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

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

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

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

#51

Post by dragonwriter »

amluto wrote: post #29
ascagnel_ wrote: post #20

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…

Which suggests a nice solution if Congress were to be reasonable: amend the DMCA to clarify that ContentID itself would invalidate safe harbor. In other words, require actual neutrality for safe harbor.

> Which suggests a nice solution if Congress were to be reasonable: amend the DMCA to clarify that ContentID itself would invalidate safe harbor

ContentID is more acceptable to the only potential litigants against whom Google would care about the DMCA safe harbor against than is the process which makes available the DMCA safe harbor, so that wouldn't matter.

A safe harbor is a protection against legal liability which you otherwise might have. If you have a separate arrangement which is both lower cost for you to operate and more acceptable to the only people against whom you are concerned about using the safe harbor than the actual safe harbor process, you don't care about a safe harbor.

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

#52

Post by codys »

jobigoud wrote: post #38
Esau wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real solution would be to require a human to certify the infringement complaint - no more automated requests.

But that can't be left to the claimant. So Google should charge a fee for each complaint to cover the cost of the verification. But then you could make the company pay more simply by uploading thousands of infringing videos… In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this particular case.

By "certify", GP might mean "certify under penalty of perjury", where the specific wording (which would probably need some notes about certifying they had verified their ownership) is strict enough to give one a bit of legal ammunition against false complaints.

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

#53

Post by protomyth »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
protomyth wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Under the DMCA, I get to file an actual DMCA counter-notification to put my content back up, not some arbitration by a 3rd party. Its in the law and can be used by normal people to protect their works. An actual false DMCA claim has a financial penalty.

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

#54

Post by swang »

On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies, companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These large companies didn't care because it's free money for them.

So he figured out how to get around stupid contentID flags. He put in clips of videos from different companies and spliced them into his videos. This caused a couple of companies to claim copyright over his video, but when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money. So in effect he gets to continue to use clips while not having any companies monetize his viewers.

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

#55

Post by paulgb »

illumin8 wrote: post #40
Klathmon wrote: post #34

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?

They do: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.nl/2015/11/a-step-toward-...

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

#56

Post by maxerickson »

jonnathanson wrote: post #48
maxerickson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's very much potato potahto. The current (and pretty much any future) implementation is a business decision.

I actually don't find it all that troublesome. The big selling point of Youtube is that it is relatively easy to get attention there. That doesn't do much to create a situation where it is hard to get attention elsewhere.

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

#57

Post by joesmo »

jokoon wrote: post #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.

I agree. An argument doesn't have to stand up in court to be right or moral and I believe yours is both. If FOX can abuse Youtube policies and the DMCA, I see no reason why people shouldn't abuse FOX and pirate.

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

#58

Post by RIMR »

pflats wrote: post #7
Orangeair wrote: post #4

There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.

I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable. Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.

>If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.

This seems like a special case deserving of special attention. It doesn't seem like something that should be sloppily addressed by an algorithm.

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

protomyth wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 in…

Under the DMCA, I get to file an actual DMCA counter-notification to put my content back up, not some arbitration by a 3rd party. Its in the law and can be used by normal people to protect their works. An actual false DMCA claim has a financial penalty.

> Under the DMCA, I get to file an actual DMCA counter-notification to put my content back up

No, under the DMCA, the content host has the option to let you do that after a takedown, and, if they choose to exercise that option, you lose any legal right to sue them for taking your content down that you otherwise would have had before considering the safe harbor.

But, since most use agreements with hosts are structured such that the host would never have any liability for taking down user-submitted content, this is pretty much a non-issue.

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

#60

Post by Klathmon »

paulgb wrote: post #55
illumin8 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They do: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.nl/2015/11/a-step-toward-...

I'm not trying to call you or them out or anything, i'm just curious...

Are there any public examples of them doing this for someone?

Because that is a really awesome thing to pledge, but without public actions backing it up it's an empty promise.

Post reply on HN