4 ms·

The entire ecosystem of big tech has depressingly bent towards this practice – Youtube trolls monetizing your work, Amazon allowing people to steal your listing

The entire ecosystem of big tech has depressingly bent towards this practice – Youtube trolls monetizing your work, Amazon allowing people to steal your listing and sell counterfeit goods with the five stars you earned... The only solution I've found is "don't engage". It doesn't change anything, but at least I'm not the one getting burnt.

lmilcin 5y ago
This is direct result of DMCA. It basically says "Dear Youtube, if someone claims copyright you can't be liable if you immediately comply with the claim. However, if you don't, there is no bounds on how much you can be slapped for content posted on your platform." It creates powerful incentive to err on the side of claimant, however ridiculous the claim is. So if you are looking for somebody responsible for this, find politicians responsible for getting this passed and forever breaking Internet for everybody.
- ascagnel_ 5y ago
  My specific issue with YouTube is that the Content ID process _isn't_ the DMCA (which, while not great, is much fairer to individual creators than YouTube's dispute resolution), it's the result of a big media corp fantasy that Google somehow willed into reality to avoid losing their protection and being liable to Viacom. The DMCA, at least as it's written, is somewhat equitable: if I think you post something of mine, I can go to a lawyer in good faith to file a notice to get it removed, you can go to your lawyer and have it restored, and then we hash it out in court without the video provider needing to be involved for the duration of the case. With YouTube, it's YT throwing up more roadblocks in my way (as the uploader) should you start sniffing around. Plus, you can claim copyright on my work in a scalable, automated way, without needing to verify individual works, and that last part is where all the abuse of the system happens. Google has absolutely no intention of fixing this claims process; doing so would break the armistice they agreed to with Viacom more than a decade ago, since Google wasn't complying with the DMCA.
  - lupire 5y ago
    you don't need a lawyer for a counterclaim.
    - ascagnel_ 5y ago
      You don't _need_ a lawyer, but I'd at least hire one for an hour to review such a letter. If the case proceeds, that counterclaim will almost certainly be entered into evidence, and you'd want someone with more background and knowledge to make sure you're saying the right things.
    - omoikane 5y ago
      You will reveal much of your personal information to copyright trolls if you choose to fight things yourself. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
      - SR2Z 5y ago
        It's a legal process. At the bare minimum it has to uniquely identify you. It's kind of bizarre to suggest otherwise.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Youtube's policies go far beyond what's required from the DMCA and is the result of their private negotiations with the music labels following the settling out of court of Viacom v. Youtube.
- kelnos 5y ago
  No, this is the result of Google/YT bending over backwards to please the big content creators in order to get their business. DMCA merely requires a timely takedown in response to an active report of infringement. And if the creator counter-claims and says "nope, I'm not infringing", the DMCA instructs the hosting service to put the content back up and guarantees the hosting service will not be liable if a court later finds the content infringing. Google does not need to make any kind of judgment here; they can just say "hey DMCA claimer, the content creator says they're not infringing, so we're putting their content back up; if you don't agree with that, you can sue the content creator, and we'll comply with whatever court order comes from that." But Google has decided to become judge, jury, and copyright-striker without any legal obligation to do so. Their current "solution" cost them way more money to implement than simply complying with the DMCA takedown process would cost. But I'm sure the buddy-buddy relationship they got with the music labels and movie studios in return for ContentID (and Google's hostile attitude toward small creators) has more than made up for it. The DMCA has a lot of bad parts to it (the anti-circumvention provisions come to mind), but the takedown process is actually not bad. For the record this is all it is: 1. Copyright holder notices content they think is infringing and files takedown notice with the hosting provider. 2. Hosting provider takes content down, and notifies content creator. 3. Content creator can file a counter-claim attesting that they do not believe their creation is infringing. 4. Hosting provider puts content back up, and notifies the original claimaint. 5. Claimant can decide to sue the content creator if they still believe they have a case. The hosting provider is left alone. And that's how it should be! People should be responsible for the things they post. Neutral hosting services should not be. The alternative to this takedown process would be that the copyright holder would have to go to court for every single case of infringement, which would not only be prohibitively expensive, but would clog up the court system. I'll bet that most DMCA takedowns never even make it to step #5. Either the content "creator" admits that they are indeed infringing, and leaves the content down, or the original claimant decides to drop the issue after receiving a counter-claim. It's surely not a perfect system, but I think it's better than making everyone reach for a formal lawsuit as their first and only option.
  - antiterra 5y ago
    Google decided this because they were going to get sued to oblivion back in the day. This implementation saved their ass, as a prevailing interpretation in courts is that the DMCA was intended to encourage self-policing.
- daedalus_f 5y ago
  A DMCA notice would require YouTube to take the video down or be potentially on the hook for the copyright infringement. A DMCA counter-notice from the creator of the video would allow YouTube to put it back up without being liable. After a counter-notice, the supposed copyright holders next recourse would be legal action against the person alleged to have broken the copyright. This is not DMCA. I’m almost certain from the screenshots that the video was flagged by YouTube’s incredibly broken content ID system. Once flagged the content creator can appeal, but on appeal it is the supposed copyright holder who gets to decide whether their claim is valid, the content creator has no say, and no further recourse. It’s an incredibly unjust system, plagued by trolls, but I don’t think it’s caused by DMCA. IANAL, etc
  - judge2020 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... (from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html): > Viacom said it was not seeking damages for any actions since Google put in its filtering system, known as content ID, in early 2008. It's not DMCA, but Viacom basically said "we won't sue you for damages since you've start scanning all videos and taking down our copyrighted content". Obviously other media giants weren't going to let Viacom be the only one with access to this profit machine, so now pretty much all global media giants have access to Content ID.
- ratww 5y ago
  This is not DMCA, though. This is Youtube's own parallel court of law. DMCA has a proper process where you can appeal properly, and you can't keep sending bogus claims without repercussion. DMCA also allows fair use. And finally, DMCA puts the burden of proof on the claimant. In ContentID, however there is no burden of proof, and claimants can deny disputes without mediation.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > and claimants can deny disputes without mediation. see > If the claim is disputed by the uploader then the claimant can accept/reject that dispute. The uploader then has the chance to appeal; if they do so then the claimant has to either release the claim or escalate to a DMCA takedown. Of course if it gets to that point then the video is coming down and no one will be making money. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28001388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28001388
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > and you can't keep sending bogus claims without repercussion has any major company ever faced meaningful consequences for this? A handful of copyright trolls have been busted, but the MPA/RIAA send false DMCA notices all the time. Sometimes they're just incompetent (https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torrentfreak-in-2019-were-bogus-191231/ https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torr...) but companies often very willfully abuse the DMCA to silence criticism yet not one of them seems to have been held accountable for it.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    > This is not DMCA, though. I did not say this claim is DMCA. I said this situation is a result of DMCA, the law. Basically, why deal with DMCA when you can just summarily take stuff down or demonetize even without any DMCA claim. I am pretty sure without DMCA and other similar, made to order laws Google would not bother taking stuff down or building any kind of AI to do this. Because, you know, it costs. And makes people post less content. So yes, this is result of DMCA.
    - 5y ago
swayson 5y ago
Big tech is cultivating a rather toxic environment these days.

lmilcin 5y ago

This is direct result of DMCA. It basically says "Dear Youtube, if someone claims copyright you can't be liable if you immediately comply with the claim. However, if you don't, there is no bounds on how much you can be slapped for content posted on your platform." It creates powerful incentive to err on the side of claimant, however ridiculous the claim is. So if you are looking for somebody responsible for this, find politicians responsible for getting this passed and forever breaking Internet for everybody.

ascagnel_ 5y ago
My specific issue with YouTube is that the Content ID process _isn't_ the DMCA (which, while not great, is much fairer to individual creators than YouTube's dispute resolution), it's the result of a big media corp fantasy that Google somehow willed into reality to avoid losing their protection and being liable to Viacom. The DMCA, at least as it's written, is somewhat equitable: if I think you post something of mine, I can go to a lawyer in good faith to file a notice to get it removed, you can go to your lawyer and have it restored, and then we hash it out in court without the video provider needing to be involved for the duration of the case. With YouTube, it's YT throwing up more roadblocks in my way (as the uploader) should you start sniffing around. Plus, you can claim copyright on my work in a scalable, automated way, without needing to verify individual works, and that last part is where all the abuse of the system happens. Google has absolutely no intention of fixing this claims process; doing so would break the armistice they agreed to with Viacom more than a decade ago, since Google wasn't complying with the DMCA.
- lupire 5y ago
  you don't need a lawyer for a counterclaim.
  - ascagnel_ 5y ago
    You don't _need_ a lawyer, but I'd at least hire one for an hour to review such a letter. If the case proceeds, that counterclaim will almost certainly be entered into evidence, and you'd want someone with more background and knowledge to make sure you're saying the right things.
  - omoikane 5y ago
    You will reveal much of your personal information to copyright trolls if you choose to fight things yourself. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
    - SR2Z 5y ago
      It's a legal process. At the bare minimum it has to uniquely identify you. It's kind of bizarre to suggest otherwise.
monocasa 5y ago
Youtube's policies go far beyond what's required from the DMCA and is the result of their private negotiations with the music labels following the settling out of court of Viacom v. Youtube.
kelnos 5y ago
No, this is the result of Google/YT bending over backwards to please the big content creators in order to get their business. DMCA merely requires a timely takedown in response to an active report of infringement. And if the creator counter-claims and says "nope, I'm not infringing", the DMCA instructs the hosting service to put the content back up and guarantees the hosting service will not be liable if a court later finds the content infringing. Google does not need to make any kind of judgment here; they can just say "hey DMCA claimer, the content creator says they're not infringing, so we're putting their content back up; if you don't agree with that, you can sue the content creator, and we'll comply with whatever court order comes from that." But Google has decided to become judge, jury, and copyright-striker without any legal obligation to do so. Their current "solution" cost them way more money to implement than simply complying with the DMCA takedown process would cost. But I'm sure the buddy-buddy relationship they got with the music labels and movie studios in return for ContentID (and Google's hostile attitude toward small creators) has more than made up for it. The DMCA has a lot of bad parts to it (the anti-circumvention provisions come to mind), but the takedown process is actually not bad. For the record this is all it is: 1. Copyright holder notices content they think is infringing and files takedown notice with the hosting provider. 2. Hosting provider takes content down, and notifies content creator. 3. Content creator can file a counter-claim attesting that they do not believe their creation is infringing. 4. Hosting provider puts content back up, and notifies the original claimaint. 5. Claimant can decide to sue the content creator if they still believe they have a case. The hosting provider is left alone. And that's how it should be! People should be responsible for the things they post. Neutral hosting services should not be. The alternative to this takedown process would be that the copyright holder would have to go to court for every single case of infringement, which would not only be prohibitively expensive, but would clog up the court system. I'll bet that most DMCA takedowns never even make it to step #5. Either the content "creator" admits that they are indeed infringing, and leaves the content down, or the original claimant decides to drop the issue after receiving a counter-claim. It's surely not a perfect system, but I think it's better than making everyone reach for a formal lawsuit as their first and only option.
- antiterra 5y ago
  Google decided this because they were going to get sued to oblivion back in the day. This implementation saved their ass, as a prevailing interpretation in courts is that the DMCA was intended to encourage self-policing.
daedalus_f 5y ago
A DMCA notice would require YouTube to take the video down or be potentially on the hook for the copyright infringement. A DMCA counter-notice from the creator of the video would allow YouTube to put it back up without being liable. After a counter-notice, the supposed copyright holders next recourse would be legal action against the person alleged to have broken the copyright. This is not DMCA. I’m almost certain from the screenshots that the video was flagged by YouTube’s incredibly broken content ID system. Once flagged the content creator can appeal, but on appeal it is the supposed copyright holder who gets to decide whether their claim is valid, the content creator has no say, and no further recourse. It’s an incredibly unjust system, plagued by trolls, but I don’t think it’s caused by DMCA. IANAL, etc
- judge2020 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... (from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html): > Viacom said it was not seeking damages for any actions since Google put in its filtering system, known as content ID, in early 2008. It's not DMCA, but Viacom basically said "we won't sue you for damages since you've start scanning all videos and taking down our copyrighted content". Obviously other media giants weren't going to let Viacom be the only one with access to this profit machine, so now pretty much all global media giants have access to Content ID.
ratww 5y ago
This is not DMCA, though. This is Youtube's own parallel court of law. DMCA has a proper process where you can appeal properly, and you can't keep sending bogus claims without repercussion. DMCA also allows fair use. And finally, DMCA puts the burden of proof on the claimant. In ContentID, however there is no burden of proof, and claimants can deny disputes without mediation.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > and claimants can deny disputes without mediation. see > If the claim is disputed by the uploader then the claimant can accept/reject that dispute. The uploader then has the chance to appeal; if they do so then the claimant has to either release the claim or escalate to a DMCA takedown. Of course if it gets to that point then the video is coming down and no one will be making money. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28001388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28001388
- autoexec 5y ago
  > and you can't keep sending bogus claims without repercussion has any major company ever faced meaningful consequences for this? A handful of copyright trolls have been busted, but the MPA/RIAA send false DMCA notices all the time. Sometimes they're just incompetent (https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torrentfreak-in-2019-were-bogus-191231/ https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torr...) but companies often very willfully abuse the DMCA to silence criticism yet not one of them seems to have been held accountable for it.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  > This is not DMCA, though. I did not say this claim is DMCA. I said this situation is a result of DMCA, the law. Basically, why deal with DMCA when you can just summarily take stuff down or demonetize even without any DMCA claim. I am pretty sure without DMCA and other similar, made to order laws Google would not bother taking stuff down or building any kind of AI to do this. Because, you know, it costs. And makes people post less content. So yes, this is result of DMCA.
  - 5y ago

swayson 5y ago

Big tech is cultivating a rather toxic environment these days.