My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw
100 comments
I do admire just how perverse YouTube's solution for copyright law is. If they were accepting DMCA notices, they'd have the obligation to take note of counter-notices. If they were giving control of claimed videos to the claimants, then if someone filed a false claim against you, taking control of your video, you could then file a DMCA notice against the claimaint. But YouTube does neither of these things. Instead, they leave the video in your ostensible control, and just decide to give advertising revenue to someone who isn't you – which, as far as I can tell, doesn't mean that either YouTube or the claimant is technically infringing your copyright. It's brilliant bastardy.
It's not, and never was, a solution for copyright law. Remember that the whole content id / revenue redirection scheme was only created so that the major media companies (mainly 'Hollywood') didn't obliterate YouTube with lawsuits. Everything about the system is designed to keep them happy. The majority of other (i.e. small) publishers on YouTube accept it because they can't afford a real legal fight for copyright violations, which at least part of would likely include going after YouTube to even get the information about the other party since YouTube is effectively shielding the identity of the other party. And YouTube remains safe from damages because... safe harbor.
> It's not, and never was, a solution for copyright law
Of course you're right. But it's a solution for YouTube because it means they have to do absolutely nothing, and don't get in trouble.
Of course you're right. But it's a solution for YouTube because it means they have to do absolutely nothing, and don't get in trouble.
But YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law. Their Content ID system provides an automated way to detect potential infringement by large copyright holders and redirect ad revenue to them, but if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA claim to take down the video, and the uploader can respond with a counter notice to put the video back up. Of course, the copyright holder can choose to jump ahead to filing a DMCA notice at any point, bypassing some or all of the Content ID process. I'm guessing that most wouldn't do that, though, because the DMCA process is not automated, has strict timelines built in, and only allows for takedown (whereas Content ID allows for videos to stay up but make ad revenue for them). Without Content ID system, I'm guessing we'd be back in the days where the big copyright holders would just spam DMCA notices and end up with a lot more videos taken down.
(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).
(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).
> if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA
I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."
Is this true?
I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."
Is this true?
Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the case you're describing.
That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to it either.
Yes, and if there is official lawyerly language about certifying the truth of your choices, the distinction is important. Sounds like a dark pattern.
There's a different option for if the video is public domain or otherwise not copyrightable to handle this case. I assume that that "lawyerly language" is to dissuade users from abusing the process and choosing an option when it's not really true.
Nearly every video is going to be an amalgamation of original content, licensed work, and public domain work, yet the listed alternatives you've presented both clearly apply to entire videos, forcing the content creator to lie if they want to go forward with a dispute.
It seems quite bonkers that you disagree with the "disputes are discouraged by forced lying" narrative yet keep posting evidence to support it.
Ah well. It's not my fight. I should be grateful for that.
It seems quite bonkers that you disagree with the "disputes are discouraged by forced lying" narrative yet keep posting evidence to support it.
Ah well. It's not my fight. I should be grateful for that.
Why would the care tho? Its between YT uploader and alleged IP owner.
> YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law.
As far as I know, it's not required. Rather, if a provider doesn't do it, they can be found liable for contributory infringement when a user posts infringing content.
As far as I know, it's not required. Rather, if a provider doesn't do it, they can be found liable for contributory infringement when a user posts infringing content.
Yes, sorry, you're right -- they do it to keep the safe harbor protection (which is the only sane option when running a video sharing website).
Thanks for actually explaining this. The defenders of Youtube - I'm convinced a few on r/youtube are shills at this point - will say this is all necessary due to copyright law, Viacom lawsuit, etc etc. One day it will emerge the Google leadership is as crooked as it comes.
They would now clarify that as YouTube leadership within the Alphabet holding company, at least until they may be separated by antitrust policy or otherwise.
You can file a counterclaim, though.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever. When dealing with these kinds of issues you have to realize that it's not personal. It is like getting mad at a voice chat app for misunderstanding you. There is nothing personal about it.
There are a few things that could help to improve this process: force people making claims to verify their identity positively (he does bring this up in his video), improve the technology at the Copyright office to provide both platform owners and copyright owners some method to generate keys that verify that claims are accurate and authorized, and for more people who are victims of false claims to sue the people who are making them.
I think ideally copyright owners would have to go to Copyright.gov, enter the registration number(s) that they own that they want to enforce using the account that made the registration, generate a time-limited key using the system, and then enter that key into their copyright complaint on the platform that they want to police their IP on. When GooFaceZon processes the complaint, they would check with the copyright.gov server to verify that an authorized copyright owner made that complaint within the timeframe provided by the system. That way even if there is some kind of account compromise at some point the damage can be limited.
I don't actually know if that'd be the best system, but something like that would be a great improvement over the current system of being able to make any kind of fake claim with no verification.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever. When dealing with these kinds of issues you have to realize that it's not personal. It is like getting mad at a voice chat app for misunderstanding you. There is nothing personal about it.
There are a few things that could help to improve this process: force people making claims to verify their identity positively (he does bring this up in his video), improve the technology at the Copyright office to provide both platform owners and copyright owners some method to generate keys that verify that claims are accurate and authorized, and for more people who are victims of false claims to sue the people who are making them.
I think ideally copyright owners would have to go to Copyright.gov, enter the registration number(s) that they own that they want to enforce using the account that made the registration, generate a time-limited key using the system, and then enter that key into their copyright complaint on the platform that they want to police their IP on. When GooFaceZon processes the complaint, they would check with the copyright.gov server to verify that an authorized copyright owner made that complaint within the timeframe provided by the system. That way even if there is some kind of account compromise at some point the damage can be limited.
I don't actually know if that'd be the best system, but something like that would be a great improvement over the current system of being able to make any kind of fake claim with no verification.
From your link:
> The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled ... It should not be pursued under any other circumstances.
GP's whole point is that counterclaims don't work here, because the content hasn't been removed, just re-monetized.
> The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled ... It should not be pursued under any other circumstances.
GP's whole point is that counterclaims don't work here, because the content hasn't been removed, just re-monetized.
I understand I just thought that he was saying no counterclaims are possible through Youtube's system. In this case it's kind of YT specific because someone else made a false claim to copyright ownership.
You can file a counterclaim, though.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever.
There are a few things that can help to police this process:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever.
There are a few things that can help to police this process:
> after 10 days, Google will reinstate
Wait just a second, isn't the revenue half-life of a youtube video like 2 days or something? 10 days sounds like way, way too long.
Wait just a second, isn't the revenue half-life of a youtube video like 2 days or something? 10 days sounds like way, way too long.
I wonder if DMCAing your own videos is still a viable strategy.
No but some people, who just want their video to stay up and don't care about the ad revenue, will purposefully add a snippets of content to trigger multiple copyright bots into filing competing claims. When this happens the video stays up until the claims are resolved and since there's no actual people involved and it's covered by fair use anyway they just time out eventually.
[edit: grammar]
[edit: grammar]
Interesting. If you don't care about ad revenue, there's certain options.
General question: if one did care about ad revenue.. are there some up to date resources to learn what current best practices are?
General question: if one did care about ad revenue.. are there some up to date resources to learn what current best practices are?
YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of takedowns.
My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyright infringing [1]. So far, par the course for a mistaken automatic identification. But the outrage comes after that: the copyright claimant (the notorious Rumblefish) reviewed the claim and confirmed that it was valid! In other words an actual human being looked at the video of someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds in the background was copyrighted. Actions like this are indefensible and highlight the outrageous monstrosity of YouTube's takedown system - -beyond Kafkaesque in its total disenfranchisement of users.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-g...
My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyright infringing [1]. So far, par the course for a mistaken automatic identification. But the outrage comes after that: the copyright claimant (the notorious Rumblefish) reviewed the claim and confirmed that it was valid! In other words an actual human being looked at the video of someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds in the background was copyrighted. Actions like this are indefensible and highlight the outrageous monstrosity of YouTube's takedown system - -beyond Kafkaesque in its total disenfranchisement of users.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-g...
Similarly, a friend of mine recorded waves crashing at a sea and it got flagged by Content ID.
Some music video (by Sony subsidiary) contained a small sample of waves crashing from a completely different sea.
I told him to appeal and appeal he did and yes the claim was upheld.
I told him to fight on because this first level upheld is what throws people off and what the Content ID abusers are hoping for.
On the 2nd appeal they have to have someone with legal authority to really pursue the claim.
That is no "real" human will look at the case on its merits until 2nd instance.
Some music video (by Sony subsidiary) contained a small sample of waves crashing from a completely different sea.
I told him to appeal and appeal he did and yes the claim was upheld.
I told him to fight on because this first level upheld is what throws people off and what the Content ID abusers are hoping for.
On the 2nd appeal they have to have someone with legal authority to really pursue the claim.
That is no "real" human will look at the case on its merits until 2nd instance.
Wow! How did this story end?
> In other words an actual human being looked at the video of someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds in the background was copyrighted.
i think it is likely that this human is just someone employed from mechanical turk who gets paid on the basis of how many videos they process in an hour and not actually an employee of rumblefish
i think it is likely that this human is just someone employed from mechanical turk who gets paid on the basis of how many videos they process in an hour and not actually an employee of rumblefish
In this case the CEO of Rumblefish, Paul Anthony, confirmed that it was in fact one of their employees [1]:
> They still work at RF, feel absolutely terrible about what happened and are taking a whole new approach to claim/dispute reviews. A mistake like this in the hands of the right employee is a game changer and brings about significant improvement. In the hands of a less-competent employee...they fold and get worse and that isn't acceptable for me. I hope and trust that it's the former. I believe that although it was a terrible oversight, that it was an honest mistake by this individual.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_r...
Note that since that particular incident, Rumblefish has had continued incidents of blatantly erroneous coypright claims - like claiming ownership of a US Navy rendition of "America the Beautiful" (which is public domain) and proceeded to monetize it! [2]
[2] https://boingboing.net/2015/07/03/july-4-rumblefish-claims-t...
Rumblefish of course describes these incidents as "honest mistakes", which completely ignores the inconvenience they cause people and the fact that they have to make noise via social media or tech news outlets for them to take action - the real concern is how often this happens that we don't hear about.
> They still work at RF, feel absolutely terrible about what happened and are taking a whole new approach to claim/dispute reviews. A mistake like this in the hands of the right employee is a game changer and brings about significant improvement. In the hands of a less-competent employee...they fold and get worse and that isn't acceptable for me. I hope and trust that it's the former. I believe that although it was a terrible oversight, that it was an honest mistake by this individual.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_r...
Note that since that particular incident, Rumblefish has had continued incidents of blatantly erroneous coypright claims - like claiming ownership of a US Navy rendition of "America the Beautiful" (which is public domain) and proceeded to monetize it! [2]
[2] https://boingboing.net/2015/07/03/july-4-rumblefish-claims-t...
Rumblefish of course describes these incidents as "honest mistakes", which completely ignores the inconvenience they cause people and the fact that they have to make noise via social media or tech news outlets for them to take action - the real concern is how often this happens that we don't hear about.
I filed a likeness claim where Youtube created a profile with a picture of me somehow and there was no way to delete it. The takedown request was rejected because they said the video was invalid, despite it not being a video and it being explained that it was a profile and Youtube itself had taken property that wasn't theirs. Eventually I found some email address I could file a complaint against with a picture of my DL and they took it down.
It seems like companies have their 99% cases that their systems are optimized for, but within the remaining 1% where they themselves are causing the problem or have a bug etc. the humans they hire can't understand simple things if they deviate an iota from what they're used to.
It seems like companies have their 99% cases that their systems are optimized for, but within the remaining 1% where they themselves are causing the problem or have a bug etc. the humans they hire can't understand simple things if they deviate an iota from what they're used to.
I absolutely love the level-headedness and honesty of this person. If I were in his shoes, I can only imagine how furious I would be at YouTube.
I hope this system can be fixed... At least, we need a more balanced playing field. Making it so easy and yet having practically no consequences to abuse the system is absurd. But, what can really be done? This is the system that various industries have been pushing super hard to get. I think DMCA also doesn't do nearly enough to dissuade abuse. Can we try to fix DMCA, too? Where do we begin?
I hope this system can be fixed... At least, we need a more balanced playing field. Making it so easy and yet having practically no consequences to abuse the system is absurd. But, what can really be done? This is the system that various industries have been pushing super hard to get. I think DMCA also doesn't do nearly enough to dissuade abuse. Can we try to fix DMCA, too? Where do we begin?
It's great that YT did the right thing by giving him ownership back on their platform. The next thing would be to give him any money earned during the time it was wrongfully taken away and in dispute. That should not be dependent on having the asshats paying it back first. YT messed up, so they need to make it right all the way.
YT was forced to do so by his legal team. In no way did they do the right thing.
No way, this blew up and has been one of the biggest stories about youtube lately. There is no way this would end in any other way and I doubt legal needed to be involved more than how can they be safe from the false claim guys.
Where did you find that YouTube has returned ownership to him? As far as I've been able to find with a quick search, the false claimant continues to receive monetization from the video.
The comment on the video by the author of the video
> UPDATE: It's official! I got my video back and Ramjets channel was deleted for false copyright claim. Huge thanks to everybody who helped. Every share, like comment, everybody who spread the word about what happened. You made the difference. Now let's make sure we protect EVERY content creator from false claims. Please sign the petition, we can make a difference.
> UPDATE: It's official! I got my video back and Ramjets channel was deleted for false copyright claim. Huge thanks to everybody who helped. Every share, like comment, everybody who spread the word about what happened. You made the difference. Now let's make sure we protect EVERY content creator from false claims. Please sign the petition, we can make a difference.
> Please sign the petition
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_petitions/YouTube_fix_...
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_petitions/YouTube_fix_...
Not trying to be cynical, but do petitions really do anything?
https://www.change.org/p/mike-morhaime-legacy-server-among-w...
There's also a story behind how the signatures were delivered. [1] However, I'm not sure that this video explains the 'psychology' behind it.
In a wow-related podcast a few months back [sorry no link], Mark said that he wanted to deliver all the signatures in physical form on paper since that's a tactic that Blizzard itself had employed when selling their game packages back in the day. In a nutshell, the weight of something makes it feel more valuable. And in the case of 260,000 signatures, it doesn't just sound big in your head, but actually has a substantial weight in physical form.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4g2rkZwLI
There's also a story behind how the signatures were delivered. [1] However, I'm not sure that this video explains the 'psychology' behind it.
In a wow-related podcast a few months back [sorry no link], Mark said that he wanted to deliver all the signatures in physical form on paper since that's a tactic that Blizzard itself had employed when selling their game packages back in the day. In a nutshell, the weight of something makes it feel more valuable. And in the case of 260,000 signatures, it doesn't just sound big in your head, but actually has a substantial weight in physical form.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4g2rkZwLI
Thank you - that's excellent to hear!
Read the first comment under the video.
Moderation is really the ultimate scalability problem. I have some level of sympathy for the predicament YouTube is in, but I really hope the system can be redesigned.
I've never seen (keyword: seen) a press release or article about how an individual / group of DMCA abusers of this sort was arrested. Why can't this be taken more seriously as a form of fraud, and why can't these people be gone after? Sure, you can obfuscate your real IP when making a takedown request, but they have to receive the money somewhere.
I've never seen (keyword: seen) a press release or article about how an individual / group of DMCA abusers of this sort was arrested. Why can't this be taken more seriously as a form of fraud, and why can't these people be gone after? Sure, you can obfuscate your real IP when making a takedown request, but they have to receive the money somewhere.
The easiest thing to do would require the claimant and defendant to produce proof of ownership. In this case, it really seems like the claimant's case would have been over as soon as the defendant produced his proof.
If there is conflicting claims of ownership that seems valid from both sides, then send to a 3rd party to decide. Whether that is arbitration or courts. Why should YouTube be responsible at all? During the term of dispute, the ability to earn money is suspended. If the defendant wins, then the claimant should be required to reimburse lost earnings. At this point, YT would have acted in a reasonable manner such that they should not have any liability in it.
How naive am I being for making it seem like a really simple thing to handle?
If there is conflicting claims of ownership that seems valid from both sides, then send to a 3rd party to decide. Whether that is arbitration or courts. Why should YouTube be responsible at all? During the term of dispute, the ability to earn money is suspended. If the defendant wins, then the claimant should be required to reimburse lost earnings. At this point, YT would have acted in a reasonable manner such that they should not have any liability in it.
How naive am I being for making it seem like a really simple thing to handle?
Proof of ownership seems complicated to produce if you're a regular person uploading your own videos. What would you produce?
There are plenty of timestamping services out there, both blockchain-based and otherwise. If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims.
Also, these services are usually reasonably priced, and sometimes even free, so it would be reasonable to use even if you're making several videos a day.
Also, these services are usually reasonably priced, and sometimes even free, so it would be reasonable to use even if you're making several videos a day.
> If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims.
The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.
The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.
If you're goal is only to prove that you invented something before some random patent troll did, then that issue doesn't matter so much.
At the least, it's very, very strong evidence for a trial. Along with also emailing your lawyer or notary public a copy of the timestamp as soon as you create it, these factors would be virtually unassailable in a court of law.
At the least, it's very, very strong evidence for a trial. Along with also emailing your lawyer or notary public a copy of the timestamp as soon as you create it, these factors would be virtually unassailable in a court of law.
What’s stopping me timestamping a tonne of other people’s content before they do, and then claiming that they stole it from me?
Then we’re literally back where we started - proving ownership by other means.
Then we’re literally back where we started - proving ownership by other means.
Raw takes including stuff that was edited out of the uploaded video seem like a simple way for many types of video.
I think the real problem is that evaluating such proof would need to be done by a human, and YouTube want a completely automated system.
I think the real problem is that evaluating such proof would need to be done by a human, and YouTube want a completely automated system.
Register a hash of the (video + your name) on blockchain, that's the proof that you had it first.
Just needs a nice UI, and, well, Google giving a damn about it.
Just needs a nice UI, and, well, Google giving a damn about it.
What would be proof of ownership exactly?
[deleted]
Sounds reasonable.
I would have sympathy if they weren't so damn incompetent. You can clearly see how they fail to make a simple rational check in this guy's issue and objectively realize that it's a fraudulent claim.
They only care when the issues go public and viral, and the outburst is too large to ignore.
This is a disaster for any small creator that uses YouTube. A platform that controls the majority of the internet video distribution is incapable of reacting reasonably to a copyright claim issue until its large enough to actually threaten the solidity of that distribution.
This is a disaster for any small creator that uses YouTube. A platform that controls the majority of the internet video distribution is incapable of reacting reasonably to a copyright claim issue until its large enough to actually threaten the solidity of that distribution.
It’s unfortunate but that’s the reality of centralized content and product platforms (YouTube, Amazon, AppStore etc) - they are often used to squiz out competition using bogus claims, as much as allow for distribution channels.
Better strategy is to continue supporting open web and host content or products you care about on your own.
Better strategy is to continue supporting open web and host content or products you care about on your own.
Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright infringement slander him? The damage can be shown in the money he lost out on, but I mean I guess his reputation is also damaged with Google by the accusation. It was definitely a realistic accusation that someone might believe as Google evidently believed it.
> "Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright infringement slander him?"
Probably, but who is he supposed to sue over it? It's far from clear who the 'company' is. He could sue John Doe and then get youtube to reveal what they know, but he may very likely discover that the 'company' is just some guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit about him or his plight.
Probably, but who is he supposed to sue over it? It's far from clear who the 'company' is. He could sue John Doe and then get youtube to reveal what they know, but he may very likely discover that the 'company' is just some guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit about him or his plight.
Maybe, but I guess the guy has some assets now.
I mean if it is a guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit I don't think that suit will drag on that long and probably wouldn't be too expensive to litigate. It's only if the guy has assets in a country that does give a shit that will want to fight, and if that's the case they're probably screwed.
I mean if it is a guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit I don't think that suit will drag on that long and probably wouldn't be too expensive to litigate. It's only if the guy has assets in a country that does give a shit that will want to fight, and if that's the case they're probably screwed.
I guess the right thing for Youtube to do is to simply suspend any payouts, but continue monetization until the dispute is resolved. Once that happens the rightful owner of the content should receive any pending payouts.
Doesn't slander only apply to public statements, rather than something privately told to another company?
It depends on the jurisdiction, but I believe in many countries and US states there is no such restriction, it just has to be false and harm the reputation.
Does anyone think ramjets is going around doing this with multiple videos and making thousands of dollars as a result?
Could be the new scam. I bet people out there are going to be doing this to make tons of money until youtube smartens up.
Could be the new scam. I bet people out there are going to be doing this to make tons of money until youtube smartens up.
This is already happening a lot. So far Youtube hasnt changed anything
Seems like you should be able to leverage standard copyright law - per-violation 10-100k seems like the industry demanded fine...
Does YouTube have the necessary information to prosecute false claimants? They certainly are unwilling to pass such info on to content creators; I'm unsure what, if any, verification of identity is required to submit a claim.
If it doesn't have the necessary information to prosecute false claimants (i.e. their exact identity) then why does it hand over ownership of a video to these same claimants at the drop of a hat?
I'm pretty sure that as part of the uploading process you agree to use YouTube process of arbitration in these matters, so the courts would likely tell you this a civil matter to be handled by YouTube.
With that said, nothing was stolen, a claim for the monetization reimbursement was made to YouTube, who is the sole source in deciding who the compensation goes to, decided to send that compensation to the party that made the claim.
Making a claim against an existing video is actually probably a lot safer than re-uploading and attempting to monetize.
From that perspective, what would be the grounds for a lawsuit?
With that said, nothing was stolen, a claim for the monetization reimbursement was made to YouTube, who is the sole source in deciding who the compensation goes to, decided to send that compensation to the party that made the claim.
Making a claim against an existing video is actually probably a lot safer than re-uploading and attempting to monetize.
From that perspective, what would be the grounds for a lawsuit?
Why would it be YouTube’s job? Someone has claimed ownership and is now making profit on it - that (to me a non lawyer expect same behavior from the legal system ;) ) seems like it would be a standard copyright violation :D
If YouTube is unwilling to pass along the information, as the parent says, then who are you going to file suit against? You’ll have to sue an unknown person and get a court order to get YouTube to turn over the person’s name. That’s an expensive start to aprocess with an unknown end. Isn’t it even possible the person isn’t in the US? Then you’ve thrown away your money.
It’s really not that hard to do. People do sometimes overestimate how hard it is to do basic legal tasks.
Filing a simple John Doe summons in your home jurisdiction and then sending a subpoena to YouTube for the offending contact information is pretty trivial. You could probably find someone to do it for you for a thousand bucks or less.
Admittedly that’s not free but in a context like this with real money at stake it’s not a huge obstacle.
Filing a simple John Doe summons in your home jurisdiction and then sending a subpoena to YouTube for the offending contact information is pretty trivial. You could probably find someone to do it for you for a thousand bucks or less.
Admittedly that’s not free but in a context like this with real money at stake it’s not a huge obstacle.
And what do you do when you go through all of that time and effort (and potential expense) and get the very likely outcome that the claimant is not in your home jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction isn’t simply determined by where the opponent is. There’s nuance to this but you can typically sue and gain jurisdiction in any venue that has a nexus to the business activity in question. Given that YouTube is global there’s probably a lot of places you could find a valid venue. California almost certainly being one of them.
You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate goal is to get YouTube to do something then that could work just fine.
Again, clearly legal action isn’t easy but people seem too inclined to throw up their hands instantly.
Learning how to take basic legal action is just a core part of running a business, and someone earning from YouTube at this level is indeed doing just that.
You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate goal is to get YouTube to do something then that could work just fine.
Again, clearly legal action isn’t easy but people seem too inclined to throw up their hands instantly.
Learning how to take basic legal action is just a core part of running a business, and someone earning from YouTube at this level is indeed doing just that.
I'm not sure why you're singling out California, is that where the claimant is in this case? Or are you referring to YouTube?
My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?
My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?
Even if the defendant is in the U.S., they may have no significant income or assets from which you could recover damages or legal fees.
A lot of people have personal liability umbrella policies... However probably not the kinds of people that would do this.
Why have we made it so easy for crime in this country.
Why have we made it so easy for crime in this country.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A court could presumably subpeona that information?
Or youtube just add a clause that whoever lays claims to DMCA content has to agree to share their verified real name and phone number.
Yeah after you pay for a lawyer to set all that up for you.
Lawyers and lawmakers (who are very often also the former) in their infinite wisdom have created a system in which they always win, even when the people the system ostensibly exists to serve do not.
As a developer, I also get paid even if the project gets written off later. Doesn't seem that unusual.
The difference being the software industry contains less compulsion. Nobody is compelled to interact with you or your peers. The very nature of the law renders all analogies you can think of inherently flawed. The closest analogy you could make would be to doctors in the hypothetical scenario where other people are allowed to hire doctors to injure you, requiring you to in turn hire your own doctor. Which is absurd but the reality of our legal system.
I am pretty sure that those are not actual copyright claims in a DMCA sense. Sadly Youtube is using some internal system with these claims. I assume they were pressured into this by the music industry for ease of squeezing money out of it.
Actually the DMCA requires large players to create some kind of automated system to prevent infringement.
Thus subverting the penalty of perjury of the DMCA
YouTube has the automated service. The rights holders are not filing claims. There is no perjury.
It’s all about balance. What’s the point of having a takedown procedure if uploading a thousand copies is easier than taking down one?
It’s all about balance. What’s the point of having a takedown procedure if uploading a thousand copies is easier than taking down one?
So what's stopping this guy from making a new account and claiming the video back? Should creators claim their own videos so they can't be claimed by others?
i think that's grounds for an instant strike against your new channel.since you only get 3 strikes before you're kaput it's not worth it
I had actually listened to this song recently on his channel. Hot tip: It's fun, check it out.
[deleted]
You could shorten #FixYoutubeCopyright to #FixCopyright... because it is probably the source of the problem....
heyjudy(1)