[HN Gopher] 3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copy...
___________________________________________________________________
3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copyright violation
Author : talonx
Score : 778 points
Date : 2025-01-06 17:10 UTC (1 days 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.
| trogdor wrote:
| That is incorrect. You can appeal a Content ID claim. Doing
| so forces the claimant to either retract their claim or
| file a DMCA takedown.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| Not always...
|
| "Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual
| obligations
|
| (...)
|
| Sometimes, this may mean the Content ID appeals and
| counter notification processes won't be available."
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545
| 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.
| cft wrote:
| Yes, YouTube was sold to Google essentially at gunpoint.
| But since then the balance of power shifted from
| Hollywood to Google. So they they would benefit from
| relaxing this policy.
| mjrpes wrote:
| I would think Youtube would care enough about content
| creators with large number of subscribers (3blue1brown has
| 6.8M) to have a human review takedown notices against those
| channels.
| 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
| ternnoburn wrote:
| Thank you. It's astonishing to me how few people remember
| the text of this movie -- it is so clearly saying dumb
| people are breeding, smart people are not.
| recursive wrote:
| It seems the dumb interpretation of the movie is
| spreading faster than the correct and literal one.
| 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".
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I suspect your idea of "practical aspects of genetics"
| includes ideas about how people different from you
| shouldn't be allowed reproduce, and very little about
| things like researching the function of a newly
| discovered microbial enzyme.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Not really. It does, however, include ideas such as
| "perhaps we should learn to correct genetic diseases
| directly in the reproductive cells", which is a rounding
| error away from someone saying something like you just
| did.
| 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.
| scotty79 wrote:
| It could be that many people just died in between and
| there's a lot of remaining operational equipment that past
| smart people built. Costco is massive.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Except that it has a happy ending, which is so rare in real
| world situations involving politics and power.
| 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...
| tivert wrote:
| I'm pretty sure my idea was _literally_ a mash-up of
| Phantom 2040 "resource wars" with Demolition man
| "franchise wars."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_2040
|
| > It is the year 2040, all environmental disasters and the
| economic Resource Wars from the early 21st century have
| decimated the fragile ecosystem balance of an Earth once
| teeming with life.
|
| The first part of this episode is _near identical_ to my
| mental picture of the "franchise wars:"
|
| https://youtu.be/Kg8bPDGmhnU?si=MhzsBy83h8yTi6Ux&t=59
|
| I'm surprised how easy it was for me to figure this out and
| find confirmation.
| 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?
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| 2 are bidets, 1 is a drier.
| 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
| mtnGoat wrote:
| Elon is so nuts I can't decide of this is a joke or something
| he actually did.
|
| Crazy times we live in.
| 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.
| wruza wrote:
| I agree with the gp. If we want a change we shouldn't play by
| the rules. Also flagging our comments doesn't do anything
| cause we don't earn money here, and that is our leverage -
| you can't do anything with us.
|
| We should create a community-driven abusive botnet that slaps
| projects like this back, and slaps hard. Because there's no
| laws here. No one cares. No order, everything by the word of
| someone large enough. People should not be afraid of taking
| law in their hands when there is no law for all practical
| purposes. And using methods that are available and effective.
| 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
| trogdor wrote:
| The funds are held in escrow. GP is wrong.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| When the copyright strike is issued a video is taken
| offline from the publishers channel.
|
| In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether
| they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers
| counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles
| limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
|
| It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel
| hijacking. =3
| trogdor wrote:
| Fair enough. I was referring to the Content ID system.
|
| >In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether
| they have rights to the IP or not.
|
| I make my living from YouTube and I have never heard of
| this. Can you point me to evidence of what you are
| referring to?
| 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.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one
| side of the political divide to elect people who will
| make it
|
| There have been plenty of threats by various politicians
| already, to enforce "neutrality" on entities like
| YouTube. But a couple of persistent issues keep rearing
| their ugly heads.
|
| 1. How do you determine "political neutrality"? The only
| way to be truly neutral is to do zero moderation of any
| content, and nobody is seriously suggesting that's a good
| idea.
|
| 2. On what basis could YouTube be ruled a utility? If
| even ISPs aren't considered utilities, then how on earth
| can YouTube be a utility? Utilities are services that
| generally considered as a basic requirement for
| participating in civil society. It not clear how anyone
| could consider YouTube such an essential service.
|
| > 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.
|
| In the U.S. such a reading of the first amendment, and
| the principle of free speech, has been consistently and
| repeatedly upheld by U.S. courts. Law makers can't
| legislate their way around that, they would need to
| literally change the U.S. constitution. Something that
| requires a 2/3 majority in both congress and the senate,
| plus 3/4 of all _state_ legislatures need to ratify it as
| well. For better or worse, the U.S. constitution provides
| no flexibility for the "evolving legal and social
| understanding of mass-participation online platforms."
|
| An environment where the U.S. government (and
| specifically the U.S. government) starts engaging in such
| aggressive regulation of entities like YouTube, is so
| distant from current state of free speech in the US,
| that's it's a practically useless argument to consider.
| So much of the political, legal and social framework of
| the U.S. will have changed, that it would effectively be
| an entirely different country and culture to what exists
| today.
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| If a farmer stops showing up to a farmers market, no one
| is going to go to their farm for their specific carrots
| when there are other carrot farmers at the market. Even
| if they have the best carrots, that doesn't mean their
| carrots are sufficiently better to justify the added
| hassle. If their livelihood comes from the customers at
| the farmer's market, they need to keep their stall at the
| market.
| kepano wrote:
| Sure. This aligns with my original point. A farmer owns
| their land (mostly). The farm is the farmer's canonical
| source for their product.
|
| Farmers don't typically rely on a single farmer's market
| to sell their product, they participate in many markets,
| sell wholesale, sell from their farm, and might also have
| a direct-to-consumer option where they can ship beyond
| their locality.
|
| Create once, publish everywhere -- your land is the
| canonical source. Markets are for distribution.
| janalsncm wrote:
| A business doesn't stop being viable only once every
| source of income is stamped out. It stops being viable
| when enough of it is gone, because people weigh
| continuing the business against the opportunity cost of
| doing anything else.
|
| Also, many creators already are publishing "everywhere".
| YouTube is simply the most profitable. If YouTube income
| goes away, that ends the business, whether or not it can
| technically be found elsewhere.
| jjk166 wrote:
| No, it goes directly against your original point. A
| farmer owning their own land is no protection against
| losing access to its customers.
|
| In this analogy, there is only one farmer's market that
| anyone shows up to. In the real world many farmers may
| have alternatives, but that is a product of an entire
| industry spending centuries collectively cultivating
| those multiple distribution channels.
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| How often are you getting speeding tickets that having a
| driver on payroll is cheaper than fines?
| ars wrote:
| Me? Never. Someone really rich? Well, that's my question.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| That's a ridiculous loophole to wonder about... but if it
| happens at scale and becomes a problem, then they could
| write another clause into the law.
| ars wrote:
| Really? If I were rich, and in a hurry (as opposed to
| speeding for the thrill) it's exactly what I would do.
|
| How would you word this clause without people saying "I
| just hired him, I didn't tell him to speed"?
| DandyDev wrote:
| If you hire someone to so a job for you, you are
| accountable. Unless they bring their own car and accept
| liability.
| Habgdnv wrote:
| You remember correctly. Nokia CEO got a speeding ticket for
| 116K euro 20 years ago was in the news.
| 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.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| You don't really need to own much to initiate a bogus
| copyright strike, so I don't know how that's relevant.
| 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.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Depends on the logo. If it's just text or a simple shape,
| it can't be copyrighted.
|
| 3Blue1Brown's logo is (probably) copyrightable, but the
| TED or Veritasium channel logos are (probably) not. If it
| could be claimed to be derivative of some other work,
| public domain or not, you may not fully own the copyright
| either. In general, it can be a big fuzzy grey area that
| needs a court to decide fully. Meanwhile, a trademark
| infringement would be easy to show.
| 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.
| chgs wrote:
| Shakespeare's wife?
| 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.
| wruza wrote:
| I'm sure that "corrupt cop looking away" is their core
| business model.
| 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.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| misdemeanor. up to 1k fine. if even exists in your state.
|
| so toothless also.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The point is to besmirch their record with the bar
| association.
| 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?
| krisoft wrote:
| Hmmm. I see what you say. You convinced me! Thank you.
| filoeleven wrote:
| Does YouTube's system also make a malicious complainer
| liable for damages? The DMCA does. Here's the relevant
| section of the law mentioned by krisoft:
|
| (f) Misrepresentations.--Any person who knowingly
| materially misrepresents under this section-- (1) that
| material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material
| or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or
| misidentification, shall be liable for any damages,
| including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the
| alleged infringer [...]
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
| Terr_ wrote:
| > If so, would this not be perjury?
|
| IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are
| acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own
| or aren't authorized to protect.
| 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.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Yeah so I imagine how this would work to steal people's
| funds in this case is to take copyrightable brand assets
| from someweb3company.xyz. Use them to make a youtube video
| saying something like "someweb3company.xyz is doing a
| limited time offer of a free thing. Log in with your wallet
| details at someweb3company.totallylegitoffer.xyz to claim!"
| Or some variant on that. Logging in with your wallet gives
| them permission to steal all your stuff. Because "logging
| in with a web3 wallet" is actually signing something with
| your private key. That something can be a json token thing
| for logging in, but it can also be a transaction and the UX
| is so god-awful that people often don't pay much attention
| to which they are doing and get ripped off.
| 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.
| npoc wrote:
| You're confusing things that you value in life with
| things with economic value.
|
| Also you don't seem to see that something that stores
| your economic value better than anything else (the
| "infinite" outcome) would be of great value to your life.
| hartator wrote:
| > You're confusing things that you value in life with
| things with economic value.
|
| If you think about it, the "economic" value is just the
| market trying to discover what everyone value in life.
|
| > Also you don't seem to see that something that stores
| your economic value better than anything else (the
| "infinite" outcome) would be of great value to your life.
|
| Finding a cure for cancer will be infinite value and most
| people will give anything for it - including all Bitcoins
| in the world. This - finding the cure of cancer - is the
| way better store of value than anything. The reverse is
| not true.
| npoc wrote:
| That's only demand.
|
| Economic value = supply / demand.
|
| Do you value air?
|
| It's worthless. I wouldn't buy a litre of air for even a
| penny. But put me at the bottom of the sea, out of oxygen
| (i.e. no supply), and I'd give you everything I have for
| it.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| You could also see it as economic value is commonly
| extremely divorced from any useful human measure of
| value. Enough money to feed the world is "made" and
| "lost" though market oscillations that aren't really
| based in any practical reality. Like Tesla being worth
| more than the rest of the next 35 car companies, say. Or
| just one of the several apps that calls a cab being worth
| the GDP of Kenya. Or the value of Bitcoin.
|
| The fiction is that the market is an infinitely rational
| representation of value, denominated in the same units
| humans buy food and shelter with, and generally
| correlated with their ability to do so. But it seems "the
| economy" has less and less to do with life on the ground.
| npoc wrote:
| Economic value is entirely rooted in life on the ground,
| but it is simply the demand part of the equation.
|
| Its equal to demand (in PS) divided by supply
| (kg/gallon/BTC etc).
|
| Market oscillations are all based in practical reality,
| but if they don't make sense, you're just not aware of
| their cause. For example, multiple traders around the
| world simultaneously buying /selling with high leverage
| according to obscure technical analysis of the price
| chart.
|
| What distorts everything is that the value of what we
| measure economic value in is itself devalued by 50% every
| decade through supply inflation. Economic value over time
| != price over time.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/1ljSLgA
| grues-dinner wrote:
| I mean this is what all the textbooks say, but it's cold
| comfort to people who want bread, clean water, a roof and
| a warm bed rather than some economist-approved funny
| money on a graph somewhere.
|
| Everyone's been told to trust the system, the market
| knows best. At this rate, I don't think they will
| continue to do indefinitely.
| npoc wrote:
| Now we're on a completely different subject, but that's
| fine.
|
| Trust what system exactly?
|
| If there was no poverty, there would be no motivation to
| work and build a roof over your head or grow crops to
| make bread. Unfortunately, the funny money that I show in
| the graph means that it's not a fair playing field.
|
| If you want to fix the world, fix the money. The world is
| desperately in need of a digital money that can't be
| created with no effort, and by just a few select people
| (i.e. banks). The money we're using is toxic.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Sorry to butt in, but
|
| >If there was no poverty, there would be no motivation to
| work and build a roof over your head or grow crops to
| make bread.
|
| The motivation would be to maintain one's station,
| whether that station were impoverished or rich. Most of
| America isn't in poverty, yet still works hard to try and
| achieve higher status, greater luxury, etc.
|
| >the money we're using is toxic
|
| Is this the root cause behind productivity gains not
| going to workers for the last five decades? Genuine
| question, cause that's the main issue I see.
| npoc wrote:
| > The motivation would be to maintain one's station,
| whether that station were impoverished or rich. Most of
| America isn't in poverty, yet still works hard to try and
| achieve higher status, greater luxury, etc.
|
| Poverty is relative, but I do recognise the distinction
| between needs (survival) and wants.
|
| > Is this the root cause behind productivity gains not
| going to workers for the last five decades? Genuine
| question, cause that's the main issue I see.
|
| Yes! Absolutely. I believe it's the primary mechanism
| that's behind the enormous gains in efficiency going to
| the rich rather than the general population.
|
| It's a deep subject, but to try and summarise as best I
| can: Every decade in the USA the banking system and
| government combined creates double the currency out of
| thin air (in the form of loans) and charge interest on it
| [https://imgur.com/a/1ljSLgA]. The deal is that they must
| destroy the money when it's repaid. By keeping interest
| rates below the natural free market rate, they both
| monopolise lending and incentivise borrowing and so the
| total borrowed just keeps increasing over time. They can
| still profit enormously because the money they lend is
| not really theirs and was created out of nothing as the
| "loan" was made.
|
| This has been going on for decades and sped up in 1971
| (wtfhappenedin1971.com) when the dollar was "temporarily"
| non-redeemable for gold (because of all the money
| printing they had already done)
|
| Each time the money supply doubles, the value of the
| monetary unit halves. It works out at about 7% a year
| over the last 100 years.
|
| It's no coincidence that that's the approximate rate of
| increase in real-estate prices over the decades. It's not
| real-estate going up in value - it's that the dollar is
| falling in value.
|
| Consummables are falling in value at around 5% a year
| (due to the productivity gains), giving a net price
| increase of 7-5 = 2%. So if you are getting an annual
| nominal pay rise of say 2%, you're actually getting a pay
| cut of 7-2=5%, but "luckily" consumables are falling in
| value at the same rate, so you can still afford food, a
| car etc. What you can no longer afford are the things
| that haven't gone down in value - hard assets like real
| estate, gold etc. - things that have a relatively
| constant supply/demand and therefore, value. These are
| the things that the bankers and their friends buy with
| all the interest they are collecting.
|
| By giving the entire world a stealth 5% pay cut each
| year, the banks and those closest to the money printers
| are stealing away all the productivity gains. Look up the
| Cantillon Effect. It's a kind of pyramid scheme where the
| bankers take the main gains, but then reward those who
| support the system by taking out loans with a cut. Once
| you realise that the money is devalued at a faster rate
| than the interest, you can see that you're paying back
| less economic value than you borrowed, even with
| interest. The people who really suffer are the savers who
| have their savings stolen essentially at a rate of 7%
| minus whatever interest rate they are getting. Obviously
| pensions are affected too. Anything that's denominated in
| dollars, pounds, euros etc.
|
| It all started with banks lending out the gold you'd
| given them to look after, behind your back. A fraud that
| has grown to monumental proportions. They are now
| collecting interest on _all the money in the world_ , and
| they printed it all out of thin air.
| fragmede wrote:
| What job is going to send you home if you finish a days
| work in an hour instead of going you more stuff to do?
| it's as simple as that.
| npoc wrote:
| Sure. But what they are really doing is giving you a pay
| cut each year without you realising, and the bankers and
| their friends closest to the money printers are pocketing
| it.
|
| Compounding even 3% annual cut in real value adds up to
| an 80% pay cut over 50 years.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Even worse the people nearest the money printers are
| largely engaged in the business of starting (and most
| frequently losing) foreign wars of choice. The human
| suffering created by the system is immense.
| npoc wrote:
| Yes. As they're incentivised to "lend" (print) as much
| money as they can, to obtain the interest, the outcome is
| that they're encouraged to start wars and fund both
| sides, because war generates the highest demand for
| loans. The longer the war lasts, the better.
| fragmede wrote:
| Inflation makes the problem worse, but even if inflation
| were zero percent, no company is going to tell its
| employees they can work 1 hour per week because the
| company is paying for the employees time.
|
| On top of that, the fundamental competition inherent to a
| free market says that a company with employees that only
| worked 1 hour per week would be out competed by a company
| full of employees that worked more than that. (Up to a
| point, obviously.), so the company can't let it's
| employees take advantage of increased productivity with a
| shorter work weeks in order to stay competitive.
|
| Getting rid of fractional reserve banking and inflation
| isn't going to change those underlying facts of
| capitalism.
| npoc wrote:
| Its not about working less, it's about not having your
| wages stolen. If people understood they were getting a
| pay cut each year, they likely wouldn't stand for it.
| Instead they celebrate it as a pay rise but wonder why
| they can't afford nice things like a traditional family
| with an average-sized house and 2 kids, holidays etc, all
| paid for only by the husband who has an average job while
| the wife stays at home.
| immibis wrote:
| The part of the world economy that moves value from one
| person to another, without creating any value, is zero-
| sum.
| throw5959 wrote:
| There's no such thing.
| 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.
| wruza wrote:
| There are lots of "companies" like this. Don't think about
| buying this apologetic do-gooder tone, it's an id claim troll
| trying to cover his ass after touching something they can get
| face punched for by the whole internet. Which the internet
| should do anyway. Imagine what it did and continues to do to
| channels no one cares about that much. These parasites don't
| deserve to exist, regardless of the official stance.
| 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)
| userbinator wrote:
| Ontario is not part of the US.
| seanhunter wrote:
| I think that is the point that the poster was making.
| 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?
| wruza wrote:
| Good morning, isn't it? This goes for years, happens to every
| youtuber from time to time. And if they are tiny and have no
| creators community, they often just swallow the
| "demonetization" fact.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Demonetisation isn't so bad (i.e. copyright claims).
| Copyright _strikes_ kill the channel after 3 in a row
| within a month or so.
| johnneville wrote:
| would be nice to see some punishment or compensation.
| apologizing and retracting the claim doesn't make the victim
| whole again.
| olliej wrote:
| Filing a take down requires a sworn statement of good faith
| belief the claim is false, so this would appear to be perjury.
| mtnGoat wrote:
| And hopefully is punished as such. Too many false claims and
| YouTube should just block them.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| is that web3 speak for "we wouldn't want you stealing from the
| people we are stealing"
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Thank you! BTW, loved you in Goodfellas.
| Miraste wrote:
| There aren't that many channels with over 5M subscribers.
| 3Blue1Brown is 706th in the world. It's insane to me that
| YouTube still doesn't have a manual sanity check for claims
| against their top ~1000 channels or so. That couldn't possibly
| cost much, and it would fix a PR problem that hits so often you
| can use it as a calendar.
| rtkwe wrote:
| The reason they don't is because they've made their own
| version of the DMCA takedown system but my understanding is
| that that system/law gives the strongest liability safe
| harbor if the platform just takes things down in response to
| takedown requests without taking any steps to validate them.
| The weaselly lawyer approved version is to just let the
| claimant and the poster duke it out with counter responses
| etc and just be passive.
| maeil wrote:
| Unless they're compensating the entirety of the Youtuber's lost
| revenue, this is worth as much as a granny tech support scammer
| claiming they were really planning to help out granny fix her
| computer.
|
| Pure evil.
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| So if I make 3 bogus takedown requests based on stairway to
| heaven's copyright being violated, no one can make
| copyright strikes based on stairway to heaven?
| 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
| jjk166 wrote:
| There are humans that work at google (or so I am told), just
| not enough.
|
| It is not illegal to operate an unmonitored (nonetheless an
| under-monitored) 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.
| Hilift wrote:
| The clear-headed perspective would be to assume that a YouTube
| channel could disappear at any minute and there is little
| recourse unless an attorney is hired. It's their ball and their
| game. What rule that does not exist today could exist tomorrow.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Copyright's failure lies at its very foundations.
|
| The explicit goal of copyright is to promote art work.
| Copyright intends to accomplish this by promising each artist a
| profitable monopoly over the _result_ of their work. The
| thinking is that even though an artist isn 't paid directly for
| their labor, they can compel society to pretend their art is a
| singular object and sell it over and over again as a good. This
| is why pretentious gallery people refer to paintings and
| sculptures as individual "works", as if labor itself can be
| counted with integers. It isn't the instance of art (the copy)
| they are referring to as "a work": it is the abstract unit of
| labor and the copyright monopoly (the exclusive right to make
| another copy) that defines its domain.
|
| Because copyright redefines art as a good, each artist must
| _invest_ their labor to create "a work". Only then can they
| leverage copyright to (hopefully) profit from their investment.
| This is already counterproductive, because the only prospective
| artists who are free to work are those who can afford the
| upfront investment of their own labor. Profit from this
| investment is nowhere near guaranteed, particularly today when
| the overwhelming majority of publishing goes through a tiny
| number of corporations.
|
| The most significant problem, though, is the monopoly itself.
| For copyright to function, an artist must be able to monopolize
| their "work": not the original copy they made, but _the labor
| itself_. In order to do so, the copyright holder must be able
| to _prevent_ any work that intersects with their own. What this
| means is that copyright is made of _incompatibility_. Anyone
| who wants to _collaborate_ with a work must have explicit
| permission; otherwise their own labor is illegal by virtue of
| the presence of someone else 's existing work. Copyright
| demands that the labor of one individual be _incompatible_ with
| the other.
|
| This incompatibility is what copyright is _truly_ used for. We
| use copyright to destroy fraudulent copy. We use copyright to
| fill moats of incompatibility; and drown competition from those
| who seek to collaborate competitively.
|
| Copyright has been a bad idea from its very inception, but in
| today's world - where copy itself is practically free, and
| collaboration requires nearly zero coordination - copyright has
| become the foundation of the most significant and damaging
| parts of our society. It's time to start over.
| 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.
| fishbacon wrote:
| The database they are comparing to is probably not only
| youtube videos. So the freebooted or matching video, in
| their database, has a creation data which is earlier than
| the 3blue1brown video.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Why would they trust that date?
| blitzar wrote:
| The database they are comparing to does not exist. They
| are making shit up and spam reporting high view count
| videos to get the revenue from them.
| 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).
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| The original Twitter link doesn't show any replies either.
| Maybe it does if you're signed in, but I no longer have a
| Twitter account (and nor do most people).
| privacyking wrote:
| Neither does the x.com link if you connect via well-known
| VPNs.
| pakitan wrote:
| "For anyone who wants to avoid Twitter's toxicity, here is how
| you get some Twitter content" :)
| daveguy wrote:
| Unfortunately some companies and content creators still post
| there. It's a good way to find what the subject is about to
| identify external sources. So you can participate in less
| toxic discussions like on HN.
| 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."
| whoitwas wrote:
| I don't think using the service alternately is a good idea.
| Just don't use it. Twitter has always been known for being
| toxic. Now the baby troll leads it .. I could never sell my
| soul like that.
|
| Just don't use any social media. You'll be more healthy and
| secure.
| dudeyoureonit wrote:
| You're literally posting this on social media. kek
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Infringe copyright to read about false infringement.
| 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.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| > Or that hosting your own mail server is a full-time job.
|
| Many others have said so in the past, but I think it's worth
| saying again: this isn't true. With a good foundation in
| system administration, hosting an email server is not a full-
| time job; it's barely part-time.
|
| I self-host an email server for myself; it has reasonable
| spam protection plus calendar and contacts synchronization.
| Gmail, Fastmail, GMX etc. accepts my outgoing emails. It took
| me around three days full-time to learn everything and set it
| up (from starting the virtual machine to fully working) and
| then an hour or two each month after that to keep it
| maintained. Please feel welcome to say hello with it :)
|
| contact@seabass.systems
| lazzlazzlazz wrote:
| Email is ostensibly a decentralized system. But in its real-
| world use, it is centralized both at the application layer
| and at the protocol layer.
|
| At the application layer, email clients (like the Gmail or
| iOS email app) are typically bundled with a reliance on
| centralized email hosting (running the mail server) and
| relying on their centrally-controlled name (@gmail.com,
| @icloud.com, etc.). This in turn gives the app developers
| significant leverage against the protocol layer, since they
| completely control how their users (through their app)
| interact with the protocol layer.
|
| At the protocol layer, email relies heavily on a de facto
| reputation system, since any valuable and truly decentralized
| and permissionless system will have an abundance of spam. The
| reputation system is used to filter spam and isolate bad
| actors. This is why running a home email server is not really
| what this is about: it's about who you need to rely on to
| have your emails delivered.
|
| The challenge isn't designing a protocol without reliance on
| any single actor. What's difficult is designing a protocol
| that can avoid becoming de facto centralized when critical
| features (like spam prevention, registration, etc.) need to
| be filled in by agents outside of the protocol.
|
| The crypto people recognize this and that's why they want to
| build the economics explicitly into their protocols (a
| critically important part of any protocol; all protocols
| without exception have economic components whether one
| recognizes this or not). This is also why they emphasize
| global consensus and more.
|
| Hacker News and others hate blockchains because they see the
| scams (which happen in all permissionless systems, and they
| are even more obvious when the financial components nakedly
| visible). Yet HN laments when the properties of
| decentralization that they love and value are lost for
| seemingly mysterious reasons ("dead internet theory",
| "enshittification"). The truth is that the reasons are right
| in front of us.
| 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.
| rglover wrote:
| It's deeply haunting to think about how badly AI is going to mess
| up the world over the next few years. Today, it's YouTube videos.
| Later, it will be a rejection of the insurance claim for a kid's
| life-saving surgery.
|
| If you're in a position of influence in an organization that's
| losing its marbles over AI, please, at the very least encourage
| others to pump the brakes and _think_.
|
| If there was ever a time to speak up when you know implementing
| something will lead to a likely disaster, it's now.
| connicpu wrote:
| UnitedHealthcare is already using AI to deny claims, and
| reportedly I've heard that 90% of the AI denials that are
| appealed end up approved when it gets to a human.
| xiaq wrote:
| > Later, it will be a rejection of the insurance claim for a
| kid's life-saving surgery.
|
| According to this article, it's been happening for a while now:
| https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans...
| maeil wrote:
| If only this had to do with AI. This has been going on for many
| years, long before LLMs. These are simple scammers. Many a good
| article has been written about the way these scams work. With
| or without AI, their claims are entirely bogus, they have never
| needed AI to pretend to have a claim, and nothing has changed
| in that regard.
|
| Sugggest search query: Youtube copyright fake claim revenue
| scam.
| gweinberg wrote:
| Preaching to the choir I know, but there needs to be consequences
| for issuing a bogus takedown request.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| "Be a property owner and not a renter on the Internet"
|
| <https://den.dev/blog/be-a-property-owner-not-a-renter-on-the...>
|
| HN discussion: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY>
|
| If you keep working on Maggie's Farm, you'll keep encountering
| Maggie's rules.
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie%27s_Farm>
|
| Rely on YouTube for distribution, for now, but build a home base
| (or bases) elsewhere which you can fall back on.
| vasco wrote:
| I wonder if it makes sense for someone to do a huge IP troll bot
| network to make copyright claims on all the big YouTubers in such
| an egregious and in-your-face wrong way that youtube would be
| forced to redesign or remove the system. It'd suck for a bit but
| I think this slow burn affecting people that can't defend
| themselves (3blue1brown can) is worse.
| wruza wrote:
| You're probably assuming youtube doesn't know about the scale
| of this problem and all it takes is to show it. It absolutely
| does know it and "be big enough to get human assistance" is
| their conscious mode of operation. They couldn't care less
| about what's right, because it's not money.
| vasco wrote:
| Of course youtube knows, the point is to make all the users
| and creators pissed with them in a critical moment, vs slowly
| burning with mild annoyance forever.
| LittleTimothy wrote:
| Here's my guess what would happen: Youtube will have a word
| with their contacts in government and in short order you'd end
| up in a court room for some nebulous federal crime about
| malicious use of computers and hacking and they'd have no
| concerns about locking you up for decades. Oh and absolutely
| nothing about Youtube's attitude to copyright would change.
|
| Take a look at Aaron Swartz's case for example, people may be
| sympathetic to his motives but he still got pursued for a 50
| year federal sentence and ended up killing himself.
| projectileboy wrote:
| I apologize in advance for not offering something constructive to
| say. I just wish anyone here who is younger could see the
| difference between what the promise of the web was in '95 and
| what it has become. Such a burning pile of trash, it's
| heartbreaking.
| bulletmarker wrote:
| This is a good example of a sensationalist post title.
| queuebert wrote:
| CinemaStix has also been fighting these lately. In their case,
| YouTube seems to have zero regard for Fair Use, and short-sighted
| film rights holders are striking every video containing any
| amount of their film, even though the publicity CinemaStix gives
| them likely increases sales.
| Jupe wrote:
| Lost in all this... can someone ELI5?
| dbspin wrote:
| Hypothetically, would it be possible to create a legal entity to
| make claims against ones own videos, as a shell protection
| against bogus claims?
| throw5959 wrote:
| That's the purpose of limited liability companies.
| dbspin wrote:
| That's not quite what I mean. Being a llc doesn't help you
| within the Youtube Content ID system. What I'm wondering is
| could you have a second entity you control make claims
| against your own videos - or do claims stack. i.e.: Would you
| still be vulnerable to vexatious claims from a third party.
| jvreeland wrote:
| this has been a known problem with YouTube for ever and they seem
| to have no interest in fixing it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-07 23:02 UTC)