Lionsgate copyright claims over reviews by YouTuber AngryJoeShow [video] | Hacker News Reader

Lionsgate copyright claims over reviews by YouTuber AngryJoeShow [video]

youtube.com

110 pointsgrecy29 comments

Interesting that even youtubers with millions of subscribers still have to deal with this stuff. Would be interesting to know how many smaller youtubers got owned by fake claims and we never see any videos about it.

Since this has been going on for years I wonder if youtube has even any plans to deal with this nonsense or just ignore it and force youtubers to create their own platforms like Linus and Floatplane and move their audiences there while smaller ones will have to move to something like peertube.

YouTube long ago made the decision to just let some content providers run wild over their users.

The thing that frustrates me, personally, watching a large number of very popular youtubers who are clearly producing both popular and also educational content, is that they still have a "3 strikes" system no matter the size of your channel of quality of videos that you upload. If you hit 2 strikes you can't live stream and if you hit 3 strikes your channel is gone.

And those strikes are not just for copyright but also community violations. But not just egregious ones, it applies equally to "borderline" violations.

3 strikes probably makes sense when the rulings are more absolute and clear intentional violations of these policies. But you would think that channels which have a long history of generally follow the rules and producing original content would have a little more lee-way on the channel-shutdown level of 3 strikes, particularly for more borderline cases.

A common one I keep seeing is popular scientific channel "Cody's Lab". In one case his strike was for a video making basic, centuries old, gunpowder. A topic covered by 100s of other videos still up on YouTube. All of his strikes have been along those lines. In another case he microwaved fruit flies, knowing that they would not be harmed by this, they weren't harmed and the point of that video was exactly that. I would say yes, it's arguable, but it seems to me like these are the kinds of cases that should allow a little more lee-way than 3 strikes and your entire career is gone. Also consider that there is no way to ask for a review ahead of time to say "yes this is OK" - you just get randomly struck down later most often many months after the video was published.

Meanwhile to criticize this after a string of these, he released a wonderful video of him "dangerously" drinking Hydric Acid (also known as Dihydrogen Monoxide): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCdHfyaDLM

The YouTube 3-strikes concept is draconian. The risk to content creators is so outsize that it is the thing that could give a competitor a leg up, and the only reason it's not enough is that YT could fix this at any time, thus limiting the appeal of a competitor. But the risk to YT is not zero: at some point there may be a terrible-for-PR incident that drives content creators elsewhere.

YT management must be aware of how terrible the situation is for content creators. The question is: why not address this?

> Interesting that even youtubers with millions of subscribers still have to deal with this stuff.

Even more interesting is the seemingly little interest in defending against it by uploading to other sites or running there own. Their entire income/career/company has googles algorithmic gun to their head at all times and they won't hedge their bets. The only ones that have moved on seem to be the one's who've had their content category outright banned.

The DMCA protection against false claims are woefully inadequate to the point of being non-existant.

What's the practical mechanism that stops official videos like trailers from being DMCA'd every time one is uploaded?

Well if they're uploaded by the copyright holder they're unlikely to be DMCAed (though it happens :-). And why should they protest a trailer -- it's an ad for their film, right? But these shortsighted folks often will DMCA one.

In theory you can be liable for damages for filing a false DMCA claim (a couple of examples here: http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-... ). In practice it almost never happens, which surprises me as they are a nuisance for the YTs of the world who have to handle the complaints.

People get copystrikes on YouTube all the time for ridiculous reasons. Playing a cover of a song? Copystrike. Humming 3 seconds of the halo theme song? Copystrike. Playing a song on a paper towel dispenser in a public bathroom?

https://youtu.be/Tqj2csl933Q

I mean what's stopping malicious people from trying to fight fire with fire by incorrectly claiming all the movie and music industry's legitimate stuff? Does YouTube give them special status?

Except they are not using the DMCA, they are using google's own content id process, which has no checks and/or balances[1].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-injus...

I thought Content ID just referred to the automated content recognition system, not to manually claimed things. That article you linked to seems to agree.

So the video in this post seems to be primarily not about Content ID.

Not exactly true. The YT claim system is optional. Either party can bypass it and force it through the DMCA/other legal process if they want (the claimee can do this by filing a dispute+appeal). Of course doing this opens the claimee to potentially far more dire consequences if the claimant chooses to for example file a lawsuit against the claimee, which is why disputing+appealing can be dangerous and most creators aren't willing to do it (or they might just dispute but choose not to follow a rejected dispute with an appeal).

The benefit of the YT claim system is that 1) it usually gives a good enough remedy to copyright holders such that they won't feel the need to file DMCA takedowns or lawsuits against creators 2) it isn't subject to the DMCA's repeat infringement requirement (which manifests itself on YT and most other platforms as a 3-strikes-your-out policy) 3) it offers far more granular remedies (a claim won't always result in the video being taken down for instance) and 4) it's optional! If a claimee is willing to defend their content against a DMCA takedown or in court if need be, then they can always dispute+appeal

On the other hand, one of the big disadvantages of the claim system is that it makes navigating YT copyright confusing as hell to those unfamiliar with it. The misinformation that's so prevalent on the claim system just makes everything so much worse. Not entirely sure how YT could improve that TBH.

> Either party can bypass it and force it through the DMCA process if they want

That's not true as far as I can tell. If my video gets claimed there's nowhere in the Youtube UI that allows me to do this? If this is really an option could you show me how to do this please? From what I can tell my only real option is to 'dispute' and then the supposed 'rightsholder' just says 'nope' and my dispute goes away with no further recourse.

You have to appeal the dispute. The appeal goes to youtube who will force the claimant to either escalate the claim to a DMCA takedown or release it entirely.

YT has official docs on how to do this under the "How to appeal rejected disputes" section: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en

'Request immediate removal of your video: They may issue a copyright takedown request against your video if they believe their claim is still valid. This means you’ll get a copyright strike on your account. If you still believe that you have the rights to the content, you can submit a counter notification at this point.'

You still get a copyright strike and I can't tell if Youtube removes that strike when you send a counter notification?

Three strikes and you're out?

That's the DMCA for you unfortunately! Most platforms like YT have a 3-strikes-your-out policy as a result of the DMCA's "repeat infringers" requirement.

If you send a DMCA counter notification in response to a takedown, the strike will be removed (possibly allowing some delay for the counterparty to show intent to file a lawsuit).

However you've already lost almost all revenue for a video with no compensation from YT or the false claimant. It's specifically against content creators and does nothing to prevent copyright infringement. It does nothing but prove copyright infringement isn't a problem that can be solved in the courts or through the legal system. Most people do not believe the courts are fair, the law is fair, or that compensation is equitable for the product. Companies that solve that problem don't tend to have that problem. Don't believe me? Try looking up how easy it is to get Netflix content. It's not nearly as widely available on illicit sources as content that's more heavily locked down.

I'm usually very much on the side of the small(er) YouTubers who have to deal with these bullshit, broadstroke copyright claims by large media companies, but then I looked at the original HellBoy trailer reaction video. It contained the entire trailer, in full, no editing. I can't imagine any court deeming this is fair use. You couldn't just take a video of an entire movie, add some commentary to it, and expect a fair use defense to stand.

You mean a trailer studios use to promote movies?

This seems more like them not appreciating the criticism than copyright infringement.

Unless you're actually licensed to distribute the trailer, you don't actually have the right to do so, I believe. Of course, the copyright holder probably isn't going to care if you do it in a way that helps them, but it's entirely their decision.

Would somebody be able to manually copyright claim videos produced by Lion's Gate? By the way, this is happening with BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.) claiming videos in which there's no music at all.

Why don't you tubers just form a union. YouTube will always lean towards favor of the bigger scarier party. Also such a union would be able to lead boycotts and protests of movies albums etc

What kind of union can fight against a corp. that spends $200M making just one shitty movie.

The French youtuber Benzaiehad this happen to him too.. Culprit was 20th Century Fox, for X-men Apocalypse. Reuploaded the review without the movie content playing in the background. https://youtu.be/9DjfTisCYDg

Uhm, his video contained the trailer in whole.

It was likely fair use since there was discussion and criticism of the trailer, but I agree that the full trailer shouldn't have been played.

Unfortunately, Fair Use is a guideline, it's not a strict set of legal exemptions. It's usually considered impossible to claim Fair Use when monetization is involved. I can't tell if they were trying to run ads on the video originally, but given the general sense of the channel, it seems likely.

Stop using Youtube then. Seems like a mass exodus of top talent might make Youtube react. Otherwise they aren't going to do anything. You're not worth it unless you're impacting Google's bottom line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com