[HN Gopher] Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its n...
___________________________________________________________________
Fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and its not clear
YouTube can stop it
Author : tombot
Score : 225 points
Date : 2024-12-27 13:25 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| 101008 wrote:
| The system is broken and I can't see a way to fix it. Maybe pay
| to send a takedown notice?
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I think a sufficiently large company would still pay - it'd
| likely be a drop in the bucket compared to hiring a legal team.
| (A troll like the one in the article? Still, depends on the
| price.)
|
| I think it should switch to the strike system that YouTube, at
| least, favors: if you issue three fraudulent DMCA notices, you
| lose the ability to do so again in the future.
| rcarmo wrote:
| ...until you spoof a new e-mail address. That won't scale
| well.
| okanat wrote:
| The DMCA takedown form can also request identity
| confirmation.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Require registered law firms to file these.
|
| Yes, it'll cost money. But these fraudulent claims cost
| money, too.
| pablok2 wrote:
| Look at Nintendo, they're creating opportunities even when
| they try to stop anyone from using their things.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Not a lawyer but isn't it your rights to protect your
| copyright? As in, if you file fraudulent notices, YT removes
| you ability to file more, then you have a legitimate notice
| to file, now you presumably can sue YT for denying you the
| right to defend your copyright.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Tough shit, you shouldn't have sent the three fraudulent
| ones then. It's all in the terms of service you have agreed
| to.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| Youtube would probably be violating dmca safe harbor if
| they required claimants to agree to their terms of
| service.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I mean I don't disagree with you as a person. I am saying
| that YT might be hesitant to take this stance because the
| legal system might not share this sentiment. That's for
| their lawyers to figure out.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _isn't it your rights to protect your copyright?_
|
| Sure. But you don't have the right to harass people who
| _haven 't_ done so. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I would
| imagine that _at some point_ , vexatious litigation
| protections ought to kick in.
| dylan604 wrote:
| And who decides a claim was fraudulent? Historically, the
| fraudulent claims have gotten away with it while the target
| has at least had to remove the video or at worst had their
| accounts banned. Yet, nothing happened to the fraudster.
| gorby91 wrote:
| For larger and more litigious companies like Nintendo one would
| think YouTube wouldn't continue to accept takedown requests
| from random unverified users
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| The problem with that is, the law absolutely demands that the
| platform comply with any valid takedown notice, so YouTube
| isn't going to risk having any false negatives (due to
| internal miscommunications on Nintendo's side, etc.). It's
| made the responsibility of the uploader to challenge it with
| a counter-notice, but YouTube makes the process for those far
| more difficult than what the law says. (YouTube opens itself
| up to liability if it doesn't put the video back up upon
| receiving a counter-notice, but it's not like the uploader
| would be able to sue YouTube for much of anything.)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| In this case, the notice wasn't even quoting the right
| section of law! Is it still considered a valid takedown
| notice, then?
| ghaff wrote:
| The problem with any loser-pays or adjacent system is that you
| inherently favor anyone with deep pockets even more than the
| system does today.
| gruez wrote:
| It's "fake" lawyers, so I doubt they have deep pockets.
| ghaff wrote:
| In this particular case but you make it hard for the fake
| "little people" to pursue claims and you make it hard for
| the real "little people" to do so as well while not really
| inconviencing large corporations at all.
| lupusreal wrote:
| 10 year prison sentence for anybody sending fraudulent
| takedowns, including all lawyers involved.
| undersuit wrote:
| How do I prove it's fraudulent? Hire a lawyer?
| lupusreal wrote:
| Crimes are prosecuted by the government.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| This is great until a small time artist gets put on trial
| facing 10 years for art used by megacorp, that is originally
| theirs but hard to prove it.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| In this scenario, has megacorp proved the art is theirs?
| Because, if so, how, and if not, then surely the original
| claim isn't unambiguously fraudulent?
| mirekrusin wrote:
| This thing should be based on some cryptographic proof/claim,
| it's really not that difficult to setup. More problematic part
| is to agree that everybody should be using "this" method, not
| "that" method.
| BlackFly wrote:
| FRAND registry of copyrighted works. The registry would be
| provably connected to the creator, the royalty rate would be
| published ahead of time based on use. Infringement could be
| seen as accidental at first instance and royalty rates charged
| after discovery. Copyrighted work not registered? Then you are
| free to attempt your own single distributor network without
| legal protection, you can always register it some time after
| you fail. Charge the creator the royalty rate (or some
| fraction) they define in taxes to the registry so they don't
| set ridiculously high rates. Could also charge maintenance fees
| to automatically lower the rates that are so high that nobody
| wants to distribute at that price, heck the entire copyright
| limit could just be replaced with some compounding increase in
| maintenance fees over time. If the work is really successful
| they may maintain it longer, but unsuccessful works might just
| become moneypits very quickly.
|
| In this case, the identity of the legal department would be
| directly connected to the infringing content found in the video
| which YouTube would have access to to verify. It also wouldn't
| be a takedown but a royalty demand or they could have
| registered "Let's play" as not requiring royalties. In
| principle though, YouTube or even the creator could just do all
| of this upfront.
|
| That's my idea, in the vein of, "We have the technology to do
| this better."
| imglorp wrote:
| DMCA is working exactly as intended: the asymmetry is the
| house advantage, keeping IP holders in the green and
| consumers in fear of their power. Any innocent casualties who
| were benefiting culture and society are acceptable losses.
| It's not going to change as long as they keep buying
| politicians.
| helpfulclippy wrote:
| Fraudulent claims -- those in which the filer knew or should
| have known that they did not hold any copyright being infringed
| upon nor were they duly authorized to act on behalf of another
| party whose copyright was being infringed upon -- should be
| treated as such, with exposure to civil and criminal penalties
| for the individuals involved as well as their employer.
|
| Platforms should only accept takedown requests through channels
| in which a person has credibly identified themselves so that
| they can be held accountable in this way.
| stackskipton wrote:
| No, just enforce the DMCA. Youtube has setup this fake DMCA
| system where they are acting like they enforcing DMCA but not
| actually.
|
| DMCA has protection for creators. You can say "Copyright holder
| is wrong, put my content back up and I'll see them in court."
| and "They did this maliciously, I'll see them in court."
|
| However, YouTube fake DMCA system is using the provision of "We
| don't have to host any content we don't want to." so creators
| are stuck dealing with corporate bureaucracy. Personally, I
| think YouTube should lose DMCA protection if they want to run
| this side system.
| mdasen wrote:
| Is YouTube playing a bit loose with the DMCA's requirements
| here?
|
| * YouTube has no liability for incorrect take-downs (17 USC
| SS 512 (g) (1))
|
| * That limitation on liability only exists if they restore
| access to the disabled material within 10-14 business days of
| receipt of a counter-notice (17 USC SS 512 (g) (2) (C))
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
|
| YouTube doesn't have to host any content they don't want to.
| However, it seems likely that a court would say "that doesn't
| absolve you of complying with the counter notice provisions
| of the DMCA. You can't just say that you don't want to host
| any content that goes through a counter notice." There are
| always limitations on the whole "we don't have to host things
| we don't want to." I doubt a court would let them use that as
| an excuse to ignore an explicit mandate of the DMCA, but
| IANAL.
|
| I think the problem is more likely that creators don't want
| to sue YouTube or have the resources to go up against Google.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > You can't just say that you don't want to host any
| content that goes through a counter notice.
|
| Why not? (at least legally speaking, it'd be a PR disaster
| I'm sure)
|
| YouTube is not obligated to host any videos on their
| platform and US law allows for businesses to discriminate
| for almost any reason (except specific protected classes
| like race or sex).
| stackskipton wrote:
| They have to comply with DMCA. However, YouTube commonly
| strikes stuff without DMCA claims or when they get DMCA
| claim, they remove the video and will not give video owner
| a chance to counter claim. They will just say "Yea, we got
| DMCA but now we are exercising our provision to refuse to
| host anything we don't want to so video is never going back
| up."
| JasserInicide wrote:
| _The system is broken and I can 't see a way to fix it._
|
| With blood.
|
| No I'm not being edgy. That is the _only_ way anything is going
| to change regarding the litany of fucked up corporate practices
| in our country. Our governments are ineffective at best and are
| active abettors at worst (read _The Chickenshit Club_ for why
| they won 't ever seriously prosecute execs). Boeing (completely
| different scenario from the OP but it's recent) has no qualms
| with killing to maintain the status quo, why should people that
| want actual change be any different?
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| Impersonating with intent to damage is legal?
| emilamlom wrote:
| When the penalty for frivolous and fake dmca takedowns is
| basically non-existent, it practically is.
| vezycash wrote:
| DMCA works on a "takedown first, ask questions later" basis.
| Therefore, the solution is to flood YouTube and Google with
| massive, frivolous DMCA requests targeting the creators of
| DMCA like Microsoft, Apple, and Disney. They'll solve the
| problem if it affects them, maybe.
| emilamlom wrote:
| DMCA is for user generated content on platforms, so
| microsoft wouldn't have a lot of surface-area to target.
| That said, youtube gives preferential treatment to the
| largest creators and companies. Apple and Disney could
| easily call up their manager Jerry at Youtube and deal with
| frivolous takedowns. Small creators often have no direct
| contact with a human at youtube and have X as their best
| option for contact. Unless they know the process and have
| enough money for a lawyer, they're shit out of luck.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Large companies just sue people who make false DMCA
| claims, but small creators cannot afford to do that when
| large companies make false claims about them. It is a
| biased system.
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/29/bungie-youtuber-
| settle-l...
| empressplay wrote:
| Seems to me like it's still fraud, by definition? If you
| monetize your content you can prove loss, if a competitor is
| engaging in the fraud even better!
|
| Those people being targeted by this troll should band
| together and sue.
| fn-mote wrote:
| > Those people being targeted by this troll should band
| together and sue.
|
| Sue the troll?? Good luck finding them. How would you even
| begin? A ProtonMail email address? No way.
|
| Sue YouTube?? Again, no way.
|
| Until either YouTube or the US Congress thinks this is a
| large enough problem to deal with, it's not going away.
| catapart wrote:
| Maybe I'm just a malcontent, but for me this begs the
| question: couldn't this be used in reverse as activism?
|
| Like, if enough people used enough fake accounts and
| started relentlessly submitting takedown requests on the
| biggest channels making the most revenue, not only would
| YouTube start to see the revenue issue, but the big
| channels would start making noise. Go after one troll
| sending the requests, another one takes its place. Seems
| like it would force YouTube to at least reconcile with
| this particular flaw in the system.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Bungie went after someone going after destiny (the game)
| creators: https://www.polygon.com/23180433/bungie-youtube-
| dmca-takedow...
| skrebbel wrote:
| When DMCA was proposed, the internet was up in arms predicting
| exactly this sort of stuff. It was a ridiculous law then and it
| is now.
| grecy wrote:
| Absolutely yes. Ridiculous for you and me, and absolutely
| perfect for multi billion dollar corporations to "protect"
| their profit streams.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It looks like a hater with a suck channel who has mental issues,
| but also knows how to use LLMs to generate fake lawyer letters
| ternnoburn wrote:
| I worry about let's plays (especially let's plays without
| commentary). They pretty clearly exist in a "yes, this is
| copyright infringement but yes, they are generally considered
| positive for a game" space.
|
| The moment some game creator decides to test this will get very
| interesting. Not good interesting.
| ferbivore wrote:
| Why do you think a video capture of a computer program would
| infringe the copyrights of the program's creators?
| yuliyp wrote:
| A video game contains text, images, videos, and/or audio
| which are copyrightable, even if the game mechanics nor the
| player's decisions themselves are not copyrighted by the
| creators of the game.
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| It's not immediately clear to me that this is true. Video games
| are designed to be played interactively. Streaming a single
| playthrough via a non-interactive medium strikes me as
| transformative.
|
| Would you say a screen capture of Microsoft Excel is also
| copyright infringement? If not, what would you say is the legal
| basis for treating that differently than a video game?
| Uehreka wrote:
| > Video games are designed to be played interactively.
| Streaming a single playthrough via a non-interactive medium
| strikes me as transformative.
|
| This is one of those areas where principles like "fair use"
| and "transformative use" don't really matter, since we're
| talking about YouTube de facto policy, not the law. If
| YouTube decides to honor the claims, then that's what
| happens. And YouTube generally errs hard in the direction of
| rightsholders just to be safe.
| Jarwain wrote:
| Some video games are a fairly linear progression where
| observing a single playthrough can give up the bulk of the
| story.
|
| Reading a book is interactive; you imagine the
| narrative/interpretive voice as you go through it. You might
| read a phrase one way where someone else might read it
| differently. Listening to someone read a book removes that
| difference but still conveys most of the plot.
|
| Aaand Idk if book reads are on YouTube but typically people
| pay for audio books and some revenue goes to the author
| onionisafruit wrote:
| Years ago somebody at Kinko's refused to make copies of a
| draft software manual because it had screenshots of our
| software's Windows interface. She said it would violate
| Microsoft's copyright. This led to a fun discussion of how
| copyright on rectangles would even work. Obviously this
| wasn't Kinko's official stance. Just one obstinate, over
| zealous employee.
|
| Ironically, it was a bible software manual and the
| screenshots she looked at accidentally had text from a
| copyrighted bible translation. So she was right that those
| screenshots had copyright issues, but for the wrong reason.
| webmaven wrote:
| _> Obviously this wasn't Kinko's official stance. Just one
| obstinate, over zealous employee._
|
| You might think that's obvious, but you'd be wrong.
| Software publishers were cracking down on duplicating
| manuals as a means of trying to curb software piracy.
|
| I can practically guarantee that the "obstinate employee"
| was given clear direction by their manager on the subject.
|
| Though you do have to keep in mind that depending on when
| exactly this happened, Kinko's might still have been a
| collection of hundreds of largely autonomous regional
| partnerships, each of which could set their own policy.
| mysteria wrote:
| > Would you say a screen capture of Microsoft Excel is also
| copyright infringement?
|
| Yeah it is. However most uses of an Excel screenshot would
| probably be considered fair use, and Microsoft probably
| doesn't care for 99% of use cases.
|
| If you look at Wikipedia's Excel article they have more
| details on the legal rationale behind their use of a
| screenshot [1]. It looks like Microsoft allows the use of
| product screenshots in certain cases as well.
|
| I also took a quick look at an Excel textbook I had on my
| shelf and it specifically stated in the copyright notice that
| they had permission from Microsoft to publish the screenshots
| used within.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microsoft_Excel.png
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| This isn't anything new and unique to video games. Generally
| this is considered a performance. No different than copyright
| protecting a performance of sheet music or a play. Even dance
| choreography can be copyrighted.
| Wohlf wrote:
| Already happened a few times. Japanese streamers have to ask
| for explicit permission to stream games so they play a lot of
| western games that allow it, Nintendo didn't allow let's plays
| for a while, and a game developer didn't like a popular
| youtuber (pewdiepie I think) and did takedowns of said youtuber
| playing their game.
| namrog84 wrote:
| My first very ever attempt at making a let plays video.
|
| Immediately got taken down for copyright infringement.
| Completely destroyed my desire to ever make a let's play video
| again.
|
| And it was for a 10+ year old game. It is unfortunate
| jandrese wrote:
| It was for the music wasn't it? The music industry is
| extremely efficient at flagging videos to claim the revenue.
| delroth wrote:
| Most game studios these days - including Nintendo - explicitly
| provide guidance and licensing terms for content creators. You
| can for example check out
| https://www.nintendo.co.jp/networkservice_guideline/en/index...
|
| > As long as you follow some basic rules, we will not object to
| your use of gameplay footage and/or screenshots captured from
| games for which Nintendo owns the copyright ("Nintendo Game
| Content") in the content you create for appropriate video and
| image sharing sites. To help guide you, we prepared the
| following guidelines: [...]
|
| The legal gray area definitely still exists for many of the
| smaller/indie game studios, but this kind of licensing is more
| common than not today.
| deletedie wrote:
| Nintendo (and some others) used to do this in the early days of
| Let's Play. People stopped doing Nintendo Let's Plays for a
| while until Nintendo somewhat relented.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| It is perfectly clear that YouTube can stop it. As the article
| points out, we know there are things YouTube can do because those
| are the very same things The Verge asked about and YouTube
| refused to answer. The DMCA is broken, yes, but YouTube has made
| it worse with their kind-of-but-not-actually-DMCA counter-claim
| process.
|
| If they really wanted to solve it, here's an idea: if you get a
| takedown notice you also get a button that says "I am sure my
| content does not infringe copyright and I'm willing to go to
| court for it". YouTube reinstates your content and, if the entity
| with the claim disagrees, they can take you personally to court.
| Is this good? No, but that's on the DMCA. Is it better than now,
| when you have no recourse? I'd say yes.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| They wouldn't even need to go that far. The current way
| YouTube's system works is so deck-stacked against the creator
| to a ludicrous degree. Basically any "copyright holder" just
| has to say "this belongs to me" and YouTube _immediately_
| funnels all revenue for the video to that holder, with
| basically no oversight whatsoever, and as anyone in the space
| will tell you, a video makes 90% of it 's money in the first
| few days which means these holders can grab the monetization
| right out from under a creator and steal just, all their
| fucking money. It's ridiculous.
|
| Like all you would have to do to, perhaps not fix, but heavily
| mitigate this, would be to have YouTube just... hold onto the
| revenue until the dispute is resolved. It's barely even a
| change. And most of the time, when creators do counter the
| claims, they're eventually dropped but again because of how
| that system works, YouTube has already funneled all their money
| to the claimant, irrespective of the determined validity of the
| claim. And it would discourage bullshit claims because even as
| low-rent a scam as this is, it is some amount of work, and if
| there's no payout, you necessarily reduce the number of
| scammers who will attempt it.
|
| I don't know if that's a DMCA thing, I admittedly haven't
| researched it in a long time, but I don't see how that would
| put YouTube at any kind of liability. Any reader, do feel free
| to correct me.
| xvector wrote:
| Big tech has such a twisted incentive structure for devs that
| I don't see this getting solved unless it impacts YouTube's
| bottom line. Execs won't care, and ICs will be actively
| penalized for fixing this vs working on "business
| priorities."
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| God I wish there was a decent competitor to YouTube. They
| get away with so much horseshit because there's just nobody
| else that can match their service scale and network
| effects.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Why is that? Video streaming isn't the behemoth it was
| last decade.
| scrose wrote:
| Google owns the platform and the ad network /
| marketplace. A lot of videos 'lose' money and just take
| up space. Any viable competitor to YouTube would need a
| solution that allows signups, watches and video uploads,
| without requiring a fee. Which typically means displaying
| ads. For Google the ad network is already there. For
| anyone else, they need to either create their own
| marketplace, or have Google (or some other network) take
| a large cut of their ad revenue.
|
| This is likely why the only other 'competitors' you see
| are peering based or based on a subscription model.
| Neither of which can really compete with YouTube which
| really doesn't need to *directly* make any money
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| And how long do you think it would take until the
| competitor would end up in the same situation? How can
| the god help with it? And which god?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > And how long do you think it would take until the
| competitor would end up in the same situation?
|
| YouTube ended up in that situation for two reasons.
| First, the original YouTube before Google bought it was
| playing fast and loose with the law and was in the
| process of getting sued over it after Google bought them.
| Second, Google wants to license Hollywood content for
| YouTube TV etc. So between wanting to settle the lawsuit
| and wanting to sell their soul and become Comcast, Google
| agreed to do a lot of this draconian BS that isn't
| otherwise required by law.
|
| A competing service that just wants to be YouTube without
| being YouTube TV could plausibly follow the law without
| steamrolling the little guy quite as much.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Why would they implement this instead of de-monetizing it
| completely?
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean, then YouTube is substantially cutting into their
| own revenue too, but even that would be better than just
| handing over all the revenue to an unverified 3rd party
| that clicked a button.
| monocasa wrote:
| They're an ad company at the end of the day; they still
| want their cut of the monetization.
|
| Additionally both sides of the dispute normally still want
| the monetization, they just disagree about who gets the
| proceeds. And because of the time value curve of YouTube
| videos (most make something like 90% of their revenue in
| the first few days), demonetizing has a good chance fo
| essentially erasing the revenue of the video for the
| creator.
| infinitesoup wrote:
| > hold onto the revenue until the dispute is resolved
|
| They do that:
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
| hysan wrote:
| Caveat is if you file the counter within 5 days. From
| listening to a few creators describe the counter filing
| process, you need to gather a lot of evidence to prove that
| you are not infringing. It apparently takes a lot of time
| and what happens is that targeted harassment very easily
| turns into a DOS-like attack. So 5 days is an unreasonably
| short time window that puts an extreme burden on the
| content creator.
|
| Edit to quote the full section because the cherry picked
| quote is misleading:
|
| > If you dispute a claim within 5 days, any revenue from
| the video will be held, starting with the first day the
| claim was placed. If you dispute a Content ID claim after 5
| days from the original claim date, we'll start holding
| revenue the date the dispute is made.
| malfist wrote:
| There's a guy on YouTube that does discussions about star
| wars, and has an into music that he got the rights to use
| from the author.
|
| Someone who didn't have the rights resampled the original
| song and submitted it to a label (not sure that's the
| right term), and the label proceeded to DMCA every single
| video the guy had posted.
|
| Over a thousand videos, having to gather all that info
| for all of them, go through the appeals process on all of
| them. For him it was a manual action one at a time. From
| the label they have an API to bulk initiate claims
| asddubs wrote:
| There was also the example of family guy copy-pasting a
| 10 year old youtube video of an exploit of an old NES
| game into an episode, and that video which predates the
| episode by 10 years (or something) then got taken down
| because it infringed on the family guy episode that
| copied the video.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Hold on, A video that infringes will almost most
| certainly be a mix of their content and your own new
| content.
|
| You should have to negotiate a percentage fee, not assume
| the claimant is entitled to 100%
| ndiddy wrote:
| Youtube already has that system. I had to go through the
| process due to a similar situation with someone falsely content
| ID'ing my video. In that case it was someone uploading music
| they didn't own to some online music distribution service.
| Basically the way it works is after you dispute the content ID
| claim and whoever filed it still says the content is theirs,
| you can escalate the dispute to an actual DMCA counternotice.
| After this, your video gets restored and the copyright strike
| gets taken off your channel.
|
| I think the reason why the person in the article didn't do this
| is that the DMCA counternotice process requires the person
| filing the counternotice to provide their full name and address
| so they can be served if the rightsholder decides to sue them.
| With problems like swatting going around, I think many people
| would be reluctant to provide that information to someone who
| they already know is trying to mess with them.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Yet YouTube's system takes a lot of time from the time the
| content is claimed to the time you can escalate to an actual
| DMCA. In this time your video is down or has its revenue
| redirected. And if your content gets too many frivolous
| claims your account is taken down by YouTube's three strike
| policy before you have finished the dispute process for the
| first video.
|
| A single button to immediately and without human review or
| notice period restore the video and monetization, remove the
| strike, and declare you are willing to solve it in court
| would solve a lot of the issues with ContentID abuse on
| YouTube.
|
| Such a system would likely have to sit behind strict identity
| verification to prevent abuse, and some people wouldn't like
| that. But that's the price for sharing a platform with some
| very blatant infringers
| ndiddy wrote:
| Your idea for a "single button to immediately restore the
| video" system would violate the takedown process outlined
| in the DMCA. The way it works is that after someone sends a
| takedown request, the content can't be restored until 10
| business days after the person who uploaded it sends a
| counter-notice. This gives whoever sent the takedown
| request enough time to decide whether they want to file a
| lawsuit and keep the content down.
|
| Agreed that Youtube's system has problems with how long it
| gives claimants to respond to the initial content ID
| dispute and with people spamming false claims. It's
| definitely not a perfect system.
| mindslight wrote:
| The DMCA does not obligate Youtube to do any of the
| claiming/strikes parts. They could straightforwardly
| separate out the two processes - a voluntary expedient
| web process with the contentid fingerprint arbitration,
| one-click immediate counterclaim, no need to dox
| yourself, etc. And then a heavyweight strict DMCA process
| that fulfills DMCA obligations to the letter of the
| [unjust] law, requiring the waiting period for
| restoration after the counterclaimant doxes themselves,
| but doesn't drag in all the extrajudicial "strikes" and
| whatnot. The filing of a heavyweight DMCA would forgo the
| option for the voluntary nimble process.
|
| Of course there are plenty of corporate authoritarian
| imperatives for why they don't. This comment is a thought
| experiment to demonstrate their complicity in how their
| system is routinely abused.
| nadermx wrote:
| It would not. As youtube's "dmca" isn't an actual one. If
| they did actual dmca's it would in fact go against the
| dmca. And on a side note, there does not have to be a 10
| day window for the reciver of the DMCA to file suit. Once
| someone files a DMCA against you you can file an instant
| action as they made a legal claim against you.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > Your idea for a "single button to immediately restore
| the video" system would violate the takedown process
| outlined in the DMCA.
|
| IIUC, YouTube's copyright system is not a digital
| implementation of the DMCA. It's an additional system
| that occurs before the DMCA notice/counter-notice process
| so the laws about the DMCA are moot because it's not a
| DMCA notice (yet).
| ndiddy wrote:
| You're right that it's an additional system prior to the
| DMCA process. I was interpreting his/her "declare you are
| willing to solve it in court" as applying to the DMCA
| takedown process, as that's what filing a counter-notice
| does.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The way it works is that after someone sends a takedown
| request, the content can't be restored until 10 business
| days after the person who uploaded it sends a counter-
| notice.
|
| I'd be curious to know if this has ever been challenged
| in court as an unconstitutional prior restraint. Pretty
| obvious problems if you get people e.g. issuing
| fraudulent takedowns 10 days before an election.
| yellowapple wrote:
| I went through a situation similar to yours, and encountered
| an additional discouraging factor: YouTube seemed to threaten
| to take down my channel entirely if my appeal was to be
| rejected. There was also no real option for "the person
| making the Content ID claim obviously doesn't own the
| copyright to the work in question" (in this case, the famous
| "yeah! woo!" a.k.a. "think break" sample; the Content ID
| match was from what seemed to be a remix of "It Takes Two"),
| so I was at the mercy of whatever opaque process YouTube
| deemed fit to review my case - and was a bit spooked when it
| came to potentially losing my whole channel (and who knows
| what impact that'd have on my broader Google account).
|
| Thankfully, I was able to find the contact info for the
| Content ID provider in question - and within a day of
| emailing them they pulled the Content ID claim, noting that
| the customer of theirs who uploaded that think-break-
| containing song did so in violation of the company's ToS
| (which specifically forbids uploading music containing common
| samples like that for this exact reason). It ended up being a
| happy ending, but it still left a sour taste in my mouth
| w.r.t. YouTube's policies and practices when it comes to
| Content ID and copyright claims in general.
| cesarb wrote:
| > the DMCA counternotice process requires the person filing
| the counternotice to provide their full name and address so
| they can be served if the rightsholder decides to sue them.
|
| It's even worse than that: the DMCA counternotice also
| requires the person filing the counternotice to agree to the
| jurisdiction of the USA courts, even if they live somewhere
| else. I think many people would be reluctant to take that
| additional legal risk.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| And for many other people isn't this actually less of a
| legal risk than if their own courts were involved ?
| Vampiero wrote:
| Consider the following: I make a form of parody that is known
| as a Youtube Poop. It was all the rage last decade, but now
| it's a dying art.
|
| In part because of these stupid DMCA rules preventing people
| like me from expressing their creativity.
|
| I can appeal the strikes, but every time I do so I risk losing
| my channel forever. I don't monetize, and I only make parodies
| of stuff that came out over 10 years ago. So I've already
| accepted that the existence of my channel is ephemeral and that
| one day it will probably disappear forever.
|
| But I don't have any other platform to go to if I want to share
| my 5-10 minutes long edits with more than 4 people.
|
| Why am I not allowed to continue an art form that owes its name
| to the platform that spawned it? Is protecting the copyright of
| some random anime adaptation or cartoon (that no one gives a
| shit about anymore) seriously more important than creating
| novel art?
|
| Copyright lasts WAY too much.
|
| And no, I don't really want to go to court over this bullshit.
| But I am firmly convinced that it's in my rights to produce it.
| It's just that what counts as "my rights" depends entirely on
| the jurisdiction, because the law is a joke meant to protect
| people who can afford good lawyers -- it's not meant to
| actually enforce justice. Or rather, the concept of justice is
| so malleable that it basically means nothing in a globalized
| world.
|
| Also, I'm from Europe. Which court should I go to when I
| infringe on an american dub copyright for a japanese cartoon,
| exactly?
| mulmen wrote:
| Nobody has a right to an audience.
|
| > Also, I'm from Europe. Which court should I go to when I
| infringe on an american dub copyright for a japanese cartoon,
| exactly?
|
| Well the copyright and the site are American so probably
| America.
| Vampiero wrote:
| > Nobody has a right to an audience.
|
| That's literally what copyright is
| FireBeyond wrote:
| No, it's literally not. Copyright is that you have the
| right to potentially benefit from your work.
|
| You can broadcast it. You don't have any kind of right to
| an audience to watch it. I don't even know what that
| would look like.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| A plausible interpretation of "you don't have a right to
| an audience" is that people don't have to watch your
| dross if they don't want to, and this is the meaning
| which is normally meant to be implied (the motte in the
| motte and bailey).
|
| Then people want to use it in the sense of, you don't
| have a right against someone else interfering with your
| interaction with your willing audience, i.e. you don't
| have a right not to be censored by a government or
| corporate oligopoly. But that is a far less defensible
| proposition.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Exactly. Or even "you don't have a right to a platform".
|
| You can speak your mind. That doesn't mean YouTube is
| obligated to broadcast it for you, nor does it mean your
| speech is being suppressed if they choose not to.
| strken wrote:
| On a factual level, your speech is being suppressed every
| time someone refuses to broadcast it for non-commercial
| reasons.
|
| YouTube isn't obligated to broadcast it, and in some
| cases it's debatable whether they're the ones suppressing
| it, but it is still being suppressed.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| That isn't accurate. Unless they are physically stopping
| you from speaking, they are not suppressing it. They're
| just not _amplifying_ it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The premise being that you have lots of other equally-
| viable alternatives. Which was probably true on the old
| internet -- just use a different host.
|
| The modern one where the adversarial video host is owned
| by the search engine with 90% market share that disfavors
| competitors in the search results? That's a different
| story.
|
| Of course, the better solution there might be antitrust
| rather than common carriage requirements, but something's
| got to give.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > Nobody has a right to an audience.
|
| The GP isn't asking for an audience. (Except if you mean
| "with the king", because that's exactly what the comment is
| asking for.)
|
| > Well the copyright and the site are American so probably
| America
|
| The GP didn't tell you who the copyright owner is. And
| Google is present in more than one country.
|
| That said, yes, your last paragraph is a good hint. The
| world should just think very hard about blocking every
| large US business.
| bingaweek wrote:
| Comments like yours are why ycombinator has a horrible
| reputation. It's a worthless dismissive truism to shut down
| a legitimate complaint from a creator who is being screwed
| around by bad laws and bad applications of bad laws. Yes,
| we know we don't have rights, that's why we're complaining.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| But here it's not so much even about DMCA, as about YouTube's
| own para-legal system and trolls abusing it.
|
| At this point, if you are still using YouTube (or another
| platform), you're part of the problem (we've already been
| talking about this specific issue for 15 years already !!),
| use something like PeerTube instead !
|
| Even more so if you're in Europe, heck, we even have the
| example of VLC basically violating DMCA and US patent laws
| for decades and they are still online - notably because
| they're not under US jurisdiction :
|
| https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_a.
| ..
| Aunche wrote:
| > I am sure my content does not infringe copyright and I'm
| willing to go to court for it
|
| This is exactly what the YouTube copyright counter notification
| is. The problem is that YouTubers aren't lawyers, so they don't
| want to risk going to court.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
| blueflow wrote:
| Then hire a lawyer & sue, you have to enforce your rights.
| Aunche wrote:
| Right. Part of the reason why it's hard to start a business
| is having to deal with unfair bullshit. Youtube streamlines
| enough of the process to get people started relatively
| easily, but they get a lot of shit from these same creators
| for not doing everything for them.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| they get a lot of shit because most youtubers would be
| forced to hand over their pii (name and address) to the
| reporter. Some reporters are doing this solely to get
| that information (stalkers, doxxers, etc).
|
| It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this
| through an attorney.
| Aunche wrote:
| > It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this
| through an attorney.
|
| Yes. An authorized representative is allowed to submit a
| counter notification on your behalf, so they would put
| their name and address instead.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Because all creators have the means and resources to hire
| a lawyer to fight forces much more powerful and wealthier
| than they are. This is blaming the victim.
| Aunche wrote:
| Welcome to being a business owner. Nobody is going to
| protect your business more than yourself. A tenant
| refuses to pay rent and eviction takes a year? Too bad.
| Next time, do a better job of screening for risky
| tenants.
|
| The problem with the victim first mentality is that it
| causes you to underestimate how much agency people
| actually have (e.g. being unaware of how excessive tenant
| protections decrease the supply of housing available to
| low-income earners).
| JohnMakin wrote:
| You know not all content creators are out for money,
| right? If you want a trivial example, I am one of them.
| It may even shock you to learn that in the before-times,
| people even created content _purely for fun and the
| entertainment of others._ Wow! Hardly believable now,
| especially reading this post I am replying to.
|
| That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least
| several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up
| the legal and financial resources to fight massive
| corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? Why is
| the onus on them, rather than the platforms that enable
| this kind of behavior? Like, I'm not trying to be overly
| sarcastic here, I'm genuinely curious how you make sense
| of this in your head. Is it like "oh well, that's the way
| of the world, fuck em?" kind of thing, or is it based on
| some kind of sound principle? Because the way things are
| do not really help anyone, except behemoth media
| interests, and especially hurts the quality of content
| online, which if I can make an assumption, you and I both
| consume. Which also, ironically, hurts the very platforms
| that (I suspect) you are trying to stan for here. Make it
| make sense?
| Aunche wrote:
| > people even created content purely for fun and the
| entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now,
| especially reading this post I am replying to.
|
| Believe it or not, I shitpost on the internet for fun.
| Sometimes, I get flagged for bullshit reasons (moreso
| Reddit than hackernews), and there's nothing I can do
| about it. Since it's for fun though, it doesn't really
| cost me anything outside some minor frustration.
|
| > That said, again, how is a small creator, which at
| least several nines of all creators are, supposed to
| scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight
| massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud?
|
| This article is talking about a small-time copyright
| troll who is obviously pretending to be Nintendo. There
| is virtually no risk of calling their bluff because they
| obviously aren't going to commit identity fraud in court.
| Chances are, the troll has better things to do than to
| leak your personal information, but if you're worried
| about that, you can hire a lawyer to file the counter
| notification for you for a couple hundred bucks. I'm sure
| there are ways to do this yourself as well if you need to
| fight a lot of claims. Just spitballing here, but if you
| have a business owner friend, you can use their business
| address and have them be your representative and file on
| your behalf.
|
| If we're talking about large corporations with armies of
| lawyers like real Nintendo, then there's not much you can
| do besides hiring a good lawyer and listening to their
| advice. For very straightforward cases, you can probably
| play lawyer yourself so long as if you do enough research
| and preparation (again, just spitballing). Also, it's not
| like Nintendo is unaffected by legal costs. In fact, any
| legal action will probably be several times more
| expensive for them than it would be for you. If they're
| pursuing legal action, they likely genuinely believe
| they're in the right.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Then there's even less reason to keep using a platform
| for this, use something like PeerTube.
| Vampiero wrote:
| I make free videos why tf would I ever hire a lawyer to
| protect my parodies. It's incredibly stupid considering
| that I am not a billionaire and that the copyright holders
| are. I would be throwing my money in the bin. And they know
| this full-well, which is why the system works in the first
| place.
| nullc wrote:
| Google shields the false-DMCA complainers and will
| absolutely not reveal their identities.
| onli wrote:
| Google has to given a court order. Or is that
| unachievable?
| nullc wrote:
| Perhaps if you're interested in bankrupting yourself
| fighting against Google's legal budget.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Hilariously, now I ignore every single text/email requesting
| that I pay something, do something, etc.
|
| I owe money for a toll road? Hmmm, I must have accidentally
| blocked that user, deleted the message thread and reported it
| as spam. Sorry.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| Why shouldn't Nintendo have an official YouTube mandated
| account for takedowns? Is there a legal requirement that they
| don't validate the rights holder?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| That exists, it's called a DMCA 512 counternotice; if you're
| particularly monied you can even sue under 512(f) for perjury.
| The problem is that the videos are _actually infringing_ , but
| the owner of the content does not want to sue.
|
| Under very basic principles of law, only the owner or exclusive
| licensee of a copyright has standing to sue for copyright
| infringement. Furthermore, copyright law does not obligate
| copyright owners sue or license like trademark does. Therefore,
| for uses which are _inconvenient_ [0] to sell a license for,
| but not damaging enough to go to court, copyright owners will
| often tacitly permit the use by simply failing to enforce their
| rights.
|
| The problem is that courts have a very high bar to recognize
| tacit permission as a license. It's not impossible; there are
| some famous examples of 'implied license', but no competent
| lawyer would actually recommend you go to court and claim such
| a thing. One particular complication would be that if, say, you
| sued Fake Nintendo, and claimed fair use as a rationale for
| using Real Nintendo's content, Real Nintendo might want to
| actually sue you just to kill the fair use claim[1].
|
| Just as an example of how complicated tacit permission can get:
|
| Bungie's Destiny 2 is a perpetually updated "live service" game
| with an ongoing policy of removing content to keep download
| sizes reasonable[2]. As a result, there is music in the game
| that is no longer accessible. Bungie does _not_ want people
| uploading the game soundtrack to YouTube, but they also don 't
| want to turn that removed music into lost media, so they had a
| policy of not taking down "music archivists" that only uploaded
| the removed content.
|
| One of the YouTubers that got taken down for reuploading live
| Destiny 2 music got pissed about it and started filing
| fraudulent DMCA takedowns in Bungie's name to music archivists.
| Bungie tried to get in contact with YouTube to have the
| fraudulent takedowns removed, but it took over a week of PR
| damage to everyone involved (and, if I remember, actually suing
| the idiot kid that did this) before YouTube would restore the
| videos.
|
| If there is one thing that is badly drafted (and not just
| irritating) about the current DMCA 512 system, it's that there
| is no procedure for third-party counter-claimants to challenge
| fraudulent or mistaken claims. However, the current mechanisms
| of copyright make that impossible to provide. There is no
| database of who-owns-what and who-licensed-what; rights owners
| _do not want_ such a database to exist; and it is entirely
| possible for multiple parties to have standing to sue the same
| person for the same act of infringement on the same work. Under
| regular copyright law, if Nintendo wants to sue you for, say,
| using the officially-licensed Mario DLC in your Minecraft
| streams, Microsoft can 't intervene and stop them on the basis
| that they own Minecraft. How, exactly, should YouTube proceed
| if they have two parties swearing under oath conflicting
| information, and not obeying the right one puts you on the hook
| for billions of dollars in copyright liabilities? The current
| system is designed to make it easy to cheaply operate social
| media, not to actually be fair to its users or to stop online
| censorship.
|
| [0] Reasons for this inconvenience can include:
|
| - The transaction cost of negotiating a watertight contract for
| a very small deal. Generally speaking you don't want to make
| deals with understandable / 'plain language' licensing terms
| for the same reason why web browsers don't have an API to load
| unsigned arbitrary kernel modules from third-party servers.
|
| - The licensing in question being contrary to exclusive
| licensing arrangements with other companies - though exclusive
| licensing contracts can also mandate the licensor or licensee
| enforce each other's rights to prevent this sort of thing
|
| [1] In general, common law mechanisms like fair use create an
| incentive to sue, which is a very bad thing for people who
| don't like getting sued.
|
| [2] This is a terrible policy, but the policies of console
| manufacturers require you to ship games as packages, so you
| couldn't just stream in assets as needed.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Nintendo's problem is that this was fairly believable because it
| lines up pretty closely with their own past behavior. Nintendo
| regularly drags some of their biggest fans through the dirt with
| bogus copyright claims and other legal nonsense.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| The DMCA has absolutely ruined a decade+ long hobby of mine,
| which was streaming/content creation. I used to have really fun
| streams not that long ago that featured a variety of
| relaxing/cool music set to the backdrop of me messing around on
| the computer, or in some game. Everyone was fine with this
| arrangement for a _long_ time. Then, things suddenly changed a
| few years ago. First your VODs would get yanked and you 'd get a
| warning if you played some extremely popular song, and it was
| like ok, I understand that. But now it's even spread to _in game
| audio of a game I literally have purchased._ That is _ridiculous_
| to me. There are games I actually cannot publish playing with
| full audio settings enabled. That is _ridiculous_ no matter your
| views on the DMCA, and I 'd even go farther and say it's
| completely ridiculous that I cannot use audio I have purchased or
| somehow leased on my own content. Why does it have to be this
| way? Someone can try to convince me this is somehow sane or
| necessary, but I really doubt it.
| protoster wrote:
| My guess as to why it's necessary to nuke all potentially
| copyright audio is that the platform is liable for
| infringement, and as a result they have a policy to shoot first
| and ask questions later. This is justified because in
| overwhelming majority of cases the streamer does not have a
| license for the audio.
|
| In the case that the copyright audio is coming from a game,
| there is no way currently for the platform to automatically
| verify that you have a license or not, so once again they shoot
| first, ask question later.
|
| This is unfortunate, but as usual, bad actors ruin the commons
| for everyone.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| > This is justified because in overwhelming majority of cases
| the streamer does not have a license for the audio
|
| I guess my point is that this arrangement was fine for a
| very, very long time. Why is it suddenly not fine in the last
| handful of years? Who is standing to gain here? In my view,
| it hurts the very platforms and industries this is trying to
| "protect." Twitch/YT/etc. are harmed because the content will
| be inherently worse, and copyright audio IP is hurt because
| it will spread to fewer listeners. Not only this, but if it
| were available to me, I actually _would pay to license the
| audio I use,_ but there is no mechanism to do that!
|
| A similar dumb thing happened a few years ago with the PGA
| tour - they decided that anyone re-posting PGA clips without
| their permission, even if it was for commentary/parody/etc.,
| was all of a sudden not permissible. So, all the golf content
| on IG/TikTok/etc got catastrophically worse overnight, and
| PGA (which struggles with viewership, especially young
| viewers) gets less free exposure. There's absolutely no way
| this was a positive outcome for anyone involved, so why?
| zamadatix wrote:
| As much as I don't like the current rules either "I never
| got a notice until recently" is a very different thing than
| "It was fine until recently".
| JohnMakin wrote:
| It _was_ fine until recently. Crossposting another reply:
|
| > We've had the capability to detect audio for a long
| time. What changed suddenly in the last few years to
| deploy/enforce this at scale? Certainly not any
| improvements to detection. I've made a whopping total of
| $46 in something like 12 years on these platforms.
| Something tells me this level of enforcement is
| ridiculous and against the spirit of the law, and I'm
| certainly not an expert on the DMCA or a lawyer, but I'd
| be willing to wager a lot that this strict interpretation
| is misinterpreted. No one is submitting any takedown
| requests to this content, which to be clear, averages
| like 1.3 viewers and has less than a few thousand
| follwers. And when I describe in-game audio - I mean
| literal 2-3 second song clips like "barbie girl" song
| happening when you score a goal in rocket league will get
| your VOD DMCA'd and you can't upload it to YT. That is a
| newer thing. You really can't view the last 20 years of
| DRM and the way it's played out, and say something like
| "this is how it's always been, now automation." That
| doesn't add up.
|
| I'm not exactly a big fish here. I don't make money.
| There is no takedown request, nor would there ever be,
| because it's silly.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Again, the absence of a negative consequence at the time
| cannot be used as evidence something was actually fine to
| do, only that it was possible to get away with. That's
| regardless of whether it was actually truly fine or not.
|
| If a new automated speed camera catches you on a road
| you've been speeding on for 7 years it doesn't mean
| speeding used to be fine it means you'll now receive
| consequences for doing things which were never fine to
| do! It also doesn't mean the speed limit always used to
| be the current value or anything like that. This is
| because "when regular enforcement began" has no causal
| relation one way or the other about what used to be fine
| or whether that was different than what's fine now. It is
| only an effect, one where "what was fine changed" is only
| one possible cause.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| I don't think you understand how the DMCA works or what
| it was intended to do - again, these are not takedown
| requests, as is the normal mechanism here, which there
| are guidelines for - this is platforms preemptively
| deciding for _potential_ dmca takedown requests to
| takedown /censor content. If your position is that every
| single piece of content should never be hosted in fair
| use online, that is not only not how copyright law works,
| it's not how the DMCA works, and I'm not sure how to
| progress this discussion further since we seem to have a
| fundamentally different understanding of how the law
| works, or what this thread is even about.
|
| To trivially prove your point wrong - I actually do have
| the right under fair use to make content of my own with
| copyrighted material. This has literally _always_ been
| ok. Platforms are taking these actions to protect
| themselves from _potentially_ hosting copyrighted content
| on their platform that would _not_ consistute fair uses,
| and since I, a user of their platform, have to abide by
| their policies, it 's their decision. Assuming we are now
| on the same page here, continuing your speeding ticket
| example - this is not so much like that, as getting
| pulled over in a labeled 40 zone and the cop goes "well,
| we didnt know if you'd be breaking the law later or
| before this, so just to be safe, here you go" or,
| "actually that's not really the speed limit." take your
| choice here, they both apply.
|
| So yea, it has always been ok.
| prmoustache wrote:
| nope it hasn't.
|
| People have been used to infringe copyright on the
| internet for decades but this has never been right.
|
| If you want to be able to share stuff you don't own the
| right for, change the laws.
| shakna wrote:
| As things stand, there's a difference between purchasing for
| personal consumption, and for publishing. That's been standing,
| for a very long time. It might be as old as copyright itself.
|
| Just because you own the game, doesn't mean you have the rights
| to use it in more than a personal setting. That's basically
| always been the case. You bought a personal license, not a
| broadcasting one.
|
| The main reason for not attacking such things in the past was
| that it was a wasted effort at control. Too small a target,
| requiring too much effort. Automation, through things like
| audio recognition, changes that.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| We've had the capability to detect audio for a long time.
| What changed suddenly in the last few years to deploy/enforce
| this at scale? Certainly not any improvements to detection.
| I've made a whopping total of $46 in something like 12 years
| on these platforms. Something tells me this level of
| enforcement is ridiculous and against the spirit of the law,
| and I'm certainly not an expert on the DMCA or a lawyer, but
| I'd be willing to wager a lot that this strict interpretation
| is misinterpreted. No one is submitting any takedown requests
| to this content, which to be clear, averages like 1.3 viewers
| and has less than a few thousand follwers. And when I
| describe in-game audio - I mean literal 2-3 second song clips
| like "barbie girl" song happening when you score a goal in
| rocket league will get your VOD DMCA'd and you can't upload
| it to YT. That is a newer thing. You really can't view the
| last 20 years of DRM and the way it's played out, and say
| something like "this is how it's always been, now
| automation." That doesn't add up.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| Someone invented a system that makes it trivial for bottom
| feeding lawyer types to send frivolous notices. They feel
| like they've accomplished something.
|
| That's the long and short of it. It suddenly became trivial
| to do and the consequences won't be apparent for quite some
| time, so there are _no_ consequences as far as the lawyers
| and accountants are concerned.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| Some games have a "don't play licensed music" setting for
| streamers.
| quakeguy wrote:
| There are games which, via menu settings, allow you to disable
| dmca'ed music for the purpose of streaming and uploading your
| plays. Control is a game that has this iirc.
| juped wrote:
| That's not the DMCA (a 90s law), though.
| dim13 wrote:
| I once recorded an half-hour drive and uploaded it to YT as
| _private_ video for my own convenience. Got immediately a
| copyright claim about radio playing some music in the
| background.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| You can just ignore the DMCA claims, are you really afraid of
| getting sued ?
|
| Meanwhile if you're still using platforms to host these videos,
| and not something like PeerTube, you're part of the problem.
| redman25 wrote:
| I had no idea spoofing email sender was so easy. Does anyone know
| of a good way to defend against this? I've always taken it for
| granted that if the sender was a domain that I trusted that I
| could trust the email itself.
| wongarsu wrote:
| DKIM and SPF are supposed to prevent email sender spoofing, but
| that requires the domain owner to set it up correctly age the
| receiver to verify the records and actually distrust or discard
| the email if they don't match.
|
| Both steps aren't trivial, and configuration errors are more
| common than actual spoofing. DMARC is supposed to fix
| everything, but only if the domain owner cares enough to do
| more than the bare minimum setup
| DaSHacka wrote:
| Isn't this the purpose of SPF/DKIM?
|
| https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/email-security/dmarc-dki...
| mg794613 wrote:
| They can easily stop it.
|
| Question is, will there be enough incentive for them to do so.
| Guest9081239812 wrote:
| I have a forum that receives a high number of DMCA claims. They
| link to pages on my forum where they claim I'm violating their
| copyright. However, when I review the pages, the content only
| mentions the name of a product or service. Imagine I write
| something here, like how I watched the movie "Inception" last
| week. A third party then sends me a DMCA request on behalf of
| Warner Bros, and Google removes this page from their search
| results. That's what I get, but thousands of them.
|
| It's fairly clear no human is reviewing the content any step of
| the way, otherwise they would see the only content on the page is
| a paragraph of plain text with the name of a movie. I feel like I
| have no recourse though. I don't have the time to make thousands
| of counter claims for some random forum pages that receive an
| insignificant amount of search traffic a year.
|
| It feels like a broken system. How can someone pull thousands of
| my pages from Google, and I'm either forced to spend weeks of my
| time trying to recover them, or I need to leave them removed?
| Where is the penalty or punishment for the false claims? Who is
| going to compensate me for my time?
| pentagrama wrote:
| A bit of topic, considering my English isn't good at all, the
| article title isn't missing an "if" here? I had a hard time
| reading that.
|
| > A fake Nintendo lawyer is scaring YouTubers, and it's not clear
| [if] YouTube can stop him
| dylanpyle wrote:
| Interesting question. This "feels" valid (as a native speaker)
| - the "that" or "if" is implicit - but not a rule I had ever
| identified before.
|
| Looks like this may be called an "empty complementizer"; some
| more info here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementizer#Empty_complemen...
| jacobgkau wrote:
| As the other reply mentioned, another valid inference would be
| "it's not clear [that] YouTube can stop him." And as a general
| rule of thumb, you almost never actually need a grammatical
| "that"-- it's best to leave it out for brevity unless it's
| useful to distinguish the meaning of the sentence (typically
| when the parts before and after it are longer and the
| demarcation point could be interpreted several ways without
| it).
|
| It's definitely valid as-is. It's debatable whether it's
| unclear (what would the alternative meaning be if you think
| it's unclear?)
| speak_plainly wrote:
| This is an example of ellipsis, a common feature in informal
| English and news headlines.
|
| It's also an example of pragmatics, specifically a
| conversational implicature, where the omission is forcing the
| reader to rely on the context of the sentence to fill in the
| blank or derive the meaning.
|
| So while you are correct about the grammar, language use is
| often more complicated in practice.
| jedberg wrote:
| The DMCA is totally broken, and has been from the beginning.
| There are no consequences for anyone making a fake claim. However
| there are severe consequences for someone who receives one and
| doesn't take action. There are counter-claims processes, but that
| puts a heavy burden on both the creator and the platform.
|
| I myself am guilty of abusing the DMCA. When I was fighting fraud
| for eBay and PayPal, if we found someone hosting a phishing site,
| we would use the DMCA to get them to take it down, claiming they
| were violating the copyright of the logo. We would send DMCA
| notices to any host in any country. Most would just oblige. A few
| would reply and inform us they weren't in the USA.
|
| But it worked because the platforms feared the consequences of
| not following it, and there was no risk to us.
|
| The DMCA needs fixing by adding severe consequences for incorrect
| use.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Please define severe. At worst your account on a platform is
| deleted. This is not severe.
| omolobo wrote:
| So the first email was from a Protonmail account, and the second
| one was spoofed and obviously had incorrect headers. Are you
| saying Youtube doesn't check for these when processing take-down
| requests?
| jandrese wrote:
| What incentive does Youtube have to get this right? They have a
| major disincentive to ever push back on the content cartels
| because even one false negative could put them on the hook for
| trillions of dollars worth of damages, even if it was due to
| sloppy work on the cartel's part. It is no skin off of Google's
| back if they take their cut of the revenue from the wrong
| person, it's all the same to them.
|
| The only way to get Google to care would be for content
| creators to start abandoning the platform on mass, but they
| don't really have anywhere to go (sorry Vimeo). Even then
| Google views content creators as a dime a dozen, so to get the
| numbers you need to make them notice would be exceptional.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| What about verifying the entity sending the request is legit?
|
| An email @nintendo.com is not that hard to get for the legal team
| of nintendo
| toasted-subs wrote:
| Maybe don't bully anyone unrelated to your organization until
| active shooters become a regular occurrence at their own office
| building.
| miki123211 wrote:
| I'm surprised Russia / China / North Korea aren't using this
| process against dissidents and activists. If you're not reachable
| by American law enforcement, it seems like such a low-effort way
| to remove any content off the internet that you don't like.
|
| Getting access to the real names and addresses of these people is
| a nice bonus too; I'm sure their intelligence services would have
| plenty of uses for this information.
|
| If there's one way of making the DMCA (and similar legislation
| around the world) go away, spinning it as an anti-free-speech law
| with national security concerns is probably it, especially
| considering the upcoming US administration.
| bedhead wrote:
| YouTube can only stop if it the guy goes on Joe Rogan, then they
| can screw around with it with impunity.
| samuelg123 wrote:
| Do YouTubers have any recourse against Google or the faker? Seems
| like a false DMCA takedown would be a first amendment violation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-27 23:01 UTC)