viacom was perhaps the fire behind its deployment, but it is the DMCA that dictates that the system exist.

s512(c)(1)(C) "upon notification ... responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to"

"Expeditiously" is the key. That is, today, understood to mean now, not after the weekend or once Bill comes back from lunch. On a giant system like Youtube, it requires an automated system.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's not that black and white. If google didn't agree to the ContentID system, Viacom would have most likely been able to strip them of their safe harbor status. And that means the end of Youtube. Yeah, something needs to be done, but having humans review takedowns just doesn't work at this scale, and if they aren't extremely over zealous about taking things down, they will be shut down. Google is under the thumb…

Even if it's true that they are under the thumb of the evil media companies, Google has billions in their war chest to fight legal battles like these. Why aren't they? Apple seems willing to fight legal battles on moral grounds; why won't Google?

Google does fight them. They have lobbyists on the Hill. On other end are both media and software powerhouses that depend on copyright for lockin to their billions. The People, as usual, aren't doing crap about their rights. So, the weight of influence and resulting laws goes in a direction that's pro-owner of content (aka corporate owners).

Re Apple. You sure they were fighting that battle on moral grounds because the CEO said nice things? Apple's been happy to do similar things for Chinese, lie about need for Mac security, squeeze extra money using Foxconn workers' misery, reduce number of buyers by charging luxury prices, and so on. They're not ethical in the least. That is probably a greedy corporation rolling in money ensuring it will continue to do so by positioning itself as a private alternative to Android. It's... Marketing.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#46

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see…

ContentID is the DMCA. It isn't a DMCA takedown, but it is a scheme designed to satisfy Google's DMCA obligations. Viacom was perhaps the fire behind its deployment, but it is the DMCA that dictates that the system exist. s512(c)(1)(C) "upon notification ... responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" "Expeditiously" is the key. That is, today, understood to mean now, not after the weekend or once Bill co…

"upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3),"

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ContentID is the DMCA. It isn't a DMCA takedown, but it is a scheme designed to satisfy Google's DMCA obligations. Viacom was perhaps the fire behind its deployment, but it is the DMCA that dictates that the system exist. s512(c)(1)(C) "upon notification ... responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" "Expeditiously" is the key. That is, today, understood to mean now, not after the weekend or once Bill co…

"upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3),"

Ok, then s512(c)(1)(A)(iii)

"[Safe harbour applies] if the service provider— upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material."

"Awareness" would apply even absent a formal DMCA takedown pointing to the content. So after the first, Youtube is 'on notice' for repeats even where those don't get new takedown notices ... ContentID.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#48

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see…

Content ID is not open to anyone though. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402 This particular video seems like a nice test case of the review system.

My charitable guess is that Content ID isn't available to everyone because of scaling issues with the vetting process for the database. While it's theoretically possible to open the floodgates to everyone, that would present a massive human resource challenge for Google. I have no idea how Google's vetting process works for those who meet the eligibility requirements...but I imagine it involves lawyers and background checks to verify that the ostensible copyright owner is who they say they are, and is indeed the owner of what they claim to own.

Setting a high bar for eligibility presumably cuts down on fraud, wasted cycles vetting obvious noise, and the need for an army of people to do the vetting and legal checksumming around the clock.

The little guy is collateral damage in this case, not the intended target. You could argue, hey, potato potahto, the net result is a system that favors the large content publisher and offers the little guy no chance to participate. But intent matters. If Google's intent is to manage scale, then hopefully Google acknowledges the unintended problems its solution creates, and it's working on a better solution. If Google's intent is indeed to favor the big publishers, then that's a different story.

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#49

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see…

It would be great if articles would not say DMCA and be misleading about what is a YouTube process that has very little to do with the law. That way, people would focus on the real offender (YouTube and media companies) as opposed to assuming normal people actually have some legal protection and process provided by the DMCA. I think the headline in the article and here is misleading and should be changed.

"Normal people" don't have any legal protection under the DMCA (at least, the takedown notice/counternotice provisions at issue here.) The DMCA processes (related to takedown notice/counternotice) are safe harbor provisions for information hosts; they don't provide anyone else any protection. All they do is allow hosts protection against liability they would otherwise have to content owners whose work is allegedly infringed by submissions (for the takedown provisions) and those uploading submitting content that is allegedly infringing (for the counternotice provisions.)

Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

#50
I know that my argument would not stand in court, but when I read this, it makes it harder for me to be against illegal downloading.

Although I prefer buying content directly from the artist, like Louis CK does. As long as it seems "fair", I buy.

That where piracy comes from: a rational argument about a skewed market.

Post reply on HN