[HN Gopher] 3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copy...
___________________________________________________________________
3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copyright violation
Author : talonx
Score : 541 points
Date : 2025-01-06 17:10 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > The request seems to have been issued by a company chainpatrol,
| on behalf of Arbitrum, whose website says they "makes use of
| advanced LLM scanning" for "Brand Protection for Leading Web3
| Companies"
|
| Tech built on copyright abuse used for copyright trolling? Too
| early for peak irony of 2025!
| reaperman wrote:
| I understand this isn't a DMCA request, so quite a few legal
| remedies are unavailable for abusing the Youtube reporting
| system. But it seems like "tortious interference" would still
| apply here. Is there some reason it wouldn't?
| hnbad wrote:
| Using "LLM scanning" for "Web3" companies sounds like
| tortious interference already.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Tortious Interference might apply, but how much money was
| actually lost? 2 days of ad revenue on a video from 2017 is
| not much, certainly not enough to pay the lawyers for a
| lawsuit.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I wish Youtube etc would blacklist requests by these companies,
| but am not optimistic. Curation seems like the path here, but it
| seems difficult. (See also the recent Kagi thread here,
| highlighting how being able to curate which sites appear on your
| search results is a big deal)
| claytonwramsey wrote:
| The problem is not YouTube, but the law. The DMCA requires that
| online service providers (YouTube, Reddit, etc.) comply
| immediately with any takedown request and without question, so
| long as it meets sufficient conditions.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
| monocasa wrote:
| YouTube's system goes well beyond what is required by the
| DMCA. Notice no mention of "copyright strike" in the DMCA.
| infinitesoup wrote:
| YouTube's "three strikes" policy is their implementation of
| the DMCA's "repeat infringers" requirement:
|
| > _has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs
| subscribers and account holders of the service provider 's
| system or network of, a policy that provides for the
| *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers
| and account holders of the service provider's system or
| network who are *repeat infringers* _
|
| https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-
| copyr...
| avianlyric wrote:
| YouTube's copyright system has little to do with DMCA. Music
| right holders managed forced YouTube to implement a copyright
| claim system that explicitly _didn 't_ involve DMCA takedown
| requests. As a result any protection that DMCA provides to
| recipients of takedown requests _don 't_ apply to YouTube
| copyright claims.
|
| In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely
| "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that
| goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure
| theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright
| claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
| infinitesoup wrote:
| You're conflating the two systems. YouTube does have the
| Content ID system, which does automatic detection and is
| mostly used to monetize (not take down) copyrighted
| content. But this case is a copyright strike, which means
| there was a DMCA takedown filed.
|
| The differences between these two systems are explained
| here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
| creole_wither wrote:
| I wonder if that is currently legal under DMCA Safeharbor.
| Might need legal changes to punish abusers.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The system is broken; if youtube (etc) do not respond to DMCA
| takedown requests on time, their service may be taken down -
| and back when YT was new and people were uploading movies and
| whatnot left right and center, they were very close to that.
| The consequences for YT for not taking something down vs
| invalid takedowns are much worse and more direct.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| I wouldn't have issue if this were simply running the DMCA
| process. But the YouTube process goes well beyond that. DMCA
| also allows for the content creator to issue a counter-notice
| and, as I understand it, that starts a clock and the party
| filling the takedown has 14 days to file a suit or the
| original takedown is reversed.
|
| Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including,
| again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc.
| with only their internal dispute process mattering.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| I agree, but the economics currently don't favor YouTube caring
| enough to solve this sort of problem
|
| In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care:
| making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the
| larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of
| seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be
| unsustainable.
|
| The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them:
| most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an
| audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators
| is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash
| those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be
| sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers
| or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in
| fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way
| would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p
| YouTube.
|
| I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems
| like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the
| only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube
| management might take seriously.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| YouTube doesn't have to adjudicate anything. They just have
| to demote the known bad actors to using the real DMCA process
| rather than their own system. They can still make a claim
| under penalty of perjury with a takedown but that won't count
| as a strike.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| There's actually a lot of history (going back at least as
| far as 2007) that led to the current situation where the
| DMCA is not the process. In fairness to YouTube, they had
| significant legal pressure back in the day, including suits
| and credible threats thereof to go beyond the DMCA... which
| is exactly what they did.
|
| We can speculate to if the current situation is the natural
| conclusion of those agreements with major IP holders, or if
| they simply got religion and now embrace those practices...
| but at least historically, it wasn't simply management
| discretion which started them on this path.
|
| I don't dispute there are things they can, and should do,
| nor do I dispute that their current management of the
| problem sucks.... but it's not quite as simple as just
| taking a decision to abide by the DMCA as-is.
| wil421 wrote:
| The year is 2030. After the AI bot wars, FaceBook and Google have
| been crippled. They let AI automation control their content and
| it was deleted after OpenAI GPT10 discovered vulnerabilities in
| automated copyright strikes.
|
| Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant
| remaining.
| elromulous wrote:
| Pizza Hut outside the US
| mywittyname wrote:
| AKA, Uncle Enzo's CosoNostra Pizza Inc.
| adamc wrote:
| Snow Crash was another take on this whole slide to <is
| there even a bottom?>.
| easywood wrote:
| Indeed, in the version I saw, they said "Pizza Hut" but you
| could see it was badly dubbed. Only much later I learned it
| was originally "Taco Bell".
| mkl wrote:
| Taco Bell in NZ. It was the first time I'd heard of it,
| though, and the movie is still probably the source of most of
| my knowledge of it.
| n4r9 wrote:
| There's at least 15 in London, UK.
| pseudosudoer wrote:
| Every year it becomes clearer that Idiocracy was indeed a
| documentary.
| walrus01 wrote:
| I mean, we already have YouTube channels and tiktok content
| that are about the same as the TV show "ass" shown in the
| movie.
| gosub100 wrote:
| "America's funniest home videos" got dumbed down to "AFV"
| and the content was mostly "ow, my balls!". They even added
| a warning to the viewers to submit "wows, not ows".
|
| Although to be fair,some of that happened before Idiocracy
| came out.
|
| With the public money used for sports stadiums, that
| element of the movie to have government sports teams is
| slowly coming true also.
| walrus01 wrote:
| If you search YouTube for "fail army" there is clearly a
| whole ad supported business model for revenue from
| something that is about the same as "ow, my balls!"
| karmajunkie wrote:
| This is basically https://chive.tv
| vkou wrote:
| How are college sports teams not government sports teams?
| gosub100 wrote:
| that's a good point. They are tightly integrated into the
| college whose charter is to educate. whereas a pro team
| will take anyone for the express purpose of the
| performing the sport well.
|
| Further, colleges receive public money but are not free
| to attend for most students. And I am not talking about
| "free" from the students perspective, I mean most would
| not be permitted to enroll if significant tuition dollars
| were not deposited (unlike public schools, for instance).
| Also, plenty of colleges are private but have NCAA teams.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| in May 2021 the number 1 clip on twitch was just someone's
| ass
| ternnoburn wrote:
| Sort of. They got the outcomes pretty close, but the movie
| was based on a premise of eugenics and equating poverty with
| low intelligence.
| recursive wrote:
| Weird, when I saw it, it was equating poverty with low
| access to education and corresponding outcomes.
| readyplayernull wrote:
| More like high access to media and consumerism.
| fwip wrote:
| The intro of the movie makes it pretty clear that their
| premise is "IQ is heritable, and stupid people have more
| kids." It's not a coincidence that the "high IQ" couple
| is portrayed as wealthy and the "low IQ" people are shown
| as poor.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TCsR_oSP2Q
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| The movie was based on the (indisputable?) fact that
| intelligence is heritable- but not Eugenics, which takes
| that a step further and advocates for people deciding which
| other people are inferior and superior and organizing
| society around that. One could argue that the movie tries
| to make a case for eugenics, but it didn't directly do so.
| I think the movie could also be seen as looking at culture
| instead of genetics, and also assuming that is passed down
| from parents.
|
| I agree that it does wrongly depict poverty as a major
| indicator of intelligence.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| For better or worse, "eugenics" at this point is
| basically a cultural repulsion field surrounding most of
| practical aspects of genetics. You dare to even suggest
| there are measurable genetic differences between people,
| and someone will shout "eugenics", rounding any
| conversation down to "yeah nazis said the same thing".
| ks2048 wrote:
| No. In the movie, President Camacho recognized the smart guy
| was smart and wanted him to help because he was smart. We
| don't have leaders with that kind of wisdom and good
| intentions.
| bhk wrote:
| We need a leader like President Camacho!
| gorjusborg wrote:
| I find myself surprised that I agree.
|
| When I watched the movie I laughed and thought it all
| ridiculous. I've since been shown that having well-
| intentioned, self-aware, cooperative people in government
| is probably more important than their intelligence.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| Maybe he was stupid to the point of just being naive.
| tivert wrote:
| > No. In the movie, President Camacho recognized the smart
| guy was smart and wanted him to help because he was smart.
| We don't have leaders with that kind of wisdom and good
| intentions.
|
| Also, Joe seemed genuinely interested in helping everyone,
| and didn't seem to neglect the needs of significant
| portions of the population to achieve some ideological goal
| or another.
|
| Maybe there's such a thing as being too smart to have
| power.
| jordanb wrote:
| To be fair Camacho was setting up Not Sure to be the fall
| guy. I don't think he really thought Not Sure could fix
| things.
|
| That being said, it is a society who elected the smartest
| guy in the world president, and then when a smarter guy
| came along elected him as the successor.
| Phrodo_00 wrote:
| Sure, but this is a Demolition Man reference
| lpapez wrote:
| In Idiocracy the masses are aware that things are not as good
| as they once were, they recognize and value competent people,
| and then voluntarily agree to put them in power so that
| things may be fixed.
|
| IMO that is a depiction of some kind of meritocratic utopia -
| exactly the opposite of what we have, on all accounts
| mentioned above.
| somat wrote:
| There is something subtly wrong with the world as presented
| in that "documentary" in general it is that somebody has to
| keep the lights on, the machines running, that is, there is
| too much working infrastructure for the citizens ability
| level. I suspect the big corporations maintain a hidden
| educated population and are happy to run the world from the
| shadows.
|
| Now honestly it is just a goofy movie premise, and we should
| not look too far into it, but sometimes it is fun to go full
| nerd.
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| ...there are now three seashells on every toilet (for some
| reason).
| the_other wrote:
| You don't know about the seashells? (muffled laughter)
| lherron wrote:
| You don't know how to use the three seashells? lol
| hypercube33 wrote:
| I'd like to think no one knows how the seashells work and the
| real joke is everyone just makes fun of people for not
| knowing (the writer didn't even know what they did and
| refuses to say anything other than how they came into the
| story)
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Huh? I thought that was canon. Was that actually just a
| head fiction?
| vinceguidry wrote:
| No they played that one pretty straight. You were
| supposed to be just as confused as MC. If they wanted you
| to think anything else, they would have given a knowing
| wink.
| gonesilent wrote:
| I've purposely put three seashells in many public restrooms
| throwaway743 wrote:
| ... and the only kind of music that exists are jingles and
| showtunes
| mjevans wrote:
| Demolition Man (movie) joke... but the AI bot wars stuff makes
| it still relevant to the conversation so this is both funny and
| cautionary / discussion worthy material.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Taco bell has a wiki btw:
| https://tacobell.fandom.com/wiki/Taco_Bell_Wiki
| tivert wrote:
| > Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant
| remaining.
|
| When I saw that movie when I was small, I thought that was
| literally Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Burger King, et al
| fighting with tanks, etc. Taco Bell emerged victorious after a
| bloody struggle.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Taco Bell and Johnny Silverhand won after nuking ~~Arasaka~~
| KFC Tower.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Because it was
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Could be.
|
| In SnowCrash, I think there were some subplots talking about
| the fighting was somewhat real between franchises.
|
| And you could become a citizen of a franchise state.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| I could see being a citizen of CosaNostra Pizza.
| buildsjets wrote:
| I'd make a pretty good deliverator.
| mathgeek wrote:
| This is the first time I have considered that it wasn't them
| blowing up each other's franchises.
| username135 wrote:
| I will believe ehat i want to believe
| mattskr wrote:
| I am okay with this timeline. At least it has better
| conversation topics than most of our current timeline.
| intended wrote:
| Talk to trust and safety teams, should never run out of
| topics that make you question reality.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's the thing, the fake reality makes more sense than
| even the real unreal things.
|
| Life imitates art, but it sucks at it.
| jordanb wrote:
| I would much rather live in Sir Humphrey Appleby's dystopia
| than whatever this is.
| jerf wrote:
| This is where headcanon [1] can be a lot of fun. Just accept
| that they really did fight a war. It's not like it doesn't
| particularly fit the milieu...
|
| [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-were-
| watching...
| mrayycombi wrote:
| You mean "imagination "?
|
| English has real words, please use them instead of fake
| words.
| sentientslug wrote:
| Devil's advocate: all words are made up and languages
| evolve over time
| rvbissell wrote:
| 'headcanon' is jargon within general fandom. The term
| refers to the application of imagination against the
| established canon of a body of fiction, to expand upon
| that body of work.
|
| Example:
|
| - Superman being from Krypton is canon.
|
| - Superman not truly being the son of Jor-El, because his
| mom slept around, might be one fan's headcanon.
| butlersean wrote:
| Unlike (say) French, English has no central authority
| determining correct or incorrect usage.
|
| Anything literally goes.
| malort wrote:
| Including, unfortunately, this usage of "literally."
| Two4 wrote:
| You're literally being a like, linguistic pervert rn
| buildsjets wrote:
| I read this in a Moon Unit Zappa voice.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Girl_(song)
| soulofmischief wrote:
| People can use whatever words they please. Never mistake
| yourself to be the arbiter of language, which is ever
| evolving.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Never mistake yourself to be the arbiter of language_
|
| Isn't that exactly what you just did?
| buildsjets wrote:
| Imagination is not an English word. It's a borrow word
| from Old French, because there was no existing English
| word for that meaning.
|
| Your move.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Imagination is an umbrella term that includes headcanon,
| but headcanon has a much more narrow and communicative
| meaning to do specifically with interpreting missing or
| ambiguous details in established fictional universes by
| fans or other people who aren't part of the creative team
| for that universe. Using the word that best fits the idea
| you're trying to communicate is good, actually. Also,
| while English does have real words what makes a word real
| is nothing more than whether when one English speaker
| uses is can they reasonably expect other English speakers
| to understand it. Given that everyone who read this
| thread had no problem understanding the word "headcanon"
| (including you, despite your protestations, as you were
| able to define a synonym) that means it's a Real English
| Word(tm)(c)(r).
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| The only thing worse than being a pedantic asshole is
| being a _wrong_ pedantic asshole.
| ninju wrote:
| For those that need more context
|
| From the movie Demolition Man
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY
| lupusreal wrote:
| It's been along time since I read it, but IIRC _Jennifer
| Government_ has that. Fast food chains lobbing missiles at
| each other.
| wslh wrote:
| 2029...2028...2027...
| Hilift wrote:
| A Taco Bell can be constructed in one day (sans pouring the
| concrete pad). They know how to capitalize.
| interestica wrote:
| There's a payday loan biz that has taken over a former Taco
| Bell site in Hamilton, Ontario. It's a bizarre look as the
| detached building still features all the weird faux-Mexican
| motifs of the former tenant. It's also one of the first
| things seen when entering the city via the most significant
| gateway from Toronto.
| inversetelecine wrote:
| Like old pizza hut buildings. Everyone knows.
| walrus01 wrote:
| As somebody in the Seattle area, I have to hope that Taco Time
| Northwest wins the franchise wars, not its sub par competition.
| hooverd wrote:
| Ok, how /do/ the three seashells work?
| xyst wrote:
| The 10th remake of Demolition Man in 2090 is going to wild
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| We are indeed in an era where AI is "learning" from AI
| generated content fueling a positive feedback loop of shitty
| content.
| Dig1t wrote:
| That's hilarious, I just happened to watch Demolition Man
| yesterday.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant
| remaining.
|
| Foe those who don't know - which included myself until about 30
| seconds ago - this is a reference to the 1993 film Demolition
| Man.
| ninju wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY
| monkeycantype wrote:
| but don't forget that even after the fall of civilisation,
| there will still be hope in the form of the probe bearing a
| vial of Elon Musk's semen to Alpha Centari
| KumaBear wrote:
| Lmao cursing in public is arrestable.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| The President of the United States is a Tamagotchi.
| spiritplumber wrote:
| I was there for the Pizza War in San Rafael.
|
| https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/02/04/pizza-war-leaves-mor...
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I noticed `ChainPatrol` has a Github:
| https://github.com/chainpatrol
|
| There's a `report abuse` button on the right of that page. I used
| it. (Category: Bullying and Harassment)
| geor9e wrote:
| we should make a bot to do this for us
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| The bullying didn't happen on GH, so I'm not sure this is a
| good strategy.
| TZubiri wrote:
| It's childish.
|
| Taking down their github isn't even impactful, and forcing
| github to be a court is playing games instead of using real
| courts.
| echelon wrote:
| Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get two
| more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes" policy.
|
| Imagine the furor and outrage of that. One of the most popular,
| meaningful, and impactful channels done in by YouTube's (and
| the DMCA's) ridiculous policy [1].
|
| The public outcry from this might motivate real policy changes
| both within Google and other FANNG companies as well as with
| lawmakers.
|
| Until a big channel gets stricken, this will continue to plague
| smaller creators with no recourse. We need a symbolic gesture
| of this magnitude to effectuate real change.
|
| [1] And it's not like YouTube would actually delete their data
| or we wouldn't have a way to restore it. This is such an
| important channel that there's no way it wouldn't be restored
| by Google or archivists.
| JoshuaDavid wrote:
| > Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get
| two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes"
| policy.
|
| Does the "3 strikes" policy apply to large channels that
| bring in a lot of views and ad revenue?
| gsich wrote:
| I would assume so, until proven otherwise.
| bb88 wrote:
| I don't think it does. Keep in mind though that 3blue1brown
| is peanuts compared to Mr. Beast.
|
| I would not be surprised if Youtube has a team dedicated to
| keep Mr. Beast happy.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| > Keep in mind though that 3blue1brown is peanuts
| compared to Mr. Beast.
|
| Well, there is a thought which is not helping keep the
| January blues at bay.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Imagine being on that team, and going home every day and
| reflecting on your career choices.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| But the free sushi...
| edanm wrote:
| I love 3blue1brown and have followed the channel for years.
| One of my absolute favorite content creators.
|
| But I think you're _vastly_ overestimate how popular he is
| compared to other channels that have gotten copyright
| strikes, or how much YouTube /Google care.
|
| I also don't love YouTube's policy, but are you so confident
| there's a better policy out there?
| hn8726 wrote:
| Out of curiosity I checked, and he's at 6.83M subscribers.
| According to https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/3blue1brown
| (not sure how trustworthy the site is, but I believe it
| should give a general idea) it's 706th channel by
| subscribers.
| RandomBK wrote:
| On the other hand, 3B1B's audience tends to heavily bias
| towards the tech crowd. I'm at a FAANG, and a decent number
| of our senior engineers know the channel.
|
| I agree it's not enough to directly push policy, but the
| impact is certainly larger than what the subscriber count
| might otherwise suggest.
| cyberax wrote:
| > Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get
| two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes"
| policy. > Imagine the furor and outrage of that.
|
| Nothing will happen. Nobody cares about relatively small
| groups of geeks. People will write angry posts at Youtube,
| but there's nothing anybody can do.
|
| For example, RZX Archive channel (that hosted replays of ZX
| Spectrum games) was taken down by fake copyright strikes. Its
| author died several years ago, so nobody could fix that.
| yread wrote:
| I'm flagging this comment for bullying. OK, I'm not but you get
| the point, right?
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I do not claim this is a general, or perfect solution. I
| don't think there is one. I'm doing what I can, which is a
| _good enough_ move, given the details of the situation.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of
| tortfeasance against someone is libel. That should be actionable,
| possibly in a group action?
|
| Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free
| speech seems like something the government should act on?
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| It is common for racketeers to steal revenue from a popular
| video until YT sorts out the legal ownership a few weeks later.
|
| It is a known con... one often not worth the $50k to extradite
| and haul them in front of a judge to recover your losses. =3
| 8note wrote:
| its crazy that those funds arent held in escrow until the
| video publisher gets to respond/the dispute is resolved
| avianlyric wrote:
| > Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of
| tortfeasance against someone is libel.
|
| It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a
| copyright claim, and taken the video down as a consequence.
| They're just stating facts, they're not making any assertions
| regarding the accuracy or correctness of the copyright claim,
| simply stating that it exists.
|
| > Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free
| speech seems like something the government should act on?
|
| You seem to misunderstand what free speech means. Free speech
| means protection from the government from having your speech
| prevented, or compelled. That same protection extends to
| companies. To have the government punish YouTube for failing to
| distribute a video, would itself be violating YouTube's own
| free speech, and in the US, and clear and obvious violation of
| the 1st ammendment.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Unless the government deems youtube a provider of a neutral
| platform for user content -- as it does in section 230.
| krapp wrote:
| https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-
| referre...
|
| Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I think this misunderstands the sense in which 230 is at
| issue. It's not that 230 itself requires anything ---
| it's that its a law in place at the whim of lawmakers who
| granted it expecting a certain sort of behaviour. The
| relevant claim is, "if youtube doesn't behave more
| neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to
| elect people who will make it". This is how the
| _intention_ of the law is currently read: that it will
| persist so long as platforms do, in effect, treat user
| content without editorial bias.
|
| Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean,
| unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility.
|
| It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230
| will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a
| "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced.
|
| The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like
| function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is
| common across the law -- since they function much like
| states in the provision of universal services, or public
| spaces.
|
| Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading
| of the principle of free speech is really the one which
| misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving
| legal and social understanding of mass-participation
| online platforms.
| NegativeK wrote:
| It feels like the org issuing the copyright claims would be
| at fault for any lost revenue.
|
| If the org hadn't issued the false claim, the channel
| wouldn't've had the video taken down. If a channel hits three
| strikes for it and is nuked in entirety, the lost revenue is
| even larger.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Here, you dropped this >>>> IANAL
| kepano wrote:
| You have to think of YouTube and other platforms as a mechanism
| for distribution, not a source of truth.
|
| If you're a creator it's essential to have your own place on the
| web were you can host and publish anything without fear that it
| will be taken down for any reason -- even accidentally.
|
| As it becomes cheap to automate both creating takedown requests
| and processing requests, the volume of spam requests is going to
| skyrocket and it seems likely there will be more false positives.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| This is not just an information preservation problem. It's a
| problem with the creators who depend on YouTube ad revenue to
| fund to create content like this suddenly and unpredictably
| losing that revenue stream.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You cannot depend on Youtube ad revenue to survive, as it can
| be taken away at any time.
| janalsncm wrote:
| You can't depend on any particular job to survive either.
| Does that imply OSHA is useless?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Are you comparing a federal labor regulatory agency to ad
| payments that exist at the whim of a commercial entity?
| janalsncm wrote:
| This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by
| YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an
| abuse of automated systems. The difference is important.
|
| Whether creators should depend on YouTube as a practical
| matter is different from whether they should be able to.
| As a practical matter, yes, diversifying is safer. But
| creators and YouTube probably agree that diversifying
| shouldn't be necessary.
|
| Of course creators do not know how much money any
| particular video will make, but the implied social
| contract has always been that good videos will do well,
| for some definition of "good". And no part of that
| definition of good has anything to do with bots abusing
| copyright systems.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by
| YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an
| abuse of automated systems. The difference is important.
|
| There is no difference. Google's overt decision to
| continue operating automated systems that enable this
| abuse is the cause, and that is unlikely to change
| because Google does not care. It is cheaper to allow
| abuse than to change their system (more human
| intervention and effort). "The purpose of the system is
| what it does."
|
| If you as a creator decide to operate on a platform where
| the owner has no intention of changing their automated
| systems, and therefore this is a potential outcome, you
| are playing Russian roulette with your income stream (if
| any). That is a choice. Your income could disappear at
| any time with no recourse. There is no social contract at
| play between creators and Google, only Google optimizing
| for its shareholders.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| Restating that the arrangement is crap doesn't make it not
| crap.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is the way. Channels are channels, you must have a robust
| web of mechanisms to reach out to your network to maintain it,
| with no single points of failure.
| facialwipe wrote:
| _You have to think of YouTube and other platforms as a
| mechanism for distribution, not a source of truth._
|
| So the source of truth is just some guy's long tail GoDaddy-
| hosted blog?
| kepano wrote:
| The URL is what should persist, not the host.
| encom wrote:
| It only makes it slightly more difficult. People will just ask
| cloudflare (et al.) to take it down, and they will obey.
| Keeping anything online in the face of opposition is very very
| difficult.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I agree in principle with diversifying your online presence,
| but as a practical solution it doesn't solve the problem. It
| would be like if someone came to you about a termite problem in
| their house and you told them the solution was to have multiple
| houses. At best that is a defense mechanism not a solution.
| kepano wrote:
| Your analogy doesn't match my statement. I am saying there
| should be a canonical location for what you create that is on
| a URL that you own. Everything else is distribution.
|
| You built a house on someone else's land, and then they tore
| it down. Build a house on your own land, as small as that
| land may be. From there you can create roads, bridges,
| tunnels to other people's land. On the web land is infinite.
| You can make your own land.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Again, I am not against backups but that doesn't solve the
| actual problem. The problem isn't losing the files, it is
| losing a reliable source of income. Putting the videos on
| Vimeo/S3 bucket/some random website doesn't solve that
| problem. People create videos as a full-time job, which is
| only possible because of the traffic YouTube brings.
|
| Also I think the analogy is pretty solid because it clearly
| illustrates the emergent benefits of being on a large
| centralized platform rather than a random URL. Land might
| be infinite but attention and clicks are not.
| kepano wrote:
| It is certainly helpful to hang up a shingle where all
| the people are -- the mall, the town square, the
| marketplace -- but your patrons should know that a bridge
| exists to your flagship, your headquarters, your farm,
| your factory of ideas.
| TZubiri wrote:
| "You have to think of publishers and other platforms as a
| mechanism for distribution, not a source of truth."
|
| Replace publisher with newspaper, encyclopedias, etc...
|
| They clearly have responsibility for the content they
| distribute.
| globular-toast wrote:
| And if you're a reader/listener/viewer you need to have
| somewhere to save things you enjoy or find useful. Make a habit
| of saving everything you want to keep to hardware you own.
| NegativeK wrote:
| If a content creator hosts their own videos and then Youtube
| nukes their channel, they're still going to be hurt by it since
| Youtube is often the bulk of their audience. The other sharing
| platforms (even if they aren't video focused) are also going to
| be able to nuke your distribution channel, so the creator is no
| better that way. Maybe an email list? Heh.
|
| I don't know the last time I actually went to someone's website
| for video content. Maybe a business, for instructional videos?
| But those are either inset Youtube videos or are actually
| annoying to watch.
|
| If the advice is for people to not depend on revenue from their
| content creation, that might be a fair point. But I feel like
| the effort of saying that might be better aimed at telling the
| hosting platforms to not be asses.
|
| (Then again, I don't believe that large social media platforms
| can be effectively moderated -- so I'm not much help here
| either. I have no clue how the content creation industry would
| fit into that world.)
| tialaramex wrote:
| I think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M
| and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK
| that $1M is split between the victim of your oopsy and Youtube
| for their trouble - you just pay $1M to get back into the game.
| Outfits like this could explain to their investors that while
| their technology does sometimes have little goofs that cost a few
| billion dollars per year, once they invent perfect AI they can
| scale infinitely and make that back easily, so if you invest
| $10Bn of your fiat currency today, in 18 months they can 100%
| guarantee nothing in particular, wow.
|
| This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly
| inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for
| Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and
| for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking
| people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber
| as to some random office park or an ad firm.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M_
|
| This is a license to rip off the copyrights of anyone without a
| million dollars in cash.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I don't think so, since YouTube is operating their
| extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders"
| copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is
| what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular
| claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be
| in effect.
|
| The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real
| legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's
| any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to
| Google under their made-up claim system.
| vkou wrote:
| It isn't required by law, it's required by people who would
| sue the pants off it if it didn't kowtow to them.
|
| Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law
| can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can
| be ignored when you are rich and powerful.
|
| Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.
| TZubiri wrote:
| I smell IANAL
| tialaramex wrote:
| Nah, I'd expect under this model _insurance_ would become
| readily available. Insurers live on the margins, so even
| though it _would_ cost a lot of money if you crash that
| boring mid-range car into somebody 's house, the insurer
| doesn't charge you a lot of money to insure you against that
| risk, they're betting that on average you're not going to do
| that. As a safeguard they probably don't insure kids who just
| got bought a Ferrari as their first car, or anybody who has
| just done time for crashing their car into a house on
| purpose, but mostly they're just playing the numbers.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Insurance would only work if the funds didn't have to be
| provided upfront, just in response to a failure.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| That's already the status quo, random nobodies with their art
| ripped off by OpenAI or some content mill on YouTube don't
| have the benefit of hiring companies to perform takedowns.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Nah, you can subcontract a provider who bonds the 1M and puts
| their reputation on the line. If they deem your claim fit
| they can charge 500$ or 1k
| ysavir wrote:
| Wouldn't this mean that the only people able to make claims in
| the first place are people with $1M to spare? It might deter
| aggressive claims, but also prevent individuals from making
| claims on violations of their copyrights.
| tibbon wrote:
| Perhaps it could start low, $2, and then for every fraudulent
| claim you make it goes up exponentially?
|
| It would be accessible to the common person, but for a mega
| company making bulk fraudulent claims, it becomes expensive.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They would use sock puppet accounts run by an LLC for each
| claim.
| ysavir wrote:
| Unless the mega company just keeps violating it, knowing
| that the more times they do it, the more they'll win in the
| end.
| smitop wrote:
| Insurance companies could front the money, in exchange for a
| premium based on how legitimate the claim seems.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I think it's Finland where if the punishment for a crime is a
| fine, the fine scales with the income of the perpetrator.
|
| I like that system.
| halper wrote:
| Used in a number of countries:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
| ars wrote:
| So you're saying that if I'm rich and I want to speed I
| hire a driver with no money and quietly cover the fine for
| him?
|
| I've always wondered about this loophole in that system.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Or 1k to subcontract a 3rd party who bonds 1m and reviews
| your claim.
| seneca wrote:
| Wouldn't this keep anyone without a spare million from making
| copyright claims, and incentivise YouTube to encourage these
| "mistakes" since they get paid for them?
| wslh wrote:
| Good aligned to crypto! Chainpatrol was in the name of Arbitrum
| <https://arbitrum.io/>.
| junon wrote:
| That's a poor people tax. Not a deterrent.
| TZubiri wrote:
| That's basically Proof of Stake btw, on which Arbitrum, an
| Ethereum l2 chain, is based.
| RobertDeNiro wrote:
| from https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876300596182983151
|
| " Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol
| . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full
| post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
|
| We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that
| are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission
| to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally
| slip through.
|
| We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because
| it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry
| about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction. "
| Mistletoe wrote:
| This company is basically an extreme nobody and has like 1-3
| likes on their posts. It is absurd how imbalanced the power is
| with regard to automation and copyright strikes.
| vkou wrote:
| There's nothing absurd about it, our society is not built
| about making people with a lot of likes comfortable, it's
| built around making people who own stuff comfortable.
| ikiris wrote:
| I'm very interested how they think _any_ of their copyright
| takedown claims pass scrutiny.
| everfree wrote:
| From their home page, it looks like their stated goal is to
| remove brand impersonation materials. Lookalike websites,
| social media compromises, malicious links, etc. They allege
| to work with registrars, contribute to blocklists and take
| down scam content. True brand impersonation of this ilk
| almost always includes copyright infringement.
|
| Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious
| actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit
| any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in
| the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally
| though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup
| rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with
| a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china
| shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking
| shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a
| "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's
| entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation;
| the latter calls for being stamped out.
|
| I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related
| content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem
| with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent
| crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a
| limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten
| minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the
| scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube
| themselves don't give a shit.
| ikiris wrote:
| And copyright doesn't give the ability to fight any of that
| is the point. This _all_ sounds like abuse of DMCA process.
| everfree wrote:
| Pretty sure if someone is misusing your company logo,
| they're violating both copyright and trademark, among
| other things. I'm not a lawyer though.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The system intentionally _does not require_ scrutiny.
|
| Youtube implemented this system as part of a lawsuit with
| Viacom who was going to take them to the cleaners. Putting
| all the power in the hands of the people making the claim was
| intentional.
|
| If someone's video gets taken down incorrectly and then later
| put back up, Google does not care, someone else's video got
| the ad slots anyway. There's more content on Youtube uploaded
| every second than can be watched.
| dowakin wrote:
| Haha, they see themselves as 'good cops,' deciding what content
| is acceptable and what isn't. It's not even about copyright--
| it's about what they think is good for users and what isn't.
|
| And in the process of playing 'police' they end up taking down
| one of the best videos explaining how Bitcoin works.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| This is par for the course in crypto communities. There are
| multiple competing Bitcoin subreddits, mainly because each
| one decides which info to censor because they don't like a
| particular coin/fork/tech.
| Hilift wrote:
| It took three people on Reddit to start a rumor that Anne
| Hathaway was a bad person. Probably due to they thought her
| as Catwoman was going to be like Ryan Reynolds in Green
| Lantern. And they were still seething over Katie Holmes.
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| > It took three people on Reddit to start a rumor that
| Anne Hathaway was a bad person
|
| Start a rumor amongst a couple hundred crypto bros that
| no one else pays attention to.
| Zpalmtree wrote:
| Phishing scam videos are not good for anyone, why would you
| want people impersonating your brand stealing your users
| funds?
| techjamie wrote:
| They probably should've consulted with a lawyer before making
| that statement. It sounds like a footgun that would help any
| prospective litigant build a case against you.
| blendergeek wrote:
| > We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos
| that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our
| mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very)
| occasionally slip through.
|
| So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright
| infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did
| ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take
| down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?
| sneak wrote:
| DMCA's perjury provision is completely toothless; it might as
| well not be there. It doesn't even require you affirm a
| copyright violation, just that you act on behalf of the
| rightsholder.
|
| This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Barratry law does cover this. I eagerly wait for the day a
| lawyer is censured for violating their oath with this BS.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice
| to take down 3Blue1Brown's video?
|
| Probably not. Youtube has their own system which is not DMCA
| claim based.
| infinitesoup wrote:
| Sounds like he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA
| takedown, not a Content ID claim.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
| krisoft wrote:
| > not a Content ID claim.
|
| That is my understanding too. We do not have a
| disagreement on that.
|
| > he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown
|
| Here is where we disagree. A youtube copyright notice /
| copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.
|
| The DMCA takedown process as described in the Digital
| Millennium Copyright Act Title II. Online Copyright
| Infringement Liability Limitation Act provides more
| rights for the content owner whose work got maliciously
| or mistakenly taken down. They have access to a counter
| notification process and SS512(f) makes those who
| knowingly materially misrepresent content as infringing
| liable for damages. You don't have the same rights and
| affordances with the youtube copyright notification
| system.
|
| It is similar. If you squint it looks the same. But it is
| not the same.
| infinitesoup wrote:
| > _A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not
| the same as a DMCA takedown._
|
| Yes it is. YouTube doesn't magically get to ignore the
| DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with
| layering Content ID on top to allow for a middle ground
| where videos can stay up but redirect some or all
| monetization to the copyright holder).
|
| If you click through the link I posted above, you'll get
| to this page which shows the complete process, including
| the counter-notification step:
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830 Do you
| have reason to believe 3blue1brown can't file a counter-
| notification in this case?
| 8note wrote:
| i don't understand how this connects to copyright claims. who
| is the user whos funds is being stolen?
| wmf wrote:
| It doesn't, but that's the only way to get blatant scam
| videos removed from YouTube.
| tzs wrote:
| A common thing scammers do is copy material from other sites
| that the scammer's victims are familiar with and trust. The
| scammers put that material in their own sites to try to trick
| the victims into thinking that are on the site they trust.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| This seems like a huge abuse of the copyright system to me. It
| sounds to me like ChainPatrol doesn't actually have any IP to
| protect, but they are instead deputizing YouTube's copyright
| system to fight what they deem to be crypto scams. Absolutely
| wild if true.
| dandanua wrote:
| Anything bitcoin related is wild today. Big and free money
| make people lose their damn minds.
| staplers wrote:
| This is not just a bitcoin issue.
|
| See: Sports gambling, prediction markets, pay-later apps.
| Gamified finance in general encourages risky behavior.
| pksebben wrote:
| I'll offer a slight adjustment; "Finance in general
| encourages risky behavior". It is an industry explicitly
| dealing in moving and dealing in risk.
|
| We periodically become _very_ aware of this. See
| financial news in 1893, 1901, 1907, 1910, 1914, 1920,
| 1937, 1949, 1953, 1961, 1970, 1973, 1983, 1987, 1992,
| 1998, 2000, 2008, 2011, and so on and so on.
|
| It's almost as if a zero-sum, value neutral industry
| controlling the bulk of world finance is inherently a
| very very bad idea.
| nox101 wrote:
| What part is zero-sum?
| hartator wrote:
| Speculative assets are by definition are zero-sum.
|
| If they go to infinite or to zero, they still produce
| zero.
| TZubiri wrote:
| You can definitely use your IP to take down scams.
|
| If someone is using your name or your company's name to scam
| people, it is in your interest to save your name and provide
| people assurance that they can do business with your name.
| gruez wrote:
| >You can definitely use your IP to take down scams.
|
| Key point being, that you have IP to use in the first
| place. But the parents' contention is that ChainPatrol
| and/or their clients don't have such IP, and are merely
| weaponizing the copyright/trademark takedown process to
| take down scams, which isn't the same thing.
| TZubiri wrote:
| My understanding is that arbitrum has an IP, but this
| video was not using their IP, that it was a false
| positive in terms of identifying the IP, in addition to a
| false positive of malicious intent.
|
| What you are saying is that these claims never relate to
| IP and it was only a false positive of malicious intent?
| gruez wrote:
| >What you are saying is that these claims never relate to
| IP and it was only a false positive of malicious intent?
|
| I'm not sure how you got that impression. If you read my
| previous comment it's pretty clear I only objected on the
| basis they don't have relevant IP, not on the principle
| of being able to use IP to issue take down scams.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| That's a use of a trademark claim, not a copyright claim.
| And a good example of why trademark protection is valuable.
| tzs wrote:
| Scammers often use more than just your name. They often
| take content from your site too to try to make theirs
| look like yours.
| TZubiri wrote:
| It's true that trademarks are the best tool for that kind
| of protection, and that it is distinct from copyright.
| Note that I used the term IP though, which is a yet third
| distinct term.
| pests wrote:
| The claim was they have no IP.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Big tech companies are not complaint with copyright, only
| with its interpretation made up by themselves.
| JoshTko wrote:
| This seems to be a new shakedown racket of a business.
| "Subscribe for our services, or be victim to our shoddy
| automated takedown notices". Not too dissimilar to online ID
| protection services, that simultaneously sell your information
| gruez wrote:
| That doesn't make much sense, at least in this particular
| case. ChainPartrol's website describes themselves as "Real-
| time Brand Protection for Leading Web3 Companies", so it's
| unlikely that youtube creators would subscribe to such a
| service. Maybe if they were issuing takedown request for
| other "Web3 Companies" this allegation would have some merit,
| but that's not what happened here.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| They're only doing this because 3blue1brown named and shamed.
| Remember, kids, always name and shame malevolent actions.
| j7ake wrote:
| You need to name and shame... and also have enough influence
| to have your post rise against the sea of garbage out there.
|
| Most people's post wouldn't get looked at at all, 3blue1brown
| is fortunate to have such a large audience so that his
| complaint gets looked at by a human.
| bhk wrote:
| Taken at face value, this implies their copyright infringement
| claim was fraudulent, but in pursuit of a higher good.
|
| But according to many replies to that tweet, they were actually
| working on behalf of actual copyright infringers.
|
| Not sure what to believe.
| Suppafly wrote:
| Either way, someone needs to sue them.
| mjburgess wrote:
| It's common for one set of scammers to target another, to
| take their competitors out. So it's quite possible for them
| to be abusing the copyright system to take-out scamming
| competitors.
| milesvp wrote:
| Heh, PirateSoftware, he talks about this, being both sec
| ops and having worked at blizzard. Apparently it's really
| common for the big coin farmers (which blizzard doesn't
| like, and would ban if they could identify all the players)
| to tell blizzard about zero day exploits to prevent their
| competitors from using them and crashing the market for
| gold.
| Shorel wrote:
| As always, this is only possible when a post like this appears
| in a site like HN and the community outrage forces
| YouTube/Google to take action.
|
| This will continue happening to smaller channels and creators,
| and they will continue to have their content stolen.
| adolph wrote:
| I think https://chainpatrol.io/ is fake. Look at things like
| the "legal terms." To make a DCMA (US Law) counterclaim, they
| want "a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the
| Province of Ontario." [0]
|
| _If you are unsatisfied with our services, please email us at
| [EMAIL ADDRESS] and we will address your concerns in a prompt
| and timely manner._ [0]
|
| 0. https://chainpatrol.io/legal/terms
|
| See also "Fake AI law firms are sending fake DMCA threats to
| generate fake SEO gains"
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/fake-ai-law-firms-ar...
| ninju wrote:
| They did not even update the "legal terms" page to include a
| real email address :-(
|
| (I first thought that you redacted in your post)
| buildsjets wrote:
| So the big-name channel gets a personal response. What about
| the many non-famous channels that ChainPatrol must have made
| false claims against? How many strikes or false claims does
| ChainPatrol get before they are permanently booted off YouTube
| and all their revenue streams get taken from them?
| websap wrote:
| A random company is able to claim copyright infringement for
| one of the most beloved YouTube channels. WTF is going on at
| Google and Youtube?
| johnneville wrote:
| would be nice to see some punishment or compensation.
| apologizing and retracting the claim doesn't make the victim
| whole again.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Ben's channel is visually stunning, and should be sponsored as
| public access educational content.
|
| Best of luck suing the IP racketeers =3
| chad1n wrote:
| It truly protected web3 from the "normies" that could have
| learned about crypto from this video. AI moderation is such a
| joke, every reupload (or a completely different video on the same
| subject) can take a video down because they look "similar" enough
| for the AI and no person would bother checking it. I expected a
| different treatment of their bigger creators, but that's what it
| is.
| some_random wrote:
| This reminds me of that time CGP Grey's channel got in trouble
| for.... impersonating the famous youtube channel CGP Grey.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIssymQvrbU
| davidjhall wrote:
| Are there any other copies of this video out there? Since it's a
| bogus claim, the video should be able to be posted elsewhere ---
| YouTube can't be the only source of record.
| crtasm wrote:
| I know there's a text version:
| https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/bitcoin
| HelloUsername wrote:
| And here the video: https://web.archive.org/web/2024111622015
| 2/https://www.youtu...
| olalonde wrote:
| Wow, how does that work? Archive.org can't possibly archive
| every YouTube video, right?
| Stagnant wrote:
| They don't but if it is a popular video the likelyhood of
| it being archived increases. It is possible to submit
| URLs to archive.org manually too. Also the youtube videos
| downloaded by archiveteam volunteers[0] possibly end up
| in wayback machine though I'm not sure if it happens
| automatically anymore.
|
| 0:https://tracker.archiveteam.org/youtube/
| lousken wrote:
| can we start permanently banning companies that submit false-
| positive takedown requests? 3 strikes for them should result in
| not being able to submit any strikes anymore and all their
| content being removed
|
| if the content creator can get their channel removed, same thing
| must apply to the opposite side as well
| hkon wrote:
| You can just create a new company. There is an asymmetry there
| which your tit for tat approach does not take into
| consideration. And no, creating a new channel requires far more
| work.
| lousken wrote:
| I don't mean banning the company which does the takedown
| submission, I mean the company that actually owns the
| copyright. That would result in companies being a lot more
| vary in terms of whom to trust with such job.
| TZubiri wrote:
| I know that it's rather opaque, but I'm pretty certain Google
| does basic reputation tracking. When they manually revert this,
| the ChainPatrol account won't have as much power.
| cduzz wrote:
| When I first saw this I was reminded of the Mend it Mark
| copyright takedown event where he fixed and documented a phono
| preamp and the maker of that preamp filed a copyright take down
| against the video.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI
| sneak wrote:
| Why do we tolerate centralized censorship platforms when we know
| their catastrophic failure modes?
|
| This is just a mistaken corporate interest. What about when the
| state wants very much to hide something?
| tomalaci wrote:
| With AI exponentially accelerating effects of Dead Internet, I
| think any social or content-sharing platforms will require some
| form of Digital ID that can't be easily created/mass-generated
| (e.g. maybe tie bank account to it?).
|
| That would put real consequences on users misusing platforms.
| Even a small fee for misbehavior would likely curtail vast
| swathes of bad actors. It would also make companies be less
| trigger-happy with their bots if such are allowed to operate in
| that ID framework (i.e. an identifiable bot being punished would
| be a fee subtracted from the company that uses it).
|
| I pretty much expect that kind of system in the future, otherwise
| we will just return back to private networks and private
| communities.
| vincnetas wrote:
| Companies bread much faster than humans can. So in that new
| internet where we ID every participant we should not equate
| company and human. And fines are not the solution as some
| actors can buy their way out with unlimited funds (compared to
| regular human)
| adamc wrote:
| Google's notoriously terrible customer service strikes again!
| grumple wrote:
| Are there any nations that have laws that require investigation
| before takedowns, or at least have financial punishment for
| issuing incorrect takedowns?
|
| Why don't we build a video hosting service served from there, if
| such a place exists?
| kemiller wrote:
| I mean, it's good they are doing the right thing here, even if it
| were only damage control. But doesn't give a lot of confidence
| they won't harm creators who don't yet have 3b1b's reach.
| hkon wrote:
| Dead internet moves forward one step
| TZubiri wrote:
| I'd like a couple of laws whereby if you charge or make money
| through something, you need to have some human monitoring.
|
| Surely there's precedent is it not illegal to operate an
| unmonitored industrial factory
| ngriffiths wrote:
| In the future we will _maybe_ need a physical ID (or other
| sufficiently costly proof) to post a video or file a complaint or
| do stuff other than consume.
|
| I don't know though, maybe that will prove to be too hard and the
| bot filled platforms will win. In which case maybe the only way
| to be safe from the bot armies is to _hire a bigger bot army
| yourself_. Fun!
| btown wrote:
| One of the reasons that copyright processes are so biased towards
| traditional rightsholders and against individual creators is that
| the latter group is simultaneously captive to the platform and
| unorganized/decentralized; YouTube needs licenses and goodwill
| from, say, Universal, far more than it needs 3blue1brown
| individually.
|
| And the incentives for rectifying this are skewed: video
| platforms simply need to address individual cases with
| influential creators just reactively enough so that collective
| action isn't incentivized; that's far cheaper, and far easier to
| not need to coordinate with traditional rightsholders, than
| addressing the problem systematically.
|
| If we believe that the vision of being an independent content
| creator is important to humanity - and I think it's becoming
| vital as "a way to distinguish myself" that folks are able to
| dream about from an early age - then we need to seriously work to
| protect it. Not everybody will get their "big break" but we can
| at the very least start having conversations about protecting
| creators from an AI-driven DMCA bot arbitrarily destroying their
| career through automated channel-disabling rules.
| throw310822 wrote:
| The state of content producers (including app developers) on
| the internet today is the same as that of factory workers in
| the industrial revolution. Everyone's work is immediately
| replaceable with that of someone else, who is more than willing
| to step in to take the spot. Workers solved that with unions
| that can coordinate the workers' actions.
|
| In concrete terms, a content-creators union might act as a
| middleman who is able to make all the contents from all its
| members simultaneously and immediately unavailable on the
| targeted platforms until some agreement is met or either side
| gives up.
| btown wrote:
| While the presence of an algorithm that "auto-scabs" makes a
| full-fledged strike fundamentally difficult, a threat of a
| coordinated campaign where large creators encourage users to
| install ad blockers and go off-site for donations, rather
| than buying superchats/subscriptions on platform, might be
| meaningful enough to compel achievable asks like copyright
| strike reform.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The crypto YouTube scams are incredibly sophisticated. Bitcoin is
| the best currency for scammers bar none, so millions from nation
| states like North Korea will pour into this to decimate lowly
| pensioners scared for their future.
|
| 3b1b is basically a causality in this war of greed.
| malwrar wrote:
| A policy I think would be interesting: copyright violation stops
| being about who is able to post what, and starts being about who
| is profiting from what. Content takedowns are impossible, but
| affected artists are directly and nontransferrably allowed to
| legally assert rights to the profits directly derived from their
| content and can legally reclaim lost funds. Preferably there
| would be a similar mechanism for false claims. No one loses money
| they aren't entitled to, the rightsholder doesn't need to play
| whack-a-mole to enforce an artificial monopoly, and no disruption
| for viewers in any case.
|
| We need something that frees us from this prison. I still
| remember when it was normal for youtube videos to play mainstream
| music in the background. Now draconian enforcement has created
| this artificial power that people beyond music labels can abuse,
| and it affects our art adversely. Feels clear to me we need
| something new that operates in 2024, not from the era where
| individual movie pirates faced 6-7 figure fines and jail time.
| teekert wrote:
| Weird how I hear the tweet in his voice as I read it.
| daveguy wrote:
| Just a friendly heads up. Anyone who wants to avoid Twitter,
| since it has become so toxic, can use the domain xcancel.com in
| place of twitter.com or x.com. like so:
|
| https://xcancel.com/3blue1brown/status/1876291319955398799
|
| This links to independent Nitter to provide a full thread.
| Lance_ET_Compte wrote:
| Thank you!
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Great to see a resurgence of a genuinely working Nitter
| instance. Appreciate this.
| gxvwb wrote:
| A Firefox Add-on to redirect Twitter links to X Cancelled
| automatically: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/nitter/
|
| (Disclosure: I published this Add-on)
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Installed immediately and enabled to run on private
| windows. Good self-plug :)
| HelloUsername wrote:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| GB/firefox/addon/libredirect/ Might interest you as well
| tim333 wrote:
| That doesn't have the reply from ChainPatrol:
|
| Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol
| . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a
| full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
|
| We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos
| that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our
| mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very)
| occasionally slip through.
|
| We are actively working to reduce how often this happens,
| because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're
| very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown
| retraction.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Completely ignoring the release dates for the videos is
| simply amazing.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Abusing the DMCA to take down videos stealing user funds
| seems... questionable.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| Completely agree. It should be on YouTube to do that and
| not a 3rd party.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Nice that they are admitting to perjury on twitter like
| that.
| NegativeK wrote:
| As other threads have pointed out, Google's copyright
| violation system is a process that's private. It's before
| the DMCA laws get involved.
|
| So maybe it's a ToS violation?
|
| (This isn't defending the person issuing copyright
| strikes. Their behavior, right or wrong, just isn't
| perjury. I think. Good thing I'm not anyone's lawyer.)
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| How is this failing the most fundamental check: _upload
| date_?
| mrastro wrote:
| Generally a good idea, but there are edge cases that need
| to be handled for this to work.
|
| A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in
| which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation
| date, which would have to be manually added in their DB
| (e.g. Hollywood produced movies).
|
| You can also have leaks of videos before their official
| release. Admittedly a rare scenario that should can be
| accounted for in other ways (i.e. skip this check if before
| upload).
| pakitan wrote:
| "For anyone who wants to avoid Twitter's toxicity, here is how
| you get some Twitter content" :)
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I was surprised to see this here, because I remembered I
| recently added 3blue1brown on bsky:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/3blue1brown.bsky.social
|
| ...but he only posted this to Twitter. Not his own blog, nor
| bsky, not to his Patreon, or to Reddit - only Twitter. Nitter
| is always just going to be an echo of Twitter. Discord and
| Reddit and HN and a personal blog serve different purposes.
| Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed
| to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to
| start changing their habits.
|
| I think just not engaging with content on Twitter is far more
| likely to produce that outcome than consuming the content on
| Nitter.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Nitter is always just going to be an echo of Twitter.
|
| Nitter is not going to be an echo of twitter, it was a proxy
| for twitter, and it's already dead.
|
| > Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are
| doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get
| people to start changing their habits.
|
| Why should anyone be concerned about that? None of the above
| have shown themselves to be any better stewards of anything
| than twitter has. They're all objectively mediocre options,
| (including twitter) and personally identifying with any of
| them is silly.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Not a great idea to post nitter links any more in public
| forums. The (very few) instances that are left are using small
| pools of private accounts, and get saturated to uselessness
| quickly. And especially to big forums like this, that have been
| known to take down fairly robust sites.
|
| Don't kill what's left of nitter in order to make a pointless
| statement about twitter being "toxic."
| lazzlazzlazz wrote:
| Isn't this very strong evidence in favor of a thesis that HN
| hates? That the most important networks (like YouTube) ought to
| be decentralized? Unfortunately, a strike in favor of the
| blockchain people -- the best of which have been working to find
| ways to keep systems permanently decentralized (and not just
| temporarily decentralized, like
| Bluesky/Nostr/Mastodon/SMTP/etc.).
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| A genuine question: can you clarify what you mean by
| temporarily decentralized? Seeing SMTP lumped in the same
| category as Bluesky made me realize I don't know what you mean.
|
| The best argument in your favor is that Gmail captured 80%
| market share. Or that hosting your own mail server is a full-
| time job. However, this doesn't mean email isn't decentralized.
| throwaway423342 wrote:
| Luckily there are copies on other video platforms. e.g.
|
| https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1yJ41117we/?spm_id_from=333...
| Imnimo wrote:
| After looking at the websites for ChainPatrol and Arbitrum, I
| still have no idea what's going on here. How do these two things
| combine to result in a YouTube copyright claim? What sort of
| videos are they supposed to be issuing takedowns for?
| j45 wrote:
| I hope YouTube can make this a better experience extremely soon.
|
| With YouTube video being used as a proxy for credible content on
| search results..
|
| 3 relatively anonymous complaints, in bad faithc can end so much
| learning and work... without evidence or reply kind of is
| deterring from having great content on YouTube.
|
| The deterrent to creating good content on YouTube lets the bad
| content win, except it might not keep the eyeballs for
| advertising as well or broadly.
|
| I'm not sure if the complainant must be required to contact the
| channel prior to accepting a dmca complaint? EBay has a built in
| messaging system, maybe YouTube can too.
|
| Further if there's ways creators can be protecting their
| creations before posting they should be built into the workflow,
| whether it's registering custom music, etc.
|
| Otherwise the price of success is targetable in an automated
| fashion to take down a channel if they don't comply or pay out.
|
| A channel inbox might force behaviour into first creator to
| creator before escalating straight to too easily triggering
| things.
|
| Maybe new complainants found to have too many complaints in short
| order or some other pattern could possibly have to pass much
| higher kyc requirements to help each other communicate more
| effectively.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-06 23:01 UTC)