SF Debris Trek Videos removed from Youtube

[NecronLord]

It makes sense but it is also not strictly legal. In fact, free use laws are not on their but his side.

Law does not apply. Youtube will treat almost any request from a media publisher seriously, and has the legal right and ability to terminate service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with no warning.

The problem is that youtube has no spine and will bend over for any corporation regardless of the rules becouse they fear lawsuits. Seriously, youtube has grown from an institution to be respected into a spineless slime that makes Wormtongue look like a knight of the round table.

Quite. But in their defense, sucking up to copyright owners is integral to their business model. Can you imagine the issues they'd have if say, the RIAA started filing delete requests on all the music videos they could find?

Sounds great, which are these two?

The Neutral Zone for the DVD bits.
The Child for Pulaski.

So their behavior doesn't make sense.

Allow me to rephrase. It makes sense, from my interpretation of the knee-jerk reaction of the employee of a heartless corporation. Probably an employee whose job is to protect the brand from criticism, and who can get them wiped from youtube by firing off an e-mail, and who earns his crust in doing so, and keeps his job by making sure he sends a lot of those e-mails and looks busy.

It is not strictly rational, but the actions of businesses in such matters frequently aren't, but they are very concerned with image and brand. It makes sense, in that it is consistent with my expectations of such an organization.

I am not defending their actions in any way shape or form, it's a niggardly and cheerless behavior. But would I imagine a corporation acting in a miserable and petty way? Why, yes, yes I would.

According to Necron Lord it would also make sense for Paramount or CBS to sue Roger Ebert for any bad review he gave too.

A better way to say it, is if they had a magical button they could push to get his reviews of any material that they produced that were negative erased hassle free, and without recourse to law, would they?

I certainly think that they would.

[Connor MacLeod]

NecronLord has a point. Youtube provides what is in essence a free service to people, much like Television. While popularity and keeping their user base is someting of a deterrent to their acitvities, it is still their service, and they can do what they like and dictate whatever policies they want. And taking chuck's stuff down, while it is going to irritate people, is unlikely to put a significant dent in their user base at this time. Hell this isn't the first time they've evne done this, and it hasn't hurt them yet. It might hurt them in the future, but if and when is not something we can predict.

And yes, it does make sense for them to do it (Again as NL points out) because Paramount carries far more weight than Chuck or any of his fans do (both in terms of economic and legal power.) Youtube is first and foremost a business, and they are going to act in accord with that principle, even if it makes retarded sense to other people. That's the end result of a decades-long corporate American mindset for you.

[Purple]

Law does not apply. Youtube will treat almost any request from a media publisher seriously, and has the legal right and ability to terminate service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with no warning.

You miseed the point. The law I was talking about was the fact that by law Youtube was not oblidged to comply with said request nor any request for that mater as long as it is not a clear breach of IP. So what I was saying that as far as the law was concerned this was completely open and up to their good will.

Quite. But in their defense, sucking up to copyright owners is integral to their business model. Can you imagine the issues they'd have if say, the RIAA started filing delete requests on all the music videos they could find?

Ignore them? Seriously what are they going to do that is going to be worse than the backlash that would occur if they complied with such a request? Yes, youtube could lose a lot of money if they did not comply but if they took down all music videos than they would lose 99% of their user base thus loosing advertisement profits thus loosing even more money. And that is not even mentioning the retribution that certain computer savvy users would wreak on them. If such a massive request was made how long do you think would pass before youtube would go the way of the 3 and 1/2 inch floppy in favor of blip and other services?

Personally, I can't wait for the day that youtube will be forced to give the middle finger to either the corporations or their user base. And that day ain't so far off.

[Connor MacLeod]

you think Paramount (or youtube) will care about laws? Are you an American? It's youtube's service. They're not required to humor what other people think (even if it DOES prove to be bad business sense in the long run) They provide a free service to people to use, and they essentially can set the rules (or change them) if they so choose.

[Purple]

I think you can guess what I was going to say so I can avoid the whole part about advocating illegal activity. But nothing is said, that is all.

*sigh*

[Connor MacLeod]

Hey its free market. Youtube owns their site, they can do whatever they want with it. Paramount owns Star Trek. They get to decide what they want to do with it. If they could, they'd probably go after people who watch it on VCRs, or whatever other "recorded" media that might exist. What's more they probably would like being able to force people to buy it. Ideally they'd like to force people to buy it multiple times. Whatever they think can make them more money, without having to spend money, is a good thing, and anything that might TAKE money from them is a bad thing.

Youtube is also a business, that quite probably depends on advertising to sustain itself (It's mostly a glorified commercial as it is), and if someone like Paramount (or hell, if other groups) decide not to support it or take their business elsewhere they lose money. (nevermind suing, that owuld be worse.)

Again, that's free market, and there's very little the avergae consumer can do about it.

[Purple]

Again, that's free market, and there's very little the avergae consumer can do about it.

And that is why I am a committed communists.

[NecronLord]

Ignore them? Seriously what are they going to do that is going to be worse than the backlash that would occur if they complied with such a request? Yes, youtube could lose a lot of money if they did not comply but if they took down all music videos than they would lose 99% of their user base thus loosing advertisement profits thus loosing even more money. And that is not even mentioning the retribution that certain computer savvy users would wreak on them. If such a massive request was made how long do you think would pass before youtube would go the way of the 3 and 1/2 inch floppy in favor of blip and other services?

Personally, I can't wait for the day that youtube will be forced to give the middle finger to either the corporations or their user base. And that day ain't so far off.

You are making my argument for me. My argument is that youtube by its business model has a vested interest in complying with most minor entertainment industry copyright demands so that the entertainment industry does not make extreme demands that force them to close down their business. Which they could do with impunity.

[Morilore]

Why is bliptv so much less receptive to DMCA bullshit? How long can we expect it to be a safe home for criticism/parody?

[White Haven]

Succinctly put, they're a nobody. Few people know they exist, fewer people watch them. The 'damage' of an alleged copywrite violation is directly proportional to the breadth of its distribution. The major media companies don't need to stamp out all 'violations' everywhere, they just need to cram it into the corners, the crackerjack sites, the 'hmm, I've never heard of that URL, it's probably a malware site' sector of the internet, so the mass-market doesn't find it. On top of that, they're not big business. If the whole goddamned world lands on top of them, they fold and go away. No billion-dollar fortunes are lost.

[Marcus Aurelius]

But I think they would do the same to Ebert if they could get away with it. They don't because Ebert is too big and powerful. Any attempts to interfere with him with would cause a massive firestorm of outrage. Small amateur reviewers like Chuck unfortunately don't have the same protection.

Furthermore, Ebert only does written reviews and written material traditionally has much stronger protection for free speech and fair use of copyrighted material than audiovisual materials. A few quotes or screenshots are much easier to justify as free speech than several minutes long clips from the show in a video review. I doubt Chuck would have gotten any trouble from CBS if he had just stuck to the written reviews, even if he somehow had managed to get them up on a more prestigious site than sfdebris.com.

[Serafina]

It makes sense but it is also not strictly legal. In fact, free use laws are not on their but his side. The problem is that youtube has no spine and will bend over for any corporation regardless of the rules becouse they fear lawsuits. Seriously, youtube has grown from an institution to be respected into a spineless slime that makes Wormtongue look like a knight of the round table.

They've also grown a spine in defending free speech against creationists and other such political groups. That definitely deserve some credit.

The reason why they take copyright notices from corporations seriously is quite simple:
According to the DMCA, they can not be sued unless they get a takedown notice first and act accordingly. If they don't, the corporation might sue them for damages. And as well all know, such lawsuits really get out of hand in the USA. Imagine having to pay the proportional price (relative to the DVD-price, so say 1/20th of 120$ for each episode) once per view of the video. That's completely in line with the resulsts of some other lawsuits.

Now Chuck could file a counternotice and claim fair use because it's criticism and non-profit. The problem is that doing so basically requires a lawyer. Several other interest groups (such as anti-creationism channels) on YouTube have one amongst their ranks who does so for free - Chuck does not.
In the end, it boils down to legal intimidation. You can stand up to it if you know how and want to make the effort, but whether it's worth it or not is your choice - and frankly, given that Chuck had another option, i completely understand why he did not wast his time.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why is bliptv so much less receptive to DMCA bullshit? How long can we expect it to be a safe home for criticism/parody?

Until people start seriously making money off it, or enough people start using it to get around DMCA that the content industry starts caring enough to file DMCA complaints against the users of the service. YouTube's users have been transitioning from seeing it as the "place where you go to watch people do stupid things to themselves" to the "place you go to post pirated content from major content industries." Which YouTube used to be fairly lax about, until they decided that they wanted to become more like a conventional broadcaster of corporate-sponsored and produced content. This article from the BBC explains it pretty well.

So now that YouTube (and its owners in Google) are at the point where they can seriously monetize content hosted (and soon to be produced) by them, they now seriously care about the IP bona-fides of content hosted by their service.

It's a transition that's affecting everybody on YouTube. Not only are they taking copyright accusations seriously about content like the SFDebris reviews, which has (by YouTube standards) a large audience; but they're also pulling videos derived from copyrighted content (such as fan-made music videos or favorite short clips from TV programs) which frequently have less than a hundred views per week.

[Serafina]

As i said, you already need a lawyer (or at least a lawyer-written form) to file a proper counternotice wiht YouTube, even in cases where all three criteria for fair use (criticism, non-profit, educational) are fulfilled.
I know that that's not the actual legal definition, but it's an easy guideline
Again, anti-creationism videos are a baseline example here. They often have only a short clip followed by a lengthy refutation via education, which is done for criticism and without profit involved. They still got taken down for quite a while , until a lawyer provided a form to declare and point out how those videos were fair use.

As pointed out above, the issue is a bit more fuzzy here. The videos are certainly not educational, and the non-profit issue is somewhat fuzzy. However, they ARE clearly criticism, and they do not show the whole episode, so the amount of material used is proper.
But it would need a lawyer to investigate all that, and you might even have to go to court, which is just something Chuck should not waste his time with.

[Starglider]

And that is why I am a committed communists.

Ah, so you would prefer that YouTube be banned entirely, the way it is in China.

[Purple]

And that is why I am a committed communists.

Ah, so you would prefer that YouTube be banned entirely, the way it is in China.

This quote says it all:

YouTube's users have been transitioning from seeing it as the "place where you go to watch people do stupid things to themselves" to the "place you go to post pirated content from major content industries." Which YouTube used to be fairly lax about, until they decided that they wanted to become more like a conventional broadcaster of corporate-sponsored and produced content.

I color coded it to match my opinions on the different phases of youtube. Ordered by my preferance:
YES! This is what it should be! Glory to the golden age of youtube!
The standard and official purpose that should serve to cover for the golden age. A service existing for the pleasure of users and nothing else.
The horrible, horrible scum of the earth that is google and their money grabbing ways sacrificing user satisfaction for profit. They should all burn in hell and have their finger nails pulled out and have their children be cursed forever.

Now, see what parts are colored how and you can get a proper understanding of my opinion on this issue.

[Formless]

Succinctly put, they're a nobody. Few people know they exist, fewer people watch them. The 'damage' of an alleged copywrite violation is directly proportional to the breadth of its distribution. The major media companies don't need to stamp out all 'violations' everywhere, they just need to cram it into the corners, the crackerjack sites, the 'hmm, I've never heard of that URL, it's probably a malware site' sector of the internet, so the mass-market doesn't find it. On top of that, they're not big business. If the whole goddamned world lands on top of them, they fold and go away. No billion-dollar fortunes are lost.

So, wait, you are saying that That Guy With The Glasses and its various affiliates through Channel Awesome are "nobodies"? I suppose you could have made that argument three years ago, but by now that would be like saying Yahzee Croshaw is a nobody.

Or maybe you've just not heard of them yet. In which case, I'll just point out that no less than three of the shows on Blip's top shows list include The Nostalgia Critic, The Spoony Experiment, and Cinemassacre-- all affiliated with Channel Awesome.

Bliptv has actual money riding on fair use in the form of paying customers who do the same kind of parody and criticism as Chuck. Though they have had the good idea of rallying behind a corporate startup who can presumably help with legal issues the same way dprjones (the person Serafina has been alluding to) does for anti-creationist and atheist video makers on Youtube. While this does mean you won't see Blip host AMVs and other blatant fanworks any time soon, as its even harder to justify hosting derivative works you are making money off of, it also gives me some reason to believe its in their best interest not to screw people like Chuck-- it would set a bad precedent with their other customers, who have changed hosting services before (Revver, due to a payment dispute).

[Sarevok]

I am not a web development person but I just had an idea.

Some webhosts, like my hosting provider, Hostgator for instance claim they provide "unlimited" bandwidth. I believe Chuck does not get more than a few hundred views a week. Could not he setup his own youtube like site ? If I am not mistaken there are several CMS based solution that provide similar functionality as youtube..

[Dominus Atheos]

As i said, you already need a lawyer (or at least a lawyer-written form) to file a proper counternotice wiht YouTube, even in cases where all three criteria for fair use (criticism, non-profit, educational) are fulfilled.

No you don't. They have a simple form for filing counter-takedown notices.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As i said, you already need a lawyer (or at least a lawyer-written form) to file a proper counternotice wiht YouTube, even in cases where all three criteria for fair use (criticism, non-profit, educational) are fulfilled.

No you don't. They have a simple form for filing counter-takedown notices.

Did you bother to read the form before you fired off this glib post? In case you didn't:

You can submit a counter-notification by filling in the form below.

To dispute a copyright claim, you must be certain that you have all necessary rights to post the video to YouTube.

Except as noted, this information will be forwarded to the claimant; hence, your identity will be revealed. Make sure that you have reviewed the information here before proceeding. If there is any part of this process about which you are unsure, please consult your solicitor. (Editor's note: Pronounced 'lawyer.')

A counter-notification is a legal demand that we restore your video. If the original claimant does not want the video on YouTube, the claimant will be required to sue you.

If you are not prepared to face the claimant in court, you should not proceed.

Also, in filing the counter-claim, you're swearing under penalty of perjury that the claimant made a mistake, and agree that if the claimant disagrees, they can sue your ass in Federal court. It's not quite as simple as it looks; unless you've got an airtight legal case and a high-priced lawyer on retainer.

[Dominus Atheos]

As i said, you already need a lawyer (or at least a lawyer-written form) to file a proper counternotice wiht YouTube, even in cases where all three criteria for fair use (criticism, non-profit, educational) are fulfilled.

No you don't. They have a simple form for filing counter-takedown notices.

Did you bother to read the form before you fired off this glib post? In case you didn't:

*Snip*

Also, in filing the counter-claim, you're swearing under penalty of perjury that the claimant made a mistake, and agree that if the claimant disagrees, they can sue your ass in Federal court. It's not quite as simple as it looks; unless you've got an airtight legal case and a high-priced lawyer on retainer.

Did you bother reading the post I was responding to? My "glib" post was just correcting an inaccurate statement. I made no claims about whether Chuck should file a counter-claim.

[Serafina]

No it's not. Okay, so you don't need a form but rather a checklist designed by a lawyer, or just simply a lawyers help.
And you DO need a lawyer anyway, since you will potentially land in court. At least in cases of creationists you can be sure that you won't - Chuck can't, because the companies have the time and money and interest to sue him.

So you were just nitpicking and clearly do not understand what is involved in a DMCA-counternotice.