6 ms·

> Google initially refused to comply but after some work, Bungie started getting the information it was looking for earlier this month. Yet another example of

> Google initially refused to comply but after some work, Bungie started getting the information it was looking for earlier this month. Yet another example of justice for me, but not for thee. A smaller content creator might not have even overturned a false DMCA claim, let alone get information about the copyright troll submitting it.

judge2020 4y ago
> A smaller content creator might not have even overturned a false DMCA claim In the YouTube DMCA process, they always, 100% restore your video if you submit a DMCA counterclaim. It'll only stay down if the claimant informs YouTube they are pursuing a lawsuit against you. > let alone get information about the copyright troll submitting it. You receive the full information of the copyright holder if you receive a DMCA takedown. You obviously don't get IP log information unless you subpoena Google, though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- devrand 4y ago
  > You receive the full information of the copyright holder if you receive a DMCA takedown. That’s not exactly helpful if it’s a fraudulent claim.
vageli 4y ago
What is "after some work" here alluding to (I know it's verbatim from the article but very cryptic)? Can Google arbitrarily share account details with anyone who asks without a subpoena? Does that not violate even their own ToS?
- waiwai933 4y ago
  The First Amended Complaint linked in the article indicates that Google required a subpoena (paragraphs 112-114) and were unwilling/unable to provide information informally.
  - vageli 4y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't realize they linked to the complaint at the very bottom.
  - gpm 4y ago
    It also says > While Bungie’s legal department, management, and executives were attempting to negotiate the byzantine procedural labyrinth Google required before it would address the fraud Minor was committing, let alone identify him to Bungie, Minor was gloating, confessing, and threatening I'm guessing there was something more going on here...
    - waiwai933 4y ago
      This seems more like difficulty getting in touch with a human at YouTube in the first place. Once they got that, the practical issues were resolved with YouTube undoing the takedowns, but the PII of the involved accounts needed to go through the legal process.
      - gumby 4y ago
        > This seems more like difficulty getting in touch with a human at YouTube… If you serve them with a subpoena your lawyer will get a prompt phone call from a real human. That’s the point.
metacritic12 4y ago
Genuine question: for Google to offer free services, economic constraints dictate they can't offer human support. If we just assume for a moment this is valid, there is a possible solution: You can pre-pay $50/hour (in 30 minute increments) for live human access that can fix your problem. The fee is paid no matter whose fault it is -- it's basically a "competent, in-your-country, rep fair wage fee". How much take up would there be? Would that fix the complaints with these free services not offering support?
- izzydata 4y ago
  Maybe Google is too big then eh?
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Wouldn't that be a lawsuit in the making? Create problem, charge for support, profit?
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    They would still outsource the human part to people with no knowledge or power like all YouTube appeals
  - bityard 4y ago
    No... charging for support is the most popular software business model, and in the enterprise sector, FAR more lucrative than selling the software itself. The goal of the company charging for support (directly or indirectly through purchases) is to collect the support payment WITHOUT having to turn around and spend it on paying someone to solve problems. It's very much in the company's financial best interest to not have problems.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Except I don’t assume that is valid. Google has plenty of money, they can easily afford support personnel, they’re just more interested in making money.
  - 4y ago
davidwritesbugs 4y ago
The article didn't say what this "other thing" Bungie then did to get Google to cough data up. Wondering what it was?

judge2020 4y ago

> A smaller content creator might not have even overturned a false DMCA claim In the YouTube DMCA process, they always, 100% restore your video if you submit a DMCA counterclaim. It'll only stay down if the claimant informs YouTube they are pursuing a lawsuit against you. > let alone get information about the copyright troll submitting it. You receive the full information of the copyright holder if you receive a DMCA takedown. You obviously don't get IP log information unless you subpoena Google, though.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
devrand 4y ago
> You receive the full information of the copyright holder if you receive a DMCA takedown. That’s not exactly helpful if it’s a fraudulent claim.

vageli 4y ago

What is "after some work" here alluding to (I know it's verbatim from the article but very cryptic)? Can Google arbitrarily share account details with anyone who asks without a subpoena? Does that not violate even their own ToS?

waiwai933 4y ago
The First Amended Complaint linked in the article indicates that Google required a subpoena (paragraphs 112-114) and were unwilling/unable to provide information informally.
- vageli 4y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't realize they linked to the complaint at the very bottom.
- gpm 4y ago
  It also says > While Bungie’s legal department, management, and executives were attempting to negotiate the byzantine procedural labyrinth Google required before it would address the fraud Minor was committing, let alone identify him to Bungie, Minor was gloating, confessing, and threatening I'm guessing there was something more going on here...
  - waiwai933 4y ago
    This seems more like difficulty getting in touch with a human at YouTube in the first place. Once they got that, the practical issues were resolved with YouTube undoing the takedowns, but the PII of the involved accounts needed to go through the legal process.
    - gumby 4y ago
      > This seems more like difficulty getting in touch with a human at YouTube… If you serve them with a subpoena your lawyer will get a prompt phone call from a real human. That’s the point.

metacritic12 4y ago

Genuine question: for Google to offer free services, economic constraints dictate they can't offer human support. If we just assume for a moment this is valid, there is a possible solution: You can pre-pay $50/hour (in 30 minute increments) for live human access that can fix your problem. The fee is paid no matter whose fault it is -- it's basically a "competent, in-your-country, rep fair wage fee". How much take up would there be? Would that fix the complaints with these free services not offering support?

izzydata 4y ago
Maybe Google is too big then eh?
ipaddr 4y ago
Wouldn't that be a lawsuit in the making? Create problem, charge for support, profit?
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  They would still outsource the human part to people with no knowledge or power like all YouTube appeals
- bityard 4y ago
  No... charging for support is the most popular software business model, and in the enterprise sector, FAR more lucrative than selling the software itself. The goal of the company charging for support (directly or indirectly through purchases) is to collect the support payment WITHOUT having to turn around and spend it on paying someone to solve problems. It's very much in the company's financial best interest to not have problems.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Except I don’t assume that is valid. Google has plenty of money, they can easily afford support personnel, they’re just more interested in making money.
- 4y ago

davidwritesbugs 4y ago

The article didn't say what this "other thing" Bungie then did to get Google to cough data up. Wondering what it was?