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

51–60 of 201 posts

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

#51

Post by Vampiero »

blueflow wrote: post #47
Aunche wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure my content does not infringe copyright and I'm willing to go to court for it This is exactly what the YouTube copyright counter notification is. The problem is that YouTubers aren't lawyers, so they don't want to risk going to court. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en

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

I make free videos why tf would I ever hire a lawyer to protect my parodies. It's incredibly stupid considering that I am not a billionaire and that the copyright holders are. I would be throwing my money in the bin. And they know this full-well, which is why the system works in the first place.

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

#52

Post by mbrumlow »

ndiddy wrote: post #40
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…

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…

[flagged]

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

#53

Post by JohnMakin »

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 get a warning if you played some extremely popular song, and it was like ok, I understand that. But now it's even spread to in game audio of a game I literally have purchased. That is ridiculous to me. There are games I actually cannot publish playing with full audio settings enabled. That is ridiculous no matter your views on the DMCA, and I'd even go farther and say it's completely ridiculous that I cannot use audio I have purchased or somehow leased on my own content. Why does it have to be this way? Someone can try to convince me this is somehow sane or necessary, but I really doubt it.

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

#55

Post by ToucanLoucan »

xvector wrote: post #41
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Big tech has such a twisted incentive structure for devs that I don't see this getting solved unless it impacts YouTube's bottom line. Execs won't care, and ICs will be actively penalized for fixing this vs working on "business priorities."

God I wish there was a decent competitor to YouTube. They get away with so much horseshit because there's just nobody else that can match their service scale and network effects.

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

#57

Post by ToucanLoucan »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #48
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would they implement this instead of de-monetizing it completely?

I mean, then YouTube is substantially cutting into their own revenue too, but even that would be better than just handing over all the revenue to an unverified 3rd party that clicked a button.

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

#58

Post by kbolino »

yyyyz wrote: post #33
skrebbel wrote: post #24

When DMCA was proposed, the internet was up in arms predicting exactly this sort of stuff. It was a ridiculous law then and it is now.

[flagged]

And now the Internet is largely a sterile place where the primary business model is built around advertising, selling "data" to "partners", and exploiting gamblers and addicts, while the companies most "saved" from piracy spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to make increasingly unwatchable, unlistenable, and/or unplayable crap.

I can imagine worse outcomes, but I can certainly imagine better ones too.

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

#59

Post by wongarsu »

ndiddy wrote: post #40
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…

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…

Yet YouTube's system takes a lot of time from the time the content is claimed to the time you can escalate to an actual DMCA. In this time your video is down or has its revenue redirected. And if your content gets too many frivolous claims your account is taken down by YouTube's three strike policy before you have finished the dispute process for the first video.

A single button to immediately and without human review or notice period restore the video and monetization, remove the strike, and declare you are willing to solve it in court would solve a lot of the issues with ContentID abuse on YouTube.

Such a system would likely have to sit behind strict identity verification to prevent abuse, and some people wouldn't like that. But that's the price for sharing a platform with some very blatant infringers

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

#60

Post by monocasa »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #48
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would they implement this instead of de-monetizing it completely?

They're an ad company at the end of the day; they still want their cut of the monetization.

Additionally both sides of the dispute normally still want the monetization, they just disagree about who gets the proceeds. And because of the time value curve of YouTube videos (most make something like 90% of their revenue in the first few days), demonetizing has a good chance fo essentially erasing the revenue of the video for the creator.

Post reply on HN