4 ms·

The YouTube notification contains: Due to a copyright claim, you are no longer monetizing the following YouTube video. It is still playable on YouTube,

The YouTube notification contains: Due to a copyright claim, you are no longer monetizing the following YouTube video. It is still playable on YouTube, but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it. The key phrase is "but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it". Google is automatically transferring the benefits of copyright to anyone who files a claim? That seems ripe for abuse. Theoretically, you could claim copyright of a video, show your ads on it, and profit until the dispute is settled (if it ever is). A popular video could have hundreds of thousands of views before a dispute is settled and a company the size of Sony could probably claim some form of copyright infringement on thousands of videos. And there's no downside (other than the effort/costs of filing the complaints), a small content provider won't pursue the perjury clause in the DMCA, it'd be too hard to prove (if they know about it at all). They'll just be happy it's over and go on with their lives. </tinfoilhat>

rspeer 11y ago
The tin-foil hat is unnecessary. What you describe is happening, all the time. It's not even perjury. I was going to describe things that falsely take down videos as "perjury-bots" but then I remembered that major sites such as YouTube and Twitch have set up their own expedited process outside the legal system. They'll even find the content for you. You just have to say "This sound/video is mine, whenever it appears", and when a sufficiently high percentage of sound and video actually are yours, organizations will believe you whether or not it's true. So large content companies just claim everything they possibly can, regardless of whether they're allowed to or not. It's all upside (more revenue from videos!) and no downside (nobody will hold you accountable).
- Oatseller 11y ago
  I agree with your conclusions, the 'tinfoilhat' was for my conspiratorial tone with no citations to back it up.

rspeer 11y ago

The tin-foil hat is unnecessary. What you describe is happening, all the time. It's not even perjury. I was going to describe things that falsely take down videos as "perjury-bots" but then I remembered that major sites such as YouTube and Twitch have set up their own expedited process outside the legal system. They'll even find the content for you. You just have to say "This sound/video is mine, whenever it appears", and when a sufficiently high percentage of sound and video actually are yours, organizations will believe you whether or not it's true. So large content companies just claim everything they possibly can, regardless of whether they're allowed to or not. It's all upside (more revenue from videos!) and no downside (nobody will hold you accountable).

Oatseller 11y ago
I agree with your conclusions, the 'tinfoilhat' was for my conspiratorial tone with no citations to back it up.