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

Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

owningyourshit.blogspot.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#51

Post by ubernostrum »

aeturnum wrote: post #47
ubernostrum wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why so many people seem to see an entitlement issue here (other than knowing from other contexts how many people really strongly dislike this woman, and so might be looking for ways to blame the situation on her). YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.

So, because they're a free video hosting service, they have the right to handle DMCA takedown notices any way they want. They can just ban you right away, offer no appeals process, and decide they want to have nothing to do with you. Being upset that the free service that you use is refusing to do stuff for you for nothing is entitlement.

Several problems with your views here.

One is conflating "I have a right to do this thing" with "It is right for me to do this thing". There is no such equivalence, and much of the argument seems to come from people who believe there is. There are many things we all have a right to do which are not right to do.

Second, and much more frightening, is the assumption that abuse of a person is acceptable or excusable on the grounds that a person using a free service somehow deserves such abuse for not being a paying customer, or that not being abused is some sort of special privilege of which not all people are deserving. Perhaps you'd like to step back and think a bit about your own ethical framework before continuing this discussion?

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#52

Post by wpietri »

beezee wrote: post #40
drcube wrote: post #38

You have a blog, post your videos there. Stay off of Youtube, because it has shitty policies like this. Easy peasy. Don't complain when people or companies abuse the control you voluntarily gave them over your content and creations. Take that control back, and own your shit.

It actually bugs me the sense of entitlement- YT is a free service, technically can take stuff down for no reason at all and nothing anyone can say about it. I can understand why this woman is frustrated, but expecting YT to have human resources in place for DMCA takedown requests is totally unrealistic- chances are that channel would be flooded if it existed. Either way, if you're not paying for something, what do y…

She thinks she's entitled to be treated like a human being. Seems reasonable to me.

The people I know at YouTube are very nice people. They presumably didn't say, "Hey, we'd like to host video for the entire world. And also do our best to fuck them over if they're being harassed." This is a weird corner case, and I hope they'll find a way to rejig their system to prevent this sort of takedown abuse.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#53

Post by ajross »

jere wrote: post #39
peterwwillis wrote: post #2

I wish I could care about this, but the 'doxx' and lulz and generally childish writing make me assume this is another case of internet entitlement issues.

I'm not sure which you take issue with. Do you think: -she has no right to privacy? -she deserves to be harassed? -she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her? -or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant? Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms. I would expect some informal language in a trans…

Generally I find myself in the "pro-harrasee" camp. But honestly not this time. Obviously she does have the right to expect Google not to reveal her private information. And they don't. And any harrassment being done (as I read it, there is none actually alleged) must stop.

But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by their rules, one of which is the (in this case, abusable) copyright counterclaim process. She doesn't have to give the claimants her info just like Google doesn't have to host her data. Stick it on Vimeo, or put it up in an S3 bucket.

And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#54

Post by jere »

ajross wrote: post #53
jere wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure which you take issue with. Do you think: -she has no right to privacy? -she deserves to be harassed? -she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her? -or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant? Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms. I would expect some informal language in a trans…

Generally I find myself in the "pro-harrasee" camp. But honestly not this time. Obviously she does have the right to expect Google not to reveal her private information. And they don't. And any harrassment being done (as I read it, there is none actually alleged) must stop. But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by…

>And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.

Same here, but I'm thinking the "little enclave" is youtube. Several hundred videos have discussed doxing/doxxing in the past year, so it may be assumed to be common knowledge there among the more active vloggers. She makes youtube videos and she seems to be appealing solely to a youtube audience since it's a youtube specific issue (again, this is just a transcript).

I'm agreeing with you on most everything else. I don't particularly care for her legal approach here, but I don't think what she said should be ignored because of novel word usage either.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#55

Post by drcube »

ubernostrum wrote: post #45
beezee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually bugs me the sense of entitlement- YT is a free service, technically can take stuff down for no reason at all and nothing anyone can say about it. I can understand why this woman is frustrated, but expecting YT to have human resources in place for DMCA takedown requests is totally unrealistic- chances are that channel would be flooded if it existed. Either way, if you're not paying for something, what do y…

I don't really understand why so many people seem to see an entitlement issue here (other than knowing from other contexts how many people really strongly dislike this woman, and so might be looking for ways to blame the situation on her). YouTube is a free video hosting service whose use does not require you to sign up with or disclose your real identity. It is not "entitlement" to expect it to be what it is.

The problem isn't entitlement, but ignorance. Everyone should know by now that when you post content on a web service, you're saying "Take this, it's yours. No really, take it, do what you want with it. If you want to delete it without explanation because you're afraid of a threatening email, that's your prerogative. I voluntarily give up all recourse."

If you don't realize that's what you're doing when you post content on a web site you don't own, you should. The web was designed specifically so that crap like this wouldn't be a problem. But people want to give up ownership for convenience every single time.

It's easier to be an audience or a user than to take 20 dollars and 20 minutes to learn HTML, buy a domain and become a peer with equal standing on the internet. Take your website, email links to your friends, set up RSS, and you've replaced Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumbler, Youtube and Flicker with something you actually own and control. And it really isn't that hard.

Case in point, the OP loses her videos for no reason, but the Pirate Bay is still online. Guess who owns their house and who is still renting?

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#56

Post by eridius »

0x0 wrote: post #46
eridius wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is (inadvertently) aiding other people in an attempt to harass her, and the only recourse they provide requires her to reveal her full name to her attackers, thus opening her up to offline harassment. Seems like a good reason to sue.

I don't know american law, but to me that would be just as silly as suing the post office because someone sent you a postcard with the message "fuck you". Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case? IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.

You may want to read the article.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#57

Post by peterwwillis »

jere wrote: post #54
ajross wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally I find myself in the "pro-harrasee" camp. But honestly not this time. Obviously she does have the right to expect Google not to reveal her private information. And they don't. And any harrassment being done (as I read it, there is none actually alleged) must stop. But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by…

>And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics. Same here, but I'm thinking the "little enclave" is youtube. Several hundred videos have discussed doxing/doxxing in the past year, so it…

It wasn't the novel word usage, it was the writing style in general. I can generally recognize what reasoned, researched, well-thought-out arguments look like.

Usually they do not include whole paragraphs in capital letters, or multiple instances of words in caps for emotional affect. Perhaps less telling but still strange was the reference to a user 'ZOMGitscriss' - this, combined with the repeated 'doxx' usage, lends me to believe the writer has about the intellectual level of a script kiddie on irc, which I am extremely familiar with due to spending years wasting my life with people who say things like "oh dongues. i been doxxd by a fed. ZOMG"

Reading the whole article after I left my comment, and reading HN's subsequent comments, it became clear this was some kind of off the cuff rant about the consequences of the DMCA-related censors built into youtube, and a misunderstanding of their policy. In other words, I was right.

Re: Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes

#58

Post by 0x0 »

eridius wrote: post #56
0x0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know american law, but to me that would be just as silly as suing the post office because someone sent you a postcard with the message "fuck you". Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case? IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.

You may want to read the article.

You know, I thought I did.
Post reply on HN