3 ms·

Pathetic. All this dude did was show users their fake ads and fake reviews. He's also showcased reviews where the instructors don't seem to know much about how

Pathetic. All this dude did was show users their fake ads and fake reviews. He's also showcased reviews where the instructors don't seem to know much about how the internet works. Now the legal system is being used to maliciously prosecute him. There is little hope for this man in India given the level of corruption and rot in the system. If there are well connected folks in the west who want to spend their time on actual injustice as opposed to casting in Hollywood movies and other first world problems, I'd invite them to speak up for this man and contact the investors / folks at Disney and other Byju's investors. Also if you know folks at Reddit or YouTube congratulate them on having such a trash tier DMCA review process where a decent man with the intention of protecting a gullible population of poor folks can't stand up to a scam corporation backed by a mammoth like Disney, on your platform.

swiley 6y ago
This is exactly why so many people freak out about: 1) YouTube being the only place people go to watch videos online 2) These awful DMCA takedown processes.
- fareesh 6y ago
  Big tech has basically monopolized all the attention and all the talent. Some of the smartest people of our time are working on ad delivery platforms, aka propaganda machines. Not only that, in this case it looks like a big advertiser can just call a senior exec at YouTube and yell at him and magically a channel that's critical of the advertiser will vanish. I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong.
paledot 6y ago
Rarely am I the one to stand up for Google, but the DMCA is such a garbage law that they have no choice. They don't have the legal ability to call bullshit on the takedown. It's the video creator's job under the DMCA to prove themselves innocent, under penalty of perjury. (No such penalty exists for filing a false claim, BTW.)
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  AIUI that's not correct. You can ignore a DMCA takedown notice but you lose the common carrier protections and effectively become open to being sued for contributory infringement. They have a choice, they have the legal ability but eschew the liability that exercising that ability carries.
- zeusflight 6y ago
  My understanding is that once the content creator file a counter notice, the hosting platform is off the hook and free to reinstate the content. Any further legal fight will be directly between the claimant and the creator, not involving the host at all. IANAL, so feel free to point out any mistakes in this take. Now assuming the above to be true, YouTube has rejected a counter notice by the creator. What other reason exists for such a decision, than the commercial relationship between the two companies? This shows that content creators have no priority at all. The host is likely a willing partner in this abuse.
- fareesh 6y ago
  So hypothetically you are suggesting that someone like Nigel Farage or the Brexit Party could just file DMCA requests against any YouTuber who has made a video critical of them, and YouTube and Reddit would have to suspend the accounts because they're at the mercy of DMCA? If that were true how come this isn't happening all the time? I know it happens often, but not universally. It seems like this is the easiest way of killing dissent and criticism. How come the folks who have the most criticism levelled against them haven't figured out this tactic if the law is so flawed? How is it that it only happens in some cases but not others? If the law is broken why doesn't everyone exploit it? I suspect that you are right that DMCA is a flawed law but I think in this particular case there may be more to it than just these companies being at the mercy of a broken law.
  - doctorfoo 6y ago
    Because not everyone is scummy, and it's obvious that they would be in the wrong? I also imagine something attention grabbing like a western politician will get more care taken than some random educational company in India.
fareesh 6y ago
I can no longer edit my comment - it is intended to say "alleged scam". Posting due to chilling effect.
fareesh 6y ago
Follow up to my comment based on today's court hearing: See: https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1330743572157534210 https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1330743572157534210 The prosecution made a few decent points - I suspect he may have gotten carried away in some of his videos and crossed a line somewhere which was very foolish.

swiley 6y ago

This is exactly why so many people freak out about: 1) YouTube being the only place people go to watch videos online 2) These awful DMCA takedown processes.

fareesh 6y ago
Big tech has basically monopolized all the attention and all the talent. Some of the smartest people of our time are working on ad delivery platforms, aka propaganda machines. Not only that, in this case it looks like a big advertiser can just call a senior exec at YouTube and yell at him and magically a channel that's critical of the advertiser will vanish. I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong.

paledot 6y ago

Rarely am I the one to stand up for Google, but the DMCA is such a garbage law that they have no choice. They don't have the legal ability to call bullshit on the takedown. It's the video creator's job under the DMCA to prove themselves innocent, under penalty of perjury. (No such penalty exists for filing a false claim, BTW.)

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
AIUI that's not correct. You can ignore a DMCA takedown notice but you lose the common carrier protections and effectively become open to being sued for contributory infringement. They have a choice, they have the legal ability but eschew the liability that exercising that ability carries.
zeusflight 6y ago
My understanding is that once the content creator file a counter notice, the hosting platform is off the hook and free to reinstate the content. Any further legal fight will be directly between the claimant and the creator, not involving the host at all. IANAL, so feel free to point out any mistakes in this take. Now assuming the above to be true, YouTube has rejected a counter notice by the creator. What other reason exists for such a decision, than the commercial relationship between the two companies? This shows that content creators have no priority at all. The host is likely a willing partner in this abuse.
fareesh 6y ago
So hypothetically you are suggesting that someone like Nigel Farage or the Brexit Party could just file DMCA requests against any YouTuber who has made a video critical of them, and YouTube and Reddit would have to suspend the accounts because they're at the mercy of DMCA? If that were true how come this isn't happening all the time? I know it happens often, but not universally. It seems like this is the easiest way of killing dissent and criticism. How come the folks who have the most criticism levelled against them haven't figured out this tactic if the law is so flawed? How is it that it only happens in some cases but not others? If the law is broken why doesn't everyone exploit it? I suspect that you are right that DMCA is a flawed law but I think in this particular case there may be more to it than just these companies being at the mercy of a broken law.
- doctorfoo 6y ago
  Because not everyone is scummy, and it's obvious that they would be in the wrong? I also imagine something attention grabbing like a western politician will get more care taken than some random educational company in India.

fareesh 6y ago

I can no longer edit my comment - it is intended to say "alleged scam". Posting due to chilling effect.

fareesh 6y ago

Follow up to my comment based on today's court hearing: See: https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1330743572157534210 https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1330743572157534210 The prosecution made a few decent points - I suspect he may have gotten carried away in some of his videos and crossed a line somewhere which was very foolish.