Hacker News Reader

Comment by swiley | Hacker News Reader

I hated that video. I think he's absolutely wrong.

If that's really the case then how come people on /gif/ and /wsg/ on 4chan haven't been sued? There's tons of copyrighted music on there (the ygyl threads are almost all just commercial music with anime.)

By removing the legal system Google has short circuited the law. There is a protection for individuals here, it's called perjury. If the claimants here pulled the same shit they do on 4chan that they do on youtube they would be perjured and that's why they haven't deployed bots to go suing people.

View on HN

YouTube was sued by Viacom, and Paramount I believe, with some support given by Universal. Mind you this happened after content ID was in place, but was limited to content that came before. Viacom ended up settling while appealing the decision from the Court of Appeals.

It seems clear from the opinion that Content ID itself was evidence YouTube was actively collaborating with content creators. The court believed creation of that collaboration was the intent of the DMCA takedown process. It doesn’t seem like something they could remove without serious repercussion.

Sue 4chan and members? And garner the focused attention of one of the most vile communities of trolls the world has ever seen? Let me get my popcorn, because that will be an epic shitshow to watch.

>4chan and members

4chan has no members?

Users that bought a 4chan pass could be considered "members" of a sort. Regardless of whatever you choose to call them, be it "users", "members", or "shitposters", I think the point you're trying to make is overly pedantic.

My point is that every other website doesn't appear to have this problem, it's definitely one Google created.

How would you know who to sue? It's not as if 4chan lists real name and address. Past efforts to sue people based on IP address information haven't exactly gone well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_fi...

Google has a lot of information on monetized YouTube accounts, as that's a fairly involved process.

They probably could have sued 4can if they wanted.

But they understand that the audience of 4chan is much smaller than YT's, and brings incomparably less money to the 4chan that YT's audience brings to Google.

Please note, their failure to assert their rights does not void their rights. They are free to assert their rights where it makes financial sense. Let's remember that recording industry is not about music, it's about making money on selling music. They are where the money are, or where they think their money may be bleeding, or where a lawsuit can bring in more money. 4chan is not such a place, YT very much is.

The big difference here is 4chan threads are ephemeral, they rarely show on on search engines. Youtube vidoes often rank highly

I don’t understand how perjury applies here.

The DMCA has a (de facto toothless) perjury clause for knowingly submitting a takedown for content that doesn’t violate the copyright of the claimant. That doesn’t apply to YouTube claims that are handled via their internal tools outside of the DMCA process.

>de facto toothless

On YouTube, it appears to work just fine on other sites like GitHub.

When has a corporation been punished for perjury for false DMCA takedown notices on Github?

If you make a false copyright infringemenet claim, you commit perjury.

https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_a...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com