“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”
twitter.com
twitter.com
If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices. (We certainly need more jobs for people.)
For example, when you are a paid G Suite customer - you'll need to dig hard to find their support number. Then you'll need to click several buttons making it clear you still need support. You also need to then generate a PIN used to access the phone support.
If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up.
Truely, incredible that they get away with it. Also incredible that they're OK with this given how much profit they make from ads.
By comparison, I've had excellent support from Bing Ads in the past - unfortunately they represent a much smaller number of impressions than Adwords.
This will inspire more concern on their part.
You need to change the law first.
Well, maybe law has to change.
For example, in my country if you offer a service to the public you cannot refuse a customer for no reason. It's intended as an anti-discrimination law, but also as a way to protect customers from abuse.
1) can't write on Hacker News (more likely)
2) would say it
3) would not use the country as an example of a functioning country
And we don't like Chinese law for a good reason.
[citation needed]
> If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator
YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.
Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.
Talk to a lawyer
It seems people on the internet try to solve everything with buttons and emails and forget there's a world out there with laws and rights and everything else
On the other side, Google semes very happy to spam me around once a once with offers of human help to restructure ads and so on. I took them up on this offer once, and it was a total waste of an hour - they were obviously going by script, and suggested changes that would increase my spend for no benefit. They also couldn't help at all with the one thing I actually wanted help with (increasing quality scores for obviously relevant content).
So they do have humans for the little people... but only to encourage you to spend more :/
1. admin console, click the question mark in the top right
2. "contact support" button is right on the front page
3. Choose live chat, phone, or email
4. enter your question
5. click "continue to phone" (can't blame them for trying to show relevant helpdesk articles first)
6. call the number and enter the pin
This is better than some customer support solutions, Many will bounce you back to the helpdesk homepage every chance they get, and the only way to actually get support is to email support@ or go to a special page (Tip: /hc/en-us/requests/new will work with most zendesk instances).
Now, free google services and YouTube services are obviously broken by design (no human support).
Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation?
Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system).
And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know that they too are safe. Because a victim would have to jump over the insanely high hurdle of proving the company knowingly misrepresented their ownership of the work. The company can easily claim that is was not intentional, but rather a mistake caused by a bug in their software.
If congress cared about this, they could fix it in a minute: false DMCA takedown request = fine, regardless of knowledge or intent.
The laws are broken. It doesn't matter how "big" Google is. They cannot afford to protect the small guy. It's a choice between "hurt the small guy" vs. "go bankrupt". Fix the laws. Don't blame Google.
I don't know whether this is true in fact, in this specific case, but as a fairly average sort of person I suspect it might be.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to blame Big Co., but you're probably right in that it won't do much good at this point.
Why not Google themselves? If they're willing to take on the responsibility for false takedown claims by actively taking steps to remove a content creators': why can't Google themselves pay for enforcement of truth in the matter? They are creating EULAs and contracts around users basically having no choice in the matter, after all?
And Youtube has had for years Netflix-styled stars in its eyes. They want to be cozy with big media and trudging all over their individual creators is business as usual if it gets them favorable deals with the "big boys".
1. People were using Rhinna's songs without permission in large numbers.
2. The company wrote a program to automatically send out a takedown notice to violators
3. Whoops, the program made a mistake. We didn't mean to.
I do think that companies here are "acting in good faith" in so much as I do not think they are misrepresenting their intentions. I don't think Sony has a conspiracy to increase it's revenue by monetizing Minecraft gamer channels.
However, the law is written in such a way that there is no penalty for companies that write low precision, high recall, dumpster-fire grade take-down bot software.
More on this topic: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take...
See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
Virtually no consequence.
Critically though, going to DMCA is really bad for the uploader because Youtube does not remove the 'strike' against your account when it gets escalated. So content uploaders almost never go here.
It looks like these are all Content ID takedowns (well, actually not takedowns; whoever is making the requests is taking the ad revenue from the videos, but leaving them up). In these cases, YouTube has their own dispute system, but it doesn't touch the DMCA.
I think this is the relevant page: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en&ref_...
You're choosing to let YouTube publicly host the video until further notice, and in exchange they agree to pay you whatever cut of ad revenue they deem appropriate. There's no question that under the terms you agree to, they can demonetize your videos at will. And if they also see fit to start paying somebody else when your videos get played, that's not something you have legal standing to complain about.
What it probably is, is fraud on the part of whoever's falsely claiming to Google that they have a copyright interest.
I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.
What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue sharing of his video with no recourse.
Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1]
This doesn't sound like an example of YouTube badness, but rather an example of the hazards of working with unreliable business partners. And pay attention to your contracts!
This isn't MumboJumbo's fault in any way. But if there are samples and they're not cleared, there's a legal issue.
That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can.
This is completely wrong. Youtube can do whatever it wants unless MumboJumbo specifically signed a contract with Youtube to receive guaranteed compensation. The only law Youtube has to follow is the copyright law and it's doing it to the fullest extent possible in this instance.
For each 1800 videos? The youtuber claims that you have to do it for each video and it takes 1 to 2 minutes each.
Though this case looks more reasonable then the idiotic case where white-noise gets a copyright strike.
If they don't review the video, they can use the safe harbor provisions. If they look at the content and decide to promote or reward those creators, Google themselves could become liable for that IP infringement on aassive scale that so far is mostly going unprosecuted.
And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.
If Google was losing money on youtube they wouldn't pay out billions a year to video creators in the face of zero competition.
The big problem is discovery. A lot of people are wondering about decentralised server networks with an open discovery/search system built on top.
That's a horrendously hard project for social as well as technical reasons. But it's badly needed to drag the web out of the corporate swamp it's currently drowning in.
The total bandwidth for one of these creators’ videos is not itself all that massive. Particularly if you are not live streaming, a few thousand dollars in hosting costs a year to get 100TB/mo dedicated servers in a couple datacenters.
But once you have the servers humming and serving a few million views a month, whose ads are you running alongside your content?
[1] Although a kind of specialized one with a lot simpler scaling characteristics compared to a YouTube replacement.
Many such platforms exist; starting a new one from scratch without monetization scale would be difficult, but certainly not impossible. The real expense when scaling would seem to me to be moderation of illegal content actually, since you have to pay people for that.
IPFS does static content and Cloudflare does a free IPFS gateway.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/distributed-web-gateway/
https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/blob/master/examples/browser...
Recoding seems like a candidate for distributed computing, and a way for fans to support creators.
The trick to find the niche and be 10x better than youtube for that niche and then expand from there.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/26/twitch-solidifies-its-lead...
Copyright holders could file a DCMA request, but YouTube's process makes it easier while achieving the same result. This allows YouTube to satisfy large content holders by avoiding the penalties for false DCMA claims.
DCMA is intented for forcing a comapny to remove content. YouTube simply removes things without actually involving DCMA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E
From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en (emphasis mine)
> Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations
> YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.
> In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes [aka the DMCA takedown/counter-notification process] on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.
There's absolutly no law requiring Youtube to host whatever content you want them to. Nor should there be, really.
Yes, that's what I was referring to; YouTube is now saying in some of their emails[1] about taking down a video that they are not intending to forward the counter-notification to the claimant, which they are required under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to do if they want to limit their liability as a service provider.
They don't have to put the video back up or do anything when someone sends a counter notification, but that means they have full copyright liability for that video. They can now be sued directly for violating copyright for each copy they made when someone viewed the video prior to when it was taken down.
In the video in my previous comment, a copyright lawyer discusses the situation. He thinks the big music industry companies that are involved in these agreements ("YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners") must have indemnified YouTube for any legal costs they might face in exchange for the power to anonymously kill videos without question or appeal.
[1] https://twitter.com/adamneelybass/status/1124734826119090176
Sued by whom?
It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.
Money.
If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim.
The DMCA isn't designed in a way to make an easy path forward for a service like Youtube to operate fairly in a profitable manner. Article 13 prohibits it by law.
Copyright law reminds me of going to my parent's house and being asked to fix something on their computer. It's not this one thing that's broken, it's everything that's broken. I could fix all the little individual things, but it would be a lot easier to wipe it clean and start from scratch.
No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.
If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far.
Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly.
Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need" applies here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
The law provides that service providers can avoid liability by following these procedures, which afford them no discretion or opportunity to review claimed infringement.
You claim that "DMCA claims [...] [impose] a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim." From the statute, it appears instead that reviewing section (c) notices or section (g) counter-notices and acting based on their own purported determination of infringement or non-infringement would cause the loss of their safe harbor, a safe harbor available only when the provider follows the nondiscretionary procedure laid out in (c)(1) and (g)(2).
No, YT must "replace the removed material and cease disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless [it] first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification (..) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order"
There's no opportunity for review by YT, from either side.
This is being tested. I don't think it will really happen.
If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did.
The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.
That isn't how fair use works. 30 seconds might not be fair use and 10 minutes might, depending on how they're used.
Privatized monopolies are in general small totalitarian government regimes that reign over specific functions (markets) of life. Real competition is what breaks those regimes into a democracy where you can somewhat vote with your purchase decisions. We still have to watch out for cartels though where multiple near monopolies agree to stay out of each others territories or collude to set market practices.
I'm sure there will still be people here who are quite happy with that because "it's not the government doing it" and they reckon they're not next in line for the same treatment.
As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).
Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc.
A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights.
To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.
The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist.
In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repeatedly breaking the law would force massive issuances of equity to the victims. For particularly lawless companies, this would mean the current owners equity would be diluted to the point where they would cede control of the company to the wronged parties.
To pick a different industry, this means that ownership of most coal mines would have been transferred to the miners and surrounding towns years ago (unless they stopped flouting safety and environmental regulations).
For each case of copyfraud, have the defrauder lose copyright for one item in their catalogue and placed into public domain. The item? Victim's choice.
This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?
http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3
> Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º.
I mean, I have spilled boiling water on myself occasionally and I don't think I got third degree burns.
Although maybe I'm just comfortably numb.
Third degree burns happen with boiling hot water, any boiling water is dangerous and potentially lethal if mishandled. People underestimate the energy stored in that water.
Doesn't that mean that the whole justice system in US is broken? Courts of law exist for this very purpose, so that every citizen can fight for their rights, including defending themselves against this type of extortion. If the cost of lawsuit is prohibitive then you might as well live in some third world dictatorship, with no justice system at all.
Plea bargains. That is all.
AFAIK DMCA notices only produce a takedown, not monetization. If you want to monetize you go through Content ID, which is not the DMCA.
A false DMCA also exposes you to real legal threat, and a big player with money for a lawyer will dismantle you.
I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned.
edit:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.
I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this.
Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k
Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend.
Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks...
Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician.
Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out.
While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out.
Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding.
It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should.
It's also reasonable to expect better.
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches.
The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)"
Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.
Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.
If it were handled the DMCA way, here is how it would go.
1. Someone complains to the hosting service alleging that you are violating their copyright.
2. The hosting provider takes down the material and notifies you. If you do not want to dispute this, that is the end of it.
3. If you want to dispute their claims, you notify the hosting provider. It doesn't really matter, as far as I recall, if you dispute the claims because you say the claimant does not hold copyright, or you say that they do but your use is covered by fair use, or any other mean.
4. The hosting provider puts your material back up, and tells the complainant that if they want to take it down, they need to take you to court, and provides your legal contact information for filing said suit.
If the claimant takes you to court, and wins, following the above procedure absolves the hosting provider of any liability for the infringement.
A claimant trying to use DMCA where it is not justifiable faces a couple other deterrents.
First, unless the claimant is representing themselves in the case, they are going to have an attorney, and that attorney is going to take into account Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1]. If the claimant doesn't have a fairly reasonable case, he is going to have trouble finding an attorney.
Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is perjury. The claimant can face criminal charges for that (although it would probably have to involve someone doing this on a large scale to get Federal prosecutors to prosecute).
Knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown also makes you liable for civil damages, including costs and attorney fees, incurred by the target of the takedown notice, the hosting provider, and in the case where neither the complainant or the target are the copyright owner, the actual copyright owner.
If the complainant who knowingly files a false takedown notice actually follows through and sue you for infringement, I'd guess that the damages due to you for the false notice would be handled there.
If the complainant isn't that stupid, and drops the matter after the notice and counter-notice, you could sue them over the false notice.
I've reviewed the DMCA a few times and I am pretty sure this isn't true. It's supposed to be the "teeth" of the DMCA to prevent false claims, but the actual teeth are very blunted.
The requirements a DMCA takedown notice are[1]
1. you have to sign it as someone authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.
2. you have to identify the work you claim is being infringed.
3. you have to identify the work you want them to take down.
4. you have to give them your contact information.
5. you have to state that you have a "good faith belief" that the content is infringing.
6. Direct quote, and the only use of the word "perjury" in the notification requirements: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed."
The only thing you must declare under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to act for the copyright owner. The only other claim you make is that you are acting in "good faith", which is super fuzzy. An actor sending out notices on content detected by content-id bots is almost certainly acting in "good faith" if they haven't been made aware of potential errors by those bots.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/text-digital-millennium-copyright... (search for "ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION")
Maybe youtube should by default bundle the complaints? Ideally you'd have rich tools for slicing and dicing a complaint and responding to different slices in different ways.
The content is never taken down.
Not true
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.
The case where an uploader loses all their revenue is if the video is completely demonetized (or completely taken down in the case of a DMCA request)
Pirates don't really steal data, they just copy. But this is actually a kind of theft. Most pirates would consider that immoral, I'd guess.
"Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming"
If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.
That advice wouldn't help the british creator in this case though.
https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_...
Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.
The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.
it is not.. it is with the existing laws
The basic issue some are concerned with is that "ownership" of intellectual property gives people or entities rights that infringe on regular property rights. There's an inherent conflict, so you can't just maximize both at once.
How it’s implemented in current law is though. And it’s getting worse. That’s the problem, not copyright itself.
But youtube contentID claim is not DMCA, and has no punishment attached for a wrong claim.
Should an artist want to not register copyright for their works, they are 100% free to do so.
They won’t make any money, but that’s their choice.
You may not agree with the system, but it’s the law.
In this single case, this is actually the system working as it should.
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?
YouTube survived even the Real Name Policy during Google+ era. At this point, I can't think I think of anything that could do a permanent and immediate damage to YouTube popularity, even if they pull the equivalent of recent Tumblr purge. YouTube has enough momentum and its audience is way too diverse for it to fail overnight.
Also, video hosting is very hard and expensive. It's possible to have a service that is generally nice and serve some niche (like Vimeo or Dailymotion), but I feel they will break apart in some way or another if they ever gain YouTube-level of popularity (due to regulation, lawsuits, etc.).
But they certainly compete with YouTube for eyeballs, and I can't imagine they're not working on a regular video ecosystem.
It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.
On a related note, Google should clean up their customer support. Everywhere.
Sounds kind of like the outlets at Cabazon, or any of the music and art festivals in the desert. Just need people to group together and do it.
Unlike a real desert, everyone can still reach you in your internet desert, and eventually it can become an internet oasis.
Then again, maybe once that happens YT will actually start to become content-creator friendly again.
Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference.
Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to find inaccurate claims.
The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
* creator is in the hospital
* creator is dead, and the heirs know nothing about dealing with copyright claims
* creator is hiking the Appalachian Trail for the next year
* creator is in jail for something unrelated
* creator got deployed on a submarine
* creator now has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember the internet
ContentID becomes a trivial way to steal money, and the DMCA becomes a trivial way to suppress the creator's work.
They would still have the DMCA process, but they lose rights to use the copyright strike process until they prove their competence.
YouTube's policies are as Draconian as they are because that's literally the only way to comply with the law. I can't for the life of me figure out why YT doesn't have some kind of messaging strategy around that.
How do you get an AI to evaluate what is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" ?
Fair use is hard enough for lawyers and judges.
To clarify, this would work the same way classified information works in the DoD -- many small pieces of information can be one classification level (or even unclassified), but if you aggregate them, they can become a higher classification level in aggregate. Similarly, small fair-use clips on an individual level would retain fair-use status, but if you start aggregating them, via a playlist or some other method, the playlist would not be fair use and would count as infringement.
The ballsier move than simply lobbying forever would be for Google to just go ahead and do this -- go ahead and write a script/AI that rejects infringement reports and/or DMCA requests on excerpts that are less than 5% of the total work on the basis that such a small excerpt necessarily must be fair use no matter the context because of the small size of the clip, and then battle each case out in court on behalf of the infringing user. I think they would win every single case, and once they have won a few in a row, precedent would take care of the rest and predatory media companies would stop trying.
This isn't impossible. Google is in a position to clarify / influence how copyright law is applied, and they should do it.
Since there is absolutely no penalty for filing copyright claims, you just get together with other large youtube channels and begin filing claims against Disney, CBS, NBC, Fox, and so forth, all the large media companies that have youtube over a barrel, as well as their advertisers.
You simply decide not to play nice whatsoever. And you keep on doing it, as a growing group, repeatedly, until youtube is forced to take action. You do it to any large corporation that wants to post on youtube. And if they take the wrong action, which they will, you bring out RICO statutes and begin filing so many subpeona's they can't financially afford to work with it. You don't stop at youtube either, you get in groups and sue them for stuff they put on cable TV as well. Find yourself jr lawyers.
If Google wants binding arbitration contracts in place and then wants to sexually harass their staff, the appropriate turn-about play is for the staff to get together and plan on sexually harassing the executive management. And I'm not talking in ways they would like; I'm talking hundreds of people telling the execs and upper managers they want to do scat-play, or buying and mailing them used japanese underwear and mini goats with plushines, and so forth. And they get as viscious as possible about this, up to the point of following them around with handcuffs and leather straps in groups.
Because if we're going to be lawsless, it's time to act like total animals. And realistically, there's only one way to teach that lesson.
Somehow Youtube gets away with that, because they are a major US company. If you'd find the same amount of content on a small foreign company's servers, the FBI would crack down on it in no time using all international law available.
The current extreme bias in the complaint system will not change, because it is Youtube's legal insurance. They need to be able to claim they've done everything they can fighting piracy. In reality, piracy is and always has been one of the major uses of Youtube in addition to the privately produced content.
As a result of this, Youtube is double unfair. It enables massive piracy and at the same time severely punishes original content producers in favor of predatory and sometimes plain fraudulent companies filing bogus copyright complaints. It's a systemic problem that IMHO could only be solved by drastic law reforms.
Furthermore by catering to advertisers wholesale, they are alienating their primary users and pissing everyone off. Eventually people will get sick of it and start a subscription-based video service where ads and sponsored content are banned.
But that isn't even necessary -- all it really takes is 3-4 of the major content creators to switch to another platform with a less draconian view on copyright and advertising policies and real change could happen.
There also isn't any rule saying you have to do your video conversions server side. Imagine the cost efficiency of client-side video conversion. You could probably do it in js these days or very worst case scenario have a cross platform desktop / phone client.
WASM makes this an even easier task -- with some effort you could probably compile ffmpeg to WASM and run it fully client side in the browser with no performance penalty.
If you take video conversion out of the equation, all that's left is file hosting, which is commoditized as possible these days, and the search/suggestions algorithm, which pisses people off with its accuracy anyway.
Agreed, it's much _easier_ to do these things, but evidently not yet _easy_. Handwaving about who deserves credit is irrelevant compared to an analysis of whether executing on it is easy or not, and my (admittedly low-confidence) model,based on the empirics of the situation, is that its evidently still not that easy to reach the reliability and quality of YouTube as a service.
Burn a lot of money on bandwidth while delivering video with minimal hiccups and impressive reliability?
The barrier to entry is enormous. I run a podcast platform; I can't even host that on S3 without going to the poor house.
Maybe somebody with a really rocking Patreon could go use Wistia or something - but how do they maintain their fanbase and grow it?
So we're looking at using roughly a gigabyte of transfer for three minutes of 4K30 video at acceptable quality or about nine minutes for 1080p60 (video games, etc.). I dunno about you, but most of the creators whose stuff I follow are between 20 and 45 minutes a video. Call it 30 minutes. So if they put out one video every two weeks and I watch it once, I'm pulling ~4GB for 1080p or ~10GB for 4K30.
At S3 prices, that means that of that $5, Amazon eats $1.20 or so. It's worse if they're more prolific. You can say "raise prices", but Patreons, subscriptions, etc., are brutally inelastic. When Patreon wanted to go to a model where they passed transaction fees onto the funder, a ton of people came out to claim that they couldn't afford to keep all their pledges if they had to eat a ten to thirty percent surcharge. And I believe it.
It sucks. I'm trying to come up with a better option just for my own stuff. My solution, which I can do because I'm a software developer, is probably something like OVH, where they hand you effectively-unlimited transfer. But I also don't then need to pay somebody to manage it for me--and to try to turn it into a going concern, you're going back to the "hey, how much a month is this gonna cost me?" problem.
It's not an unfixable problem. But it is a problem where the winners have economies of scale. That means...well...a YouTube.
Please, link to this off-the-shelf open source software that can be used to replicate the YouTube experience, both in terms of hosting and playing videos as well as distribution on various platforms. I'll settle for Android and iOS.
Then you just set your subscription fee to match your average cost per user, add 50% to that, round up to the nearest dollar, and you're good.
They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation.
The burn led to hospitalization.
3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring.
>They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temperature
It was within normal operating parameters as per the McDonald's manual. There had been 700 prior instances of warning about issues from hot coffee.
(And while I'm at it)
She was not driving, she was a passenger in a parked car when the incident occurred. She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800. The jury awarded $200,000 and the judge reduced that to $160,000. $2.7 million was awarded by the jury in punitive damages and reduced to $480,000 by the judge, however, there was later a settlement for an unknown amount after McDonald's appealed.
Why does everyone remember different? Because McDonald's spent more than a few million dollars on a PR campaign against her, after which she received lifelong massive amounts of hate mail and death threats and was reduced to gags on everything from Seinfeld to Jay Leno to Futurama.
Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day.
Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly.
Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted.
Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me.
We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use.
Depends on the tea. Most of the recommendations I see are below boiling:
> white and green teas are best at 70°c. For black and oolong teas use water around 85°c. For herbal infusions use 100°c water, and 90°c for Chamomile.
https://www.rareteacompany.com/perfect-cup/how-to-make-the-p...
> Once your kettle is boiled with fresh water you need to leave it for a few minutes to cool down.
https://www.twinings.co.uk/about-twinings/latest-news-and-ar...
Mate is uniformly prepared and served at around 180 deg F in my experience. Don't spill that shit either.
I've noticed a trend in recent years for tea retailers to lace their marketing with fancy instructions that treat their teas like autistic children, demanding gentle temperatures and strict timing rules. This started as a uniquely American bit of marketing wank, but it seems to be spreading recently. For a rebuttal with the credibility of an old-fashioned Englishman, here's Ginger Baker in an interview in Forbes a few years back:
> One thing that really bothers me in America is the inability of restaurants to make a good cup of tea. The instructions printed on the bag say, "Pour boiling water over the tea." How simple is that? No, they bring you an empty cup with an unopened tea bag beside it – how nice - and a pot of water that may be hot, but boiling it isn’t. So tea you have not. It’s boiling water that brings out tea’s flavor, and perhaps a dash of milk. But the brown liquid you end up with here looks like gnat’s pee, and has nothing to do with a really good cup of tea.
Even notwithstanding individual preferences, if you go to any good tea shop you're highly likely to be served a pot of freshly boiled water, which may still be well over 200 deg F by the time you pour it. A hazardous substance to be sure.
As near to 100 as you can manage, which means warm the pot or mug first - though most don't. Pot with loose leaf is much preferable. Let it brew to taste.
How do you feel about steeping times? There are some green teas that get nasty if I steep too long, but otherwise, for me, stronger is almost always better, so I've rarely paid attention to steeping times. Sometimes I make a big french press of tea and let it steep until drunk. Do you keep track of the time?
Green tea and some of the lighter black teas - like Darjeeling - definitely prefer a bit less time. Lapsang souchong seems to magically avoid stewing no matter how long you leave it. :)
Where do you like to buy? I used to get great stuff like single-estate Darjeelings and Assams from a mail-order company that was later sold to (and destroyed by) Teavana. I mostly use Davidson's Organics now, but the selection is smaller.
Can't help you too much on where - I'm in the UK, even most supermarkets take tea slightly seriously. Then we're spoiled rotten with a great tea shop nearby with loads of loose coffees and teas, including their own blends. https://www.johnwatt.co.uk
They contradict themselves multiple times within the page. For your quote, they may have meant to add for green teas - which definitely does prefer water off the boil. If you scroll down the very same page, they say:
"...a black tea is fully oxidized which means that it prefers boiling water and a longer brewing time. The same goes for processed teas such as Oolong. So pour on your freshly boiled water at 100 degrees", complete with graphic confirming this. I'd agree - only for black tea. But again they contradict themselves on Oolong - which should be just off the boil - and as confirmed in their graphic. There are others, like not recommending "one for the pot" - especially as Twinings tea bags contain less tea than most.
Ugh. I'm just going to assume a non tea drinking junior wrote that page. :)
However it was also McDonald's fault.
That was the reason for sueing, and the jury agreed.
> but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use
Why would you argue that it is a binary choice between personal responsibility, or complete abrogation of responsibility?
At the risk of repeating myself: when Stella was injured, McDonalds' corporate policy required coffee to be held at 180-190 deg F [1]. This is pretty well in line with the range recommended by professional coffee associations like the NCA, who currently recommend that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C) [2].
This temperature range was, and still is, used by nearly every coffee shop, restaurant, and domestic coffee machine. Starbucks regularly serves even hotter coffee. My Mr. Coffee machine holds coffee at around 185 deg F. So does your's. Look it up. And like I said, any good tea shop will serve you a pot of much hotter, nearly boiling water. Well over 200 deg F.
So if you really think McDonalds was negligent in serving coffee in compliance with recognized industry standards, then you must think every other coffee shop, tea shop, restaurant, and home coffee machine maker is also potentially guilty of negligence. Is that what you think?
Thankfully, the verdict against McDonalds in Stella's case was a pretty isolated result, and personally injury lawyers have moved on to suing over defective lids, rather than excessive temperatures [3]. Notice that in the linked case, Starbucks served 190 deg coffee, hotter than what Stella was injured by, yet they were not sued for the temperature, but rather a lid that came off too easily.
> Why would you argue that it is a binary choice between personal responsibility, or complete abrogation of responsibility?
That's the choice forced on us by frivolous lawsuits like this. Thankfully, that false choice has been thoroughly ignored, and we can still get appropriately hot coffee from establishments and our own coffee machines.
1 - http://web.archive.org/web/20031223003746/http://www.reedmor...
2 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
3 - https://www.eater.com/2017/5/19/15662790/starbucks-hot-coffe...
Plaintiff sues the Defendants in the amount of $125,000 for physical pain, mental pain and anguish, and loss of life’s enjoyment during the pendency of treatment.
Liebeck initially approached McDonald’s with a demand of $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income. McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800. (Gerlin, Andrea. “A Matter of Degree,” The Wall Street Journal, September 1, 1994). As trial approached, Liebeck’s settlement demand increased to approximately $300,000.
The vast majority of users don't have access to the system.
When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately.
Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views
17 USC 102(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
This post itself is copyrighted under the terms of US law, as well as similar language under common international 'Berne Convention" laws. As is yours. At the moment of creation, with no further action or registration required. For a duration of 95 years, as an anonymous work (17 USC 32(c)) -- or to 70 years after my death, if not anonymous.
A fact which I personally find to be grotesque and insane, but which is indisputably law.
Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.
If we assume the creator is using a licensed original work, then I would rather claim that if entitlement is expressed by anyone, it is expressed by the entity that sent, or are otherwise responsible for the 1000+ copyright claims. All claims toward a single channel, and apparently without verifying the validity of even one such claim.
Such as?
Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos he makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.
But also, complaining has never helped! As multiple people have commented here, they have no incentive to change! The one thing that does force change is competition, and there is basically no competition.