Where's the fair use?

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2016-02-29 02:48pm

Posting this in here because it is clearly a political issue.

and also a longer, less-sweary argument:

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2016-02-29 03:02pm

Summary for those who can't hear what they're saying on YT videos with shitty auto-captions?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2016-02-29 03:14pm

Elheru Aran wrote:Summary for those who can't hear what they're saying on YT videos with shitty auto-captions?

You make a video which may (and more worryingly may not) have someone else's intellectual property in the video and upload it to YouTube. Some one reports your video for copyright infringement. YouTube responds by disabling your video (and you get a strike against your account) while they investigate. Until they rule on whether or not your video infringed on copyright or if you used other's intellectual property under the "fair use" law (like for critique or education) or as we said earlier there was a false report against you, you're basically on a YouTube time out. Your revenue from YouTube adds is taken away and your account can't upload videos beyond a certain length (15mins).

If YouTube rules that there was no infringement of copyright (or the claim was outright fraudulent) they'll allow the re-uploading of the video and your account will be off the 'strike list'. But this can take weeks. In which time you've lost money. And the person who made the complaint suffers no ill consequences which means they can do this as many times as they like.

So YouTubers are asking YouTube; Where is the Fair Use? i.e. there is a fair use provision in copyright, but why does the system favour the accused to prove their innocence rather than the plaintiff prove their case?

The system is ass-backwards and rigged for petty little tyrants and big cooperations to fuck over smaller content creators.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2016-02-29 03:35pm

This has been a contentious and ongoing issue ever since the DMCA was signed.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2016-02-29 03:39pm

General Zod wrote:This has been a contentious and ongoing issue ever since the DMCA was signed.

It's worse now, it's not just movie studios and record companies doing this, you can be literally anyone and file a complaint and you're not required to provide any proof that you even own the content you're filing the complaint for and hijack someone's revenue stream for a couple of days.

The Vortex Empire · Post by **The Vortex Empire** » 2016-02-29 03:39pm

Crown wrote:
Elheru Aran wrote:Summary for those who can't hear what they're saying on YT videos with shitty auto-captions?
If YouTube rules that there was no infringement of copyright (or the claim was outright fraudulent) they'll allow the re-uploading of the video and your account will be off the 'strike list'. But this can take weeks. In which time you've lost money. And the person who made the complaint suffers no ill consequences which means they can do this as many times as they like.

Not only that, the person who claims to own the content can get your ad revenue for the period, thereby actively incentivizing false DMCA claims.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2016-02-29 03:42pm

Nobody cares. Everybody knows that Google are assholes but keeps throwing money at them anyways.
Same with Amazon.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2016-02-29 03:46pm

Crown wrote:
General Zod wrote:This has been a contentious and ongoing issue ever since the DMCA was signed.
It's worse now, it's not just movie studios and record companies doing this, you can be literally anyone and file a complaint and you're not required to provide any proof that you even own the content you're filing the complaint for and hijack someone's revenue stream for a couple of days.

If by now you mean the last 6-10 years for anyone who's been paying attention. It's basically another form of doxing.

Simon_Jester · Post by **Simon_Jester** » 2016-02-29 05:32pm

One wonders if Google might reasonably be targeted by a class-action lawsuit on behalf of umpty thousand people who all lost a few hundred dollars each in ad revenue while Google "investigated" spurious DMCA claims against them.

They probably have legal language intended to prevent this from happening, but I've always been deeply hoping that some court would rule that "you promise not to sue us if we do something wrong" isn't valid legalese in a contract. I mean, I can't sign a contract that renders me immune from criminal prosecution if the plaintiff sees fit to press charges; why should I be able to sign a contract that renders me immune from lawsuits if I am demonstrably acting in bad faith or violating good business practices?

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2016-02-29 05:40pm

Is Youtube actually administered directly by Google, or is there enough separation between the two entities that Google could distance itself to some extent? Just wondering.

Darmalus · Post by **Darmalus** » 2016-02-29 05:40pm

These things always seem like they are designed to blow up down the road. Why not simply hold revenue from a video while it's investigated (without taking it down immediately), if the claim is valid then remove the video and award the collected revenue, if the claim is invalid give the revenue to the video holder and fine/reprimand the claimant for wasting everyone's time?

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2016-02-29 06:02pm

The whole discussion is relevant because youtube videos have become part of business model and for some people the source of their income. Which in turn is relevant to youtube because content creators make people watch youtube in the first place.

Some sort of system to filter claimants and claims needs to be in place, yes, especially to prevent making anonymous accounts for the sheer sake of making reports. They could flag claimants who make regular false claims so that when they do make a report, it doesn't automatically shut down a video. Or create a margin for videos that often had false claims against it, so the same claim on a video that has been checked can't be disabled for the exact same claim.

I suspect that the way the current system is partially there because of legal bullying of movie studios and the like. I suspect that Google/YouTube doesn't care about this aspect of things that much, as having to review videos for claims must be a big money sink.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2016-02-29 06:37pm

We'd also need a system to make sure that a person claiming to speak on behalf of the copyright holder is actually entitled to do so. Otherwise that could be used to circumvent the system to prevent false claims

Say for example IIRC under the current system if I found a video that bashed WoW:Legion, I could in theory make a copyright claim in the name of Blizzard Entertainment, even though my connection to that company is limited buying and playing their games certainly no where close to actually being able to deside company policy or speak on their behalf. Obvious I personally wouldn't do something like that but there's people who would.

Esquire · Post by **Esquire** » 2016-02-29 07:45pm

Simon_Jester wrote:One wonders if Google might reasonably be targeted by a class-action lawsuit on behalf of umpty thousand people who all lost a few hundred dollars each in ad revenue while Google "investigated" spurious DMCA claims against them.

They probably have legal language intended to prevent this from happening, but I've always been deeply hoping that some court would rule that "you promise not to sue us if we do something wrong" isn't valid legalese in a contract. I mean, I can't sign a contract that renders me immune from criminal prosecution if the plaintiff sees fit to press charges; why should I be able to sign a contract that renders me immune from lawsuits if I am demonstrably acting in bad faith or violating good business practices?

The other way round, I'd think. This way original content owners have no grounds to sue Google/Youtube/Whatever Inc for aiding and abetting intellectual property theft, and the only people who lose out are internet movie critics and the like. As always, all corporate policies are designed to protect the corporation.

On a related note, fair use is an affirmative defense; this is how it works in regular courts, too.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2016-02-29 10:02pm

I've had, and successfully disputed, Content ID claims on my YouTube channel twice. One was of a fencing demonstration at a county fair in which you can sort of hear music from the stage across the fairgrounds, and the other was on a song over 150 years old (and therefore well into the public domain) that I performed myself. I don't monetize my channel, so it isn't a matter of defending my livelihood, but it's still really annoying to have someone else's ads slapped onto my channel for no good goddamned reason. I certainly agree that YouTube's DMCA compliance system needs a lot of work.

biostem · Post by **biostem** » 2016-02-29 10:10pm

The only thing Youtube/Google or IP owners understand, (in this specific case), is money - make a big enough dent in their pocketbooks, and they'll reconsider their behavior. A lack of negative repercussions is tantamount to an endorsement of these behaviors.

Darth Holbytlan · Post by **Darth Holbytlan** » 2016-02-29 11:30pm

Darmalus wrote:These things always seem like they are designed to blow up down the road. Why not simply hold revenue from a video while it's investigated (without taking it down immediately), if the claim is valid then remove the video and award the collected revenue, if the claim is invalid give the revenue to the video holder and fine/reprimand the claimant for wasting everyone's time?

The DMCA basically requires that Youtube take down the videos for a period of time when they receive DMCA-compliant complaints. Nothing in the DMCA requires them to withhold the uploader's income or put them on probation, though.

Grumman · Post by **Grumman** » 2016-03-01 01:55am

Darth Holbytlan wrote:The DMCA basically requires that Youtube take down the videos for a period of time when they receive DMCA-compliant complaints. Nothing in the DMCA requires them to withhold the uploader's income or put them on probation, though.

From what TotalBiscuit said in his video, they're not DMCA compliant complaints. If they were, anyone knowingly making an invalid takedown request would be guilty of perjury.

Channel72 · Post by **Channel72** » 2016-03-01 02:15am

Google is out to compete with major players like Apple and Netflix in order to be able to stream studio-produced music and movies (via Google Play). They're not about to start making enemies with large production studios or music labels.

Darth Holbytlan · Post by **Darth Holbytlan** » 2016-03-01 02:30am

Grumman wrote:
Darth Holbytlan wrote:The DMCA basically requires that Youtube take down the videos for a period of time when they receive DMCA-compliant complaints. Nothing in the DMCA requires them to withhold the uploader's income or put them on probation, though.
From what TotalBiscuit said in his video, they're not DMCA compliant complaints. If they were, anyone knowingly making an invalid takedown request would be guilty of perjury.

I'm not sure what the standard Youtube complaint process requires, but if it doesn't require a statement made under penalty of perjury, it's not DMCA-compliant. Of course, the only bit that is made under the penalty of perjury is the statement that the complainant is authorized to act on the copyright holder's behalf; the statement that the uploader is not authorized isn't covered, although bad faith complaints can incur damages.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2016-03-01 05:32am

How do other video hosting sites handle this?

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2016-03-01 09:13am

Channel72 wrote:Google is out to compete with major players like Apple and Netflix in order to be able to stream studio-produced music and movies (via Google Play). They're not about to start making enemies with large production studios or music labels.

So? A real corporation with a legit claim can easily provide proof. They are usually not the problem.

The problem comes when people try to use it to silence bad reviews, or those with no claim at all use it falsely to steal monetization.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2016-03-01 09:37am

salm wrote:How do other video hosting sites handle this?

Part of the problem is there isn't really any other hosting site that's big enough to matter. So Youtube and Google can do whatever the fuck they feel like.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2016-03-01 09:40am

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote:How do other video hosting sites handle this?
Part of the problem is there isn't really any other hosting site that's big enough to matter. So Youtube and Google can do whatever the fuck they feel like.

A few porn sites might qualify, but I suspect the ones I'm thinking of are largely American and not worldwide like YT.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2016-03-01 10:36am

Yes, the only other video site you encounter frequently is vimeo but afaik they cater more to clips with a higher "artistic value" and you are not able to publish cat videos there.
Recently dailymotion.com has also been behind links I click on reddit often enough that I was able to remember the name.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Where's the fair use?

Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?

Re: Where's the fair use?