4 ms·

Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I

by DougN7 7y ago

Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Someone literally stealing from creators needs to start generating expensive lawsuits for some percentage of cases not managed appropriately. This will inspire more concern on their part.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Except legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim. So a lawsuit has no leg to stand on. While, on the other hand, they do have an obligation to take copyright infringement complaints very seriously - in fact, ContentID came from one of those "expensive lawsuits". You need to change the law first.
  - kaoD 7y ago
    > legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim Well, maybe law has to change. For example, in my country if you offer a service to the public you cannot refuse a customer for no reason. It's intended as an anti-discrimination law, but also as a way to protect customers from abuse.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      I think you don't understand what the anti-discrimination law means. That law lists reasons which you can't use to refuse service - and you're free to use any other reason to refuse service. This anti-discrimination law most probably does not force all businesses to provide services to everyone but only businesses with physical public presence.
      - poizan42 7y ago
        How do you know how the law works in parent's country?
        TomMarius 7y ago
        Because it works the same in most countries, for a good reason. If they were from one of the very few (less than 10) countries where it's that wildly different, I assume they: 1) can't write on Hacker News (more likely) 2) would say it 3) would not use the country as an example of a functioning country And we don't like Chinese law for a good reason.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. Since they choose to provide monetary compensation based on accusations instead of evidence with a system they created, they would also be responsible for the system that they created facilitating said copyfraud that is knowingly taking money from legitimate copyright holders and giving it to false claimants. If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator, say a book creator, this would be obvious fraud, as it is in this case. I think the case is stronger against YouTube than it will would initially appear.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. [citation needed] > If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        The creators uploaded their videos under the premise that they would receive a share of ad revenue. Given that creators retain copyright to the materials keeping all the money and continuing to distribute would seem problematic. Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    There are multiple legs for a suit to stand on, either against Google or the claimants. Bonus points if you registered the works with the corresponding IP department in your country (I think it's the Library of Congress in the US) Talk to a lawyer It seems people on the internet try to solve everything with buttons and emails and forget there's a world out there with laws and rights and everything else
GordonS 7y ago
I give then around $250/m. Obviously not a big spend, but I would expect to get support on the very rare occasions when I need it. On the other side, Google semes very happy to spam me around once a once with offers of human help to restructure ads and so on. I took them up on this offer once, and it was a total waste of an hour - they were obviously going by script, and suggested changes that would increase my spend for no benefit. They also couldn't help at all with the one thing I actually wanted help with (increasing quality scores for obviously relevant content). So they do have humans for the little people... but only to encourage you to spend more :/
majani 7y ago
Even then, the "big spender" level keeps shifting upwards. I remember back in the day it was $5k a month that got you special attention. Now it seems like only $10m+ clients get Google's attention.

by DougN7 7y ago

Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.

michaelmrose 7y ago

Someone literally stealing from creators needs to start generating expensive lawsuits for some percentage of cases not managed appropriately. This will inspire more concern on their part.

icebraining 7y ago
Except legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim. So a lawsuit has no leg to stand on. While, on the other hand, they do have an obligation to take copyright infringement complaints very seriously - in fact, ContentID came from one of those "expensive lawsuits". You need to change the law first.
- kaoD 7y ago
  > legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take them down on a whim Well, maybe law has to change. For example, in my country if you offer a service to the public you cannot refuse a customer for no reason. It's intended as an anti-discrimination law, but also as a way to protect customers from abuse.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    I think you don't understand what the anti-discrimination law means. That law lists reasons which you can't use to refuse service - and you're free to use any other reason to refuse service. This anti-discrimination law most probably does not force all businesses to provide services to everyone but only businesses with physical public presence.
    - poizan42 7y ago
      How do you know how the law works in parent's country?
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        Because it works the same in most countries, for a good reason. If they were from one of the very few (less than 10) countries where it's that wildly different, I assume they: 1) can't write on Hacker News (more likely) 2) would say it 3) would not use the country as an example of a functioning country And we don't like Chinese law for a good reason.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. Since they choose to provide monetary compensation based on accusations instead of evidence with a system they created, they would also be responsible for the system that they created facilitating said copyfraud that is knowingly taking money from legitimate copyright holders and giving it to false claimants. If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator, say a book creator, this would be obvious fraud, as it is in this case. I think the case is stronger against YouTube than it will would initially appear.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. [citation needed] > If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      The creators uploaded their videos under the premise that they would receive a share of ad revenue. Given that creators retain copyright to the materials keeping all the money and continuing to distribute would seem problematic. Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  There are multiple legs for a suit to stand on, either against Google or the claimants. Bonus points if you registered the works with the corresponding IP department in your country (I think it's the Library of Congress in the US) Talk to a lawyer It seems people on the internet try to solve everything with buttons and emails and forget there's a world out there with laws and rights and everything else

GordonS 7y ago

I give then around $250/m. Obviously not a big spend, but I would expect to get support on the very rare occasions when I need it. On the other side, Google semes very happy to spam me around once a once with offers of human help to restructure ads and so on. I took them up on this offer once, and it was a total waste of an hour - they were obviously going by script, and suggested changes that would increase my spend for no benefit. They also couldn't help at all with the one thing I actually wanted help with (increasing quality scores for obviously relevant content). So they do have humans for the little people... but only to encourage you to spend more :/

majani 7y ago

Even then, the "big spender" level keeps shifting upwards. I remember back in the day it was $5k a month that got you special attention. Now it seems like only $10m+ clients get Google's attention.