10 ms·

Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA

363 points by juanito 10y ago

just_observing 10y ago
Until there is a financial penalty for wrongful use of the DMCA this type of thing will continue. They use robots to create reports (maybe not in this case) because for them there is simply zero downside. That downside needs to exist.
- pluma 10y ago
  Supposedly you risk jail time when submitting illegitimate DMCA claims. In practice the only case I know of is when YouTuber thunderf00t used that threat against another YouTuber (VenomFangX) to make him publish a video statement clarifying that his claims were illegitimate and he won't do it again -- but none of that ever ended up in court (because VenomFangX complied, before temporarily retiring from YouTube in shame). EDIT: Of course the ContentID system probably circumvents that entirely because technically your content is taken down automatically rather than because of a DMCA claim. Even though the effect on the uploader is the same: impacting the monetisation of a video they may have invested a significant amount of time into. If anything it's worse because there is no built-in way to counter-claim or claim damages (without directly going to court).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  This is probably just Content ID. So there the problem is that Youtube gives preferential treatment to their more profitable users, they don't have to submit a legal document to Youtube, they just flag the content and are done. I bet there was never even a human in this particular loop.
- Esau 10y ago
  The real solution would be to require a human to certify the infringement complaint - no more automated requests.
  - jobigoud 10y ago
    But that can't be left to the claimant. So Google should charge a fee for each complaint to cover the cost of the verification. But then you could make the company pay more simply by uploading thousands of infringing videos… In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this particular case.
    - codys 10y ago
      By "certify", GP might mean "certify under penalty of perjury", where the specific wording (which would probably need some notes about certifying they had verified their ownership) is strict enough to give one a bit of legal ammunition against false complaints.
      - Esau 10y ago
        Exactly. Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough.
Flashuk100 10y ago
This is eerily similar to the infamous "You made this?...I made this" comic.
- overlordalex 10y ago
  If anyone hasn't seen it, I believe this is the one you're referring to: http://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg http://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg
  - BillTheCat 10y ago
    Link to the original and not some reupload to imgur: http://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-internet http://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-interne... :)
    - pluma 10y ago
      I think linking to a re-upload is weirdly in spirit with the comic's sentiment. Though I never quite understood which interpretation was intended: * Creator shows their work to someone, who goes on claiming it's their own work. * Someone shows "their work" to the original creator, who then realizes it's actually their work.
      - pnevares 10y ago
        I never even considered the second interpretation, which now seems even more appropriate than the first. I only hope the original author is aware and supportive of the meta-sentiment of the re-upload/re-whitemark response.
- akerro 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc
  - taneq 10y ago
Orangeair 10y ago
There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.
- devy 10y ago
  Yeah, if all said were true, YouTube is as much at fault as Fox is.
- pflats 10y ago
  I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable. Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Then there could be a time delay of X months after which automated take downs aren't done.
  - jkot 10y ago
    Original clip was uploaded 8 years before Fox published their version.
    - delecti 10y ago
      Many TV shows are not on Youtube at all except as unauthorized uploads. Should Fox be unable to issue a takedown on an episode of the Simpsons that's been uploaded since before they uploaded a copy into ContentID?
  - the8472 10y ago
    It's a plausibility check that could be used to flag things for human review.
  - deleted 10y ago
Ralfp 10y ago
SmarterEveryDay told a story in one of his videos about slow-mo clip of tatoo machine in action being ripped from one of his movies by the large press publisher, Bauer, and reuploaded on Bauer's Facebook page. Then Bauer moved on to claim DMCA on his original uploaded by him on his Facebook page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA
- nkrisc 10y ago
  That sort of thing happens all the time too, as he mentions. Only he has the reach and audience to rightly raise a stink about it. Most who have their content stolen in this manner really have no recourse. The damage is done, the money is made, and the perpetrators can just say, "whoops" and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing while they take their ill-gotten gains to the bank.
- balls187 10y ago
  This was one of the main reasons I am no longer on Facebook. Because Facebook is happy to profit off of the creative works of others, without properly compensating them.
ascagnel_ 10y ago
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see Scripps taking down a public-domain NASA video[0]), and the content is removed immediately without giving the initial uploader a right to contest it (it can be restored laterº. A YouTube user has way fewer rights under ContentID than they do under the DMCA. If you are found in violation of ContentID, you must fight both YouTube and the claimant to have your case heard under the DMCA. [0] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-into-a-dmca-takedown http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-i...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Content ID is not open to anyone though. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402 This particular video seems like a nice test case of the review system.
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    I haven't seen this link before; it's a great reference. The issue comes from the second sentence of the second paragraph: > Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. YouTube does nothing to verify the exclusive rights, as far as I can tell.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      > If accepted to use the Content ID tools, applicants will be required to complete an agreement explicitly stating that only content with exclusive rights can be used as references. Additionally, accepted applicants will need to provide the geographic locations of exclusive ownership, if not worldwide. The big question here is what are the consequences of adding a reference that the applicant does not have exclusive rights to? Is it YouTube's discretion? What happens if Fox/Viacom/Sony/whoever decides to include a clip of public domain classical music in their reference? They don't have exclusive rights to that music, do they?
ivanstame 10y ago
This is ridiculous...
blazespin 10y ago
Maybe fox contacted NES and aquired the rights to double dribble and the clip.
- xigency 10y ago
  Konami in this case owns copyright to the game, and ironically the original YouTube poster might have a (weak) case against the original aired Family Guy episode and Fox.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 10y ago
So how often are these bogus takedowns rectified? Will this be? Seems blatantly easy to fix if someone at YouTube just gives it a 5 minute look.
jokoon 10y ago
I know that my argument would not stand in court, but when I read this, it makes it harder for me to be against illegal downloading. Although I prefer buying content directly from the artist, like Louis CK does. As long as it seems "fair", I buy. That where piracy comes from: a rational argument about a skewed market.
- joesmo 10y ago
  I agree. An argument doesn't have to stand up in court to be right or moral and I believe yours is both. If FOX can abuse Youtube policies and the DMCA, I see no reason why people shouldn't abuse FOX and pirate.
swang 10y ago
On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies, companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These large companies didn't care because it's free money for them. So he figured out how to get around stupid contentID flags. He put in clips of videos from different companies and spliced them into his videos. This caused a couple of companies to claim copyright over his video, but when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money. So in effect he gets to continue to use clips while not having any companies monetize his viewers.
- t0mbstone 10y ago
  "when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money" If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a single company's claim?
  - swang 10y ago
    Maybe? I'm not really sure. How hard is it to get into the contentID system? I'm guessing part of the reason he did this was more for the humor of screwing with larger media companies.
nomercy400 10y ago
The currently implemented ContentID system isn't really at fault here. It is being effective in protecting Family Guy content appearing on Youtube. It looks at the reference video, analyzes it, and flags every video that matches the reference video by a certain percentage, and deals with it. The real problem here is that FOX copied the exact contents of an existing 7-year old youtube video in their Family Guy episode (maybe the creators tried to give a tribute). The ContentID rules state that you should have exclusive rights to the content in a specific region, which they don't. Thinking about this again, the ContentID system is also at fault here: it is blatantly ignoring the upload date for video's on youtube. I don't know how the ContentID system works, but you should at least give the date on which the copyright of the reference content (=Family Guy episode) starts. If FOX would try to upload the Family Guy episode, the ContentID system should give a warning that it uses already existing, older content. Now Youtube/Google, that can't be so hard to implement, now can it? Also, Youtube should handle complaints from incorrect takedowns a bit better. Like keep a reputation on parties using the ContentID system. Say you start at 100. If you do incorrect takedowns, your reputation decreases. If you do correct takedowns, it rises (come up with some statistical efficient tool)_. If it falls below 50, you are excluded from the ContentID system for breaking the rules, or somebody could sue the party or something. Make it transparent (yearly report) to the public, so they can judge.
cordite 10y ago
The same kind of thing happened to NASA back in 2012 with some news group. Both little and big names can screw people over with this.
ramy_d 10y ago
Wow, I never considered the combination of a large broadcasting company that produces original content using sampled material from the internet and then automatically sending ContentID takedowns for said sampled content. It's like a takedown feedback loop.
wtfishackernews 10y ago
Youtube really needs to find a proper solution to this problem. But at least they acknowledge it and and are taking steps to improve. http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-content-id-for-creators.html http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-conte...

363 points by juanito 10y ago

Until there is a financial penalty for wrongful use of the DMCA this type of thing will continue. They use robots to create reports (maybe not in this case) because for them there is simply zero downside. That downside needs to exist.

pluma 10y ago
Supposedly you risk jail time when submitting illegitimate DMCA claims. In practice the only case I know of is when YouTuber thunderf00t used that threat against another YouTuber (VenomFangX) to make him publish a video statement clarifying that his claims were illegitimate and he won't do it again -- but none of that ever ended up in court (because VenomFangX complied, before temporarily retiring from YouTube in shame). EDIT: Of course the ContentID system probably circumvents that entirely because technically your content is taken down automatically rather than because of a DMCA claim. Even though the effect on the uploader is the same: impacting the monetisation of a video they may have invested a significant amount of time into. If anything it's worse because there is no built-in way to counter-claim or claim damages (without directly going to court).
maxerickson 10y ago
This is probably just Content ID. So there the problem is that Youtube gives preferential treatment to their more profitable users, they don't have to submit a legal document to Youtube, they just flag the content and are done. I bet there was never even a human in this particular loop.
Esau 10y ago
The real solution would be to require a human to certify the infringement complaint - no more automated requests.
- jobigoud 10y ago
  But that can't be left to the claimant. So Google should charge a fee for each complaint to cover the cost of the verification. But then you could make the company pay more simply by uploading thousands of infringing videos… In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this particular case.
  - codys 10y ago
    By "certify", GP might mean "certify under penalty of perjury", where the specific wording (which would probably need some notes about certifying they had verified their ownership) is strict enough to give one a bit of legal ammunition against false complaints.
    - Esau 10y ago
      Exactly. Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough.

Flashuk100 10y ago

This is eerily similar to the infamous "You made this?...I made this" comic.

overlordalex 10y ago
If anyone hasn't seen it, I believe this is the one you're referring to: http://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg http://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg
- BillTheCat 10y ago
  Link to the original and not some reupload to imgur: http://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-internet http://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-interne... :)
  - pluma 10y ago
    I think linking to a re-upload is weirdly in spirit with the comic's sentiment. Though I never quite understood which interpretation was intended: * Creator shows their work to someone, who goes on claiming it's their own work. * Someone shows "their work" to the original creator, who then realizes it's actually their work.
    - pnevares 10y ago
      I never even considered the second interpretation, which now seems even more appropriate than the first. I only hope the original author is aware and supportive of the meta-sentiment of the re-upload/re-whitemark response.
akerro 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc
- taneq 10y ago

Orangeair 10y ago

There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.

devy 10y ago
Yeah, if all said were true, YouTube is as much at fault as Fox is.
pflats 10y ago
I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable. Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Then there could be a time delay of X months after which automated take downs aren't done.
- jkot 10y ago
  Original clip was uploaded 8 years before Fox published their version.
  - delecti 10y ago
    Many TV shows are not on Youtube at all except as unauthorized uploads. Should Fox be unable to issue a takedown on an episode of the Simpsons that's been uploaded since before they uploaded a copy into ContentID?
- the8472 10y ago
  It's a plausibility check that could be used to flag things for human review.
- deleted 10y ago

Ralfp 10y ago

SmarterEveryDay told a story in one of his videos about slow-mo clip of tatoo machine in action being ripped from one of his movies by the large press publisher, Bauer, and reuploaded on Bauer's Facebook page. Then Bauer moved on to claim DMCA on his original uploaded by him on his Facebook page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA

nkrisc 10y ago
That sort of thing happens all the time too, as he mentions. Only he has the reach and audience to rightly raise a stink about it. Most who have their content stolen in this manner really have no recourse. The damage is done, the money is made, and the perpetrators can just say, "whoops" and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing while they take their ill-gotten gains to the bank.
balls187 10y ago
This was one of the main reasons I am no longer on Facebook. Because Facebook is happy to profit off of the creative works of others, without properly compensating them.

ascagnel_ 10y ago

I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see Scripps taking down a public-domain NASA video[0]), and the content is removed immediately without giving the initial uploader a right to contest it (it can be restored laterº. A YouTube user has way fewer rights under ContentID than they do under the DMCA. If you are found in violation of ContentID, you must fight both YouTube and the claimant to have your case heard under the DMCA. [0] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-into-a-dmca-takedown http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-i...

maxerickson 10y ago
Content ID is not open to anyone though. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402 This particular video seems like a nice test case of the review system.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  I haven't seen this link before; it's a great reference. The issue comes from the second sentence of the second paragraph: > Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. YouTube does nothing to verify the exclusive rights, as far as I can tell.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    > If accepted to use the Content ID tools, applicants will be required to complete an agreement explicitly stating that only content with exclusive rights can be used as references. Additionally, accepted applicants will need to provide the geographic locations of exclusive ownership, if not worldwide. The big question here is what are the consequences of adding a reference that the applicant does not have exclusive rights to? Is it YouTube's discretion? What happens if Fox/Viacom/Sony/whoever decides to include a clip of public domain classical music in their reference? They don't have exclusive rights to that music, do they?

ivanstame 10y ago

This is ridiculous...

blazespin 10y ago

Maybe fox contacted NES and aquired the rights to double dribble and the clip.

xigency 10y ago
Konami in this case owns copyright to the game, and ironically the original YouTube poster might have a (weak) case against the original aired Family Guy episode and Fox.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Kiro 10y ago

So how often are these bogus takedowns rectified? Will this be? Seems blatantly easy to fix if someone at YouTube just gives it a 5 minute look.

jokoon 10y ago

I know that my argument would not stand in court, but when I read this, it makes it harder for me to be against illegal downloading. Although I prefer buying content directly from the artist, like Louis CK does. As long as it seems "fair", I buy. That where piracy comes from: a rational argument about a skewed market.

joesmo 10y ago
I agree. An argument doesn't have to stand up in court to be right or moral and I believe yours is both. If FOX can abuse Youtube policies and the DMCA, I see no reason why people shouldn't abuse FOX and pirate.

swang 10y ago

On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies, companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These large companies didn't care because it's free money for them. So he figured out how to get around stupid contentID flags. He put in clips of videos from different companies and spliced them into his videos. This caused a couple of companies to claim copyright over his video, but when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money. So in effect he gets to continue to use clips while not having any companies monetize his viewers.

t0mbstone 10y ago
"when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money" If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a single company's claim?
- swang 10y ago
  Maybe? I'm not really sure. How hard is it to get into the contentID system? I'm guessing part of the reason he did this was more for the humor of screwing with larger media companies.

nomercy400 10y ago

The currently implemented ContentID system isn't really at fault here. It is being effective in protecting Family Guy content appearing on Youtube. It looks at the reference video, analyzes it, and flags every video that matches the reference video by a certain percentage, and deals with it. The real problem here is that FOX copied the exact contents of an existing 7-year old youtube video in their Family Guy episode (maybe the creators tried to give a tribute). The ContentID rules state that you should have exclusive rights to the content in a specific region, which they don't. Thinking about this again, the ContentID system is also at fault here: it is blatantly ignoring the upload date for video's on youtube. I don't know how the ContentID system works, but you should at least give the date on which the copyright of the reference content (=Family Guy episode) starts. If FOX would try to upload the Family Guy episode, the ContentID system should give a warning that it uses already existing, older content. Now Youtube/Google, that can't be so hard to implement, now can it? Also, Youtube should handle complaints from incorrect takedowns a bit better. Like keep a reputation on parties using the ContentID system. Say you start at 100. If you do incorrect takedowns, your reputation decreases. If you do correct takedowns, it rises (come up with some statistical efficient tool)_. If it falls below 50, you are excluded from the ContentID system for breaking the rules, or somebody could sue the party or something. Make it transparent (yearly report) to the public, so they can judge.

cordite 10y ago

The same kind of thing happened to NASA back in 2012 with some news group. Both little and big names can screw people over with this.

ramy_d 10y ago

Wow, I never considered the combination of a large broadcasting company that produces original content using sampled material from the internet and then automatically sending ContentID takedowns for said sampled content. It's like a takedown feedback loop.

wtfishackernews 10y ago

Youtube really needs to find a proper solution to this problem. But at least they acknowledge it and and are taking steps to improve. http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-content-id-for-creators.html http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-conte...