3 ms·

>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 D

by 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.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  A copyright claim not made through the DMCA does not lead to a strike, full stop. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en, which differentiates between takedowns through a formal notice (i.e. DMCA), and content ID takedowns. And if you dispute a content ID claim, the claimant must either retract it or convert it into a DMCA notice. So they have no additional legal protections if they want to keep it down permanently. I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. Money is kept in escrow while claims are disputed, and ultimately the rights owner must allow the content to be reinstated or file a lawsuit.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    ContentID is not the only only other way to issue a takedown. See the opaque tools described here: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... Strikes are not perfectly 1:1 with DMCA requests. I don't know how to prove that, but I don't trust some reductive Google support pages to have the whole picture either.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      I've read through that EFF page and also written my own guide to the process (at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h...) I'm fairly confident in what I've said (there's content ID claims, both manual and automatic, and then there's DMCA claims). The EFF does not mention any third option. They mention ToS issues, which are strikes but which aren't because of copyright. And there's a brief mention of contractual obligations, which I mention in my post as well. Those aren't a separate way to take down content, but rather an agreement not to consider disputes from certain rights owners (as far as I know, the only one that's been identified is UMG). This is rare and I have not heard of widespread abuse of this. It's somewhat confusing because Youtube doesn't always use the term DMCA in their documentation. But it's fairly clear when they say "formal notice", mention that it's a legal requirement, and link to the counternotice page.

by ikeboy 7y ago

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.

ikeboy 7y ago
A copyright claim not made through the DMCA does not lead to a strike, full stop. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en, which differentiates between takedowns through a formal notice (i.e. DMCA), and content ID takedowns. And if you dispute a content ID claim, the claimant must either retract it or convert it into a DMCA notice. So they have no additional legal protections if they want to keep it down permanently. I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. Money is kept in escrow while claims are disputed, and ultimately the rights owner must allow the content to be reinstated or file a lawsuit.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  ContentID is not the only only other way to issue a takedown. See the opaque tools described here: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... Strikes are not perfectly 1:1 with DMCA requests. I don't know how to prove that, but I don't trust some reductive Google support pages to have the whole picture either.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    I've read through that EFF page and also written my own guide to the process (at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h...) I'm fairly confident in what I've said (there's content ID claims, both manual and automatic, and then there's DMCA claims). The EFF does not mention any third option. They mention ToS issues, which are strikes but which aren't because of copyright. And there's a brief mention of contractual obligations, which I mention in my post as well. Those aren't a separate way to take down content, but rather an agreement not to consider disputes from certain rights owners (as far as I know, the only one that's been identified is UMG). This is rare and I have not heard of widespread abuse of this. It's somewhat confusing because Youtube doesn't always use the term DMCA in their documentation. But it's fairly clear when they say "formal notice", mention that it's a legal requirement, and link to the counternotice page.