Hacker News Reader

The DMCA does not require YouTube to be involved in any part of the judgement. By just being the messenger YT is granted legal immunity for their part in spreading the alleged infringing work. The complaintent is the judge _by design_!

The law is broken and needs to change.

My understanding of the DMCA is that the person receiving the complaint is the judge by design of the law.

The complainant submits a complaint, the receiver submits a counter notice, youtube is granted immunity to put the content back up after 14 days (unless the complainant initiates a lawsuit within that timeframe) and the complainant has no recourse but to take the alleged-infringer to court.

Ultimately, you are correct, but the problem here is that 14 days. Effectively anyone can DoS your content for 14 days just by submitting a form online.

Technically, submitting a copyright claim with blatantly false information is perjury, but your only recourse as the victim is to beg a prosecutor to take the perpetrator to court over it. There is no civil remedy for false DMCA takedowns.

As far as I am aware, not a single person has ever been convicted of perjury because of information supplied in a DMCA takedown.

This is all a bit besides my point, which is that youtube's system is not just the system required by law, but much friendlier to the accuser.

That said, there are also civil penalties for false takedown notices under 512(f), which I believe have been successfully litigated. Still, the effort vs reward in litigating them is almost never worth it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

My limited understanding is that 512(f) claims are almost impossible to win because you have to prove the claimant acted in bad faith, which is very difficult. My comment should have said something like "no effective civil remedy" rather than "no civil remedy".

Foreign entities abusing the DMCA system also adds another layer of impossibility to the system. Good luck pursuing recourse against someone in North Korea or wherever, even if the DMCA claims are in blatantly bad faith.

The claimant should require some skin in the game to prevent this sort of nonsense, maybe a bond or surety of some kind held in the US?

Better would be to scrap the whole thing and make the claimant convince a court before getting an injunction like for pretty much any other kind of dispute. If the costs to the cours for that are too high then add a copyright holder tax.

If it is this easy. Why hasn't someone decided to DDOS hostage all the major Youtubers?

If you’re a Mr. Beast level big deal I’m sure somebody from YouTube will actually look into the matter.

This is of most impact to channels big enough for somebody to treat it as a full time job, but not so big that it will ever be worth YouTube’s time to provide them any level of service.

Is't this basically what happened with Destiny 2 channels earlier this year? Someone faked DMCA claims from Bungie across a wide swathe of Destiny 2 channels, possibly as retribution for having "music archiving" (which probably technically is a copyright violation) copyright-struck.

Is there room in the market for a Takedown as a Service vendor?

Oh you sweet child. This is already a thing and has been for a decade at least. Anyone with enough money can hire a firm based out of a dodgy country that will abuse the DMCA, Content Reporting mechanisms and insider contacts to get whatever you want taken down from pretty much anywhere. I know because I've seen a couple rich fucks do it with things they didn't want online about them or a family member of theirs.

Because they get special treatment.

Sounds like youtube doesn't feel obligated to restore content after a valid counter notification: https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusi...

I guess, as long as they comply with the takedown, they feel sufficiently safely harboured, and don't feel compelled to implement the other part of the process since like what are you going to do, sue youtube to force them to host your video and run ads on it?

Typically youtube copyright strikes aren't even from DMCA notices at all but from their own system they designed so they don't have to spend as much on processing DMCA notices and to make the record industry happy.

From reading through their stuff a bit, it sounds like you can get fake/internal non-DMCA strikes first, and then, usually, you can choose to escalate to require them to do an actual DMCA thing if you disagree hard enough, which seems sort of reasonable.

Wealthy entities are somewhat vulnerable to lawsuits. It would be prudent of YouTube to take the a very paranoid view of the law from a respectable lawyer - which is likely what they've done.

Judges sometimes take pride in interpreting a law to mean something other than what the words say. Let alone the risks of interactions with other parts of the law. Amateur understanding doesn't count for much.

Is it? I thought that once the situation was contested by both sides, youtube had the option to default either way, and it was simply their deci$ion to side with claimants because the traditional claimants held a ton of media licenses while individual creators held few.

The YouTube copyright claim process isn't DMCA.

The initial copyright claim process isn't DMCA, but if you dispute a copyright claim and lose you can then appeal that decision. The DMCA process then takes over. YouTube requires the claimant to file a DMCA take down notice to continue the process. If they do not then the claim is removed. If they do then you can follow the DMCA counter notice process.

Early on YouTube didn't even treat disputes as on the same track as DMCA - if your appeal got rejected they'd just side with the claimant and you had no further recourse. It's possible that this happened that long ago.

Of course, even being able to DMCA counter-notice isn't really a help, because you're just telling the claimnant to sue. You even have to dox yourself. What people want is to just not have to deal with copyright in these specific cases where there is no element of copyright being infringed.

Unfortunately both lawmakers and judges take a somewhat dim view of the whole "I shouldn't have to deal with the law" attitude.

They take a dim view of this attitude when it's a transparent attempt at dodging liability.

The relative success of anti-SLAPP statues and motions would indicate that there is at least some empathy for "not forcing people who have not committed a crime to prove that they haven't committed a crime".

> so they got all the money I earned from that video

Makes me wonder if anyone at Google is aware of the term "perverse incentive"

Or "collaboration to defraud".

Or ”fuck you, we still made money”

I wonder why its "all the money" not some portion of it. I mean if you make a documentary with historic footage, you have to clear (pay to use) each piece of footage you use. If you use a clip it doesn't mean they own your documentary.

Apparently, you can use the same scheme to get half your money back.

1. Commission some original background music on fiverr with copyright attribution. 2. Put it in a video. Post on youtube. 3. Copyright claim your own video from a different channel. 4. Show your copyright info if necessary.

This way, you still get a fraction of your own video revenue by playing both sides.

I feel like I've been hearing this same story every few months for a decade. Despicable.

Interesting. Does this mean that anyone can claim any content from any YouTube content creator?

I'm curious why this isn't being done more frequently, but if it is, what recourse do YouTube content creators have to still make it profitable for themselves.

Video game developer Bungie's had a blow a few months back where a disgruntled player started 'impersonating' (in quotes - they just created a gmail account) Bungie's IP lawyers to issue fake DCMA takedowns for popular youtubers videos.

Bungie is now suing them. I'm surprised they didn't go harder after Youtube, but I guess that's a lot more difficult in court. https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-send...

>Does this mean that anyone can claim any content from any YouTube content creator?

According to the article "yes", but google working on it. I'm surprised Bungie didn't go after google. They clearly talked to them, but Google's has a lot of money, as opposed to random disgruntled player.

Yes, anyone can claim your content. The only solutions are to be big and rich enough to throw your legal weight around or to exploit the same broken system to claim your own content (naturally this means paying extra fees to gatekeepers and potentially still splitting revenue with scammers)

Class action lawsuit anyone?

It seems like this would be a perfect target for class action lawyers who go after very large targets (ie Google) for causing distress en-mass.

If you find a lawyers firm that want to help start that, it will be a really successful one. I know dozens of people that have been impacted (and just these together is likely close to a million revenue)

I have not personally been affected by this, but these lawyers have won a class action law suit against Google in the past.

https://www.lieffcabraser.com/contact/

You could try contacting them.

Except the original poster doesn't own the content either. They said:

> I have private access to some pretty cool motorsports/boat-racing/etc stuff

You misunderstand the paragraph you quote from.

Ok. But now I can't delete my comment :(

Who are you going to sue? You have no contract with Youtube requiring them to host and monetize your videos for you. You can't class action every single last dog and pony trollster one by one.

The flip side of Youtube being a free hosting service is that they have no obligation to host anyone's content. We think of Youtube as being a commons or community resource, but it's not, it's privately owned. You have no more right to put a video on Youtube than you have to put an advert on the side of Google HQ, it's their choice to make and they set the terms. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Terms of service work both ways. You do have a contract with them. Especially if they agreed to pay you money.

They don't have to agree to pay you money though, or offer you service. What in the terms of service are you referring to?

You can sue them for monetizing your content and giving someone else the money. Even if their ToC says they can do whatever they want doesn't mean they actually can.

You could argue they’re a monopoly

The government can invoke the Sherman antitrust act and other laws. YOU can't (at least not generally).

Ok, then what?

This is pretty unbelievable! Not that I would doubt your account, but rather the world, actually…

The workflow Youtube has is pretty bizarre.

Step 1 is dispute claim.

Step 1A is the claimant choosing to release or reinstate the claim.

Step 2, if they reinstate the claim, you can "appeal".

Step 2A, the claimant can either release the claim, or file a formal DMCA notice.

Step 3, if they file a formal DMCA notice-- you can file a DMCA counter-notification.

Step 3A, if they disagree, they can sue.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12104471#zippy=%2C...

> The workflow Youtube has is pretty bizarre.

Is it? If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.

It does seem like a great reason for creators to not publish on YouTube, however.

Once there is sufficient competition I would expect them to start adjudicating.

And before someone jumps in and blames the money train, capitalism, etc. Please let me know how you would run a business that is not profitable. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere.

The big reason for the complexity is contractual arrangements/agreements with large copyright holders.

Else, we could skip straight to 3A (which is still them not being involved, and it is their legal obligation to maintain safe harbor under DMCA).

So, root cause is media conglomerates again. That just underscores my belief we should be tackling broadband ISP monopolies, and that midterms are important to secure the final FCC seat. Then we can reclassify broadband to 100 Mbps instead of the miniscule 25 Mbps that we have now. The types of service customers are actually getting will become more clear, and that should foster competition.

The problem being, there must be at least one, unique competitor of critical mass. Otherwise, YT will be always the dominant platform.

I agree that the FTC should be looking at tech.

Personally I'd like to see them aimed at regional broadband ISP monopolies first, since that is an underlying infrastructure for the services we use.

I'm not sure where the FTC is on this, but I know the focus in media has shifted in recent years from Comcast etc. to FAANG. Perhaps that's because the problems from the platform-based monopolies enabled by ISPs are closer and thus more apparent to us. Or, maybe it's a campaign propped up by ISPs to take the focus off of them.

As a European, I have a hard time understanding what the US is doing and not doing regarding broadband regulations. As I do understand it from a distance, the ISPs had always argued and broadened their claims with regard to data that is accessible to the big platforms. There seems to be some "natural anti-alliance", with the parties involved seeking political alliances, which in turn provide the public attention or – more importantly – the lack thereof. (The idea of free businesses and public services being mutual exclusive, certainly doesn't help either.)

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, the argument has been that broadband is expensive to roll out to non-urban areas. So they'll make exclusive agreements with municipalities, and/or take government money to complete the work.

From a customer's perspective, it seems they take the money and run to the bank. Where competition is low, and that's a lot of places, so is the quality of customer service and the provided speeds. Fees can be high, and for the last 20 years they've been trying to figure out how to get even more money by gutting net neutrality. They can be very aggressive on this [1], and there aren't really any significant repercussions. You probably don't want to fine a company out of existence, and any fine you do apply doesn't mean much if they get to keep their customers.

These ISP and content conglomerates have just gotten too big, and I think it's biting us in the form of tech monopolies that sit atop them.

The FCC is trying to redefine broadband to be 100 Mbps [2]. Almost certainly, the 2 republican commissioners will vote against that, and the democratic commissioners will vote for it. So it won't pass until the final FCC chair is filled, which Manchin is stalling in the senate [3].

Chances are it comes down to midterms. It's an important issue, the challenge is making it relatable to the public amidst other issues.

[1] https://youtu.be/BEXuK073bkE?t=749

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/19/fcc-bro...

[3] https://www.axios.com/2022/06/03/biden-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn...

> If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.

Cynical hat firmly in place, you could go a step further and just say that if it's more expensive for them to do it fairly then this is actually "right" from their point of view...

If you don’t publish on YouTube someone else will come in and do it for you

No, Step 3A, is "if they disagree, they must sue."

If they don't sue the purported infringer, Google treats the original copyright complaint as invalid and releases the strike.

Each of the A steps is discretionary and optional. They can abandon the process at any time-- in which case Google shrugs and moves on with life after a timeout expires.

So just like in Fran story you decided to lie down and take it? 8 digit views equals ~$30-60K payout, plenty to pay for a lawyer and keep fighting.

But you didn't get the 30-60k payout to pay the lawyer.

Is it really that hard to find a lawyer willing to write couple of letters for 50% of ~$50K windfall?

The more serious problem is that during that process they'd be banned from Google. Bus I suppose that might be worth the weeks of work to migrate all the accounts that use it as an email address.

All the money goes to the person making the infringement claim.

YT claims they will reverse the transfer if its counter claimed.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/28/11532734/youtube-complain...

"When both a creator and someone making a claim choose to monetize a video, we will continue to run ads on that video and hold the resulting revenue separately," the company said. "Once the Content ID claim or dispute is resolved, we'll pay out that revenue to the appropriate party."

I've dealt with Youtube's copyright resolution process and I don't believe this story at all.

You're either leaving out material facts that completely change the story or making the story up.

For starters...Youtube's copyright strikes are geographical...IOW, you can't assert a copyright against a video posted by a user in another country.

Second, Google doesn't let you file a copyright strike on the basis of a single word in the title. Words, by themselves, are not copyrightable. Especially not when they deal with trademarks...

Third, after you file a counter notification, the claimant must prove that they've taken legal action against the purported infringer by providing evidence of such action. Generally, this means a copy of a complaint, or at the bare minimum a letter from your lawyer asserting your ownership and offering terms for a settlement. If they don't, Google treats the infringement claim as invalid and removes the strike.

Fourth, if you dispute the strike (by filing the counter notification), Google doesn't pay anybody for the video until they receive proof of the legal resolution of the dispute, because if they pay the wrong party they'll end up having to pay the rightful copyright owner.

I've not had a lot of luck finding reports of successful actual-legal-DMCA counter notifications after copyright/content id claims, so I'm really glad to read your comment confirming that it basically works as advertised. Which side of those disputes were you on?

Would you happen to have any experience with cases where Google doesn't restore the video/monetization after a counter notification? I mentioned this in another comment, but I found this article (which is somewhat old, and from a random website I'd never heard of) where apparently Google acknowledged the counter notification but chose not to restore the video out of contractual obligations to the claimant: https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusi...

Both, the side asserting copyright and the side fighting the claim (for separate videos).

Would you happen to have any experience with cases where Google doesn't restore the video/monetization after a counter notification?

Yes, we contacted Google Legal with a letter from our General Counsel after the claimant failed to file a lawsuit asserting its ownership of the disputed content, and the matter was resolved within about a month. Google restored our ability to monetize videos and paid us for the amount held in escrow during the dispute.

Note that, as with all things Google, if you let the customer support system handle your complaint, nothing gets done because the CS dept in India doesn't have the power to do anything. You have to go around the CS system and talk to a person in the department that's actually responsible for your issue. For a legal issue like this, that means reaching out to their Legal department directly.

> IOW, you can't assert a copyright against a video posted by a user in another country.

How does that work? So anyone in Norway can copy anything produced in the US and not be taken down on a copyright claim?

While we have tax treaties that afford some protections to copyright owners for cross-border violations, the processes outlined in those treaties aren't built into in Youtube's automated copyright claim process.

For cross-border violations you need to reach out to Google Legal.

There should be an option to appeal after this step. Did you ever do that?

Take the video down so the complainant does not get the cash, anyway...

I did, and deleted my channel, but the damage is done.

Post it on rumble. Not so you get money. Simply so one more good peice of content goes to the competition.

maybe you could put it back up, then preemptively file a copyright claim against yourself.

Reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPIC2A_YeI0

Don't you just deny it, and it is up to them to actually file a full DMCA complaint?

Is this how the Nigerian princes of old times make money nowadays?

> word "spirit" in my video title (it was part of the name of the vehicle itself)

Just going to guess... Was this vehicle the Spirit of Australia II?

Is it possible to claim copyright on videos uploaded by Alphabet and all it's subsidiaries - Google, Youtube, Waymo, etc?

Given how many of these claims are A. scripted and B. bullshit, I'm sure that they have exempted themselves from their own shitty rules.

you should "out" the account that essentially stole all the views

You need to sue them. It's not about YouTube, the way it's working is how the law is written.