Hacker News Reader

Same experience from me: they run thing really bad.

A TV company came to our office doing a report. They gave us the video, and I uploaded it to YouTube as a private video to share it internally. After a week the private video has maybe 20 views. Months later I receive a copyright claim from the TV network. Their contact email obviously didn't work, and since I'm not a content creator I don't really care about my YouTube channel. So my account ended up being locked/limited during 6 months for a private video that had 0 views since several months...

What a mess.

Wait what the hell - getting blocked on YouTube would stop you reading your GMail? Did I really read that correctly?

Yep. You do not have an account on each, you have a Google account that allows you to access all of google's services. And once it is closed, it is game over.

Most people didn't notice this until G+ hit the net, and some kids used their gmail account (set up with parental knowledge and support) got closed because G+ found out they were under 13.

Others have discovered that if their app on Google Play gets into trouble, bye bye gmail etc.

It is a downright hamfisted system, and likely an outcome of Google's drive to automate all the tings...

And this is specifically why, as I select for my biz an upgraded email service provider, even though Google/GMail has a solid service & good prices, they are completely disqualified.

Yeah. I am personally abandoning GMail specifically because I want to be able to upload stuff to YouTube.

You know a company is mismanaging things when they're doing things that are against their own interests.

> I am personally abandoning GMail specifically because I want to be able to upload stuff to YouTube

Can't you just make another account for videos?

Google will work out that the accounts are operated by the same person and forcibly link them together. They may then decide that you are abusively trying to evade their restrictions and permanently ban all of your accounts.

Wait really? Any links on this? I don't recall hearing of this happening.

My accounts were created separately in the early days of YouTube and they got linked against my will. It doesn’t show up as my gmail account in YouTube because I kept rejecting their “please merge” requests, but besides the display name, they’re essentially merged and I have to log in with my gmail account. I don’t use my gmail for anything else anymore so I don’t care, but it was frustrating back when it happened. I know it’s just anecdotal and not a proper reference like you requested..

Oh, but you're talking about a pre-Google YouTube account being merged with a Google account, not two Google accounts being linked, right? Those are pretty different things.

Yeah

That's complete nonsense. Have any hard evidence to share?

There was a post on here (HN) a while ago about an entire company account getting suspended because Google had linked an employee of that company to his personal google account which was being used to re-sign Android apps for redistribution.

It’s an extreme example, but if that account is true, google definitely have automated tooling to link distinct accounts.

I can’t actually imagine any reason why they wouldn’t. It feels like something they’d need at their scale.

I actually have a few gmail accounts that are "Youtube banned" for same content ID thing but the mail/drive/whatever part of it still works. So the "Google account wide" ban seems pretty rare and more motivated than just 3 copyright strikes.

Thanks for this data point!

That's nonsense. They have banned the entire org in this case, not linked accounts that weren't before.

Actually, it is not because I particularly care about uploading videos to YouTube (never done it, no particular plans to do it), but with the fact that Google specifically and forcibly links everything.

Sure, in some ways, the fusion is very convenient.

But I've read a few too many credible stories about how a loyal Google customer does some innocuous action that happens to set off one of Google's triggers, and is instantly banned from the entire ecosystem.

Google's complete lack of customer support, and indeed hostility to the concept of ever being reachable by or accountable to a user just makes it worse.

Bottome line; Google is ok for casual use, but as a biz, I'll never touch them, and advise others to avoid like the plague.

>It is a downright hamfisted system, and likely an outcome of Google's drive to automate all the tings...

Google's drive... Had to read that twice, for a moment I got really confused about my cloud storage subscription!

Given the discussion, just make sure that all files you have saved in Google Drive are also available to you elsewhere lest Google get mad at you.

I’m not sure this is entirely true across all services. I’m banned from AdWords (long story, I was slinging açaí berries around 2008 when I was 16...), but my account works for all other google services.

Were you buying ads or hosting them? They're a whole lot nicer to ad buyers.

Yes. That's just one reason why I'll never use Gmail.

Agreed. Switching away from gmail was one of the best things I’ve done in recent years.

Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.

>Who was sending these notices?

There's lots of them. The most notorious one I had to deal with was Adrev. There are reports of people getting notices from AdRev for videos that don't even have any music in them. [1]

[1] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/42xLe...

Is this a new evolution of patent trolling? Except you don't even need a patent anymore...?

Copyright trolling?

Of course it already exists /sigh.

Seems like this is a great way to do copyright trolling - it's highly scalable and exists within a walled garden which means it's a legal grey area for things like this, much like how free speech on YouTube/Reddit isn't really a thing.

There's lots of information here: https://talent.adrev.net/about

It isn't perjury. In the DMCA, It is illegal for me to send copyright notices about you infringing a work I don't own, but it is not illegal for me to send a copyright notice about a work I do own - say a film - even if the page doesn't actually contain any of that film.

Apart from classical music, bird noises and ambient noises are common cases of inaccurate YouTube takedowns.

These are not DMCA notices, but YouTube's/Google's own copyright cop they implemented to pacify the big media companies.

It's notorious for false positives and how impossible those false positives are to resolve.

Welcome to the DMCA. It's as broken as copyright and causing quite serious stifling of young creators. It sometimes feels like it's used more for evil than for its legitimate purpose.

Seems? More like its mainly used in this way nowadays. There is no risk in sending DMCA notices so of course its abused.

Wonder if we can return the favour? If someone sends us an obvious unfair takedown (like in the article) we can name and shame them. And also do the same tactics, go to their content and report it as violation of your content. Even if it doesn't they still have to respond and go through the same hoops.

If a group of us formed and we did this to all of them and gunged up the system, google would be forced to improve it.

> And also do the same tactics, go to their content and report it as violation of your content.

This might work between rival game streamers or something but the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe likely do not have a YouTube channel for you to retaliate against.

But you could find out who is legitimately using that copyright on YT and retaliate against them. For instance, if you use a clip of a Prince song that is taken down, and you determine that BMG music owns the Prince catalog, you could send automated infringement requests against PrinceVEVO or any official BMG uploads.

Even better if you created a "burner" corporation. Ie P.O. box in Delaware and act on their behalf. They have to take you seriously because corporation, amirite?

YouTube is far more broken for small to medium content creators than the big guns.

IMO the way to go is to get their contact details out of the copyright claim and sue them in small claims court.

YouTube is broken for anyone that isn’t a giant media corporation, or very heavy ad buyer. The biggest YouTuber on the platform regularly gets false copyright claims, DCMAs, etc.

Perhaps an automated system like the defunct BlueFrog anti-spam system (which worked too well)?

Alternatively they would get better at filtering out your requests.

All these schemes are to stifle and own

Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections against false accusations.

More like "DMCA theoretically has protections against false accusations, but instances of people being held accountable are extremely rare."

Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then come back with "but we didn't know it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get away with it.

Having bots flagging videos is the source of the issue in the first place, there should be a captcha and DCMA requests should be manual.

Hi there. Plaintiff here from OPG v Diebold, the first successful case enforcing 512f against knowingly false DMCA takedowns where the defendant was found guilty and owed several hundred thousand dollars in damages. It can and does happen and there is court precedent. Contact EFF if you're on the receiving end of an obviously bad DMCA takedown.

Bravo, now if it could become standard practice.

The process Google has set up is an outcome of DCMA, because Youtube can only operate as long as they can claim DCMA "safe harbor" status.

Yeah I don't know what people expect. YT is huge now, they are being watched by governments and corporations alike. The days were you could find entire movies on YT or Al qaida recruitment videos is long gone. If Google steps out of line everyone is immediately at their throat.

Bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kingdom+of+heav...

It's seems to me it's doing what the people who paid for it want.

>It sometimes feels like it's used more for evil than for its legitimate purpose.

That's exactly what it is used for. It's a multibillion dollar industry that will always ask for more and more power to police their imaginary property. They even coerce other countries into adopting similar laws as part of trade agreements. I'm convinced that copyright infringement is moral and akin to civil disobedience.

YouTube partners can upload a collection of files they claim rights on, and a YouTube bot will check any newly published video against anything in that database.

It's all automated. They don't verify if the claimant actually has the rights, this is left to the "dispute" process.

Sometimes multiple companies upload the same files. Sometimes the algorithm has false positives because the section of audio used is too short.

Sometimes they use your work in theirs, upload it and have YouTube flag your original as infringing.

I have to wonder why anybody still uses YouTube. It can't be the community.

I mean, what could compete, in terms of raw audience?

Centralization.

it's the best video streaming platform. nothing comes close in terms on quality, speed, and amount of content

Advertisers, and not content creators or viewers are Youtube's real customer, and their policies align with that. The whole existence of a take down procedure separate from, and more favorable to the take down issuer is evidence of that

Wait, why would an aggressive takedown procedure be favorable for advertisers? Advertisers just want popular videos on which they can put their ads, they don't care if the content is copyrighted or not.

Now, they probably care more about other types of censorship (for example, taking down offensive videos to avoid their brand being associated with them).

I think this is a good question. My suspicion is that the policy resulted from legal, rather than market forces. If that's true, then the fact that we the readers, viewers, listeners are the product sold to the advertisers is irrelevant.

As a viewer, it's routine to see classical recordings on YouTube claimed as/attributed to/ categorized as the wrong thing. It doesn't help that differences in two different recordings of, say, the same piano piece can be so similar in some respects, so as to trip up automatic systems. "Widespread systematic failure" is probably the best way to describe the current state of affairs.

This issue needs special attention, and classical videos ought to be treated as a special case, IMHO.

Worth noting that the reverse is also possible, i.e. recordings being altered only slightly, being able to fool human listeners into hearing them as being different, see for instance the fraudulent recordings attributed to Joyce Hatto.

> I always found it interesting that under YT rules content creators have the "3 strikes and you're banned" rule hanging over their heads

Does this include any linked Gmail accounts? Because that's heinous if so.

Any Gmail linked to your Google Account could be closed if they close any of your other services. If they ban your YT channel, your Google Account will be banned too.

YouTube copyright enforcement is bizarre. Claims against you seem unfounded if your playing classical works and if anyone could claim copyright of your performance is you, as it's a new performance and arrangement makes that your copyright.

I have used commercial tracks on videos I've posted and YouTube has authorised saying the copyright owner allows me too in exchange for me accepting adverts on my video.

I know they don't check copyright much, as I once got locked out of an old YouTube account I had, forgot the password and didn't have access to the email I signed up with. But I wanted the only video on the channel taken down, so I did a copyright complaint against myself, YouTube accepted it!

I wonder if you could do something like file a restraining order against the company to prevent them from communicating with you in the future.

How is this not considered fraud or theft?

At the very least tortuous interference in a contract.

Because Google is a private company and allowed to delete videos whenever they like (assuming you don't have a contract where they've agreed to host them for you or anything like that).

IMO YouTube ought to be regulated the same way as broadcast media used to, with things like the equal-time rule, but that's not the rule as it currently stands.

The Equal Time rule was strictly for political candidates. Perhaps you're thinking of the Fairness Doctrine, which only made sense when broadcast media were very limited.

There's got to be a good way to get Google to stop censoring one side of the political spectrum, but if we have to resort to legislation or regulation, we're doing it wrong.

If we can't, then I guess Google really is too powerful.

Edit: Google is evil. But Google is also free. If we can't counter the first without eliminating the second, then we have failed as a society.

The Fairness Doctrine never made any sense. It only required that contrasting viewpoints be presented for an issue of public import.

You could satisfy it, by discussing, say, gun control, and presenting two contrasting viewpoints: One that all guns should be banned, and one that all guns, except for ones used by police and security guards should be banned. A distinction without much of a difference (That is well within the scope of very limited political orthodoxy) is a contrasting viewpoint.

Regulation isn't the answer. Competition is the answer. So the question comes down to, is competition with YouTube possible? Or is Google a monopoly?

How does competition deal with the network effects inherent to this type of service? I as a user don't want to watch my videos on a dozen different websites. I'll use the site with the videos that are most important to me and ignore the rest.

Yes, this is a good point. Then I guess YouTube is a common carrier and needs to be treated the way the FCC treats broadcast TV and cable.

Whenever you use YouTube, you're already watching videos on dozens of different websites. YouTube is made up of thousands of servers, if not hundreds of thousands, spread all over the world. You just use a user interface that hides the difference from you. Similarly, whenever you use BitTorrent, the different pieces of your file come from dozens or hundreds of different machines, operated by different people, none of whom have the ability to take the file down.

Yes, so this is ultimately a UI problem. What we need is not a monolithic website to compete with YouTube, what we need is a decentralized, federated 'video site' protocol.

Really, what we need is the web back. That is, the web as I remember it in the 90s, before Google came along, when groups of people who shared similar interests would link to each other and form webrings. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring

BitChute is a front end for P2P torrents. And then there's Hola and other streaming frontends for torrents.

There's also PeerTube, which is a p2p YouTube clone using WebTorrents for distributing video, and which also utilizes the ActivityPub W3 recommendation for distributed federated social networking. [1]

[1] https://activitypub.rocks/

How will you apply the equal time rule to political viewpoints?

To every political question, there are more answers then "A" or "B".

Are you going to give equal time to someone who wants to ban all guns, someone who wants to ban all guns in cities, someone who wants to ban all guns for people with criminal records, but not mental illnesses, someone who wants to ban all guns for people with mental illnesses, but not criminal records, someone who wants to ban guns for non-citizens, and someone who wants everyone to have a state-provided machine-gun? What about the other permutation of these viewpoints? Or are you just going to dump these questions into a 'left' and 'right' bucket, and say you're done, when the buckets weigh the same?

Relatedly: it's also much easier to come up with factually incorrect bullshit then it is to refute it. Any insights on how you want to deal with that problem?

Ah that sounds like such a frustrating experience. It may be selection bias since I'm on HN a lot, but this sounds like a common situation.

If you were a developer at YouTube, what do you think could be done to fix this? Personally, I think a starter is only suspending a user from the specific service they "violated" the TOS on instead of their who freaking account. I don't know how content-id works, but preventing double jeopardy for a flag sounds like a good starting point. Obviously getting human support is a train-wreck and it goes without saying that needs to be fixed.

This isn't a developer level design decision. This is executive level.

Google randomly locking out users seems to be pretty common. I have had them randomly lock me out of google docs files for "ToS violations" only to have the file unlock a few days later. Ever since that happened I stopped using google services to store my stuff.

> those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity

False accusations should be given the same punishment as the accused would have faced. The "flag" and "report" buttons are abused on every single platform, as any mod can tell us.

Would something like Media Goblin [1] work for you? It's easy to host, you can share the media how you see fit, and you control copyright, and they're are many ways to deploy to keep costs down.

I'm not saying this is easier than yt, but there are some trade offs worth making if you want to really have that level of control.

[1] https://mediagoblin.org/

>many ways to deploy to keep costs down.

If you or someone else has some suggestions for cheap media hosting, I'm all ears :)

The one thing I miss from Youtube was all the commenters and people who enjoyed me playing. I got a lot of satisfaction from that and it kept me going and posting more videos (it definitely wasn't the money since ad revenue was abysmal).

Hetzner VPS has 20TB of traffic per month for like 3 EUR. You could probably use torrents to save some more bandwidth. Maybe a Peertube instance?

Maybe there are other mechanisms for revenge :)

Trolls tend to own nothing themselves so they can sling out legal threats all day and not get any in return.

No infrastructure at all? No people to doxx?

The org that they send from will legally have nothing but patents so they are safe from counter attacks.

>those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity

It's a different enforcement mechanism. DMCA requires by law that YouTube affords people a way to report things. If it gets abused that's on the government to correct, YouTube hands are tied.