4 ms·

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Google is completely to blame here. Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" the

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Google is completely to blame here. Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc." As the video points out, in order to make a copyright claim the claimant must specifically state the content that is infringing. Thus, Google knows what material is (allegedly) infringing and has the information to provide to the user. Also as stated in the video Google is not required by law to delete the YouTube channel. They've taken that upon themselves. To review, Google is being unnecessarily vague about what material is involved and unnecessarily harsh about punishing someone for an unexplained infringement. The copyright system is, no doubt, messed up - but clearly Google is completely at fault for their lazy and Kafkaesque actions here.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 6y ago
The whole thing is play for media uproar. Gareth Evans has channel based on playing & covering songs. Courts have always held that this is textbook copyright infringement. Gareth Evans videos all have the songs and artist name in the title. Whoever filed the takedown was lazy in that they didn't include the description because the entire video is infringing. Edit for sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_l... https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechanical-royalty-due-28002.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechan...
DanBC 6y ago
You're trying to say that Google should be generous to people using their service to commit criminal offences? You can disagree with the law, but it's pretty clear he's breaking it. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html > 506. Criminal offenses6 > (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;
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Yes Google should be generous to people breaking the law. There are many laws and they are complicated and often inscrutable and sometimes unfair. Breaking a law is something everyone does frequently, often without realizing it, so being generous and lenient with law breakers, especially those who have been valuable contributors, seems reasonable. The allegation is that five of his videos had infringing content. Five out of six hundred. Being generous and letting him fix, remove, or contest the allegation prior to deleting the channel strikes me as a much better course than to just tell him "Your channel is being deleted for copyright infringement but we won't tell you where it happened."
kllrnohj 6y ago
> Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc." Other than the timestamps that IS what happened here. The creator knows the exact videos that were flagged, and the creator had the option to dispute it - which they did, and the channel was never actually deleted as a result. It's still up: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf5WyhQHoYKy2ZcY1l51w7A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf5WyhQHoYKy2ZcY1l51w7A The situation is now that the claimants can either drop the copyright claims or sue him (this is stated in the video at timestamp 2:40). Neither of which involves YouTube, and YouTube isn't going to delete the channel unless the claims remain. That is, if the claimant opts to sue the creator. As for timestamps, not all takedown notices must include such information. Notably DMCA takedown requests do not, and Google cannot require more than the law does on those. If Google failed to forward the notice along, or refuses to, that'd be something to be upset about. But we don't have evidence that they didn't, only that the data from that claim was not manually entered into a database to be shown in a pretty UI. But given the channel in question, it seems likely that it's just the entire video in violation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 6y ago

The whole thing is play for media uproar. Gareth Evans has channel based on playing & covering songs. Courts have always held that this is textbook copyright infringement. Gareth Evans videos all have the songs and artist name in the title. Whoever filed the takedown was lazy in that they didn't include the description because the entire video is infringing. Edit for sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_l... https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechanical-royalty-due-28002.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechan...

DanBC 6y ago

You're trying to say that Google should be generous to people using their service to commit criminal offences? You can disagree with the law, but it's pretty clear he's breaking it. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html > 506. Criminal offenses6 > (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;

ALittleLight 6y ago
Yes Google should be generous to people breaking the law. There are many laws and they are complicated and often inscrutable and sometimes unfair. Breaking a law is something everyone does frequently, often without realizing it, so being generous and lenient with law breakers, especially those who have been valuable contributors, seems reasonable. The allegation is that five of his videos had infringing content. Five out of six hundred. Being generous and letting him fix, remove, or contest the allegation prior to deleting the channel strikes me as a much better course than to just tell him "Your channel is being deleted for copyright infringement but we won't tell you where it happened."

kllrnohj 6y ago

> Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc." Other than the timestamps that IS what happened here. The creator knows the exact videos that were flagged, and the creator had the option to dispute it - which they did, and the channel was never actually deleted as a result. It's still up: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf5WyhQHoYKy2ZcY1l51w7A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf5WyhQHoYKy2ZcY1l51w7A The situation is now that the claimants can either drop the copyright claims or sue him (this is stated in the video at timestamp 2:40). Neither of which involves YouTube, and YouTube isn't going to delete the channel unless the claims remain. That is, if the claimant opts to sue the creator. As for timestamps, not all takedown notices must include such information. Notably DMCA takedown requests do not, and Google cannot require more than the law does on those. If Google failed to forward the notice along, or refuses to, that'd be something to be upset about. But we don't have evidence that they didn't, only that the data from that claim was not manually entered into a database to be shown in a pretty UI. But given the channel in question, it seems likely that it's just the entire video in violation.