7 ms·

The thing is, this is not only a YouTube channel, it's a small business. Google is literally shutting down a small business without any proof. You could think t

The thing is, this is not only a YouTube channel, it's a small business. Google is literally shutting down a small business without any proof. You could think that it's somewhat illegal to do, but apparently it's not.

pan69 6y ago
The channel is the retail space and the landlord just kicked them out. I think this content producer should get a lawyer.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Landlords and tenants have contracts, and there are rules about what and how these are enforceable.
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    So does copyright law, and it sounds like the creator received 5 DMCA notices. So yes getting a lawyer would still be the correct course of action.
    - kristofferR 6y ago
      He hasn't received any DMCA notices, Youtube don't do those - since DMCA gives creators fair use rights and have punishments for fradulent reports. Youtube has its own "extra jurisdictional" copyright system.
      - kllrnohj 6y ago
        > Youtube don't do those YouTube can't just "opt out" of the law. YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, and per the video he issued counter-claims already - that's a core part of responding to DMCA. https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/#enforcing-copyright https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/#... And you don't have to go through youtube's webtools to submit one, either (which of course you don't - the law doesn't require that). You can mail, fax, or email the DMCA takedown notice: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en&ref_topic=9282363 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en&ref_...
        teh_klev 6y ago
        > YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, Sure, but these aren't proper DMCA claims. As kristofferR pointed out there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator. And then, which laws apply? US, UK, EU, Russian, Indian.... Now sure, it's a private platform and they can shut you down any time. I recognise there ain't no free speech on private platforms. But if they've been making a tidy sum of lots of ad money due to your apparent infringement (and much, much more than you the creator) along the way then I'm sure we might see a well funded case against this practice, maybe not in the US, but other jurisdictions that still recognise the limits and powers of private companies and the right not to be fucked over by them.
        cedilla 6y ago
        It's not entirely clear what type of process actually lead YouTube to terminate this channel, so we can't know either. > there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator. That's not quite true. The DMCA is a very strict mechanism. You get a notice, you take down the content, and if the uploader isn't happy with that, they have to sue the claimant. Of course, Youtubes process is streamlined for its own interests and the interests of big corporate copyright hoarders. But it's not designed to bully creators. The problem isn't really the process in itself, it's how Google applies it and the fact that Youtube doesn't seem to care that much for its creators.
        theturtletalks 6y ago
        When Github was sent a DMCA for the PopcornTime repo, PopcornTime was able to submit a counter DMCA which allowed the repo to be reinstated. Then, if the repo was really in violation, it had to be proven in court by the original claimant. Youtube doesn't allow creators to file a counter DMCA.
        kllrnohj 6y ago
        The same thing happened here. The creator issued a counter claim, and his channel is currently still up and unaffected https://www.youtube.com/c/GarethEvansYT https://www.youtube.com/c/GarethEvansYT Youtube does allow DMCA counter claims because they legally have to. Youtube has absolutely no wiggle room with DMCA. No amount of complaining to them can ever change that, either. You have to get the laws changed.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - blackearl 6y ago
      Youtube works in its own little court, they're not real DMCA notices. Otherwise companies wouldn't be allowed to blanket claim random stuff with no repercussions.
      - zcheck 6y ago
        Sorry that I didn't read much. But above comment section there are directly contradicting comments. One person says he may have received 5 DMCA notices and another person says it is not true. I have seen similar very contradictory things in other social medias too. How is this possible? How to quickly find who is lying without spending too much investigating?
        wtallis 6y ago
        I'm not sure anyone is lying here, so much as being misled by the conventional wisdom that YouTube has no incentive to straighten out. "DMCA" is a well-known buzzword, and the shallow understanding is that copyright infringement claims that get content taken down are all under the DMCA umbrella. The deeper understanding is that most of the big content hosts like YouTube have frontline systems that exist outside the DMCA procedure and its associated legal requirements, but YouTube is happy for the DMCA to take the blame for anything that is handled poorly by their own system. Disputes through that system can be escalated to real DMCA takedown notices.
        kllrnohj 6y ago
        It is very obvious this is not Content-ID, which is what the big content hosts use for broad protection. It's a manual claim.
        wtallis 6y ago
        Content-ID is something else entirely - an automated preemptive system. But last I checked, it looked like formal DMCA procedures weren't the only manual complaint alternative.
      - 6y ago
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space, terms which allow the landlord to kick the tenant out at their whim, with no legal recourse. I can't believe this needs to be said literally every time one of these types of articles gets posted on HN: if you build your business on top of someone else's platform, and have no contracts in place to protect your interests, your business's existence is completely at the whim of the platform owners. I wish we lived in a world where the Googles of the internet had sane, transparent, easily-appealable processes for these sorts of things. But we don't, and absent government regulation, we probably aren't going to. People need to take these sorts of risks into account when deciding how to run their businesses, and have contingency plans. It's interesting to note that in the landlord/tenant analogy, most jurisdictions have laws in place that prevent tenants from agreeing to such unbalanced, predatory contracts, and give tenants rights even in the absence of any agreement at all. Perhaps we do need something like that on the internet, for some things.
    - avodonosov 6y ago
      Another thing coming to mind is some kind of trade union for creators
    - falcolas 6y ago
      > Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space One small caveat - the small business owner had no choice in the matter when they moved in 10 years ago. There was only one mall people would actually visit across the entire world. And that mall has a clickwrap agreement for all their rentals, one which includes a clause that says "and we can change this agreement at will and without notice."
      - creato 6y ago
        10 years ago it was probably less like a "small business" and more like a lemonade stand, so neither youtube nor the creator really cared about having a strong agreement or understanding in place.
      - iso947 6y ago
birdmanjeremy 6y ago
Can it be both a small business and "non-commercial in nature"? Because that's at the crux of his fair use claim I think.
- retsibsi 6y ago
  That's the bit that doesn't ring true to me, his "non-commercial" claim. I'm not at all suggesting that he deserves the treatment he's getting, but it doesn't seem like he's being entirely straightforward here. Can anyone who knows the law weigh in on whether I'm missing something about the distinction between 'commercial' and 'monetized via advertising'?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    My sense from listening to him talk is that he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube, means that he's in the clear. I fear that this is not exactly how the law works, but I'm also not a lawyer.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      >he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube I don't see where he says that. He says he's never profited from selling other people's material. I think he considers putting up content for free with ads to not be selling content.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        You are probably being more precise about what he said than I was, but I think the two claims are roughly isomorphic, and also roughly equally incorrect. If I use someone's song in my advertisement I didn't "profit from selling their material," but it's still a commercial use and they will succeed if they sue me or take down my ad.
        C1sc0cat 6y ago
nova22033 6y ago
You could think that it's somewhat illegal to do, but apparently it's not. What specifically is illegal about this? If it's not and you think this should be illegal, how would you write the law that would make this illegal?
DanBC 6y ago
That "small business" is what tips this copyright violation from a simple civil matter into a criminal offence. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html 506. Criminal offenses 6 (a) Criminal Infringement.— (1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed— (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

pan69 6y ago

The channel is the retail space and the landlord just kicked them out. I think this content producer should get a lawyer.

dalbasal 6y ago
Landlords and tenants have contracts, and there are rules about what and how these are enforceable.
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  So does copyright law, and it sounds like the creator received 5 DMCA notices. So yes getting a lawyer would still be the correct course of action.
  - kristofferR 6y ago
    He hasn't received any DMCA notices, Youtube don't do those - since DMCA gives creators fair use rights and have punishments for fradulent reports. Youtube has its own "extra jurisdictional" copyright system.
    - kllrnohj 6y ago
      > Youtube don't do those YouTube can't just "opt out" of the law. YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, and per the video he issued counter-claims already - that's a core part of responding to DMCA. https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/#enforcing-copyright https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/#... And you don't have to go through youtube's webtools to submit one, either (which of course you don't - the law doesn't require that). You can mail, fax, or email the DMCA takedown notice: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en&ref_topic=9282363 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en&ref_...
      - teh_klev 6y ago
        > YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, Sure, but these aren't proper DMCA claims. As kristofferR pointed out there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator. And then, which laws apply? US, UK, EU, Russian, Indian.... Now sure, it's a private platform and they can shut you down any time. I recognise there ain't no free speech on private platforms. But if they've been making a tidy sum of lots of ad money due to your apparent infringement (and much, much more than you the creator) along the way then I'm sure we might see a well funded case against this practice, maybe not in the US, but other jurisdictions that still recognise the limits and powers of private companies and the right not to be fucked over by them.
        cedilla 6y ago
        It's not entirely clear what type of process actually lead YouTube to terminate this channel, so we can't know either. > there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator. That's not quite true. The DMCA is a very strict mechanism. You get a notice, you take down the content, and if the uploader isn't happy with that, they have to sue the claimant. Of course, Youtubes process is streamlined for its own interests and the interests of big corporate copyright hoarders. But it's not designed to bully creators. The problem isn't really the process in itself, it's how Google applies it and the fact that Youtube doesn't seem to care that much for its creators.
        theturtletalks 6y ago
        When Github was sent a DMCA for the PopcornTime repo, PopcornTime was able to submit a counter DMCA which allowed the repo to be reinstated. Then, if the repo was really in violation, it had to be proven in court by the original claimant. Youtube doesn't allow creators to file a counter DMCA.
        kllrnohj 6y ago
        The same thing happened here. The creator issued a counter claim, and his channel is currently still up and unaffected https://www.youtube.com/c/GarethEvansYT https://www.youtube.com/c/GarethEvansYT Youtube does allow DMCA counter claims because they legally have to. Youtube has absolutely no wiggle room with DMCA. No amount of complaining to them can ever change that, either. You have to get the laws changed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - blackearl 6y ago
    Youtube works in its own little court, they're not real DMCA notices. Otherwise companies wouldn't be allowed to blanket claim random stuff with no repercussions.
    - zcheck 6y ago
      Sorry that I didn't read much. But above comment section there are directly contradicting comments. One person says he may have received 5 DMCA notices and another person says it is not true. I have seen similar very contradictory things in other social medias too. How is this possible? How to quickly find who is lying without spending too much investigating?
      - wtallis 6y ago
        I'm not sure anyone is lying here, so much as being misled by the conventional wisdom that YouTube has no incentive to straighten out. "DMCA" is a well-known buzzword, and the shallow understanding is that copyright infringement claims that get content taken down are all under the DMCA umbrella. The deeper understanding is that most of the big content hosts like YouTube have frontline systems that exist outside the DMCA procedure and its associated legal requirements, but YouTube is happy for the DMCA to take the blame for anything that is handled poorly by their own system. Disputes through that system can be escalated to real DMCA takedown notices.
        kllrnohj 6y ago
        It is very obvious this is not Content-ID, which is what the big content hosts use for broad protection. It's a manual claim.
        wtallis 6y ago
        Content-ID is something else entirely - an automated preemptive system. But last I checked, it looked like formal DMCA procedures weren't the only manual complaint alternative.
    - 6y ago
- kelnos 6y ago
  Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space, terms which allow the landlord to kick the tenant out at their whim, with no legal recourse. I can't believe this needs to be said literally every time one of these types of articles gets posted on HN: if you build your business on top of someone else's platform, and have no contracts in place to protect your interests, your business's existence is completely at the whim of the platform owners. I wish we lived in a world where the Googles of the internet had sane, transparent, easily-appealable processes for these sorts of things. But we don't, and absent government regulation, we probably aren't going to. People need to take these sorts of risks into account when deciding how to run their businesses, and have contingency plans. It's interesting to note that in the landlord/tenant analogy, most jurisdictions have laws in place that prevent tenants from agreeing to such unbalanced, predatory contracts, and give tenants rights even in the absence of any agreement at all. Perhaps we do need something like that on the internet, for some things.
  - avodonosov 6y ago
    Another thing coming to mind is some kind of trade union for creators
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space One small caveat - the small business owner had no choice in the matter when they moved in 10 years ago. There was only one mall people would actually visit across the entire world. And that mall has a clickwrap agreement for all their rentals, one which includes a clause that says "and we can change this agreement at will and without notice."
    - creato 6y ago
      10 years ago it was probably less like a "small business" and more like a lemonade stand, so neither youtube nor the creator really cared about having a strong agreement or understanding in place.
    - iso947 6y ago

birdmanjeremy 6y ago

Can it be both a small business and "non-commercial in nature"? Because that's at the crux of his fair use claim I think.

retsibsi 6y ago
That's the bit that doesn't ring true to me, his "non-commercial" claim. I'm not at all suggesting that he deserves the treatment he's getting, but it doesn't seem like he's being entirely straightforward here. Can anyone who knows the law weigh in on whether I'm missing something about the distinction between 'commercial' and 'monetized via advertising'?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  My sense from listening to him talk is that he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube, means that he's in the clear. I fear that this is not exactly how the law works, but I'm also not a lawyer.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    >he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube I don't see where he says that. He says he's never profited from selling other people's material. I think he considers putting up content for free with ads to not be selling content.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      You are probably being more precise about what he said than I was, but I think the two claims are roughly isomorphic, and also roughly equally incorrect. If I use someone's song in my advertisement I didn't "profit from selling their material," but it's still a commercial use and they will succeed if they sue me or take down my ad.
      - C1sc0cat 6y ago

nova22033 6y ago

You could think that it's somewhat illegal to do, but apparently it's not. What specifically is illegal about this? If it's not and you think this should be illegal, how would you write the law that would make this illegal?

DanBC 6y ago

That "small business" is what tips this copyright violation from a simple civil matter into a criminal offence. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html 506. Criminal offenses 6 (a) Criminal Infringement.— (1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed— (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;