4 ms·

There should be more accountability for incorrect DMCAs. I see why Nintendo is doing this, but it is wrong. Nintendo is famous for reselling old games on each a

There should be more accountability for incorrect DMCAs. I see why Nintendo is doing this, but it is wrong. Nintendo is famous for reselling old games on each and every new platform they build and this takes away that revenue. According to a thread on Reddit this video only showed emulators and not ROMs. Pretty wild that there is no accountability for these actions.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TheDong 5y ago
> this video only showed emulators and not ROMs It is probably still in violation of the DMCA. The DMCA also makes illegal tools that are primarily intended for circumvention, which these emulators almost certainly are. But, even moreso, removals of videos on youtube are typically not done through the DMCA directly, but rather through a private extra-judicial system youtube manages (content-id et al). Of course youtube has the rights, as a private company, to remove videos for no reason. Of course Nintendo can request youtube to remove any video for any reasons, DMCA or not, with no legal issues. I doubt any DMCA, false or otherwise, has actually been issued in this case, and "accountability for incorrect DMCAs" would not help as a result.
- causality0 5y ago
  I can't speak for other countries but emulators are 100% legal in the United States.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- humanistbot 5y ago
  > It is probably still in violation of the DMCA. The DMCA also makes illegal tools that are primarily intended for circumvention, which these emulators almost certainly are. Nope. Emulators do not circumvent copy protection. When a ROM maker is extracting the game content from the original version, they are breaking copy protection. The ROM file they create and distribute does not have copy protection, so the emulator does not need to include copy protection circumvention. > But, even moreso, removals of videos on youtube are typically not done through the DMCA directly, but rather through a private extra-judicial system youtube manages (content-id et al). These are not, which is the point. Nintendo is doing this intentionally with their own DMCA takedowns. These aren't accidental false positives picked up by content id.
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    > These are not, which is the point. Nintendo is doing this intentionally with their own DMCA takedowns. These aren't accidental false positives picked up by content id. Parent’s point is that Nintendo is not sending actual, official DMCA takedowns. They go through Youtube’s system that only needs suspicion of violation to strike the videos.
turndown 5y ago
> Nintendo is famous for reselling old games on each and every new platform they build and this takes away that revenue. I get why you might think this but it’s also almost categorically wrong nowadays. Sony and Microsoft have significantly larger portions of their old games available for replay or purchase than Nintendo does. The only virtual console content produced for the Switch has been locked behind their low quality online servers. I definitely look forward to BOTW2 and maybe an end-of-generation Pokémon game but otherwise I have a very dim view of Nintendo.
kube-system 5y ago
The way people on YouTube get around the legal penalties for false DMCAs is simple: they don't file a DMCA request. There are several other mechanisms by which YouTube will gladly pull content: Content ID, contractual obligations, TOS violation, etc.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I still don't understand why Google went on the route of proactively removing content rather than reactively.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    They just don't care. They're not a public service altruistically serving their users' videos up until the point the law requires them to take it down. They're an ad platform, trying to serve ads and not get sued. Content ID was born out of a desire to keep Viacom happy after Google got sued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y...
  - remram 5y ago
    That is part of the DMCA (the act, not the "DMCA notice" often shortened "DMCA"). In exchange for not being liable for the copyright infringement ("safe harbor"), the service provider (here YouTube) has to act on notices right away. The user files a counterclaim if that was wrong. In short, it's not YouTube's (or GitHub's, etc) call, this is part of the agreement with copyright holders (the DMCA copyright law). Don't take that as an endorsement though, I hate the system as much as you do.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Right, that's what I mean. I wish they only did DMCA rather than the bullshit they do now.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Money, dear boy. They gain a lot more from keeping the big media companies onside than they do by pissing off a handful of creators (who are frankly a commodity to them).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

TheDong 5y ago

> this video only showed emulators and not ROMs It is probably still in violation of the DMCA. The DMCA also makes illegal tools that are primarily intended for circumvention, which these emulators almost certainly are. But, even moreso, removals of videos on youtube are typically not done through the DMCA directly, but rather through a private extra-judicial system youtube manages (content-id et al). Of course youtube has the rights, as a private company, to remove videos for no reason. Of course Nintendo can request youtube to remove any video for any reasons, DMCA or not, with no legal issues. I doubt any DMCA, false or otherwise, has actually been issued in this case, and "accountability for incorrect DMCAs" would not help as a result.

causality0 5y ago
I can't speak for other countries but emulators are 100% legal in the United States.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
humanistbot 5y ago
> It is probably still in violation of the DMCA. The DMCA also makes illegal tools that are primarily intended for circumvention, which these emulators almost certainly are. Nope. Emulators do not circumvent copy protection. When a ROM maker is extracting the game content from the original version, they are breaking copy protection. The ROM file they create and distribute does not have copy protection, so the emulator does not need to include copy protection circumvention. > But, even moreso, removals of videos on youtube are typically not done through the DMCA directly, but rather through a private extra-judicial system youtube manages (content-id et al). These are not, which is the point. Nintendo is doing this intentionally with their own DMCA takedowns. These aren't accidental false positives picked up by content id.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  > These are not, which is the point. Nintendo is doing this intentionally with their own DMCA takedowns. These aren't accidental false positives picked up by content id. Parent’s point is that Nintendo is not sending actual, official DMCA takedowns. They go through Youtube’s system that only needs suspicion of violation to strike the videos.

turndown 5y ago

> Nintendo is famous for reselling old games on each and every new platform they build and this takes away that revenue. I get why you might think this but it’s also almost categorically wrong nowadays. Sony and Microsoft have significantly larger portions of their old games available for replay or purchase than Nintendo does. The only virtual console content produced for the Switch has been locked behind their low quality online servers. I definitely look forward to BOTW2 and maybe an end-of-generation Pokémon game but otherwise I have a very dim view of Nintendo.

kube-system 5y ago

The way people on YouTube get around the legal penalties for false DMCAs is simple: they don't file a DMCA request. There are several other mechanisms by which YouTube will gladly pull content: Content ID, contractual obligations, TOS violation, etc.

aaomidi 5y ago
I still don't understand why Google went on the route of proactively removing content rather than reactively.
- kube-system 5y ago
  They just don't care. They're not a public service altruistically serving their users' videos up until the point the law requires them to take it down. They're an ad platform, trying to serve ads and not get sued. Content ID was born out of a desire to keep Viacom happy after Google got sued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y...
- remram 5y ago
  That is part of the DMCA (the act, not the "DMCA notice" often shortened "DMCA"). In exchange for not being liable for the copyright infringement ("safe harbor"), the service provider (here YouTube) has to act on notices right away. The user files a counterclaim if that was wrong. In short, it's not YouTube's (or GitHub's, etc) call, this is part of the agreement with copyright holders (the DMCA copyright law). Don't take that as an endorsement though, I hate the system as much as you do.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    Right, that's what I mean. I wish they only did DMCA rather than the bullshit they do now.
- lmm 5y ago
  Money, dear boy. They gain a lot more from keeping the big media companies onside than they do by pissing off a handful of creators (who are frankly a commodity to them).