“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

https://twitter.com/ThatMumboJumbo/status/1130009515766755328

596 302 7 years ago

mdorazio• 7 years ago

The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy.

I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.

sirn2• 7 years ago

FWIW, the author of the tweet, Mumbo Jumbo is a high-profile Minecraft videos content creator on YouTube (3M subscribers) and he's doing this as his full-time job. By your description, I would say he's in the top personalities group.

What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue sharing of his video with no recourse.

Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4

drtillberg• 7 years ago

He has a contract with the musician whose songs he incorporated in the video. Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process and maybe indemnity built into that contract, tell the musician to call off the dogs and reimburse him for diverted profits and his time/expenses.

This doesn't sound like an example of YouTube badness, but rather an example of the hazards of working with unreliable business partners. And pay attention to your contracts!

inlined• 7 years ago

MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means they can never be part of the VIP category.

zaroth2• 7 years ago

The recourse is to sue, and if the facts of the case are as they appear to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were punative damages attached.

imtringued4• 7 years ago

Yes but he doesn't work for the large media companies that effectively wrote the copyright law. He's merely running a "one man" operation + some support. Destroying these "one man" competitors who can become dangerous to the entrenched business models is part of the strategy.

RubberbandSoul2• 7 years ago

I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.

TheOtherHobbes3• 7 years ago

YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.

wswkb• 7 years ago

Recoding and hosting and transmitting video is so expensive that I can assure you no alternative will ever pop up.

tomatotomato37• 7 years ago

What's the current consensus of LiveLeaks being the edgier alternative?

tlogan• 7 years ago

Definitely. One example is Twitch - It seems like Twitch is growing while YouTube Gaming is shrining [1].

The trick to find the niche and be 10x better than youtube for that niche and then expand from there.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/26/twitch-solidifies-its-lead...

tssva• 7 years ago

YouTube doesn't have a lot of flexibility here. The DMCA spells out specific requirements YouTube must follow when they receive a copyright claim and even with the current DMCA submission system and content id system which creators claim is too large media company friendly Google is constantly being threatened with law suits by the large media companies claiming they are in violation of safe harbor requirements for not making it even easier for them to make mass DMCA take down claims.

throwaway20483• 7 years ago

The youtube process where others can claim ad money from videos has nothing to do with the DMCA.

SkyPuncher• 7 years ago

YouTube content strikes aren't DCMA, though.

Copyright holders could file a DCMA request, but YouTube's process makes it easier while achieving the same result. This allows YouTube to satisfy large content holders by avoiding the penalties for false DCMA claims.

DCMA is intented for forcing a comapny to remove content. YouTube simply removes things without actually involving DCMA.

pdkl954• 7 years ago

In some cases, YouTube is now explicitly rejecting DMCA "safe harbor" protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E

From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en (emphasis mine)

Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations
YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.
In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes [aka the DMCA takedown/counter-notification process] on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

gnopgnip2• 7 years ago

Almost anytime the video stays up but the monetization is going to someone else it is a content ID claim, and it is not required by law

snarf21• 7 years ago

It is less reach but people need to explore other options. Maybe Twitch streams and Patreon would allow him to monetize in a different (better?) way. I agree that YT only cares about corporate interests.

panpanna• 7 years ago

The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees.

As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).

hedora3• 7 years ago

It would help if the damages were calculated as a percentage of revenue (or maybe equity) of the largest company involved in the clam.

Mirimax subcontracted to a fly by night organization that sent 10,000 bogus takedown requests? Great. The damages are 10% of revenue. Since Disney is the parent, that would include Disney theme park tickets, cruise ships, the entire Star Wars franchise, etc.

A 1% revenue hit per 1000 take downs seems completely proportional to me. To go after trolls with no revenue, add in a fine for 10x whatever ad revenue they raked in by camping on the disputed rights.

To make sure these get litigated, make sure the damages go to the victim and their lawyers (not google, etc), and also tack on legal fees.

ghayes• 7 years ago

What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.

throwaway20483• 7 years ago

The YouTube take down process where you steal video revenue does not involve the DMCA

colejohnson662• 7 years ago

This. Many people forget that Content ID isn’t the DMCA

jfoster2• 7 years ago

What happens if there's two claims? Could a YouTuber do something along the lines of just lodging claims against their own videos in order to prevent others from lodging claims?

pdkl954• 7 years ago

Jim Sterling talking about including footage from multiple companies as a "copyright deadlock":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM

ratsmack• 7 years ago

Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.

iscrewyou• 7 years ago

I think the idea is be that there will be less frivolous claims when you know you can be sued for falsely claiming something.

erikpukinskis4• 7 years ago

How would you change the laws to protect people like OP?

guntars• 7 years ago

Then maybe someone needs to sell DMCA insurance to small creators that could never afford to retain a lawyer individually. The majority of the invalid claims would get reversed the second a suit is filed and they wouldn’t go further than that.

raverbashing2• 7 years ago

I'm sure that based on the amount of copyright trolling going on on YT there would be a lot of money to be made suing YT and the companies/individuals making the copyright strikes

mamon• 7 years ago

> Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people.

Doesn't that mean that the whole justice system in US is broken? Courts of law exist for this very purpose, so that every citizen can fight for their rights, including defending themselves against this type of extortion. If the cost of lawsuit is prohibitive then you might as well live in some third world dictatorship, with no justice system at all.

pas3• 7 years ago

Class action? There are (tens/hundreds of?) thousands of creators affected.

kevingadd2• 7 years ago

You can't do this on YouTube because YT satisfied the big copyright manipulators by adding their own system in front of the DMCA. As a result these claims don't go through the DMCA process and the legal penalties (toothless to begin with) built into the DMCA aren't available to you. Content ID killing your content or claiming it because someone misused Content ID isn't a legal matter so you are powerless. This is how it is intended to be: It's what Viacom/Disney/etc wanted and Google gave it to them.

AFAIK DMCA notices only produce a takedown, not monetization. If you want to monetize you go through Content ID, which is not the DMCA.

A false DMCA also exposes you to real legal threat, and a big player with money for a lawyer will dismantle you.

kalleboo3• 7 years ago

monetize on their content for a while

I've heard from YouTubers that when they win the appeal they get the monetization that was taken returned back to them. This does not apply when the video was completely demonetized though, only when the monetization was reassigned.

edit:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en

Throughout the dispute process, we'll hold the revenue separately and, once the dispute is resolved, we'll pay it out to the appropriate party.

jccalhoun• 7 years ago

Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious.

I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this.

Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153

wut42• 7 years ago

He said that @TeamYoutube ignored him because the account was active _all_ sunday: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/with_replies

detaro2• 7 years ago

He's a quite well-known professional Minecraft YouTuber with 3 million subscribers. This copyright claim means for all these videos the company making the claim now gets a share of his income. Given he makes game videos, many of those videos do not even contain music outside the intro tune, which he's been using for years and licensed from the creator.

djmips• 7 years ago

It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the public domain... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Show...

lysp• 7 years ago

Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?

iforgotpassword2• 7 years ago

I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start. Then there's the occasional startup that promises to fill exactly that gap, announced with fanfares and everything, but nobody came up with a killer feature yet. But that's just the gist of how I feel about that situation from when topics like that pop up every now and then.

Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?

sirn2• 7 years ago

How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave

YouTube survived even the Real Name Policy during Google+ era. At this point, I can't think I think of anything that could do a permanent and immediate damage to YouTube popularity, even if they pull the equivalent of recent Tumblr purge. YouTube has enough momentum and its audience is way too diverse for it to fail overnight.

Also, video hosting is very hard and expensive. It's possible to have a service that is generally nice and serve some niche (like Vimeo or Dailymotion), but I feel they will break apart in some way or another if they ever gain YouTube-level of popularity (due to regulation, lawsuits, etc.).

wolco• 7 years ago

If they perged or deleted enough content people would stop visiting. If content creators stopped making new videos the site would turn into more of a video backup/hosting service for sharing elsewhere. Wouldn't kill the site but it would reduce its value.

jfoster2• 7 years ago

They're getting pretty annoying for viewers. Non-stop nags about trialing their subscriptions.

pas3• 7 years ago

The RealName policy did not affect YT as it defaulted to a separate "profile" of the same account. And you got the option to merge them, or continue to use it with some nickname.

fenwick673• 7 years ago

Twitch is poised to threaten YouTube. They have Amazon behind them financially, and their live streaming is beating YouTube's.

eljimmy• 7 years ago

No doubt. Twitch is also pretty easy to get in contact with regarding any content disputes as well, at least in comparison to YouTube.

faissaloo3• 7 years ago

I would've loved it if it were PeerTube or something but the sad reality is that Twitch is the only platform that's even close to comparable to YouTube.

erikpukinskis4• 7 years ago

Especially if VR starts capturing attention on a grander scale.

aitchnyu• 7 years ago

Is Twitch becoming a general purpose video site? At a glance, it seems all screengrabs and tabletop cameras of games.

iforgotpassword2• 7 years ago

Interesting, in my book twitch was still streaming only. Given the backing by Amazon you might be right.

DanBC2• 7 years ago

He's had a response from Head of gaming at YT: https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417

bdz• 7 years ago

Now imagine if you don't have 3m subs, no 150k followers on Twitter, no one is posting your stuff on Reddit and even on HN. Good luck getting any help from Google

hi5eyes• 7 years ago

thats why clout is important

Frost1x• 7 years ago

Now imagine it isn't YouTube but some other more significant privatized service near monopoly status, say a local grocery chain or car rental company, and they enforce a "policy" (say banning you) that is now difficult to separate from a law other than you have no voice and little recourse for action, especially as an individual.

Privatized monopolies are in general small totalitarian government regimes that reign over specific functions (markets) of life. Real competition is what breaks those regimes into a democracy where you can somewhat vote with your purchase decisions. We still have to watch out for cartels though where multiple near monopolies agree to stay out of each others territories or collude to set market practices.

throwaway55554• 7 years ago

How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!

tzs2• 7 years ago

The problem here has nothing to do with the DMCA. The problem is that Google has implemented its own system that has little to do with the DMCA.

If it were handled the DMCA way, here is how it would go.

1. Someone complains to the hosting service alleging that you are violating their copyright.

2. The hosting provider takes down the material and notifies you. If you do not want to dispute this, that is the end of it.

3. If you want to dispute their claims, you notify the hosting provider. It doesn't really matter, as far as I recall, if you dispute the claims because you say the claimant does not hold copyright, or you say that they do but your use is covered by fair use, or any other mean.

4. The hosting provider puts your material back up, and tells the complainant that if they want to take it down, they need to take you to court, and provides your legal contact information for filing said suit.

If the claimant takes you to court, and wins, following the above procedure absolves the hosting provider of any liability for the infringement.

luckylion2• 7 years ago

If the claimant takes you to court and loses, there is no penalty, I assume? There's punitive damages in the US - any chance that would be applied to such a case?

erikpukinskis4• 7 years ago

That seems like basically what's happening. I guess the only place where YouTube might be non-conforming is that they break down the complaints by individual piece of content, rather than by claimant.

Maybe youtube should by default bundle the complaints? Ideally you'd have rich tools for slicing and dicing a complaint and responding to different slices in different ways.

9HZZRfNlpR• 7 years ago

This is how it's working with hosting providers. Digitalocean didn't take my server down but said they need my reply for the accuser ASAP. I basically wrote this is fair use and I'm ready to go to court in the USA in some specific state/district (found a boilerplate of that letter from some law forum/site). Digitalocean said thank you and I never got a reply. They said I don't need to do anything else when it comes to them, they are satisfied. I knew the troll who didn't even live in the states, so I was confident.

kaybe• 7 years ago

I think it goes further, in the spirit of those 'You wouldn't steal a car' clips.

Pirates don't really steal data, they just copy. But this is actually a kind of theft. Most pirates would consider that immoral, I'd guess.

gnopgnip2• 7 years ago

These are largely not DMCA takedowns, they are ContentID claims. See https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... for details on the difference.

TazeTSchnitzel• 7 years ago

Nothing can possibly go wrong with Article 17.

hedora3• 7 years ago

In fairness, the franchise or manager (not McDonalds) was at fault there.

They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation.

The burn led to hospitalization.

apocalypstyx• 7 years ago

The burn led to hospitalization.

3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring.

They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temperature

It was within normal operating parameters as per the McDonald's manual. There had been 700 prior instances of warning about issues from hot coffee.

(And while I'm at it)

She was not driving, she was a passenger in a parked car when the incident occurred. She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800. The jury awarded $200,000 and the judge reduced that to $160,000. $2.7 million was awarded by the jury in punitive damages and reduced to $480,000 by the judge, however, there was later a settlement for an unknown amount after McDonald's appealed.

Why does everyone remember different? Because McDonald's spent more than a few million dollars on a PR campaign against her, after which she received lifelong massive amounts of hate mail and death threats and was reduced to gags on everything from Seinfeld to Jay Leno to Futurama.

nate_meurer5• 7 years ago

What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own.

Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day.

Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly.

Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted.

Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me.

We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use.

1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

robocat2• 7 years ago

She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800

Plaintiff sues the Defendants in the amount of $125,000 for physical pain, mental pain and anguish, and loss of life’s enjoyment during the pendency of treatment.

Liebeck initially approached McDonald’s with a demand of $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income. McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800. (Gerlin, Andrea. “A Matter of Degree,” The Wall Street Journal, September 1, 1994). As trial approached, Liebeck’s settlement demand increased to approximately $300,000.

dang• 7 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954032 and marked it off-topic.

fenwick673• 7 years ago

Very sad that "please retweet" is their best recourse.

IloveHN84• 7 years ago

Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?

Flammy• 7 years ago

That isn't how YouTube's Content ID system works.

The vast majority of users don't have access to the system.

When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately.

Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views

vpribish2• 7 years ago

dredmorbius3• 7 years ago

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

17 USC 102(a)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

This post itself is copyrighted under the terms of US law, as well as similar language under common international 'Berne Convention" laws. As is yours. At the moment of creation, with no further action or registration required. For a duration of 95 years, as an anonymous work (17 USC 32(c)) -- or to 70 years after my death, if not anonymous.

A fact which I personally find to be grotesque and insane, but which is indisputably law.

faissaloo3• 7 years ago

When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.

bufferoverflow• 7 years ago

The copyright concept is fine. Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor.

The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.

OrgNet4• 7 years ago

perl4ever4• 7 years ago

"Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor."

The basic issue some are concerned with is that "ownership" of intellectual property gives people or entities rights that infringe on regular property rights. There's an inherent conflict, so you can't just maximize both at once.

josteink• 7 years ago

How it’s implemented in current law is though. And it’s getting worse. That’s the problem, not copyright itself.

vpribish2• 7 years ago

hopefully never as the concept is sound.

IAmGraydon2• 7 years ago

Copyright is necessary and isn’t the problem here. What is the problem is Youtube’s refusal to require any verification when a copyright claim is made. YouTube has essentially created a society that doesn’t abide by due process because it’s a virtual society and therefore isn’t required to follow the same laws that physical societies are held to. This is a symptom of a much more dangerous problem - as we exist more and more in the online world, we are subject to whatever contrived laws the owners of that world decide to create. Those laws have serious fallout in the real world, like complete loss of income due to bogus copyright claims.

icebraining10• 7 years ago

The DMCA law itself says the host can't require any such verification, and if YT started requiring it for ContentID, the complainers could just start sending regular DMCA takedowns.

faissaloo3• 7 years ago

I reject the notion that copyright is necessary, what's necessary is my personal ability to use my devices without random companies being able to use the state to punish me for using an abstract concept that may or may not resemble one that they at some point also used. If you would like to make money from your art there are options such as commisions, but the onus is on you to find a business model that works, it is not for the government to be creating artificial monopolies to facilitate a business model that is incompatible with reality.

aphextron• 7 years ago

You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of fairness will never hurt it in any way.

Zephyreks• 7 years ago

What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?

monocasa• 7 years ago

How about a copyright enforcement system that doesn't go above and beyond what's required?

sieabahlpark• 7 years ago

If a creator can't afford to publish content without a company striking their account then why would any creator stay?

It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.

singron• 7 years ago

How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization.

Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference.

Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to find inaccurate claims.

benologist• 7 years ago

They do have over $100 billion in savings, so maybe that number should actually be $90 billion and that other ~10% dedicated to the boring stuff like supporting their users. It's no accident that Amazon, Comcast, AT&T etc can support 100m+ people by phone... and pure accounting chicanery that Google does not.

falcolas• 7 years ago

A three (or ten, or even 300) strike plan, where they lose the right to make copyright claims in a "guilty until proven innocent" fashion - the company must provide sufficient evidence to YouTube that the content is infringing.

They would still have the DMCA process, but they lose rights to use the copyright strike process until they prove their competence.

TheBobinator• 7 years ago

There is a way to handle this, but you aren't going to like it.

Since there is absolutely no penalty for filing copyright claims, you just get together with other large youtube channels and begin filing claims against Disney, CBS, NBC, Fox, and so forth, all the large media companies that have youtube over a barrel, as well as their advertisers.

You simply decide not to play nice whatsoever. And you keep on doing it, as a growing group, repeatedly, until youtube is forced to take action. You do it to any large corporation that wants to post on youtube. And if they take the wrong action, which they will, you bring out RICO statutes and begin filing so many subpeona's they can't financially afford to work with it. You don't stop at youtube either, you get in groups and sue them for stuff they put on cable TV as well. Find yourself jr lawyers.

If Google wants binding arbitration contracts in place and then wants to sexually harass their staff, the appropriate turn-about play is for the staff to get together and plan on sexually harassing the executive management. And I'm not talking in ways they would like; I'm talking hundreds of people telling the execs and upper managers they want to do scat-play, or buying and mailing them used japanese underwear and mini goats with plushines, and so forth. And they get as viscious as possible about this, up to the point of following them around with handcuffs and leather straps in groups.

Because if we're going to be lawsless, it's time to act like total animals. And realistically, there's only one way to teach that lesson.

tomp• 7 years ago

I think this is a terrible plan / course of action... but it might just work!

kevingadd2• 7 years ago

You think you actually have power over Disney? YouTube will just kick you off.

komali2• 7 years ago

I'm down for ddos via lawsuit, but two wrongs don't make a right - sexually harassing people shouldn't be weaponized, as injust the power structures may be.

13415• 7 years ago

The real problem with Youtube is that it remains to be the biggest copyright infringer on earth. There is almost no record and song, no matter how obscure, that you cannot find on Youtube, and nothing prevents you from downloading this content. I'm not judging this, just stating the facts, so don't downvote me for it. Who doesn't enjoy direct access to a gigantic music collection without paying? Everybody likes it and uses it.

Somehow Youtube gets away with that, because they are a major US company. If you'd find the same amount of content on a small foreign company's servers, the FBI would crack down on it in no time using all international law available.

The current extreme bias in the complaint system will not change, because it is Youtube's legal insurance. They need to be able to claim they've done everything they can fighting piracy. In reality, piracy is and always has been one of the major uses of Youtube in addition to the privately produced content.

As a result of this, Youtube is double unfair. It enables massive piracy and at the same time severely punishes original content producers in favor of predatory and sometimes plain fraudulent companies filing bogus copyright complaints. It's a systemic problem that IMHO could only be solved by drastic law reforms.

sam0x1718• 7 years ago

And every second they think that way brings them a step closer to being replaced. Literally the only thing youtube has value-wise is its audience. Nothing they do can't be done with existing cloud networks and off-the-shelf open source software, or a bit of clever coding.

Furthermore by catering to advertisers wholesale, they are alienating their primary users and pissing everyone off. Eventually people will get sick of it and start a subscription-based video service where ads and sponsored content are banned.

But that isn't even necessary -- all it really takes is 3-4 of the major content creators to switch to another platform with a less draconian view on copyright and advertising policies and real change could happen.

wutbrodo2• 7 years ago

Ive always worked at a much higher level than infra, and I used to be similarly dismissive about the difficulty of infrastructure at scale until I had some exposure to it; You'd be surprised at how much talent and effort and money goes into delivering the volume of content that YouTube does at the reliability it does. The fact that I subconsciously always pick YouTube video search results links over the alternatives has a lot to do with the fact that it's apparently difficult enough for every other entity to deliver video content reliably (with far, far lower volume).

eropple4• 7 years ago

Nothing they do can't be done with existing cloud networks and off-the-shelf open source software, or a bit of clever coding.

Burn a lot of money on bandwidth while delivering video with minimal hiccups and impressive reliability?

jasonlotito2• 7 years ago

Nothing they do can't be done with existing cloud networks and off-the-shelf open source software

Please, link to this off-the-shelf open source software that can be used to replicate the YouTube experience, both in terms of hosting and playing videos as well as distribution on various platforms. I'll settle for Android and iOS.

gotland_• 7 years ago

This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k

colordrops• 7 years ago

It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the rhythm nor the melody is the same.

ddingus• 7 years ago

The timing of the few prominent notes in that intro are similar to the George Harrison tune, but the notes themselves as well as supporting elements are different, as is the overall percussion.

Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend.

Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks...

Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician.

Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out.

While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out.

Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding.

It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should.

It's also reasonable to expect better.

gatherhunterer• 7 years ago

He has now tweeted an update acknowledging that the artist from whom he licensed the music may not have had the right to claim sampled music as their own. Another update urges others to ensure that licensees actually have the right to license the work that they claim as original. This is the only top-level comment that offers actual information on why this may have happened and it was downvoted for a difference of perspective informed by that information.

gatewaynode2• 7 years ago

It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these monetization attacks and maximize compensation.

thatoneuser• 7 years ago

Little guys don't get to ride on the dmca fast track from what I understand.

Jolter• 7 years ago

Works are copyrighted automatically under modern law. I'm not aware of any procedure to "formally copyright" a work.

detaro2• 7 years ago

In some countries (including the US) you can additionally "register copyright", and it makes enforcement easier or allows higher compensation, maybe that's what they're referring to.

That advice wouldn't help the british creator in this case though.

ClassyJacket• 7 years ago

In alot of countries (Australia for example) there is no copyright registration at all. You just automatically own the copyright to things you create.

https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC/Find_an_Answer/FAQ__How_do_...

peterwwillis2• 7 years ago

I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to generate attention for a platform that mines that attention for ad dollars, of which he gets a few pennies for his trouble. Even if this is his dream job, the risk he's taking is high.

Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.

lostmyoldone• 7 years ago

It's not entitlement to complain about copyright procedure abuse when you use a platform of a multi billion dollar company for its publicly communicated, and intended purpose.

If we assume the creator is using a licensed original work, then I would rather claim that if entitlement is expressed by anyone, it is expressed by the entity that sent, or are otherwise responsible for the 1000+ copyright claims. All claims toward a single channel, and apparently without verifying the validity of even one such claim.

saagarjha• 7 years ago

these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer

Such as?

Zarath• 7 years ago

" Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged."

Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos he makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.

peterwwillis2• 7 years ago

That's how shitty parts of society work. An organization creates a monopoly platform to generate revenue, and then exploits content producers. Yes, our society has multiple examples of exploitative marketplaces. That doesn't make it okay.

But also, complaining has never helped! As multiple people have commented here, they have no incentive to change! The one thing that does force change is competition, and there is basically no competition.

duxup• 7 years ago

How is it just as spam / disruptive behavior type protection do they not have a catch for if 1800+ claims ... maybe have a human with a brain take a look at what is up?

Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.

sam0x1718• 7 years ago

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that.

It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.

sam0x1718• 7 years ago

Heck, I'd even have my developers write an AI that automatically extracts fair-use-length clips from videos and songs belonging to some of the biggest complainers, and uploads them as "honeypot" videos. If they complain about one of those, ban 'em from complaining again. They don't understand copyright law.

colejohnson662• 7 years ago

A 10 second clip of a movie isn’t necessarily fair use; It’s decided on a case by case basis. You can use as much as you need to get your point across; No more. If that’s 10 seconds, you can use 10 seconds. If that’s a minute, you can use a minute.

nwallin2• 7 years ago

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system.

Money.

If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim.

The DMCA isn't designed in a way to make an easy path forward for a service like Youtube to operate fairly in a profitable manner. Article 13 prohibits it by law.

Copyright law reminds me of going to my parent's house and being asked to fix something on their computer. It's not this one thing that's broken, it's everything that's broken. I could fix all the little individual things, but it would be a lot easier to wipe it clean and start from scratch.

icebraining10• 7 years ago

they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim.

No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.

krapp• 7 years ago

I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system.

If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did.

The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.

patmcc• 7 years ago

>> fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that.

That isn't how fair use works. 30 seconds might not be fair use and 10 minutes might, depending on how they're used.

sam0x1718• 7 years ago

Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way.

Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.

icebraining10• 7 years ago

Why wouldn't the claimant just switch to plain-old DMCA takedowns in that case?

sam0x1718• 7 years ago

Because it would be more financially beneficial to just not submit fake reports.

Animats2• 7 years ago

False claim of copyright is a criminal offense in the US. While prosecutions are extremely rare, they have happened. It is worth getting a lawyer to help you file a formal complaint with the US Department of Justice. While the odds of criminal prosecution are low, there's a good chance paperwork from a US Attorney's office asking some questions will be sent to the offender. That will reach their legal people, and something useful will probably happen.

See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.

FreeFull• 7 years ago

Part of the problem here would be that none of the claims sent to MumboJumbo have been through the DMCA. They all use Youtube's internal system instead, which was built to appease the big music publishers.

paulddraper• 7 years ago

But these are Youtube complaints, not DMCA complaints.

Virtually no consequence.

bo1024• 7 years ago

By my understanding, you are mistaken or out of date. What you wrote is true for takedown notices issued under the DMCA, but YouTube is allowing companies to order takedowns or monetize other's videos without going through the legal DMCA process. That's what ContentID is about.

Animats2• 7 years ago

YouTube seems to claim that the DMCA counter-notice procedure applies.[1]

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684

jancsika• 7 years ago

Why not just have a captcha for copyright claims:

"Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming"

If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.

pfarnsworth• 7 years ago

How is this still possible in 2019? These are well-known tactics and yet Youtube still allows this?

makecheck• 7 years ago

Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all?

If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices. (We certainly need more jobs for people.)

ErikAugust• 7 years ago

Google borders on insane with lacking any sort of manual support.

For example, when you are a paid G Suite customer - you'll need to dig hard to find their support number. Then you'll need to click several buttons making it clear you still need support. You also need to then generate a PIN used to access the phone support.

GordonS2• 7 years ago

Similar story with Adwords - if you want support with that, you ain't gonna get it. It's a maze of FAQs and automated email responses with useless information.

If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up.

Truely, incredible that they get away with it. Also incredible that they're OK with this given how much profit they make from ads.

By comparison, I've had excellent support from Bing Ads in the past - unfortunately they represent a much smaller number of impressions than Adwords.

judge2020• 7 years ago

In my experience it's not hard, maybe this is because i'm on a >50 user GSuite Business plan, but it goes like so:

1. admin console, click the question mark in the top right

2. "contact support" button is right on the front page

3. Choose live chat, phone, or email

4. enter your question

5. click "continue to phone" (can't blame them for trying to show relevant helpdesk articles first)

6. call the number and enter the pin

This is better than some customer support solutions, Many will bounce you back to the helpdesk homepage every chance they get, and the only way to actually get support is to email support@ or go to a special page (Tip: /hc/en-us/requests/new will work with most zendesk instances).

blunte• 7 years ago

I have used g suite live support chat many times with quite pleasant results and typically very competent and friendly agents.

Now, free google services and YouTube services are obviously broken by design (no human support).

nearmuse• 7 years ago

This is a less technical solution, and less profitable as consequence. It is also subtracting from software's image as magic, which again amongst other things makes it less profitable.

jaredklewis2• 7 years ago

Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all?

Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation?

Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system).

And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know that they too are safe. Because a victim would have to jump over the insanely high hurdle of proving the company knowingly misrepresented their ownership of the work. The company can easily claim that is was not intentional, but rather a mistake caused by a bug in their software.

If congress cared about this, they could fix it in a minute: false DMCA takedown request = fine, regardless of knowledge or intent.

developer2• 7 years ago

This is the whole problem. Sick and tired of people complaining about YouTube/Google. For them to "fix the problem" just for their own platform would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in man hours to process every single last takedown request manually with no automation. Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour to defend their content, when it will take 50-500+ hours to defend a single request? Maybe the 0.01% of content creators, that's who. And those issuing the takedowns are not stupid enough to go after the 0.01%.

The laws are broken. It doesn't matter how "big" Google is. They cannot afford to protect the small guy. It's a choice between "hurt the small guy" vs. "go bankrupt". Fix the laws. Don't blame Google.

dalore• 7 years ago

Can we fight them back? Can't we collectively submit our own DMCA requests on all their videos? Break the system so they have come to up with a new one.

kalleboo3• 7 years ago

Because that's the compromise Google chose with the publishers to avoid getting sued to death over the massive and blatant copyright infringement of full TV shows and movies going on YouTube at the time

dandare• 7 years ago

And what if this happened to someone who is not famous with a large following?

Fuzzwah• 7 years ago

I agree with the sentiment, but only popular channels are going to be targeted like this.

Taniwha• 7 years ago

Seems like nothing that 1800 small claims suits wont fix ... start with one to make sure it will go through, then file the rest

Iv• 7 years ago

Hollywood started on the west coast because it was reasonably out of reach from the copyright and patent claims of the east coast. That's what allowed to a creative industry to start and strive.

Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches.

The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)"

Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.

dijksterhuis3• 7 years ago

FYI - this looks like it may be a valid claim before you all go grab your pitchforks and torches.

https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...

Fjolsvith2• 7 years ago

Why not have a separate company you own that copyright claims your own videos first?

“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”

Related Stories