4 ms·

It's pretty simple, Alphabet/Google make it far too easy for mistaken, false or frivolous claims. It's obvious why, usually the claimant has the heavy bags of m

It's pretty simple, Alphabet/Google make it far too easy for mistaken, false or frivolous claims. It's obvious why, usually the claimant has the heavy bags of money to use as a bludgeon, but it's not right.

jonathanstrange 7y ago
IANAL but it seems to me Alphabet/Google can get in serious legal trouble for it if they continue the system. There are a number of companies who massively submit false copyright claims and YouTube let's them do their business, even though it's easy to check in particular cases that the claims are false. These bogus companies get at least part of the monetization from videos they falsely claim. Doesn't that mean that Youtube is knowingly facilitating fraud and in some cases - when legitimate content is taken over - even commercial copyright infringement? It seems to me that the only reason why Youtube has gotten away with it so far is that nobody has systematically collected the evidence and sued Youtube in a country like Germany, for instance. Edit: On a second thought, fraud seems irrelevant. It's about commercial copyright infringement.
mcv 7y ago
There really needs to be a class action suit about this. Google allows Big Content to claim other people's content. Instead of fighting copyright violations, they assist in copyright violations on a massive scale, and deprive artists of income from their content.
Mirioron 7y ago
The interesting thing is that one idea behind the copyright change in the EU is to alleviate this point. I don't think it'll work, but that's what the politicians touted it as.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  It was the copyright lobbyist that pushed for it, so of course it isn't (to alleviate this point)
LeoTinnitus 7y ago
It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.
- rswail 7y ago
  Copyright is not Trademarks is not Patents. They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property. All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours. You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc). Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent. So your premise in your message is incorrect.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  However, trademark is not copyright.
- thwarted 7y ago
  US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.
- rolls-reus 7y ago
  I've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
guramarx11 7y ago
somehow that explain some other issues on yt, like not only demonetizing the corona virus tagged videos but also other videos on the channel involved
Veedrac 7y ago
It's not just that it's easy, but that the theft is legal and profitable. You don't even need to be rich to do this, you just need stuff you can claim; see How to Break YouTube (Copyright Claim your own video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo

jonathanstrange 7y ago

IANAL but it seems to me Alphabet/Google can get in serious legal trouble for it if they continue the system. There are a number of companies who massively submit false copyright claims and YouTube let's them do their business, even though it's easy to check in particular cases that the claims are false. These bogus companies get at least part of the monetization from videos they falsely claim. Doesn't that mean that Youtube is knowingly facilitating fraud and in some cases - when legitimate content is taken over - even commercial copyright infringement? It seems to me that the only reason why Youtube has gotten away with it so far is that nobody has systematically collected the evidence and sued Youtube in a country like Germany, for instance. Edit: On a second thought, fraud seems irrelevant. It's about commercial copyright infringement.

mcv 7y ago

There really needs to be a class action suit about this. Google allows Big Content to claim other people's content. Instead of fighting copyright violations, they assist in copyright violations on a massive scale, and deprive artists of income from their content.

Mirioron 7y ago

The interesting thing is that one idea behind the copyright change in the EU is to alleviate this point. I don't think it'll work, but that's what the politicians touted it as.

raverbashing 7y ago
It was the copyright lobbyist that pushed for it, so of course it isn't (to alleviate this point)

LeoTinnitus 7y ago

It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.

rswail 7y ago
Copyright is not Trademarks is not Patents. They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property. All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours. You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc). Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent. So your premise in your message is incorrect.
DuskStar 7y ago
However, trademark is not copyright.
thwarted 7y ago
US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.
rolls-reus 7y ago
I've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

guramarx11 7y ago

somehow that explain some other issues on yt, like not only demonetizing the corona virus tagged videos but also other videos on the channel involved

Veedrac 7y ago

It's not just that it's easy, but that the theft is legal and profitable. You don't even need to be rich to do this, you just need stuff you can claim; see How to Break YouTube (Copyright Claim your own video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo