My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#81

Post by CPLX » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 8:32 AM UTC

Andre607 wrote: post #76

CPLX wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really not that hard to do. People do sometimes overestimate how hard it is to do basic legal tasks. Filing a simple John Doe summons in your home jurisdiction and then sending a subpoena to YouTube for the offending contact information is pretty trivial. You could probably find someone to do it for you for a thousand bucks or less. Admittedly that’s not free but in a context like this with real money at stake i…

And what do you do when you go through all of that time and effort (and potential expense) and get the very likely outcome that the claimant is not in your home jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction isn’t simply determined by where the opponent is. There’s nuance to this but you can typically sue and gain jurisdiction in any venue that has a nexus to the business activity in question. Given that YouTube is global there’s probably a lot of places you could find a valid venue. California almost certainly being one of them.

You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate goal is to get YouTube to do something then that could work just fine.

Again, clearly legal action isn’t easy but people seem too inclined to throw up their hands instantly.

Learning how to take basic legal action is just a core part of running a business, and someone earning from YouTube at this level is indeed doing just that.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#82

Post by brailsafe » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 8:56 AM UTC

I had actually listened to this song recently on his channel. Hot tip: It's fun, check it out.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#83

Post by kkarakk » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 10:48 AM UTC

Andre607 wrote: post #73

YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of takedowns. My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyrigh…

> In other words an actual human being looked at the video of someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds in the background was copyrighted.

i think it is likely that this human is just someone employed from mechanical turk who gets paid on the basis of how many videos they process in an hour and not actually an employee of rumblefish

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#84

Post by kkarakk » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 10:51 AM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #78

So what's stopping this guy from making a new account and claiming the video back? Should creators claim their own videos so they can't be claimed by others?

i think that's grounds for an instant strike against your new channel.since you only get 3 strikes before you're kaput it's not worth it

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#85

Post by tinus_hn » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 11:23 AM UTC

aw3c2 wrote: post #21

olliej wrote: post #2

Seems like you should be able to leverage standard copyright law - per-violation 10-100k seems like the industry demanded fine...

I am pretty sure that those are not actual copyright claims in a DMCA sense. Sadly Youtube is using some internal system with these claims. I assume they were pressured into this by the music industry for ease of squeezing money out of it.

Actually the DMCA requires large players to create some kind of automated system to prevent infringement.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#86

Post by slavik81 » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 11:34 AM UTC

infinitesoup wrote: post #75

jjoonathan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present." Is this true?

Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the case you're describing.

That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to it either.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#87

Post by sireat » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 12:06 PM UTC

Andre607 wrote: post #73

YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of takedowns. My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyrigh…

Similarly, a friend of mine recorded waves crashing at a sea and it got flagged by Content ID.

Some music video (by Sony subsidiary) contained a small sample of waves crashing from a completely different sea.

I told him to appeal and appeal he did and yes the claim was upheld.

I told him to fight on because this first level upheld is what throws people off and what the Content ID abusers are hoping for.

On the 2nd appeal they have to have someone with legal authority to really pursue the claim.

That is no "real" human will look at the case on its merits until 2nd instance.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#88

Post by jjoonathan » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #86

infinitesoup wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the case you're describing.

That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to it either.

Yes, and if there is official lawyerly language about certifying the truth of your choices, the distinction is important. Sounds like a dark pattern.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#89

Post by Andre607 » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

kkarakk wrote: post #83

Andre607 wrote: post #73

YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of takedowns. My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyrigh…

> In other words an actual human being looked at the video of someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds in the background was copyrighted. i think it is likely that this human is just someone employed from mechanical turk who gets paid on the basis of how many videos they process in an hour and not actually an employee of rumblefish

In this case the CEO of Rumblefish, Paul Anthony, confirmed that it was in fact one of their employees [1]:

> They still work at RF, feel absolutely terrible about what happened and are taking a whole new approach to claim/dispute reviews. A mistake like this in the hands of the right employee is a game changer and brings about significant improvement. In the hands of a less-competent employee...they fold and get worse and that isn't acceptable for me. I hope and trust that it's the former. I believe that although it was a terrible oversight, that it was an honest mistake by this individual.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_r...

Note that since that particular incident, Rumblefish has had continued incidents of blatantly erroneous coypright claims - like claiming ownership of a US Navy rendition of "America the Beautiful" (which is public domain) and proceeded to monetize it! [2]

[2] https://boingboing.net/2015/07/03/july-4-rumblefish-claims-t...

Rumblefish of course describes these incidents as "honest mistakes", which completely ignores the inconvenience they cause people and the fact that they have to make noise via social media or tech news outlets for them to take action - the real concern is how often this happens that we don't hear about.

Re: My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

#90

Post by Andre607 » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 3:35 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #81

Andre607 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you do when you go through all of that time and effort (and potential expense) and get the very likely outcome that the claimant is not in your home jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction isn’t simply determined by where the opponent is. There’s nuance to this but you can typically sue and gain jurisdiction in any venue that has a nexus to the business activity in question. Given that YouTube is global there’s probably a lot of places you could find a valid venue. California almost certainly being one of them. You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate g…

I'm not sure why you're singling out California, is that where the claimant is in this case? Or are you referring to YouTube?

My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?