16 ms·

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a c

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, posters are encouraged to just roll with the punches and be glad they get any money. Youtubers at this point will openly say "I'd show a clip but then I won't make money on this video" even when that clip would 100% be fair-use. Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers to either give them stronger tools than the DMCA provides or face a blackout from these major publishers. They wanted final control over their IP on Youtube and they got it, damn the law. If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.

adamc 7y ago
Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.
- quest88 7y ago
  What did they do wrong in this case?
  - chc 7y ago
    They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system
      - dx87 7y ago
        Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google relying on algorithms to do everything.
        iso1631 7y ago
        > because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything. Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b. Alphabet made $86b last year.
        amylene 7y ago
        It’s possible that a human review system would be even worse. Have you seen the studies that show how insurance adjusters, working from the same inputs, with clear evaluation rules, have spreads of > 40% for the same case?
        munk-a 7y ago
        I find it highly unlikely that more than 1/8th of Alphabet's profits are coming from YT, so that'd make it a cost center... and I'm willing to bet it'd be deep deep in the red.
        gareim 7y ago
        > Alphabet made $86b last year. They did not, and I'm curious where the mixup came from. They did $46.1b in revenue fiscal year 2019, and $10.7b in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-google-cloud-on-10b-run-rate/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-goo...
        iso1631 7y ago
        https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/gros... Alphabet gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2019 was $86.264B, a 16.62% increase year-over-year.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      What are you paying Google for their video hosting service? Why are you entitled to have them do convenient things for you?
    - themacguffinman 7y ago
      > who would you hold responsible? The legislature? Corporations obviously pursue profits within the legal framework, and this is the most profitable path within the legal framework. Lawmakers can challenge or reduce this sort of abusive pressure by content publishers in a number of ways but they don't. The current legal framework seems to tacitly allow publishers to effectively move as a bloc in punishing any platform, whether it's by Google or someone else, that refuses to accept their anti-consumer practices. But of course you can keep blaming one corporation. Bad Google, why don't you just voluntarily do what I want, profits be damned?! See if that changes anything.
jbob2000 7y ago
Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."
  - penagwin 7y ago
    In some cases the company making the claim doesn't even own the IP. I remember a case where the youtuber NerdCubed had his Portal videos copyright claimed, even though Valve themselves explicitly states that making videos of their games (and cutscenes) is perfectly okay. When he contacted Valve they responded - "We didn't make the youtube claim". So SOMEBODY did, but not the actual owners.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Sounds like a new business model. Make claims against semi-popular youtubers and get them to agree to share revenue. The best part is you don't need to own the ip you make a claim against. If they challenge take maximum amount of time and withdraw challenge. Keep repeating for new videos until the channel agrees.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    That sounds like it could fall under either of the categories listed, but definitely falls under either foolishness or greed.
mywittyname 7y ago
I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel <link at top>, you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.
- alecco 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure YT forbids linking to other video platforms.
  - blackearl 7y ago
    YT forbids a lot of stuff until you're a big company or one of those paul brothers
- blackearl 7y ago
  I thought Vimeo was aimed more at artistic videos, not stuff like reviews/blogs, most of the stuff that gets dumped on YT wouldn't be allowed on Vimeo. I see more creators making free videos then asking for Patreon donations rather than fighting the awful YTDMCA
- rasz 7y ago
  YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this once, reversed because famous https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-twitch-spam-deceptive-surny-linus-tech-tips-astrosizt https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-...
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
    BlindWave is doing it now.
  - gbrown 7y ago
    It seems like that might offer a good target for anti-trust action.
  - 7y ago
shadowgovt 7y ago
Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control via legal remedy). YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  You're both wrong. The biggest uploaders of copyrighted content - are the copyright holders. Also, Google spent about $1 billion on legal fees after the YT purchase, so there was no "agreement" without a war. HN downvoters ... learn to read. Here, I'll spoonfood you: "For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-yo...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tempestn 7y ago
    I expect you're getting downvoted for your attitude more than your content. Leading with a blanket "You're wrong" doesn't encourage a productive dialogue. Neither do "learn to read" and "I'll spoonfood you".
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      GP's attitude is fine - there's nothing offensive about stating "You're wrong". People's search (need?) for offense is becoming pathological.
      - tempestn 7y ago
        I wouldn't say "You're wrong" is necessarily offensive per se, but I do think it tends to shut down discussion rather than encouraging it. I wouldn't have down-voted if not for the more egregious follow-up though.
moron4hire 7y ago
Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.
- darkarmani 7y ago
  > it's not fair use if you're making money off of it. Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Parody in particular has lots of precedence backing it up as Fair Use. Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal defense that you may use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the litigation from going forward. And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair Use if the defendant is making money directly off of whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a teacher who makes copies whole-clothe of newspaper articles doesn't make money directly off of sharing articles with students, a YouTuber putting up videos for ad revenue is.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      Commentary also has a long tradition of being fair use. People sold newspapers with reviews in them and they were absolutely able to quote from the sources they were reviewing. Quoting 30 seconds of a half-hour show as part of a review seems to fit comfortably in the tradition of fair use, whether it's a commercial use or not.
  - herpes 7y ago
    The reverse of what this person is saying is an incredibly common misconception. ie. if I'm not making money off of it, I have free reign to use other people's IP in any way I like. It's pretty frustrating when you are an artist who is actively and brazenly being infringed.
ikeboy 7y ago
>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims. "If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear." So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then they would vanish? How do you figure?
- kube-system 7y ago
  YouTube "manual claims" are not DMCA claims. You can follow these instructions here to file one -- the process does not include filing a DMCA request: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_topic=9282678 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_...
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    That's correct, but those manual claims, as well as automatic content ID claims are not strikes and have no negative effect on the channel.
    - wolco 7y ago
      It removes the video for a period of time thus losing money.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  You can get a strike from a DMCA notice or YouTube's internal system. The difference between the two systems is that the DMCA has language about fraudulent claims, whereas wading through the ToS and contracts you have with YouTube will be nigh impossible. A lawyer might take your DMCA case where youtube wouldn't really be directly involved, but nobody is up for a fight with YouTube directly. It's never worth the money to these YouTubers at their current scale. Either YouTubers need a union as powerful as the major media cabal to bargain with YouTube on their behalf or some particular publisher needs to be making movie studio money before this system is fixed.
Vysero 7y ago
If it really is that simple then that's scary. What's to stop someone from writing some basic scraper code in python that would claim peoples videos and hold them hostage for a fee less they get a strike on their account?
- ikeboy 7y ago
  1. It's illegal, and YouTube has sued at least one person who's done this (YouTube vs Brady) 2. It's easy to counterclaim, which removes the strike completely after 14 days.
Aunche 7y ago
> If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear. If you're a big media company, you don't want to file a DMCA notice every time someone uploads a pirated video on Youtube. Even if you use the most sophicated bots to file real DMCA takedowns, you're bound to have at least a 1% error rate and get sued a bunch of times.
- catalogia 7y ago
  Has a company ever successfully been penalized for false DMCA claims? I was under the impression that those penalties have rarely if ever been put into practice.
gbuk2013 7y ago
This is not entirely correct: you can also appeal the strike by affirming your claim (the strike will then be removed) and it will be up to the claimant to then sue you (you have to provide contact details in your appeal). Unless you run up against some studio that has a private deal with YT in which case they'll just take down your video - no appeals.
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  There's (at least) two different systems for video takedowns on Youtube. DMCA takedowns have the option you specified. Content ID is a seperate system, where it's entirely controlled by the claimant. They can choose to claim your video or not, and you have no option (other than to sue them - i.e the reverse of the DMCA system) if you want your video to go back up. e: And to be clear, this was a Content ID claim. It's in the first screenshot on twitter where it says "Blocked - No one can view this video to one or more of the Content ID claims below" e2: Also, Content ID does have an appeal system, but if the claimant rejects the appeal your only recourse is to initial legal action.
  - gbuk2013 7y ago
    No, I was specifically talking about Content ID, as that is the one I used in the past (challenging on fair-use grounds). You can appeal a claim, which is usually rejected by the claimant. You can appeal that which, when rejected, will add a copyright strike to your account and then you can appeal that which removes the strike but requires you to provide contact details in case the claimant wants to sue you. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
mr_toad 7y ago
> Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers At this point, YouTube is just another part of the entertainment industry, with commensurate business interests.

adamc 7y ago

Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.

quest88 7y ago
What did they do wrong in this case?
- chc 7y ago
  They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system
    - dx87 7y ago
      Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google relying on algorithms to do everything.
      - iso1631 7y ago
        > because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything. Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b. Alphabet made $86b last year.
        amylene 7y ago
        It’s possible that a human review system would be even worse. Have you seen the studies that show how insurance adjusters, working from the same inputs, with clear evaluation rules, have spreads of > 40% for the same case?
        munk-a 7y ago
        I find it highly unlikely that more than 1/8th of Alphabet's profits are coming from YT, so that'd make it a cost center... and I'm willing to bet it'd be deep deep in the red.
        gareim 7y ago
        > Alphabet made $86b last year. They did not, and I'm curious where the mixup came from. They did $46.1b in revenue fiscal year 2019, and $10.7b in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-google-cloud-on-10b-run-rate/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-goo...
        iso1631 7y ago
        https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/gros... Alphabet gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2019 was $86.264B, a 16.62% increase year-over-year.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    What are you paying Google for their video hosting service? Why are you entitled to have them do convenient things for you?
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    > who would you hold responsible? The legislature? Corporations obviously pursue profits within the legal framework, and this is the most profitable path within the legal framework. Lawmakers can challenge or reduce this sort of abusive pressure by content publishers in a number of ways but they don't. The current legal framework seems to tacitly allow publishers to effectively move as a bloc in punishing any platform, whether it's by Google or someone else, that refuses to accept their anti-consumer practices. But of course you can keep blaming one corporation. Bad Google, why don't you just voluntarily do what I want, profits be damned?! See if that changes anything.

jbob2000 7y ago

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."
- penagwin 7y ago
  In some cases the company making the claim doesn't even own the IP. I remember a case where the youtuber NerdCubed had his Portal videos copyright claimed, even though Valve themselves explicitly states that making videos of their games (and cutscenes) is perfectly okay. When he contacted Valve they responded - "We didn't make the youtube claim". So SOMEBODY did, but not the actual owners.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Sounds like a new business model. Make claims against semi-popular youtubers and get them to agree to share revenue. The best part is you don't need to own the ip you make a claim against. If they challenge take maximum amount of time and withdraw challenge. Keep repeating for new videos until the channel agrees.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  That sounds like it could fall under either of the categories listed, but definitely falls under either foolishness or greed.

mywittyname 7y ago

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel <link at top>, you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

alecco 7y ago
I'm pretty sure YT forbids linking to other video platforms.
- blackearl 7y ago
  YT forbids a lot of stuff until you're a big company or one of those paul brothers
blackearl 7y ago
I thought Vimeo was aimed more at artistic videos, not stuff like reviews/blogs, most of the stuff that gets dumped on YT wouldn't be allowed on Vimeo. I see more creators making free videos then asking for Patreon donations rather than fighting the awful YTDMCA
rasz 7y ago
YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this once, reversed because famous https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-twitch-spam-deceptive-surny-linus-tech-tips-astrosizt https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-...
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  BlindWave is doing it now.
- gbrown 7y ago
  It seems like that might offer a good target for anti-trust action.
- 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control via legal remedy). YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.

redis_mlc 7y ago
You're both wrong. The biggest uploaders of copyrighted content - are the copyright holders. Also, Google spent about $1 billion on legal fees after the YT purchase, so there was no "agreement" without a war. HN downvoters ... learn to read. Here, I'll spoonfood you: "For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-yo...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tempestn 7y ago
  I expect you're getting downvoted for your attitude more than your content. Leading with a blanket "You're wrong" doesn't encourage a productive dialogue. Neither do "learn to read" and "I'll spoonfood you".
  - Bendingo 7y ago
    GP's attitude is fine - there's nothing offensive about stating "You're wrong". People's search (need?) for offense is becoming pathological.
    - tempestn 7y ago
      I wouldn't say "You're wrong" is necessarily offensive per se, but I do think it tends to shut down discussion rather than encouraging it. I wouldn't have down-voted if not for the more egregious follow-up though.

moron4hire 7y ago

Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.

darkarmani 7y ago
> it's not fair use if you're making money off of it. Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Parody in particular has lots of precedence backing it up as Fair Use. Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal defense that you may use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the litigation from going forward. And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair Use if the defendant is making money directly off of whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a teacher who makes copies whole-clothe of newspaper articles doesn't make money directly off of sharing articles with students, a YouTuber putting up videos for ad revenue is.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Commentary also has a long tradition of being fair use. People sold newspapers with reviews in them and they were absolutely able to quote from the sources they were reviewing. Quoting 30 seconds of a half-hour show as part of a review seems to fit comfortably in the tradition of fair use, whether it's a commercial use or not.
- herpes 7y ago
  The reverse of what this person is saying is an incredibly common misconception. ie. if I'm not making money off of it, I have free reign to use other people's IP in any way I like. It's pretty frustrating when you are an artist who is actively and brazenly being infringed.

ikeboy 7y ago

>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims. "If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear." So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then they would vanish? How do you figure?

kube-system 7y ago
YouTube "manual claims" are not DMCA claims. You can follow these instructions here to file one -- the process does not include filing a DMCA request: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_topic=9282678 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_...
- ikeboy 7y ago
  That's correct, but those manual claims, as well as automatic content ID claims are not strikes and have no negative effect on the channel.
  - wolco 7y ago
    It removes the video for a period of time thus losing money.
henryfjordan 7y ago
You can get a strike from a DMCA notice or YouTube's internal system. The difference between the two systems is that the DMCA has language about fraudulent claims, whereas wading through the ToS and contracts you have with YouTube will be nigh impossible. A lawyer might take your DMCA case where youtube wouldn't really be directly involved, but nobody is up for a fight with YouTube directly. It's never worth the money to these YouTubers at their current scale. Either YouTubers need a union as powerful as the major media cabal to bargain with YouTube on their behalf or some particular publisher needs to be making movie studio money before this system is fixed.

Vysero 7y ago

If it really is that simple then that's scary. What's to stop someone from writing some basic scraper code in python that would claim peoples videos and hold them hostage for a fee less they get a strike on their account?

ikeboy 7y ago
1. It's illegal, and YouTube has sued at least one person who's done this (YouTube vs Brady) 2. It's easy to counterclaim, which removes the strike completely after 14 days.

Aunche 7y ago

> If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear. If you're a big media company, you don't want to file a DMCA notice every time someone uploads a pirated video on Youtube. Even if you use the most sophicated bots to file real DMCA takedowns, you're bound to have at least a 1% error rate and get sued a bunch of times.

catalogia 7y ago
Has a company ever successfully been penalized for false DMCA claims? I was under the impression that those penalties have rarely if ever been put into practice.

gbuk2013 7y ago

This is not entirely correct: you can also appeal the strike by affirming your claim (the strike will then be removed) and it will be up to the claimant to then sue you (you have to provide contact details in your appeal). Unless you run up against some studio that has a private deal with YT in which case they'll just take down your video - no appeals.

paranoidrobot 7y ago
There's (at least) two different systems for video takedowns on Youtube. DMCA takedowns have the option you specified. Content ID is a seperate system, where it's entirely controlled by the claimant. They can choose to claim your video or not, and you have no option (other than to sue them - i.e the reverse of the DMCA system) if you want your video to go back up. e: And to be clear, this was a Content ID claim. It's in the first screenshot on twitter where it says "Blocked - No one can view this video to one or more of the Content ID claims below" e2: Also, Content ID does have an appeal system, but if the claimant rejects the appeal your only recourse is to initial legal action.
- gbuk2013 7y ago
  No, I was specifically talking about Content ID, as that is the one I used in the past (challenging on fair-use grounds). You can appeal a claim, which is usually rejected by the claimant. You can appeal that which, when rejected, will add a copyright strike to your account and then you can appeal that which removes the strike but requires you to provide contact details in case the claimant wants to sue you. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684

mr_toad 7y ago

> Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers At this point, YouTube is just another part of the entertainment industry, with commensurate business interests.