[HN Gopher] Company 'Hijacks' Blender's CC By-Licensed Film, You...
___________________________________________________________________
Company 'Hijacks' Blender's CC By-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes
User
Author : HieronymusBosch
Score : 267 points
Date : 2022-12-05 08:50 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| DarthNebo wrote:
| Slow clap..... YouTube needs to penalize such false copyright
| claims with demonetization ot rate limiting the ability to do so
| in the future
| richrichardsson wrote:
| I'd go further; with such bullshit claims akin to this the
| entity making the false claim should be perma-banned from
| YouTube.
| rocqua wrote:
| YouTube still needs to, legally speaking, accept DMCA claims
| from companies they have banned.
| Steltek wrote:
| A ban would simply result in them creating a new account.
| Stopping future copystrikes is just enough pain to keep them
| where they are while preventing more damage.
| capableweb wrote:
| Just as a FYI, Blender runs their own PeerTube instance (that you
| can subscribe to via ActivityPub/Fediverse (so Mastodon and all
| of those others)) which they fully control:
| https://video.blender.org/
|
| Reason they created that in the first place was because of a
| similar accident in the past. Maybe hopefully soon they'll stop
| using YouTube fully as YouTube doesn't seem to care about solving
| the core problem of driveby copyright strikes.
| shapefrog wrote:
| Elon should buy Youtube and make it _free_ again.
| actualwitch wrote:
| Did you mean "free"? As in "free" speech that he brought to
| twitter.
| misnome wrote:
| He seems to be very good at (at least short-term) pivoting
| platforms away from advertiser-based income. Mainly because
| all the advertisers are driven away, but still...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Never mind the means, if it get's results
| thombat wrote:
| The evergreen explanation for actions from "Yes,
| Minister":
|
| > Something must be done! > This is something. >
| Therefore we will do it.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Right. What YouTube needs is much more money burned on it and
| to have even more far right content pushed onto people
| capableweb wrote:
| As a lover of everything not-YouTube, I concur.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| He would Make The Thumbs Down Great Again and fire half of
| the staff randomly by Tweet.
| danuker wrote:
| How will it make money? When Google bought it, it wasn't
| profitable.
| nkozyra wrote:
| "$8" is the answer I'd expect
| hef19898 wrote:
| Either that or 42 per year
| andrew_ wrote:
| What will $69 get me?
| thesuitonym wrote:
| That's the point.
| txru wrote:
| Can we not keep Musk discussion to Musk threads? There seem
| to be enough of them, and this sort of comment just attracts
| cheerleading and booing with no analysis.
| atoav wrote:
| I typically tend to boo _with_ analysis, but it is booing
| nontheless.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The only way to solve the copyright problem is to abolish
| copyright. Things will only get worse and worse every year
| until that happens.
| winReInstall wrote:
| Remember when Singapore stock artists for traditional chinese
| media used the footage used by others to silence ccp critics
| and youtube did nothing.
| luch wrote:
| Yep, people seem to believe that Youtube is still a platform
| for crowdsourced videos, by the people for the people.
|
| Youtube is since ~2016 primarly a platform for music clips, a
| sorta MTV for millenials and GenZ. They absolutely do not give
| a fuck anymore for content creator and hobbyists.
|
| The faster people will understand that, the less they will be
| enraged about ContentID/DMCA
| mattmanser wrote:
| You are wrong, confidently incorrect. Though it shows how
| anyone can get ensconsed in a bubble by their own tech.
|
| Get a parent to show you what their kids watch on YouTube and
| get your mind blown.
|
| YouTube is a tailored experience. If you're a 6 year old kid
| you'll be getting something far, far, far from music clips.
| aquariusDue wrote:
| Here's something fun to do, exchange phones with your
| friends and scroll through each other's YouTube feeds.
| Quite the bonding experience.
| nkozyra wrote:
| I agree that YouTube - like most large social networks -
| cares only about the large traffic generators, but I'm not
| sure about your characterization of the content.
|
| I can find high quality creators for almost anything on earth
| that interests me - programming, ML, music creation,
| woodworking, and so on.
|
| I suspect this is all about the deprioritization of the
| little guy.
|
| Google also shuts the door quickly and hard. My personal
| adsense account was permabannned years ago and 1) I don't
| know why 2) there appears no avenue to address it
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| YouTube is equivalent and worse than regular TV now,
| completely in the tank for corporations and hostile to
| individual creators.
| mort96 wrote:
| How so? With regular TV, 99% of the time nothing
| interesting is going on, and 50% of watch time is
| unskippable ads (despite the service being paid). With
| YouTube, I can always find something which _I_ find
| interesting, and there are no ads (even though Premium is
| way cheaper than TV), only some skippable sponsor spots
| which some creators choose to put in.
|
| The situation with YouTube is dire, the DMCA situation is
| dire (in general, but also YouTube's handling of it), there
| are serious issues with how YouTube treats its creators,
| and there are serious issues with people being fed
| disinformation by the algorithm. But in no way is it
| "equivalent and worse than regular TV".
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's the same problem Twitter had. Before meatheads like Elon
| Musk started knocking heads together, there were a lot of
| people _actually convinced_ of Twitter 's altruism. In
| reality, the situation was much the same as YouTube.
| gee_totes wrote:
| Applying occam's razor here, I wonder if this was caused by a
| corrupt Google employee taking a bribe from the TV station in
| Uzbekistan?
|
| Social network content moderators have been known to take
| bribes[0][1]. The fact that there was a manual DMCA review
| involved makes this more sus
|
| [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-
| onlyfan...
|
| [1]: https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/former-twitter-employee-
| con...
| bedast wrote:
| I don't think you understand what occam's razor is.
|
| Occam's Razor would be incompetence. Either an automated system
| is not allowing proper processing of the counter-notice or
| someone reviewing the situation doesn't understand the license.
|
| A conspiracy would be the opposite of Occam's Razor.
| rideontime wrote:
| How in the world is this applying Occam's razor?
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| In reverse
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Since even the first time it was uttered on HN, it just means
| you're about to take a pet stab at something.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| IANAL. Does this count as Slander of Title?
|
| I.e., does the DMCA indemnify a company that makes a clearly
| false claim?
| shapefrog wrote:
| It is fraud
| hooby wrote:
| This seems like something the EFF might be able to provide a
| lawyer for.
|
| They have repeatedly fought for Open Source Licenses in court in
| the past, and helped get legal representation for people who
| couldn't afford to fight large companies on their own budget.
| paulgb wrote:
| Assuming the facts reported here are true, it seems that YouTube
| is putting its safe harbor in jeopardy by not complying with the
| counter-takedown:
|
| > Following receipt of a compliant counter-notice, the online
| service provider must restore access to the material after no
| less than ten and no more than fourteen business days, unless the
| original notice sender informs the service provider that it has
| filed a court action against the user.
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/512/
| phpisthebest wrote:
| YT has this weird format text that you have to EXACTLY copy and
| paste into the form for it to be processed, Several Lawyers on
| YT have talked about how to "successfully file a counter
| notification" and say that if you do not paste that EXACT
| terminology from their Help Document it will almost ways be
| rejected
| danuker wrote:
| That does not mean it is legal to reject it.
| causality0 wrote:
| YouTube is rich so laws are irrelevant.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| DCMA Claims, and DMCA Counter Notification are required to
| have certin things in them to be legally valid, My guess is
| that form text has all of the legally required elements,
| and if you submit a counter notification that is missing
| even one element that is required it is perfectly legal to
| reject it
|
| Remember DMCA is not written to protect you the user, or
| protect the little guy, DMCA was written for RIAA/MPAA by
| the RIAA/MPAA
| counttheforks wrote:
| Counter notifications that include all legally required
| elements but do not follow their form letter are still
| valid. Yet this probably doesn't mash with Google's
| "Automate all the things!" strategy, so they are instead
| shafting everyone and hoping they get away with it due to
| their wealth even though YouTube is blatantly breaking
| the law.
| capableweb wrote:
| I have zero love for YouTube, Google or Alphabet. But I
| feel like saying "YouTube is blatantly breaking the law"
| needs to be better researched to be taken serious than
| "yeah probably".
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It only counts as non-compliance if they fail to restore the
| content within ten to fourteen business days, assuming that the
| takedown notice issuer has not taken the matter to court.
| paulgb wrote:
| The 10 days is to give the original claimant time to respond,
| but to do that YouTube needs to forward the counter-takedown
| to the original claimant, which they have refused to do.
|
| > (B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in
| paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the
| notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the
| counter notification, and informs that person that it will
| replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it
| in 10 business days; and
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| I never understood how that requirement is compatible with the
| First Amendment. How is that not compelling speech by the OSP?
|
| OSPs don't have to host content they don't want to host... but
| if content gets taken down, and then a counter-notification is
| submitted, the OSP is then _required_ to restore (read: host)
| the content?
| jsmith45 wrote:
| The actual rule is that if YouTube takes something down in
| good faith belief that it is infringing, they are protected
| against any liability for any claim over taking it down, but
| only if the follow the restoration procedures as specified.
|
| If they fail to do that they simply lose the protection of
| liability if you (or anybody) sues them over taking the work
| down.
|
| So you cannot successfully sue them over say lost revenue for
| a fraudulent takedown notice if they follow the correct
| counternotice procedure. If they don't, then they might be
| liable, but most likely something in the terms of service or
| similar would prevent your suit from being a winning case
| anyway.
|
| However, in other scenarios like where the provider was
| contractually obligated to keep the content available, if
| they fail to follow the counternotification procedures
| properly, you could potentially sue the provider and win.
| counttheforks wrote:
| YouTube is a company, not a human being.
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| > YouTube is a company, not a human being.
|
| The compelled speech doctrine applies to companies.
| counttheforks wrote:
| Companies can't speak. Only the humans working there can.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Unless they're all replaced by AI some years in the
| future. Good luck countersuing a bunch of GPUs gone
| rogue.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's also a right that you waive by uploading videos to
| YouTube and agreeing to limit your liability as-per the
| TOS: https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
|
| See the entry "Limitation of Liability"
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You only have DMCA protection if you are a (reasonably)
| neutral host.
|
| "Bob's airplane video emporium of only good airplanes" does
| not get DMCA protection. If Bob violates copyright, he can't
| hide behind DMCA.
|
| If Youtube wants the DMCA safe harbor, they have to be
| (reasonably) neutral _and_ follow the DMCA. That includes
| restoring videos on counter claim.
|
| Youtube can still do a TOS takedown. "We restored your video
| but then found it has boobs in it and have removed it."
| Totally fine.
|
| They can't receive a valid counter claim and then decide to
| not follow.
| atkailash wrote:
| thechao wrote:
| My understanding is that it's a Faustian deal: YT is
| indemnified by removing its own agency in this regards. If it
| just _follows the rules_ , it gets a pass. If it _interprets
| the rules_ it doesn 't.
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| Your understanding is correct, but how does that relates to
| my point about compelled speech?
|
| You won't be on the hook for a DMCA violation if you give
| up the right to control what's on your website?
|
| If you don't post this thing on your website [read: restore
| the content], you are violating the law?
| smoldesu wrote:
| If YouTube didn't have you agree to TOS before uploading
| a video, you may have a point here. In it's current state
| though, YouTube has carte-blanche permission to remove
| _anything_ they want, not just disagreeable content. The
| concept of free speech does not give you the ability to
| renegotiate service agreements, unfortunately.
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| My point is that in some cases, the DMCA appears to
| require OSPs (YouTube, in this case) to _restore_ content
| that has been the subject of a DMCA takedown.
|
| I don't see how that is compatible with the idea that
| YouTube has the right to _not_ host content on their
| website. It 's their website. How can a counter-
| notification take away - even for an instant - YouTube's
| right to control what's on YouTube?
| smoldesu wrote:
| They can certainly demand it, but there's no recourse if
| Google simply says they don't want to host it. Nobody is
| guaranteed a spot on YouTube by the first amendment, and
| DMCA doesn't override the pre-existing precedents of
| contract law. If they truly demand a restoration of
| removed content, then they are free to do so with servers
| that they pay for.
| r2champloo wrote:
| Conversely then, how does the DMCA not violate the first
| amendment by silencing speech? Is there actually any
| difference in the direction of application of this
| regulation?
| Cpoll wrote:
| Does it matter in practice? The OSP can restore the content
| and then immediately remove it again for a different reason,
| and I imagine that would honor the counter-notification.
| devwastaken wrote:
| There is no "losing" safe harbor.
| https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
| pavon wrote:
| There are a few carve-outs to section 230, as your link
| mentions: If you said "Section 230 is why
| there's piracy online" You again may be the NY Times or
| someone who has not read Section 230. Section 230 explicitly
| exempts intellectual property law: Nothing in this
| section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
| pertaining to intellectual property.
|
| So when it comes to copyright, the DMCA takes precedence over
| section 230, and sites that don't follow the take-down
| procedures spelled out in the DMCA do indeed become liable
| (loose safe-harbor) for the specific content that they failed
| to enforce. If the site demonstrates a pattern of not
| complying, then copyright holders could even argue in court
| that they are liable for large classes of works without
| having to provide evidence of non-compliance for each
| individual work.
|
| There are other carve-outs for CSAM and sex trafficking.
|
| It is true that they don't become liable for _all_ unrelated
| user content (say libel or harassment) because of this, so in
| that sense they still have safe harbor in general, but saying
| that they have lost safe harbor for particular content is a
| valid use of the term.
| miohtama wrote:
| > complying, then copyright holders could even argue in
| court that they are liable for large classes of works
| without having to provide evidence of non-compliance for
| each individual work
|
| But in practice, is there any point for any violated users
| to sue? Any YouTube video unlikely presents any meaningful
| income for them and going after American company in the
| court is really expensive.
| roywiggins wrote:
| DMCA safe harbor and Section 230 are different things?
| dthul wrote:
| I get that mistakes can happen, but companies filing frivolous
| DMCA notices should be barred from this avenue in the future.
| Further, YouTube's appeals process is fundamentally broken if it
| can't get such obvious cases right.
| andrepd wrote:
| Of course. Why can't you answer as many times as you want in an
| SAT? Because it would defeat the whole purpose. More than that:
| you need to give points for right answers, and negative points
| for wrong ones, so the expected value of guessing is 0.
|
| Even in the context of the already fucked up copyright laws,
| this mechanism is especially broken.
| thinkmcfly wrote:
| It shouldn't be just the companies that are barred from filling
| new notices, but that the copyrighted item itself loses its
| protection. But how could a bunch of old people who don't care
| about tech have put that into law 20 years ago
| tremon wrote:
| How would that have worked in this case? User posts Blender
| video $X on youtube, $idiotCompany files frivolous DMCA suit
| claiming copyright on $X, Blender loses its copyright on $X?
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Telemundo actively did this. Claim copyright of creators'
| material and file strikes against them.
|
| Then there were the cases of extortion trolls (criminals) who
| demanded money from creators in exchange for removing strikes.
|
| 0. Fuck YouTube and criminals and 1. never depend on it as a
| primary source of income. (that's what merch is for).
| tinus_hn wrote:
| The notice is filed on penalty of perjury. All that should
| happen is whoever filed the notice actually be tried for
| perjury.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Perjury is not enforced anywhere but the most egregious
| cases. Courts are filled with lies told by professional liars
| and presided over by liars that made a career out of lying.
| They never eat their own, because it would shine too much
| light on their own practices.
| misnome wrote:
| Perjury based on _belief_ that they own the copyright, as I
| understand the DMCA. So being an idiot who doesn't understand
| copyright (or based on an erroneous automated process) is
| considered a defence.
|
| So, worthless.
| techdragon wrote:
| Always remember that YouTube is for the most part not using
| DMCA notices. ContentID has nothing to do with the DMCA and
| everything to do with the Viacom lawsuit and YouTube's
| persistent desire to avoid any further lawsuits of that nature.
|
| It's a rigged system in favour of traditional copyright holders
| and anyone who can weasel their way to the other side of the
| ContentID system to register themselves as a copyright "owner"
| and are thus blessed by YouTube as special and to be trusted
| with the task of only making legitimate claims against their
| own intellectual property... which we all know is bullshit and
| abused by almost everyone who has access to it. Notable
| exceptions being companies like Epidemic Sound who have made
| their access to that system/API into a valuable business
| differentiator... regardless it's rigged against the individual
| content creators that made YouTube into the behemoth it is
| today.
| iamtedd wrote:
| In this case it was an actual DMCA notice, not ContentID.
| Real people were involved in this incomprehensible decision.
| techdragon wrote:
| Which is why it's all the more important to point out.
| While this was a DMCA, almost all the normal litany of
| egregious YouTube copyright stories are from the ContentID
| program and are beyond any real ability to appeal or
| legally reconcile. There is no fair use or other
| affirmative defence... you will _bend the knee to YouTube
| at behest of the so named copyright holder or face the
| wrath of Google.... All of Google for you never know what
| else your YouTube account might be connect too... do you
| dare risk it serf?..._
|
| They are quite luck to have the full DMCA process, as
| unpleasant and costly as it all is for them, at all! Most
| are not so lucky.
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| > almost all the normal litany of egregious YouTube
| copyright stories are from the ContentID program and are
| beyond any real ability to appeal or legally reconcile
|
| That is factually incorrect.
|
| Content ID claims can be appealed to the claimant. If
| that appeal is rejected, the person who posted the
| content can contest the claim. Doing so forces the rights
| holder to either drop the claim, or file a DMCA takedown.
|
| I am a full-time YouTuber. I have recently done what I
| just wrote. It's nothing new.
| techdragon wrote:
| Perhaps slightly hyperbolic... but the perception I had
| garnered from the content producers I'd seen talk about
| it, is that the 10 day counter notice period is long
| enough that the majority of content producers cannot take
| the risk with time relevant content or live streamed
| content.
|
| In addition the percentage of people unwilling to risk
| the legal complications of defending a full fair use
| court fight, as it is an affirmative defence relying on
| courts with the USA as the jurisdiction is a widely
| chilling effect on overseas content producers. If they
| don't back down you need to be prepared to deal with
| American courts and lawyers. Sure they back down some of
| the time but a lot of people don't even want to risk it
| or aren't even sure how firmly they are in fair use
| territory and that's not even brining into the equation
| how many people misunderstand fair use exemptions and
| just how might right to reuse content under fair use they
| actually have and who may be inadvertently risking
| significant legal exposure should they try to press
| invalid fair use claims.
|
| I did misspeak, but ContentID is still the bigger evil
| than the DMCA.
| SpelingBeeChamp wrote:
| There is some truth to what you wrote, but instead of
| getting into the weeds on the details, I'd like to take a
| step back and remind you of something that you might have
| already considered: creators have a strong incentive to
| mislead you about this kind of thing. When people think
| the little guy is getting financially shafted by The Man,
| they are more likely to do things like sign up for that
| channel's Patreon page, or join their membership program.
|
| I see a lot of this, including by very large channels who
| know what they are doing and should know better. And it
| seems to be an increasing trend. I don't like it.
| gpderetta wrote:
| I wonder if a retaliatory clause in CC licenses where if you
| issue an erroneous DMCA notice your license is immediately
| terminated and you can be targeted would help.
| bawolff wrote:
| Pretty sure its already purjury to intentionally send a fake
| dmca notice, which has a much harder punishment than anything a
| license can do (albeit basically never enforced)
| poizan42 wrote:
| Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. Preponderance of evidence. It's
| much easier to win a civil suit.
| emn13 wrote:
| Furthermore, turning this into essentially a contract law
| issue allows for enforcement by the broader community
| (depending on how the contract is worded, and with whom it
| formally is, of course), rather than waiting for
| prosecutors that may not care much about making an example
| of some Uzbek TV station (IANAL).
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| There is some weirdness that makes the perjury clause
| ineffective in most cases (something like the perjury only
| applying to some generally-true part of the claim).
| Steltek wrote:
| Strong copyleft licenses like that don't get a lot of love
| these days. GPL has something similar.
|
| One problem is that to enforce these kinds of clauses, the
| original rights holder needs to go around suing everyone as
| it's a contractual thing. It isn't a law.
| rocqua wrote:
| I dislike copyleft, but once you decided to go for copyleft,
| I think a clause like this makes a lot of sense.
|
| Copyleft licenses are inherently trying to coerce the world
| to be a certain way. A penalty clause like this is probably
| more effective at changing the world than the normal clauses.
| danuker wrote:
| Headline should be "YouTube does not recognize user's right to
| post CC By-Licensed film"
| blooalien wrote:
| And yet YouTube is willing to protect the _other_ party in
| their "right" to outright _steal_ Blender Foundation content
| (as that 's what they're doing when they claim copyright over
| content they have no actual copyright over, as is the case
| here).
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| This is the point where one should actually get a copyright
| lawyer to help fight it out.
| polotics wrote:
| Copyright lawyers cost money... If any company can create such
| a headache for a case that clear-cut, then how can YouTube not
| be trusted to be a major source of aggravation all-round?
| bawolff wrote:
| The amount lawyers cost depend on the complexity of the case.
| IANAL, but just sending a counter notice i imagine would be
| pretty cheap.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| In a modern society it is your fault for not affording the help
| of the invisible hand of the market. Stop! Being! Poor!
| type0 wrote:
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en
|
| > Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original
| content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot
| mark your video with the Creative Commons license.
|
| Do they add some sort of their own license terms on top of
| creative commons with this?
| emn13 wrote:
| I think the point is that youtube will not provide tools for
| video authors to label their youtube hosted videos as CC if
| there is any non-CC portion of the video. Which seems at least
| somewhat reasonable, given the unreasonableness that is
| copyright.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The failure here is in the word "use".
|
| They are _enjoying_ the effects of the CC license (as applied
| to the original content) without _applying_ it to their derived
| content.
| oefrha wrote:
| > Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks
| and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no
| indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked
| him for filing it - but still declined to process it.
|
| Uh, dealing with YouTube is fun on every level.
|
| Not long ago I was helping a successful content creator friend
| bootstrap a YouTube channel, and since she has a large number of
| existing videos, I wrote a program using YouTube Data API v3 to
| automatically upload them. Turned out the upload API has been
| restricted since a few years ago, one has to submit a lengthy
| application form and go through manual approval, or all videos
| uploaded through the API are automatically locked as spam. So I
| submitted the application, and a few days later, I got an email
| rejecting my application, which ends in the following:
|
| > To reapply, you may complete and submit the appropriate form
| once the above concerns have been addressed. Please do not reply
| to this email.
|
| > Feel free to reach out to us with any questions.
|
| So, I'm supposed to "feel free to reach out to" them, but I
| should "not reply to this email", leaving the only way to reach
| out to them the application form, which doesn't have any Q/A
| field, and incidentally they just rejected it. Did anyone think
| about their process when they authored that email template?
| Anyway, I eventually managed to identify the problem and pass the
| review.
| hobs wrote:
| Reminds me of google ads, I made a simple utility site to help
| people with calendar notifications and after the tenth "you
| need to change something about your site" without telling me
| what it was I gave up on the service altogether.
| superchroma wrote:
| Just youtube and its mediocre moderation team doing what they
| always do. Google is a zero support company. They do not care
| about ordinary people, only about their commercial advertisers,
| and, even then, only the top percentage of them.
| [deleted]
| SergeAx wrote:
| Can we ask EFF to fire a lawsuit against YouTube on that case? Or
| open a funding campain for that exact case if EFF cannot fund it
| from their primary stream of donations? This is a crystal clear
| case, easy win.
| blueflow wrote:
| How many times does this need to happen again until people stop
| uploading their OC to Youtube?
| neilv wrote:
| Torrentfreak.com seems to have built its business upon benefiting
| financially from media pirates.
|
| Massive media piracy seems to be what enabled (if not
| necessitated) the DMCA process in question here. As well as
| numerous human-hostile technologies and legislation.
|
| I don't know about the situations in other countries, but in the
| US, this whole dynamic driven by media piracy the last 2-3
| decades has always seemed incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
|
| If there's a news story about a DMCA takedown Kafkaesque process,
| can we get a more objective source?
| shapefrog wrote:
| Torrenting is for downloading and archiving linux ISOs /s
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The media pirates in this case are the nitwits from Uzbekistan
| who issued the groundless DMCA notice.
| neilv wrote:
| In this outlet, the story might as well be like the steady
| stream of now-familiar US political party base-rousing:
|
| Subtext: "Those darned anti-piracy things are so
| unreasonable! This justifies pirating! Let's pirate harder!
| Don't forget to use our affiliate codes to sign up for a
| piracy-friendly VPN scam!"
| noirscape wrote:
| You're letting your familiarity with the (closed for over a
| year by now) TorrentFreak comment section dictate your
| opinion on the sites reporting as a whole.
|
| That comment section was indeed a shithole of pirates
| looking for moral justification to be pirates whilst using
| any excuse to do so. TFs reporting has never really matched
| up with this comment section (and it's possible to read
| through the lines of their closure message and realize it
| got closed specifically because of what an utter toxic mess
| their comment section became).
|
| Whilst it is somewhat slanted, that is moreso in terms of
| what they choose to cover rather than any factual
| inaccuracies. In that regard they're no more slanted than
| other blogs on a similar matter (ie. Techdirt).
| orwin wrote:
| So your argument is that if a valid story is written on a
| biased news source, we ought to ignore it?
| neilv wrote:
| I said:
|
| > _can we get a more objective source?_
| Karunamon wrote:
| So the answer to the prior question is "yes".
|
| Instead of this tiresome "pick a source that is
| acceptable to my arbitrary and unstated requirements"
| game, why not point out something specific in the article
| that you feel is incorrect? This has the additional
| benefit of allowing the discussion to continue rather
| than bringing it to a screeching halt.
| LightHugger wrote:
| It seems like the TV station company has violated the CC license,
| so why not copyright strike their video and save other people the
| pain down the line?
| bawolff wrote:
| Isn't this the second time this happened? I thought i heard about
| this years ago.
| rjmunro wrote:
| I expect it happens about 100 times / day - most just don't
| make it to here. I've had a false copyright claim on a video I
| posted - it was a recording of a church service where a
| historic hymn was sung - out of copyright years ago. The
| algorithm matched it to another recording of the same tune, but
| different words, and they claimed copyright. I clicked the
| appeal button, and explained that it was out of copyright. I
| heard nothing back.
|
| As the video was only a test, I only expected about 3 views,
| and it didn't block the video, just take the revenue, I ignored
| it.
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean blender specificly. I found
| https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-
| mit-c... from 2018
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-05 23:02 UTC)