Company ‘Hijacks’ Blender’s CC By-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes User
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
Reason they created that in the first place was because of a similar accident in the past. Maybe hopefully soon they'll stop using YouTube fully as YouTube doesn't seem to care about solving the core problem of driveby copyright strikes.
> Something must be done! > This is something. > Therefore we will do it.
Youtube is since ~2016 primarly a platform for music clips, a sorta MTV for millenials and GenZ. They absolutely do not give a fuck anymore for content creator and hobbyists.
The faster people will understand that, the less they will be enraged about ContentID/DMCA
I can find high quality creators for almost anything on earth that interests me - programming, ML, music creation, woodworking, and so on.
I suspect this is all about the deprioritization of the little guy.
Google also shuts the door quickly and hard. My personal adsense account was permabannned years ago and 1) I don't know why 2) there appears no avenue to address it
The situation with YouTube is dire, the DMCA situation is dire (in general, but also YouTube's handling of it), there are serious issues with how YouTube treats its creators, and there are serious issues with people being fed disinformation by the algorithm. But in no way is it "equivalent and worse than regular TV".
YouTube also has issues with local laws, for instance recently a video showing full female frontal nudity has been automatically flagged as adult and demonetized (and even partially shadowbanned, to make things worse YouTube flip-flopped on those, which wasn't particularly reassuring for the video maker!), even though full female frontal nudity is typically classified as forbidden to minors of 12 around here (which IIRC includes everyone outside of YouTube kids, because the general YouTube is forbidden to minors of 13 ?). Oh, and to make the matters worse, it was a criticism video, and the nipples had already been pixelated ! (Even though in theory there was no reason to do so.)
In this way it is "equivalent and worse" than regular TV : it's becoming even more sanitized, and in a huge part because of how arbitrary and random all these strikes are !
BTW, with Article 13 (now 17 ?), IIRC there's now a mandatory for big platforms like YouTube mediation system (outside of the control of YouTube) that EU citizens can ask to mediate these issues, before taking these matters to court ?
(But I guess this is all kind of moot, since YouTube, being owned by Google, a US company, is effectively illegal in EUrope since 2015's Schrems 1 ?)
Your response argues in favour of the statement "YouTube has none of the issues of regular TV but introduces new issues". If you want, you can make the subjective judgement that the issues introduced are worse than the issues of regular TV, or that YouTube's issues are more harmful to society than those of regular TV. But nothing you have written here backs up the "equivalent and worse than regular TV" thing.
Get a parent to show you what their kids watch on YouTube and get your mind blown.
YouTube is a tailored experience. If you're a 6 year old kid you'll be getting something far, far, far from music clips.
My front page is: an awkward curator giving a tour of a battleship, a candle making tutorial, a 20 minute explanation of how pencils are made, Adam savage selling some kind of sleeping bag, a documentary about how robots are being used to clean up Fukushima, a video about penrose tiles, and half a dozen space news roundup videos.
If you're seeing MTV for millennials, that's because you're clicking on the videos.
If the algorithm is showing you things you don't like, your taste in videos sucks and you don't realize it.
Sounds like what I watch. Can I get some recommendations?
Tech tangents
Crg
Big bad biologists bigbadbench
Mac84
Epictronics
Mr lurches things
> Following receipt of a compliant counter-notice, the online service provider must restore access to the material after no less than ten and no more than fourteen business days, unless the original notice sender informs the service provider that it has filed a court action against the user.
> (B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and
Remember DMCA is not written to protect you the user, or protect the little guy, DMCA was written for RIAA/MPAA by the RIAA/MPAA
OSPs don't have to host content they don't want to host... but if content gets taken down, and then a counter-notification is submitted, the OSP is then required to restore (read: host) the content?
You won't be on the hook for a DMCA violation if you give up the right to control what's on your website?
If you don't post this thing on your website [read: restore the content], you are violating the law?
I don't see how that is compatible with the idea that YouTube has the right to not host content on their website. It's their website. How can a counter-notification take away - even for an instant - YouTube's right to control what's on YouTube?
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
and the First Amendment does not override it; it is specifically worded "Congress shall make no law".
The first Amendment absolutely overrides it. That's what an "Amendment" is.
Reproducing a copyrighted work beyond Fair Use is not "speech".
The compelled speech doctrine applies to companies.
See the entry "Limitation of Liability"
If they fail to do that they simply lose the protection of liability if you (or anybody) sues them over taking the work down.
So you cannot successfully sue them over say lost revenue for a fraudulent takedown notice if they follow the correct counternotice procedure. If they don't, then they might be liable, but most likely something in the terms of service or similar would prevent your suit from being a winning case anyway.
However, in other scenarios like where the provider was contractually obligated to keep the content available, if they fail to follow the counternotification procedures properly, you could potentially sue the provider and win.
"Bob's airplane video emporium of only good airplanes" does not get DMCA protection. If Bob violates copyright, he can't hide behind DMCA.
If Youtube wants the DMCA safe harbor, they have to be (reasonably) neutral _and_ follow the DMCA. That includes restoring videos on counter claim.
Youtube can still do a TOS takedown. "We restored your video but then found it has boobs in it and have removed it." Totally fine.
They can't receive a valid counter claim and then decide to not follow.
If you said “Section 230 is why there’s piracy online”
You again may be the NY Times or someone who has not read Section 230. Section 230 explicitly exempts intellectual property law:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
There are other carve-outs for CSAM and sex trafficking.
It is true that they don't become liable for all unrelated user content (say libel or harassment) because of this, so in that sense they still have safe harbor in general, but saying that they have lost safe harbor for particular content is a valid use of the term.
But in practice, is there any point for any violated users to sue? Any YouTube video unlikely presents any meaningful income for them and going after American company in the court is really expensive.
It’s a rigged system in favour of traditional copyright holders and anyone who can weasel their way to the other side of the ContentID system to register themselves as a copyright “owner” and are thus blessed by YouTube as special and to be trusted with the task of only making legitimate claims against their own intellectual property… which we all know is bullshit and abused by almost everyone who has access to it. Notable exceptions being companies like Epidemic Sound who have made their access to that system/API into a valuable business differentiator… regardless it’s rigged against the individual content creators that made YouTube into the behemoth it is today.
They are quite luck to have the full DMCA process, as unpleasant and costly as it all is for them, at all! Most are not so lucky.
That is factually incorrect.
Content ID claims can be appealed to the claimant. If that appeal is rejected, the person who posted the content can contest the claim. Doing so forces the rights holder to either drop the claim, or file a DMCA takedown.
I am a full-time YouTuber. I have recently done what I just wrote. It's nothing new.
In addition the percentage of people unwilling to risk the legal complications of defending a full fair use court fight, as it is an affirmative defence relying on courts with the USA as the jurisdiction is a widely chilling effect on overseas content producers. If they don’t back down you need to be prepared to deal with American courts and lawyers. Sure they back down some of the time but a lot of people don’t even want to risk it or aren’t even sure how firmly they are in fair use territory and that’s not even brining into the equation how many people misunderstand fair use exemptions and just how might right to reuse content under fair use they actually have and who may be inadvertently risking significant legal exposure should they try to press invalid fair use claims.
I did misspeak, but ContentID is still the bigger evil than the DMCA.
I see a lot of this, including by very large channels who know what they are doing and should know better. And it seems to be an increasing trend. I don't like it.
Even in the context of the already fucked up copyright laws, this mechanism is especially broken.
So, worthless.
Then there were the cases of extortion trolls (criminals) who demanded money from creators in exchange for removing strikes.
0. Fuck YouTube and criminals and 1. never depend on it as a primary source of income. (that's what merch is for).
Uh, dealing with YouTube is fun on every level.
Not long ago I was helping a successful content creator friend bootstrap a YouTube channel, and since she has a large number of existing videos, I wrote a program using YouTube Data API v3 to automatically upload them. Turned out the upload API has been restricted since a few years ago, one has to submit a lengthy application form and go through manual approval, or all videos uploaded through the API are automatically locked as spam. So I submitted the application, and a few days later, I got an email rejecting my application, which ends in the following:
> To reapply, you may complete and submit the appropriate form once the above concerns have been addressed. Please do not reply to this email.
> Feel free to reach out to us with any questions.
So, I'm supposed to "feel free to reach out to" them, but I should "not reply to this email", leaving the only way to reach out to them the application form, which doesn't have any Q/A field, and incidentally they just rejected it. Did anyone think about their process when they authored that email template? Anyway, I eventually managed to identify the problem and pass the review.
They have repeatedly fought for Open Source Licenses in court in the past, and helped get legal representation for people who couldn't afford to fight large companies on their own budget.
> Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license.
Do they add some sort of their own license terms on top of creative commons with this?
They are enjoying the effects of the CC license (as applied to the original content) without applying it to their derived content.
I.e., does the DMCA indemnify a company that makes a clearly false claim?
One problem is that to enforce these kinds of clauses, the original rights holder needs to go around suing everyone as it's a contractual thing. It isn't a law.
Copyleft licenses are inherently trying to coerce the world to be a certain way. A penalty clause like this is probably more effective at changing the world than the normal clauses.
As the video was only a test, I only expected about 3 views, and it didn't block the video, just take the revenue, I ignored it.
Social network content moderators have been known to take bribes[0][1]. The fact that there was a manual DMCA review involved makes this more sus
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-onlyfan...
[1]: https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/former-twitter-employee-con...
Occam's Razor would be incompetence. Either an automated system is not allowing proper processing of the counter-notice or someone reviewing the situation doesn't understand the license.
A conspiracy would be the opposite of Occam's Razor.
(This reminds me of Russian milicemen obviously trying to extract bribes from European tourists, the tourists being completely oblivious as to what is going on, and not understanding what the milicemen are very not subtly hinting at that any Russian would immediately recognize, while the milicemen are increasingly getting frustrated at their usual tactics somehow failing to work...)
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
If the actions are clear cut malice, then maybe a conspiracy could be considered the simplest explanation.
Massive media piracy seems to be what enabled (if not necessitated) the DMCA process in question here. As well as numerous human-hostile technologies and legislation.
I don't know about the situations in other countries, but in the US, this whole dynamic driven by media piracy the last 2-3 decades has always seemed incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
If there's a news story about a DMCA takedown Kafkaesque process, can we get a more objective source?
Subtext: "Those darned anti-piracy things are so unreasonable! This justifies pirating! Let's pirate harder! Don't forget to use our affiliate codes to sign up for a piracy-friendly VPN scam!"
> can we get a more objective source?
Instead of this tiresome "pick a source that is acceptable to my arbitrary and unstated requirements" game, why not point out something specific in the article that you feel is incorrect? This has the additional benefit of allowing the discussion to continue rather than bringing it to a screeching halt.
That comment section was indeed a shithole of pirates looking for moral justification to be pirates whilst using any excuse to do so. TFs reporting has never really matched up with this comment section (and it's possible to read through the lines of their closure message and realize it got closed specifically because of what an utter toxic mess their comment section became).
Whilst it is somewhat slanted, that is moreso in terms of what they choose to cover rather than any factual inaccuracies. In that regard they're no more slanted than other blogs on a similar matter (ie. Techdirt).