10 ms·

“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

596 points by MagicPropmaker 7y ago

iforgotpassword 7y ago
I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start. Then there's the occasional startup that promises to fill exactly that gap, announced with fanfares and everything, but nobody came up with a killer feature yet. But that's just the gist of how I feel about that situation from when topics like that pop up every now and then. Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?
- sirn 7y ago
  > How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave YouTube survived even the Real Name Policy during Google+ era. At this point, I can't think I think of anything that could do a permanent and immediate damage to YouTube popularity, even if they pull the equivalent of recent Tumblr purge. YouTube has enough momentum and its audience is way too diverse for it to fail overnight. Also, video hosting is very hard and expensive. It's possible to have a service that is generally nice and serve some niche (like Vimeo or Dailymotion), but I feel they will break apart in some way or another if they ever gain YouTube-level of popularity (due to regulation, lawsuits, etc.).
  - wolco 7y ago
    If they perged or deleted enough content people would stop visiting. If content creators stopped making new videos the site would turn into more of a video backup/hosting service for sharing elsewhere. Wouldn't kill the site but it would reduce its value.
  - jfoster 7y ago
    They're getting pretty annoying for viewers. Non-stop nags about trialing their subscriptions.
  - pas 7y ago
    The RealName policy did not affect YT as it defaulted to a separate "profile" of the same account. And you got the option to merge them, or continue to use it with some nickname.
- fenwick67 7y ago
  Twitch is poised to threaten YouTube. They have Amazon behind them financially, and their live streaming is beating YouTube's.
  - eljimmy 7y ago
    No doubt. Twitch is also pretty easy to get in contact with regarding any content disputes as well, at least in comparison to YouTube.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    I would've loved it if it were PeerTube or something but the sad reality is that Twitch is the only platform that's even close to comparable to YouTube.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Especially if VR starts capturing attention on a grander scale.
  - aitchnyu 7y ago
    Is Twitch becoming a general purpose video site? At a glance, it seems all screengrabs and tabletop cameras of games.
    - fenwick67 7y ago
      Right now you are right. Twitch only lets you stream live content and keep recordings of it. But they certainly compete with YouTube for eyeballs, and I can't imagine they're not working on a regular video ecosystem.
  - iforgotpassword 7y ago
    Interesting, in my book twitch was still streaming only. Given the backing by Amazon you might be right.
mdorazio 7y ago
The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy. I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.
- RubberbandSoul 7y ago
  I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.
    - IAmGraydon 7y ago
      On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.
      - Barrin92 7y ago
        The competition to youtube is virtually nonexistent. If you're a medium or small content creator (which most youtube creators are), then instead of deciding to go to vimeo you might as well just file for unemployment benefits. And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.
panpanna 7y ago
The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees. As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).
- hedora 7y ago
  It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam. Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc. A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights. To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.
  - ghayes 7y ago
    What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      They may have paid millions, but not necessarily. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
    - hedora 7y ago
      True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault. The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist. In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties. To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).
jccalhoun 7y ago
Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious. I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this. Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153 https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153
- wut42 7y ago
  He said that @TeamYoutube ignored him because the account was active _all_ sunday: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/with_replies https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/with_replies
- detaro 7y ago
  He's a quite well-known professional Minecraft YouTuber with 3 million subscribers. This copyright claim means for all these videos the company making the claim now gets a share of his income. Given he makes game videos, many of those videos do not even contain music outside the intro tune, which he's been using for years and licensed from the creator.
- djmips 7y ago
  It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the public domain... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Showers-Teddy-Joyce-and-His-Orchestra-March-Winds-and-April-Showers/ https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Show...
  - lysp 7y ago
    Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?
DanBC 7y ago
He's had a response from Head of gaming at YT: https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417 https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417
- bdz 7y ago
  Now imagine if you don't have 3m subs, no 150k followers on Twitter, no one is posting your stuff on Reddit and even on HN. Good luck getting any help from Google
  - hi5eyes 7y ago
    thats why clout is important
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    Now imagine it isn't YouTube but some other more significant privatized service near monopoly status, say a local grocery chain or car rental company, and they enforce a "policy" (say banning you) that is now difficult to separate from a law other than you have no voice and little recourse for action, especially as an individual. Privatized monopolies are in general small totalitarian government regimes that reign over specific functions (markets) of life. Real competition is what breaks those regimes into a democracy where you can somewhat vote with your purchase decisions. We still have to watch out for cartels though where multiple near monopolies agree to stay out of each others territories or collude to set market practices.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Let's go a step further: imagine living in a new company town that Google bought/built. Three DMCA-claims and you're in violation of TOS, all your content (including what's in your apartment) is deleted and you're kicked out of town and driven to the town limits. I'm sure there will still be people here who are quite happy with that because "it's not the government doing it" and they reckon they're not next in line for the same treatment.
      - 7y ago
throwaway55554 7y ago
How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!
- tzs 7y ago
  The problem here has nothing to do with the DMCA. The problem is that Google has implemented its own system that has little to do with the DMCA. If it were handled the DMCA way, here is how it would go. 1. Someone complains to the hosting service alleging that you are violating their copyright. 2. The hosting provider takes down the material and notifies you. If you do not want to dispute this, that is the end of it. 3. If you want to dispute their claims, you notify the hosting provider. It doesn't really matter, as far as I recall, if you dispute the claims because you say the claimant does not hold copyright, or you say that they do but your use is covered by fair use, or any other mean. 4. The hosting provider puts your material back up, and tells the complainant that if they want to take it down, they need to take you to court, and provides your legal contact information for filing said suit. If the claimant takes you to court, and wins, following the above procedure absolves the hosting provider of any liability for the infringement.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    If the claimant takes you to court and loses, there is no penalty, I assume? There's punitive damages in the US - any chance that would be applied to such a case?
    - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
      Only if the work they claimed your video was infringing wasn't actually owned by them.
    - tzs 7y ago
      As far as the court case goes, it's basically just like it would be if the complainant had simply sued you directly for copyright infringement. If you win, the court can award you costs and attorney fees. I'm not sure how they decide whether or not to do so. A claimant trying to use DMCA where it is not justifiable faces a couple other deterrents. First, unless the claimant is representing themselves in the case, they are going to have an attorney, and that attorney is going to take into account Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1]. If the claimant doesn't have a fairly reasonable case, he is going to have trouble finding an attorney. Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is perjury. The claimant can face criminal charges for that (although it would probably have to involve someone doing this on a large scale to get Federal prosecutors to prosecute). Knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown also makes you liable for civil damages, including costs and attorney fees, incurred by the target of the takedown notice, the hosting provider, and in the case where neither the complainant or the target are the copyright owner, the actual copyright owner. If the complainant who knowingly files a false takedown notice actually follows through and sue you for infringement, I'd guess that the damages due to you for the false notice would be handled there. If the complainant isn't that stupid, and drops the matter after the notice and counter-notice, you could sue them over the false notice. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Nothing can possibly go wrong with Article 17.
hedora 7y ago
In fairness, the franchise or manager (not McDonalds) was at fault there. They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation. The burn led to hospitalization.
- apocalypstyx 7y ago
  >The burn led to hospitalization. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring. >They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temperature It was within normal operating parameters as per the McDonald's manual. There had been 700 prior instances of warning about issues from hot coffee. (And while I'm at it) She was not driving, she was a passenger in a parked car when the incident occurred. She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800. The jury awarded $200,000 and the judge reduced that to $160,000. $2.7 million was awarded by the jury in punitive damages and reduced to $480,000 by the judge, however, there was later a settlement for an unknown amount after McDonald's appealed. Why does everyone remember different? Because McDonald's spent more than a few million dollars on a PR campaign against her, after which she received lifelong massive amounts of hate mail and death threats and was reduced to gags on everything from Seinfeld to Jay Leno to Futurama.
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day. Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly. Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted. Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me. We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use. 1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
fenwick67 7y ago
Very sad that "please retweet" is their best recourse.
IloveHN84 7y ago
Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?
- Flammy 7y ago
  That isn't how YouTube's Content ID system works. The vast majority of users don't have access to the system. When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately. Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views
- vpribish 7y ago
  copyright is automatic; the creator need do nothing.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USC 102(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 This post itself is copyrighted under the terms of US law, as well as similar language under common international 'Berne Convention" laws. As is yours. At the moment of creation, with no further action or registration required. For a duration of 95 years, as an anonymous work (17 USC 32(c)) -- or to 70 years after my death, if not anonymous. A fact which I personally find to be grotesque and insane, but which is indisputably law.
faissaloo 7y ago
When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  The copyright concept is fine. Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor. The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.
  - OrgNet 7y ago
    Copyright is not fine... it lasts way too long.
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      Which has nothing to do with copyright the concept but our particular current implementation of it.
      - OrgNet 7y ago
        > The problem is with the youtube's implementation it is not.. it is with the existing laws
        marcinzm 7y ago
        Our laws are the implementation of copyright I’m talking about and are distinct from the concept of copyright.
        OrgNet 7y ago
        I understand that but I was not replying to you initially... we were talking about youtube's implementation of copyright law
      - 7y ago
aphextron 7y ago
You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of fairness will never hurt it in any way.
- Zephyreks 7y ago
  What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    How about a copyright enforcement system that doesn't go above and beyond what's required?
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      Why not say "no" to more people? Allowing the automation of this is really bad and heavily favors people with big bucks- would requiring a different written statement per video make sense at all?
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    If a creator can't afford to publish content without a company striking their account then why would any creator stay? It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.
    - binarymax 7y ago
      Creators go where the consumers are. You can move to a different platform or start your own but you won’t get any viewers. It’s the equivalent of not liking the taxes in a city retail space, and moving your store out to the desert in protest.
gotland_ 7y ago
This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k
- colordrops 7y ago
  It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the rhythm nor the melody is the same.
- ddingus 7y ago
  The timing of the few prominent notes in that intro are similar to the George Harrison tune, but the notes themselves as well as supporting elements are different, as is the overall percussion. Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend. Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks... Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician. Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out. While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out. Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding. It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should. It's also reasonable to expect better.
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  He has now tweeted an update acknowledging that the artist from whom he licensed the music may not have had the right to claim sampled music as their own. Another update urges others to ensure that licensees actually have the right to license the work that they claim as original. This is the only top-level comment that offers actual information on why this may have happened and it was downvoted for a difference of perspective informed by that information.
gatewaynode 7y ago
It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these monetization attacks and maximize compensation.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Little guys don't get to ride on the dmca fast track from what I understand.
- Jolter 7y ago
  Works are copyrighted automatically under modern law. I'm not aware of any procedure to "formally copyright" a work.
  - detaro 7y ago
    In some countries (including the US) you can additionally "register copyright", and it makes enforcement easier or allows higher compensation, maybe that's what they're referring to. That advice wouldn't help the british creator in this case though.
    - gatewaynode 7y ago
      Correct, in the US there is implicit copyright by default if you include a copyright mark and date and formal copyright through registration. Implicit US copyright doesn't offer much protection, just an ability to tell people to stop using your works. Formal US copyright gives you rapid retort and default judement compensation that's just insane (something like up to $150,000 per infringement). You don't have to be a US citizen to register for a US copyright.
- ClassyJacket 7y ago
  In alot of countries (Australia for example) there is no copyright registration at all. You just automatically own the copyright to things you create. https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_I_register_/ACC/FAQ/How_do_I_register_for_copyright.aspx?hkey=b737f340-d120-4194-85fb-a6f3b415c66f https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_...
peterwwillis 7y ago
I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to generate attention for a platform that mines that attention for ad dollars, of which he gets a few pennies for his trouble. Even if this is his dream job, the risk he's taking is high. Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  It's not entitlement to complain about copyright procedure abuse when you use a platform of a multi billion dollar company for its publicly communicated, and intended purpose. If we assume the creator is using a licensed original work, then I would rather claim that if entitlement is expressed by anyone, it is expressed by the entity that sent, or are otherwise responsible for the 1000+ copyright claims. All claims toward a single channel, and apparently without verifying the validity of even one such claim.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer Such as?
- Zarath 7y ago
  > " Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged." Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos he makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.
duxup 7y ago
How is it just as spam / disruptive behavior type protection do they not have a catch for if 1800+ claims ... maybe have a human with a brain take a look at what is up? Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.
sam0x17 7y ago
I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that. It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.
- sam0x17 7y ago
  Heck, I'd even have my developers write an AI that automatically extracts fair-use-length clips from videos and songs belonging to some of the biggest complainers, and uploads them as "honeypot" videos. If they complain about one of those, ban 'em from complaining again. They don't understand copyright law.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    A 10 second clip of a movie isn’t necessarily fair use; It’s decided on a case by case basis. You can use as much as you need to get your point across; No more. If that’s 10 seconds, you can use 10 seconds. If that’s a minute, you can use a minute.
    - sam0x17 7y ago
      But if Google's lawyers took a stance on this, they could use precedent to set defined rules for what actually counts as fair use and all these claimants would be fucked.
      - chris_wot 7y ago
        Or they could lose. Courts don’t like it when someone games fair use.
      - 7y ago
sam0x17 7y ago
Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way. Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Why wouldn't the claimant just switch to plain-old DMCA takedowns in that case?
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    Because it would be more financially beneficial to just not submit fake reports.
Animats 7y ago
False claim of copyright is a criminal offense in the US. While prosecutions are extremely rare, they have happened. It is worth getting a lawyer to help you file a formal complaint with the US Department of Justice. While the odds of criminal prosecution are low, there's a good chance paperwork from a US Attorney's office asking some questions will be sent to the offender. That will reach their legal people, and something useful will probably happen. See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
- FreeFull 7y ago
  Part of the problem here would be that none of the claims sent to MumboJumbo have been through the DMCA. They all use Youtube's internal system instead, which was built to appease the big music publishers.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  But these are Youtube complaints, not DMCA complaints. Virtually no consequence.
- bo1024 7y ago
  By my understanding, you are mistaken or out of date. What you wrote is true for takedown notices issued under the DMCA, but YouTube is allowing companies to order takedowns or monetize other's videos without going through the legal DMCA process. That's what ContentID is about.
  - Animats 7y ago
    YouTube seems to claim that the DMCA counter-notice procedure applies.[1] [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
    - 6nf 7y ago
      It's a two step process. The first step happens within YouTube's guidelines and do not involve the DMCA. It then can escalate to an actual DMCA notice / counter. Critically though, going to DMCA is really bad for the uploader because Youtube does not remove the 'strike' against your account when it gets escalated. So content uploaders almost never go here.
jancsika 7y ago
Why not just have a captcha for copyright claims: "Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming" If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.
pfarnsworth 7y ago
How is this still possible in 2019? These are well-known tactics and yet Youtube still allows this?
makecheck 7y ago
Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices. (We certainly need more jobs for people.)
- ErikAugust 7y ago
  Google borders on insane with lacking any sort of manual support. For example, when you are a paid G Suite customer - you'll need to dig hard to find their support number. Then you'll need to click several buttons making it clear you still need support. You also need to then generate a PIN used to access the phone support.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Similar story with Adwords - if you want support with that, you ain't gonna get it. It's a maze of FAQs and automated email responses with useless information. If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up. Truely, incredible that they get away with it. Also incredible that they're OK with this given how much profit they make from ads. By comparison, I've had excellent support from Bing Ads in the past - unfortunately they represent a much smaller number of impressions than Adwords.
    - DougN7 7y ago
      Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
dandare 7y ago
And what if this happened to someone who is not famous with a large following?
- Fuzzwah 7y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but only popular channels are going to be targeted like this.
charliebrownau 7y ago
Notice that most American companies over 1M don't have Customer Email Customer Web live chat Customer phone number Its almost on PURPOSE they hide behind their company band and broken corrupt system that panders to corporations and not the actual creation user
northwest65 7y ago
I do wonder if Youtube employees ever ponder when the day will come that a slighted, desperate content creator is going to visit their offices with an AR-15 and let their anger truly be known.
- troyastorino 7y ago
  In case you didn't know, something very close to what you're describing happened, and makes your comment seem extremely insensitive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
- nixgeek 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting Many of the downvotes may be because this comment feels like incredibly poor taste, given there was already a shooting incident at YouTube where people (in that case, the shooter) lost their lives. You may not have been aware of that.
  - northwest65 7y ago
    I was aware of the incident, but I thought it was related to a jilted lover. It'll happen again.
Taniwha 7y ago
Seems like nothing that 1800 small claims suits wont fix ... start with one to make sure it will go through, then file the rest
Iv 7y ago
Hollywood started on the west coast because it was reasonably out of reach from the copyright and patent claims of the east coast. That's what allowed to a creative industry to start and strive. Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches. The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)" Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.
dijksterhuis 7y ago
FYI - this looks like it may be a valid claim before you all go grab your pitchforks and torches. https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/1130180911352487936?s=20 https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Fjolsvith 7y ago
Why not have a separate company you own that copyright claims your own videos first?

I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start. Then there's the occasional startup that promises to fill exactly that gap, announced with fanfares and everything, but nobody came up with a killer feature yet. But that's just the gist of how I feel about that situation from when topics like that pop up every now and then. Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?

sirn 7y ago
> How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave YouTube survived even the Real Name Policy during Google+ era. At this point, I can't think I think of anything that could do a permanent and immediate damage to YouTube popularity, even if they pull the equivalent of recent Tumblr purge. YouTube has enough momentum and its audience is way too diverse for it to fail overnight. Also, video hosting is very hard and expensive. It's possible to have a service that is generally nice and serve some niche (like Vimeo or Dailymotion), but I feel they will break apart in some way or another if they ever gain YouTube-level of popularity (due to regulation, lawsuits, etc.).
- wolco 7y ago
  If they perged or deleted enough content people would stop visiting. If content creators stopped making new videos the site would turn into more of a video backup/hosting service for sharing elsewhere. Wouldn't kill the site but it would reduce its value.
- jfoster 7y ago
  They're getting pretty annoying for viewers. Non-stop nags about trialing their subscriptions.
- pas 7y ago
  The RealName policy did not affect YT as it defaulted to a separate "profile" of the same account. And you got the option to merge them, or continue to use it with some nickname.
fenwick67 7y ago
Twitch is poised to threaten YouTube. They have Amazon behind them financially, and their live streaming is beating YouTube's.
- eljimmy 7y ago
  No doubt. Twitch is also pretty easy to get in contact with regarding any content disputes as well, at least in comparison to YouTube.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  I would've loved it if it were PeerTube or something but the sad reality is that Twitch is the only platform that's even close to comparable to YouTube.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Especially if VR starts capturing attention on a grander scale.
- aitchnyu 7y ago
  Is Twitch becoming a general purpose video site? At a glance, it seems all screengrabs and tabletop cameras of games.
  - fenwick67 7y ago
    Right now you are right. Twitch only lets you stream live content and keep recordings of it. But they certainly compete with YouTube for eyeballs, and I can't imagine they're not working on a regular video ecosystem.
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  Interesting, in my book twitch was still streaming only. Given the backing by Amazon you might be right.

mdorazio 7y ago

The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy. I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.

RubberbandSoul 7y ago
I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.
  - IAmGraydon 7y ago
    On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      The competition to youtube is virtually nonexistent. If you're a medium or small content creator (which most youtube creators are), then instead of deciding to go to vimeo you might as well just file for unemployment benefits. And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.

panpanna 7y ago

The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees. As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).

hedora 7y ago
It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam. Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc. A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights. To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.
- ghayes 7y ago
  What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    They may have paid millions, but not necessarily. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
  - hedora 7y ago
    True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault. The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist. In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties. To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).

jccalhoun 7y ago

Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious. I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this. Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153 https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153

wut42 7y ago
He said that @TeamYoutube ignored him because the account was active _all_ sunday: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/with_replies https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/with_replies
detaro 7y ago
He's a quite well-known professional Minecraft YouTuber with 3 million subscribers. This copyright claim means for all these videos the company making the claim now gets a share of his income. Given he makes game videos, many of those videos do not even contain music outside the intro tune, which he's been using for years and licensed from the creator.
djmips 7y ago
It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the public domain... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Showers-Teddy-Joyce-and-His-Orchestra-March-Winds-and-April-Showers/ https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Show...
- lysp 7y ago
  Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?

DanBC 7y ago

He's had a response from Head of gaming at YT: https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417 https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417

bdz 7y ago
Now imagine if you don't have 3m subs, no 150k followers on Twitter, no one is posting your stuff on Reddit and even on HN. Good luck getting any help from Google
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  thats why clout is important
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Now imagine it isn't YouTube but some other more significant privatized service near monopoly status, say a local grocery chain or car rental company, and they enforce a "policy" (say banning you) that is now difficult to separate from a law other than you have no voice and little recourse for action, especially as an individual. Privatized monopolies are in general small totalitarian government regimes that reign over specific functions (markets) of life. Real competition is what breaks those regimes into a democracy where you can somewhat vote with your purchase decisions. We still have to watch out for cartels though where multiple near monopolies agree to stay out of each others territories or collude to set market practices.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Let's go a step further: imagine living in a new company town that Google bought/built. Three DMCA-claims and you're in violation of TOS, all your content (including what's in your apartment) is deleted and you're kicked out of town and driven to the town limits. I'm sure there will still be people here who are quite happy with that because "it's not the government doing it" and they reckon they're not next in line for the same treatment.
    - 7y ago

throwaway55554 7y ago

How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!

tzs 7y ago
The problem here has nothing to do with the DMCA. The problem is that Google has implemented its own system that has little to do with the DMCA. If it were handled the DMCA way, here is how it would go. 1. Someone complains to the hosting service alleging that you are violating their copyright. 2. The hosting provider takes down the material and notifies you. If you do not want to dispute this, that is the end of it. 3. If you want to dispute their claims, you notify the hosting provider. It doesn't really matter, as far as I recall, if you dispute the claims because you say the claimant does not hold copyright, or you say that they do but your use is covered by fair use, or any other mean. 4. The hosting provider puts your material back up, and tells the complainant that if they want to take it down, they need to take you to court, and provides your legal contact information for filing said suit. If the claimant takes you to court, and wins, following the above procedure absolves the hosting provider of any liability for the infringement.
- luckylion 7y ago
  If the claimant takes you to court and loses, there is no penalty, I assume? There's punitive damages in the US - any chance that would be applied to such a case?
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    Only if the work they claimed your video was infringing wasn't actually owned by them.
  - tzs 7y ago
    As far as the court case goes, it's basically just like it would be if the complainant had simply sued you directly for copyright infringement. If you win, the court can award you costs and attorney fees. I'm not sure how they decide whether or not to do so. A claimant trying to use DMCA where it is not justifiable faces a couple other deterrents. First, unless the claimant is representing themselves in the case, they are going to have an attorney, and that attorney is going to take into account Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1]. If the claimant doesn't have a fairly reasonable case, he is going to have trouble finding an attorney. Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is perjury. The claimant can face criminal charges for that (although it would probably have to involve someone doing this on a large scale to get Federal prosecutors to prosecute). Knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown also makes you liable for civil damages, including costs and attorney fees, incurred by the target of the takedown notice, the hosting provider, and in the case where neither the complainant or the target are the copyright owner, the actual copyright owner. If the complainant who knowingly files a false takedown notice actually follows through and sue you for infringement, I'd guess that the damages due to you for the false notice would be handled there. If the complainant isn't that stupid, and drops the matter after the notice and counter-notice, you could sue them over the false notice. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

Nothing can possibly go wrong with Article 17.

hedora 7y ago

In fairness, the franchise or manager (not McDonalds) was at fault there. They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation. The burn led to hospitalization.

apocalypstyx 7y ago
>The burn led to hospitalization. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring. >They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temperature It was within normal operating parameters as per the McDonald's manual. There had been 700 prior instances of warning about issues from hot coffee. (And while I'm at it) She was not driving, she was a passenger in a parked car when the incident occurred. She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800. The jury awarded $200,000 and the judge reduced that to $160,000. $2.7 million was awarded by the jury in punitive damages and reduced to $480,000 by the judge, however, there was later a settlement for an unknown amount after McDonald's appealed. Why does everyone remember different? Because McDonald's spent more than a few million dollars on a PR campaign against her, after which she received lifelong massive amounts of hate mail and death threats and was reduced to gags on everything from Seinfeld to Jay Leno to Futurama.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day. Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly. Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted. Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me. We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use. 1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

fenwick67 7y ago

Very sad that "please retweet" is their best recourse.

IloveHN84 7y ago

Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?

Flammy 7y ago
That isn't how YouTube's Content ID system works. The vast majority of users don't have access to the system. When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately. Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views
vpribish 7y ago
copyright is automatic; the creator need do nothing.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USC 102(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 This post itself is copyrighted under the terms of US law, as well as similar language under common international 'Berne Convention" laws. As is yours. At the moment of creation, with no further action or registration required. For a duration of 95 years, as an anonymous work (17 USC 32(c)) -- or to 70 years after my death, if not anonymous. A fact which I personally find to be grotesque and insane, but which is indisputably law.

faissaloo 7y ago

When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.

bufferoverflow 7y ago
The copyright concept is fine. Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor. The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  Copyright is not fine... it lasts way too long.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    Which has nothing to do with copyright the concept but our particular current implementation of it.
    - OrgNet 7y ago
      > The problem is with the youtube's implementation it is not.. it is with the existing laws
      - marcinzm 7y ago
        Our laws are the implementation of copyright I’m talking about and are distinct from the concept of copyright.
        OrgNet 7y ago
        I understand that but I was not replying to you initially... we were talking about youtube's implementation of copyright law
    - 7y ago

aphextron 7y ago

You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of fairness will never hurt it in any way.

Zephyreks 7y ago
What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?
- monocasa 7y ago
  How about a copyright enforcement system that doesn't go above and beyond what's required?
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Why not say "no" to more people? Allowing the automation of this is really bad and heavily favors people with big bucks- would requiring a different written statement per video make sense at all?
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  If a creator can't afford to publish content without a company striking their account then why would any creator stay? It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.
  - binarymax 7y ago
    Creators go where the consumers are. You can move to a different platform or start your own but you won’t get any viewers. It’s the equivalent of not liking the taxes in a city retail space, and moving your store out to the desert in protest.

gotland_ 7y ago

This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k

colordrops 7y ago
It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the rhythm nor the melody is the same.
ddingus 7y ago
The timing of the few prominent notes in that intro are similar to the George Harrison tune, but the notes themselves as well as supporting elements are different, as is the overall percussion. Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend. Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks... Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician. Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out. While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out. Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding. It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should. It's also reasonable to expect better.
gatherhunterer 7y ago
He has now tweeted an update acknowledging that the artist from whom he licensed the music may not have had the right to claim sampled music as their own. Another update urges others to ensure that licensees actually have the right to license the work that they claim as original. This is the only top-level comment that offers actual information on why this may have happened and it was downvoted for a difference of perspective informed by that information.

gatewaynode 7y ago

It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these monetization attacks and maximize compensation.

thatoneuser 7y ago
Little guys don't get to ride on the dmca fast track from what I understand.
Jolter 7y ago
Works are copyrighted automatically under modern law. I'm not aware of any procedure to "formally copyright" a work.
- detaro 7y ago
  In some countries (including the US) you can additionally "register copyright", and it makes enforcement easier or allows higher compensation, maybe that's what they're referring to. That advice wouldn't help the british creator in this case though.
  - gatewaynode 7y ago
    Correct, in the US there is implicit copyright by default if you include a copyright mark and date and formal copyright through registration. Implicit US copyright doesn't offer much protection, just an ability to tell people to stop using your works. Formal US copyright gives you rapid retort and default judement compensation that's just insane (something like up to $150,000 per infringement). You don't have to be a US citizen to register for a US copyright.
ClassyJacket 7y ago
In alot of countries (Australia for example) there is no copyright registration at all. You just automatically own the copyright to things you create. https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_I_register_/ACC/FAQ/How_do_I_register_for_copyright.aspx?hkey=b737f340-d120-4194-85fb-a6f3b415c66f https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_...

peterwwillis 7y ago

I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to generate attention for a platform that mines that attention for ad dollars, of which he gets a few pennies for his trouble. Even if this is his dream job, the risk he's taking is high. Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.

lostmyoldone 7y ago
It's not entitlement to complain about copyright procedure abuse when you use a platform of a multi billion dollar company for its publicly communicated, and intended purpose. If we assume the creator is using a licensed original work, then I would rather claim that if entitlement is expressed by anyone, it is expressed by the entity that sent, or are otherwise responsible for the 1000+ copyright claims. All claims toward a single channel, and apparently without verifying the validity of even one such claim.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
saagarjha 7y ago
> these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer Such as?
Zarath 7y ago
> " Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged." Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos he makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.

duxup 7y ago

How is it just as spam / disruptive behavior type protection do they not have a catch for if 1800+ claims ... maybe have a human with a brain take a look at what is up? Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.

sam0x17 7y ago

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that. It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.

sam0x17 7y ago
Heck, I'd even have my developers write an AI that automatically extracts fair-use-length clips from videos and songs belonging to some of the biggest complainers, and uploads them as "honeypot" videos. If they complain about one of those, ban 'em from complaining again. They don't understand copyright law.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  A 10 second clip of a movie isn’t necessarily fair use; It’s decided on a case by case basis. You can use as much as you need to get your point across; No more. If that’s 10 seconds, you can use 10 seconds. If that’s a minute, you can use a minute.
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    But if Google's lawyers took a stance on this, they could use precedent to set defined rules for what actually counts as fair use and all these claimants would be fucked.
    - chris_wot 7y ago
      Or they could lose. Courts don’t like it when someone games fair use.
    - 7y ago

sam0x17 7y ago

Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way. Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.

icebraining 7y ago
Why wouldn't the claimant just switch to plain-old DMCA takedowns in that case?
- sam0x17 7y ago
  Because it would be more financially beneficial to just not submit fake reports.

Animats 7y ago

False claim of copyright is a criminal offense in the US. While prosecutions are extremely rare, they have happened. It is worth getting a lawyer to help you file a formal complaint with the US Department of Justice. While the odds of criminal prosecution are low, there's a good chance paperwork from a US Attorney's office asking some questions will be sent to the offender. That will reach their legal people, and something useful will probably happen. See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.

FreeFull 7y ago
Part of the problem here would be that none of the claims sent to MumboJumbo have been through the DMCA. They all use Youtube's internal system instead, which was built to appease the big music publishers.
paulddraper 7y ago
But these are Youtube complaints, not DMCA complaints. Virtually no consequence.
bo1024 7y ago
By my understanding, you are mistaken or out of date. What you wrote is true for takedown notices issued under the DMCA, but YouTube is allowing companies to order takedowns or monetize other's videos without going through the legal DMCA process. That's what ContentID is about.
- Animats 7y ago
  YouTube seems to claim that the DMCA counter-notice procedure applies.[1] [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
  - 6nf 7y ago
    It's a two step process. The first step happens within YouTube's guidelines and do not involve the DMCA. It then can escalate to an actual DMCA notice / counter. Critically though, going to DMCA is really bad for the uploader because Youtube does not remove the 'strike' against your account when it gets escalated. So content uploaders almost never go here.

jancsika 7y ago

Why not just have a captcha for copyright claims: "Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming" If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.

pfarnsworth 7y ago

How is this still possible in 2019? These are well-known tactics and yet Youtube still allows this?

makecheck 7y ago

Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices. (We certainly need more jobs for people.)

ErikAugust 7y ago
Google borders on insane with lacking any sort of manual support. For example, when you are a paid G Suite customer - you'll need to dig hard to find their support number. Then you'll need to click several buttons making it clear you still need support. You also need to then generate a PIN used to access the phone support.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Similar story with Adwords - if you want support with that, you ain't gonna get it. It's a maze of FAQs and automated email responses with useless information. If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up. Truely, incredible that they get away with it. Also incredible that they're OK with this given how much profit they make from ads. By comparison, I've had excellent support from Bing Ads in the past - unfortunately they represent a much smaller number of impressions than Adwords.
  - DougN7 7y ago
    Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago

dandare 7y ago

And what if this happened to someone who is not famous with a large following?

Fuzzwah 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but only popular channels are going to be targeted like this.

charliebrownau 7y ago

Notice that most American companies over 1M don't have Customer Email Customer Web live chat Customer phone number Its almost on PURPOSE they hide behind their company band and broken corrupt system that panders to corporations and not the actual creation user

northwest65 7y ago

I do wonder if Youtube employees ever ponder when the day will come that a slighted, desperate content creator is going to visit their offices with an AR-15 and let their anger truly be known.

troyastorino 7y ago
In case you didn't know, something very close to what you're describing happened, and makes your comment seem extremely insensitive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
nixgeek 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting Many of the downvotes may be because this comment feels like incredibly poor taste, given there was already a shooting incident at YouTube where people (in that case, the shooter) lost their lives. You may not have been aware of that.
- northwest65 7y ago
  I was aware of the incident, but I thought it was related to a jilted lover. It'll happen again.

Taniwha 7y ago

Seems like nothing that 1800 small claims suits wont fix ... start with one to make sure it will go through, then file the rest

Iv 7y ago

Hollywood started on the west coast because it was reasonably out of reach from the copyright and patent claims of the east coast. That's what allowed to a creative industry to start and strive. Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches. The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)" Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.

dijksterhuis 7y ago

FYI - this looks like it may be a valid claim before you all go grab your pitchforks and torches. https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/1130180911352487936?s=20 https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...

Fjolsvith 7y ago

Why not have a separate company you own that copyright claims your own videos first?