16 ms·

Fran Blanche: This Is Not Legal

444 points by masswerk 4y ago

nvahalik 4y ago
So the system is rigged? Why are people still on YouTube?
- danielheath 4y ago
  Creators are there because it pays them (until it doesn't). YT have the largest viewing audience and the most advertising spend.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  There isn't a real alternative. Many content creators have created their own sites (like corridor crew), and there are theme specific sites like nebula or masterclass, but nothing with the broad appeal and audience of youtube
  - jay_kyburz 4y ago
    Somebody with deep pockets could have a crack at it. You could pay the top YouTubers to host content on both platforms, then add some special bonuses for exclusive content. I really think Netflix should have a crack at it. (But clearly labeled as a different kind of thing. )
    - imran-iq 4y ago
      Microsoft already tried with mixer against twitch, its really hard to get users to move to a new platform when they are used to the old one
      - qbrass 4y ago
        I don't use Twitch because I'm not in the Twitch demographic, but I refuse to use Mixer because of how Microsoft was trying to push it on me.
- masswerk 4y ago
  Personally, I don't think that the system being rigged is the problem, but the path to justice being obstructed. Thus, there is no correction and no remedy. And, why are people still on YT? Well, because it's where everybody is. I.e., critical accumulation, out ruling any other considerations. It may turn out that having a viable path to justice on such a system of critical mass may be as important as having anti-trust clauses.
  - phibz 4y ago
    Not allowing the alleging party to judge the response to the claim would cut down on this sort of thing. But that's not part of the DMCA so YT won't do it. They just care about avoiding liability.
- rexreed 4y ago
  Video consumers / watchers >>>> Video / content creators. YouTube makes money monetizing eyeballs. There are a LOT of eyeballs, much more so than content creators. Every time one content creator gets smashed, another one pops up. So who does YouTube care about? The creators? No way. They want the eyeballs that they sell the advertisers. The content creators are the inconvenient intermediary. If Google / YouTube could realize their fantasy, they'd automatically create all the content themselves with ML or some super amazing generator and get rid of the content creators altogether.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  because none of the alternatives even come close in terms of viewers, virality, monetization 15 years later and still nothing even close to a viable YouTube alternative.
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  Same reason people still make IOS apps.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  You have to go where the audience is at, and Youtube is a huge audience.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Look up 'preferential attachment'.
PostOnce 4y ago
If 1000 big youtubers put $100/month toward an association or union of some kind, they could afford a $100,000/month legal team to combat this. Obviously, there are more than 1000 big youtubers. The fee could be reduced and the budget increased by growing the union.
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  All it would take is Youtube randomly banning a few of said big Youtubers to really cut morale into an organized effort like this. That's precisely what makes them so powerful, they can cut you off at any moment without a legitimate excuse.
  - drdrey 4y ago
    How is that in Youtube’s interest?
    - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
      Preventing their talent from organizing? Squashing unions and labor movements is as old as labor itself. Think about it: does Amazon really stand to lose everything if a warehouse full of minimum wage workers demand healthcare? No. Then why does Amazon fight it? For control, plain and simple.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        But YouTube is actually just hurt by the copyright trolls. YouTube's best interest would be for the trolls to be excised so real creators wouldn't get burned out and driven off.
        thr0wawayf00 4y ago
        If this were true, they would do something about the trolls. But they're not.
breput 4y ago
tl;dw: Fran is a YouTube creator (mostly electronics and space videos) and has been having ongoing issues with illegitimate copyright claims made against her YouTube videos, including NASA public domain content and the sound of wind(!). She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital, uploaded, and then an unclear party made a claim against that video which is currently successful. She also discusses "Visual Claim"[0] and how this will make things worse and how copyright trolls have nothing to lose with doubling down on illegitimate claims. One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube. That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I may be totally off base with those terms.)
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.
    - rolph 4y ago
      every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.
  - breput 4y ago
    She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.
thr0wawayf00 4y ago
Every time I feel myself wanting to make content, I see stuff like this and I nope out of it. Why put so much effort into sharing your passion with the world only to be frozen out by some morons that are enabled by a billion-dollar company that doesn't care about you? Copyright strikes are such a blatant example of the legal system being bought and paid for by the wealthy, it's not even funny.
- armchairhacker 4y ago
  Even without demonetization, just getting views as a content creator is really hard. You only see those who succeed. Nothing against creating content for yourself, or your friends, or future people though. Just don't expect fame or money.
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    Absolutely, which must make this all the more frustrating. If you're one of the lucky few to build a large audience and you draw the attention of the trolls, that would drive me insane.
- brightball 4y ago
  I wonder if this happens with podcasts?
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  Realistically, any popular creator is producing hundreds or eventually thousands of videos. If some of them get locked out, it's still a smart portion of their overall channel. It is a problem, but it's not genuinely an obstacle for creators finding audiences. Making good content that people like and getting enough traction to have a userbase is orders of magnitude more of a risk than getting a copyright strike.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  Post on decentralized platforms. Peertube, Odysee, etc. They are still small for now but they need to start somewhere. You can even set it up so any video you post to youtube gets automatically mirrored to the other platforms
29athrowaway 4y ago
It's so ridiculous that if you generate completely pseudorandom white noise and upload it, there will be copyright claims on it.
- rasz 4y ago
  Its ridiculous that after someone claims your noise you just lie down and take it.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    The copyright fraud is so vast that there are fake artists with fake albums, fake songs and fake compilations of those. They take a song, rename it under a fake name, and then when you upload the actual song you get a copyright claim from the fake song. They especially do this with small and traditional record labels that do not have an online presence.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    Content ID automatically finds a copyright holder to pay with ads on your video of white noise. It's an automated system that Google built, and it's ridiculous. This is not about one creator vs another and filing counter-claims via DMCA, this is about extra-judicial automated bureaucracies designed by Google.
    - stock_toaster 4y ago
      I wonder how many of the ContentID claims are actually even real. With so little transparency, maybe the system just generates fake ones to pad earnings?
whyenot 4y ago
In YouTube world, you are guilty until proven innocent, and if you get too many "strikes" you get shut down and lose your voice on one of the biggest platforms for creators. The sad thing is TikTok and FB/Meta are even worse. We live in a world now where large corporations get to decide who can speak and who ceases to exist online. How sad, and how far we've strayed from the early dreams for the open internet.
j-bos 4y ago
I've noticed many infotainment youtubers joining Curiosity Stream to avoid this and the demonitization policies. Still curious how well it can hold against the eyeballs on youtube.
sen 4y ago
I have private access to some pretty cool motorsports/boat-racing/etc stuff that a majority of people don't get to see (prototype/development vehicle testing, etc). I thought it might be fun for me to make some videos of these and share them, with the full support of the owners/teams behind this stuff. They gave me extra access, let me film everything over 2 days (3 full days of work considering the remote location in another state etc), and I put my first video up on YouTube showing off a prototype vehicle that was going for a world record. The video went pretty viral... 8 digit views, got me 5 digit subscriber count, was posted on dozens and dozens of news sites and blogs and shared widely. I was excited, off to a great start with this whole YouTube thing. No music, no audio other than the engine sounds, absolutely zero reason anyone could possibly do a copyright strike... right? Nope, some church minister in some tiny country did a copyright strike saying they own the rights to the word "spirit" in my video title (it was part of the name of the vehicle itself)... so they got all the money I earned from that video + I got a strike on my channel and a scary warning from YouTube saying my entire Google account could get banned including my Gmail. I disputed it with a very clear explanation of the situation, and they quickly reply saying they sided with the complainant and they'll be ignoring all future disputes. Fuck YouTube/Google. Edit: I went back to find the emails from Google and realised the story is even crazier than I remember. YouTube never reviewed the dispute, they let the person making the claim review their own dispute!! > Hi [Name], > After reviewing your dispute, [Dodgy Fuck's Name] has decided that their copyright claim is still valid. > Copyrighted content: Spirit > Claimed by: [Dodgy Fuck's Name]
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  > so they got all the money I earned from that video Makes me wonder if anyone at Google is aware of the term "perverse incentive"
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Or "collaboration to defraud".
    - nikanj 4y ago
andrewstuart 4y ago
YouTube seems like one of the most easily disrupted services - not by small fry, but by the big guys. If Apple made a YouTube-alike or Microsoft, they would likely find the YT creators are champing at the bit to get onto their platform. Has there ever been a real go at YouTube by a company with significant resources? Yes I am aware of Nebula but it is not a serious competitor to YouTube. I say that because I tried to use it on PlayStation - which is where I watch all my YouTube and couldn't, which means Nebula is not a serious competitor. Any serious competitor must be available on all the most popular media consumption platforms, and it must not require signup/signin to start watching - that's the baseline set by YouTube. Even NetFlix - why have they not created a new service for user created content?
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  Probably because they would have to navigate the same lawsuits and agree to the same kind of automated take-down system to the satisfaction of the largest rights-holders (Sony, Warner Bros, Disney etc) See this comment [0] in this thread, the current incarnation of youtube is the result of millions spent in legal fees. What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? IIRC YouTube wasn't profitable until very recently. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488
  - andrewstuart 4y ago
    I don't agree that the big companies would be deterred by that. The CEO's of those huge companies aren't likely to be even interested in legal matters unless it's the DOJ calling about anti monopoly practices - that's what they pay their legal counsel for. I don't think they'd give the slightest rats about fighting out the content ownership issues, especially since YouTube has already shown that it can be done. >> What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? Why "little hope of success"? No-one at that level has even tried. It's completely different from trying to take on facebook, in which you need to build the network before the whole thing works. With user created content they can start at any size.
  - GuB-42 4y ago
jazzyjackson 4y ago
I appreciate that Fran has an example of monetizing content without claiming copyright (she digitizes public domain footage and is free to run ads on her channel, the money comes from an agreement with the broadcaster to advertise to her audience, nothing to do with the ownership of the content) People assume that without copyright there would be no way for artists to make an income, but the two aren't really related. It's actual purpose is to prevent art from being made unless it is sufficiently "original"
andrewstuart 4y ago
It should cost a small amount of money to lodge a copyright complaint, to deter drive-bys.
memorable 4y ago
Alternative front-end version: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=1qCM9L_FaFU https://yewtu.be/watch?v=1qCM9L_FaFU
- masswerk 4y ago
  > "The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported." – Hum…
  - memorable 4y ago
    Doesn't seem to happen to me on Firefox (Librewolf). What are you using?
    - masswerk 4y ago
      Safari 15.5 and Firefox 102.0.1 (64-bit, current) on macOS 11 (Big Sur) / M1. (May be a network issue. I'm located in Europe.)
WesBrownSQL 4y ago
Until it is litigated or you are charged and convicted it isn't against the law. YouTube and the entertainment industry have zero interest in your rights. Media companies make agreements between themselves. They make agreements with YouTube to avoid litigation. Larger YouTubers who make a living via YouTube don't have the motivation to band together, biting the hand that feeds you and all. "Because copyright protection happens so easily, and lasts so long, you should assume that any work you want to use is copyrighted, unless it is very old or produced by the U.S. government." https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543 https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543 The U.S. government would have to go to YouTube and assert they produced the work in question and then sue YouTube. It doesn't help there is no clear definition how much of a work you can use before it is considered infringement. This means each claim that is made and disputed could end up in court to be decided. I don't have the solution to this. Until new laws are passed to change the situation people without the means to challenge lose.
cato_the_elder 4y ago
She keeps saying "everybody's going to tell me I'm a whiner" with a ridiculous tone. She is indeed a whiner. Not because of protesting YouTube's ridiculous copyright system, but because she uses that smug tone to talk to people who owe her nothing, and are making reasonable suggestions (like syncing with alternative platforms) for mitigating the problem.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Having other people seizing the fruits of your work is upsetting. Syncing to other platforms is just more work and doesn't prevent the primary problem. Calling her a whiner is unnecessary abuse.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > Syncing to other platforms is just more work and doesn't prevent the primary problem. Maybe, but my objection isn't to the fact that she doesn't want to use alternative platforms. That's understandable. It's to how she looks down on people who dare to make that suggestion.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    The immediate problem is that her video got flagged, but the "real" problem is being over-reliant on youtube without having any leverage against censorship and racketeering. Even if the immediate problem were fixed, it would ultimately not change anything in the long run because it would only motivate uploaders to continue entrenching themselves on the website. You cannot have real change without competition. Being called a whiner is not "abusive". She complains about the website, yet she goes on to unfairly disparage the alternatives. By the end of the video she is patting herself on the back for being a "youtuber" and staying loyal to the website.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    > Syncing to other platforms is just more work Welcome to adulthood. She wants a full time income doing something fun, using a free platform that does the marketing for her at no cost and complains when the rug gets pulled. This is business. Even in a job you can be replaced, fired or your skills go out of date. Life is a constant fight, everyone has to be up for that.
II2II 4y ago
I am a bit saddened that Fran Blanche produced this video in the way she did. Fran is clearly, and justifiably, frustrated by the circumstances. She has every right to be. Yet claims like she owns the copyright if anybody since she owns an original reel is poorly articulated. I think Fran meant to say she may own the copyright to her transfer of the reel and she has the right to make a copy of the reel since the film is in the public domain. The copyright situation is a mess though. Another poster said that they nope out of the idea of creating content due to stuff like this. I understand that feeling. On the other hand, their content would simply be ripped and reposted on somewhere else without some sort of technical means to enforce copyright. Either way, people who know how to abuse the system are going to abuse the system to their own benefit. There is no effective means to combat that abuse. The courts are out of reach to most people. Even a company as big as Google would have trouble handling and verifying claims. Even if they could dedicate the resources, it would probably expose them to being successfully sued in borderline cases. (Fran can point to her original reel, not everyone can do the same.) EDIT: for those who are insisting that I am twisting Fran's words, I made it perfectly clear that she said if anybody. If you disagree with what I am saying, fine, but please don't claim that I am saying she said something she didn't because I am not.
- bloudermilk 4y ago
  Fran was unequivocal in her belief that no one can claim copyright on the content. If you’re referring to the quip she made along the lines of “if anyone” I think you’re missing the point of her video
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  > Yet claims like she owns the copyright if anybody since she owns an original reel is poorly articulated. I interpreted this as having a laugh at how ridiculous it is for someone else to claim it's their footage, "I have the original right here!"
  - II2II 4y ago
    Different people are going to interpret what she said in different was. In my case it was Fran venting her frustration. In my case, I realize she wasn't making a copyright claim, but it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine somebody out there would interpret Fran's words in that manner.
ilaksh 4y ago
What are some alternatives to YouTube? That's the fundamental problem, is centralizing everything like this. There should be some decentralized platforms.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  Odysee and Peertube are both decentralized. Still relatively small, but are the biggest I know of
  - RL_Quine 4y ago
    Odyswe is cryptocurrency garbage. Their “decentralized” system is just videos hosted on OVH.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      What's OVH? Don't they use LBRY? And it's honestly hard to avoid cryptocurrency for a decentralized platform. There needs to be incentive to host
- ehnto 4y ago
  The trouble is that YouTube is more of a social phenomenon than a technical platform. There's been countless technical recreations of YouTube, but people don't want to be there, they want to be part of the YouTube movement so to speak. They want to be YouTubers, they want to talk to YouTubers, watch YouTubers and so on. No one wants to be a Vimeoer. Videographers want to upload their videos to Vimeo, and it's just as good of a video platform as YouTube (better in some ways). But there's no social movement around it, or many other video platforms, and that's what people actually congregate to.
unityByFreedom 4y ago
Imagine you're the copyright adjudicator for this claim at YouTube. You don't know if the claim is accurate. If it is and you leave the content up, your employer might be fined, and you get a write-up from your boss. If you take the content down, no fine, no write-up. What would you do? Even if you try to side with creators, you might eventually be let go for making too many mistakes. I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off. If this is an accurate framing of the situation, then incentives may not be properly aligned. Alternatively, YouTube (and others) simply have a monopoly position that needs to be out-competed.
- rasz 4y ago
  >Imagine you're the copyright adjudicator for this claim at YouTube. there is no such thing. All YT is obligated to do is give you and claimant a place to voice your opinions, and if you still insist to own rights to a piece of content then claimant can file DMCA, if you counter DMCA then they are free to sue.
  - unityByFreedom 4y ago
    > I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off.
WebbWeaver 4y ago
Yes the free internet is dead and the implications are bad. You can win a battle but not the war so we have to deal with this shit. I don't know why we keep re-hashing how the internet is dead to knowledgable people who 'are not supposed to be there' or are not being financially supported from someplace. It is just true. These days it is VERY hard for a "consumer" wait sorry a "human product" to curate and share their own interests. Most popular internet platforms and forums are toxic to independents or people without money. While I'm sad that we're enabling content demolishing trolls but everyone around this topic is exhausted. I'm probably going to delete this but damn can we not. This conversation isnt productive and people who can make this outrage productive are too expensive. Every time I see something like this I do a spit take and water my plants with Brawndo cause Brawndo's got electrolytes because thats what plants crave. As an aside, I used to really love how cable tv attracted all of the advertising idiots while the internet wasn't pummeled to death with money and influencers. Cable and the internet had their own place. Now we see web destruction on a scale we cant replace or re-create a space for what the internet used to mean. There is no 'side stream' to filter out non consumer traffic.
- todorus 4y ago
  Internet is bigger than the mainstream. It's not just YouTube and Facebook. If you really wish to have a side stream, maybe go on 4Chan or visit the dark web. Because let's not pretend that the internet was easy to navigate back in the day. You wanted the alternative nichy stuff, you needed to work for that. That never changed, neither online nor offline.
  - WebbWeaver 4y ago
    >4Chan or visit the dark web Wow thanks for the advice. I cant believe I didn't know those existed.
    - 93po 4y ago
      Judging by the green name, you're new here. You might want to read the community guidelines. Snark doesn't add anything to a conversation and it's boring to read.
dqpb 4y ago
Google - ok with being evil since 2015
exabrial 4y ago
All of your YouTube creators are begging you to go to Nebula... probably time to listen
- latch 4y ago
  Off topic, but I never heard of nebula (don't watch much videos). It's amazing how slow that site loads for me. Their /videos takes around 10s to load. I need to wait almost 3 seconds for _something_ to show up on the page. https://cloud.typography.com/6361472/632446/css/fonts.css https://cloud.typography.com/6361472/632446/css/fonts.css takes ~700ms https://standard-fonts.s3.amazonaws.com/789323/56D15C61E7EF463A8.css https://standard-fonts.s3.amazonaws.com/789323/56D15C61E7EF4... takes 2.1 seconds. Even once cached, the entire site (e.g. search), is slow enough to be noticeable. About 9 years ago I worked for a fairly large (20+ million users) video platform. These numbers on catalog pages would have been barely accepted for an entire page load, let alone a couple CSS file.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 4y ago
Not your platform, not your business. She doesn’t want solutions and instead will just give up and go back to work. But for anyone else: your own domain, videos on s3, sponsors instead of ads. Pay a techie to set it up if you are not techie. Use YouTube too but just for traffic into the site. Shorter/lower quality video there with link to site for better videos. Your site will have the better UX! You can get them on a mail list. Get closer to the audience. See if they want to pay for a premium membership.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Isn’t S3 or AWS for that matter also subject to DMCA takedowns?
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    This is the beauty of using RESTful hypermedia! You can change video host without changing the URL your fans have bookmarked. Maybe use some Switzerland based host! In terms of the domain name system and takedowns: You are subject to the law still but I believe that it will be the law itself rather than a Go program in a google server saying “tough shit” Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
  - racingmars 4y ago
    Yes, but actual DMCA process, not YouTube's process that isn't really based on DMCA at all. The process DMCA uses is: 1) person claiming their copyright is being infringed sends a DMCA takedown notice to the platform. 2) Platform takes down the content (doesn't "keep it up and redirect revenue" like YouTube does) and notified the person who posted the content. 3) The person who posted the content can submit a counterclaim, at which point platform provider reinstates the content. Then the person claiming their copyright is being violated disagrees, they have to sue the person in federal court for copyright infringement at that point. Also there are penalties for making false DMCA claims. There don't appear to be ANY penalties for repeated, egregious violations of YouTube's own claim system. What YouTube is doing isn't DMCA enforcement AT ALL.
  - deleted 4y ago
vivegi 4y ago
Would a class-action lawsuit brought by content creators/owners who have been unfairly impacted by YT's poor enforcement of copyright strikes have a chance against the Alphabet/Google rent-seeking advertising juggernaut? It is quite sad and irritating that unencumbered content is under attack by IP trolls who raised dubious claims and are prevailing under YT's flawed system.
birdyrooster 4y ago
I would donate $50k for lawyer fees if other people would too
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sizzle 4y ago
Seems simple to kill this broken DMCA system as it is currently implemented…? Let’s say you create a program that people all around the world can run that uses random t0r exit nodes to submit GPT-3 filled DMCA take-down form submissions programmatically and varies it in a way that it can’t be profiled by anomaly detection systems related to submission characteristics, etc. Thoughts? Or how would you hypothetically improve the design of this theoretical thought-experiment?
aasasd 4y ago
I would be angry and irritated about this kind of shenanigans, if I didn't think that with this YouTube are slowly taking a shotgun and shooting right up their nose from both barrels. And I lately come to enjoy some nice corporate mess in slo-mo, in the spirit of J.G. Ballard's ‘Crash’. YouTube are a monopoly on public web tv. That needs to change, and YouTube are the ones who are gonna bring on that change.
amatecha 4y ago
This kind of bullshit is why I don't post anything to YouTube anymore. I only view YouTube content via Invidious, as well.
a123b456c 4y ago
Can you file a copyright claim against yourself, before anyone else does? And then accept your own appeal?
- ben0x539 4y ago
  It sounds like there can be multiple independent claims on the same video. I guess in theory they could be claiming content at different timestamps.
hjkl0 4y ago
Me: this is a bad title. And the video description doesn’t add anything either.
phtrivier 4y ago
I would love to see an experiment where various HN users create bogus - yet original - content (say, a single person saying "Hi mom", or something), then other HN users file copyright claims claiming they own "Hi" and / or "Mom". I'd grab my popcorn watching the results.
Pyrodogg 4y ago
The Lofi Girl streams were recently taken down by a false DMCA claim. https://twitter.com/lofigirl/status/1546601374527508480 https://twitter.com/lofigirl/status/1546601374527508480 After public outcry, YouTube issued an apology and banned the claimant. https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2022/07/12/lofi-girl-returns-youtube-apologizes-for-removing-popular-music-stream-due-to-abusive-copyright-notice/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2022/07/12/lofi-girl-... While I'm an occasional stream listener, I've been mostly away from tech for a month and only noticed the coverage in this video from TAETRO. "a big problem for music producers on youtube" - TAETRO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A49EKpd5rrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A49EKpd5rrE They talk about the Lofi Girl situation and also describe the same issue Fran describes but with sample-based music production (as opposed to sample-based video production). Even if you're using non-exclusive, royalty free samples, you can get screwed by another producer using the same samples. "My Video Was Demonetized by 16 Record Labels...I'm Pissed" - Rick Beato https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3NnrWrkKZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3NnrWrkKZM This is another take on the broader issue of hyper aggressive algorithms being poor judges of Fair Use. Rick has a few great videos on the subject (any many more on making music).
pasdechance 4y ago
I have watched a small number of videos about this topic. All of the videos make it seem like this is something easy to do: * create account * find victim * make claim * earn money I watched this one and thought to myself that it almost seemed like an ad for recruiting trolls. One of these content creators should create a second account and file claims against themselves, and perhaps other willing victims. Then produce a video about how easy it was to show the flaw in the system.
- cthor 4y ago
  The self-claiming thing has at least been done already (through the use of online music labels): <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w> and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo> YouTube doesn't let just anyone make ContentID claims and start trolling. You do need to jump through a few hoops to get an air of legitimacy first.
dusted 4y ago
As far as I understand, youtube is a private company, I don't see how their users could claim to have any rights at all on their platform ? Even if the copyright claims are illegal, youtube can still chose to do whatever they want in regard to blocking or removing content on their platform with no regard to anything or anybody. (I believe we need Internet access, e-mail and hosting of various types of media to be public infrastructure rather than spurious privately owned services) [edit] Of course this was downvoted, and that's fine, but tell me how I'm wrong, or what you disagree with..
toto444 4y ago
YT could charge people who make claims and pay people to investigate them. Wouldn't that solve the problem ? You make a claim ? That costs $50. You win : we refund you You lose : we make $50 And here you go
- tjpnz 4y ago
  Sounds good on the surface but the DMCA doesn't afford YouTube much leeway in being able to make such decisions.
Beegle 4y ago
I am super naive when it comes to just about everything and especially this. I never comment on HN because of this and because I know I’ll get flamed by the people on HN (but here goes this one time). I was curious though how easy it is to make a claim on a video and started the process on a video from one of my favorite creators. I did NOT finish but found that it is surprisingly easy just to start a claim. I (kind of) understand why Google/YT has created such an easy arbitration process once a claim has been made because they don’t want to deal with the legal headache, and the associated costs, with having to get in the middle if everything. What I don’t understand, and am hoping someone can explain to me without flaming me, is why they don’t make the process to START a claim a little more complicated. The way it is setup now, I could create a fairly anonymous (yeah, I know) Google account and then make a claim on just about any random YT content. There is no process at all to identify ME. As an example, if I want to market a mobile app in an app store, I have to provide proof of my business name, tax status, business license (if applicable in my local jurisdiction), etc. As another example, if I want to start a retail store that sells the Nintendo Switch, in order to buy the units at the “wholesale” price, I have to provide documentation of much of the same for marketing a mobile app plus I have to sign agreements that I won’t sell the units for a price outside the range dictated by the manufacturer. Lots of process involved in these two examples. Why does Google not require verification of at least being some sort of a real entity? Is it again just too much headache (i.e. work) to do so? Is it because that would be too exclusive and on this end of the spectrum they are actually defending the little guy by allowing anyone to lay claim to something? Thank you, btw, to the OP for introducing me to this channel. She has a very ‘interesting’ personality and some intriguing content.
- sneak 4y ago
  Because big pipes are biased toward big content because they know where the money is. It's basically a pro-censorship-by-default position at the behest of the big rightsholder cartels.
Danborg 4y ago
Seems like NASA should step in and help with this.
Asooka 4y ago
Copyright and its consequences have been a disaster for human culture. We should just have author's rights, which must be non transferable. Non profit file sharing should be allowed in all cases. I say this because we effectively live in that scenario, except sometimes, very rarely, someone is sued if they get big enough.
hoistbypetard 4y ago
That's outrageous. Also, in her rant about people who tell her to lawyer up, she referred to her hypothetical interlocutor as "colonel trucknutz." I plan to steal that and use it in conversation to address people when they disagree with me.
hellisothers 4y ago
Several complaints here (including Fran’s) come from religious organizations, what is the connection there?
solar-mariner 4y ago
So what if you posted content to Youtube, and then soon afterwards, issued a DMCA complaint against your own content, using another account / identity that you own? What effect would that have on other subsequent DMCA complaints?

444 points by masswerk 4y ago

nvahalik 4y ago

So the system is rigged? Why are people still on YouTube?

danielheath 4y ago
Creators are there because it pays them (until it doesn't). YT have the largest viewing audience and the most advertising spend.
iancmceachern 4y ago
There isn't a real alternative. Many content creators have created their own sites (like corridor crew), and there are theme specific sites like nebula or masterclass, but nothing with the broad appeal and audience of youtube
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  Somebody with deep pockets could have a crack at it. You could pay the top YouTubers to host content on both platforms, then add some special bonuses for exclusive content. I really think Netflix should have a crack at it. (But clearly labeled as a different kind of thing. )
  - imran-iq 4y ago
    Microsoft already tried with mixer against twitch, its really hard to get users to move to a new platform when they are used to the old one
    - qbrass 4y ago
      I don't use Twitch because I'm not in the Twitch demographic, but I refuse to use Mixer because of how Microsoft was trying to push it on me.
masswerk 4y ago
Personally, I don't think that the system being rigged is the problem, but the path to justice being obstructed. Thus, there is no correction and no remedy. And, why are people still on YT? Well, because it's where everybody is. I.e., critical accumulation, out ruling any other considerations. It may turn out that having a viable path to justice on such a system of critical mass may be as important as having anti-trust clauses.
- phibz 4y ago
  Not allowing the alleging party to judge the response to the claim would cut down on this sort of thing. But that's not part of the DMCA so YT won't do it. They just care about avoiding liability.
rexreed 4y ago
Video consumers / watchers >>>> Video / content creators. YouTube makes money monetizing eyeballs. There are a LOT of eyeballs, much more so than content creators. Every time one content creator gets smashed, another one pops up. So who does YouTube care about? The creators? No way. They want the eyeballs that they sell the advertisers. The content creators are the inconvenient intermediary. If Google / YouTube could realize their fantasy, they'd automatically create all the content themselves with ML or some super amazing generator and get rid of the content creators altogether.
paulpauper 4y ago
because none of the alternatives even come close in terms of viewers, virality, monetization 15 years later and still nothing even close to a viable YouTube alternative.
worthless-trash 4y ago
Same reason people still make IOS apps.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
You have to go where the audience is at, and Youtube is a huge audience.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Look up 'preferential attachment'.

PostOnce 4y ago

If 1000 big youtubers put $100/month toward an association or union of some kind, they could afford a $100,000/month legal team to combat this. Obviously, there are more than 1000 big youtubers. The fee could be reduced and the budget increased by growing the union.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
All it would take is Youtube randomly banning a few of said big Youtubers to really cut morale into an organized effort like this. That's precisely what makes them so powerful, they can cut you off at any moment without a legitimate excuse.
- drdrey 4y ago
  How is that in Youtube’s interest?
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    Preventing their talent from organizing? Squashing unions and labor movements is as old as labor itself. Think about it: does Amazon really stand to lose everything if a warehouse full of minimum wage workers demand healthcare? No. Then why does Amazon fight it? For control, plain and simple.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      But YouTube is actually just hurt by the copyright trolls. YouTube's best interest would be for the trolls to be excised so real creators wouldn't get burned out and driven off.
      - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
        If this were true, they would do something about the trolls. But they're not.

breput 4y ago

tl;dw: Fran is a YouTube creator (mostly electronics and space videos) and has been having ongoing issues with illegitimate copyright claims made against her YouTube videos, including NASA public domain content and the sound of wind(!). She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital, uploaded, and then an unclear party made a claim against that video which is currently successful. She also discusses "Visual Claim"[0] and how this will make things worse and how copyright trolls have nothing to lose with doubling down on illegitimate claims. One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube. That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en

CoastalCoder 4y ago
Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I may be totally off base with those terms.)
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.
  - rolph 4y ago
    every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.
- breput 4y ago
  She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago

Every time I feel myself wanting to make content, I see stuff like this and I nope out of it. Why put so much effort into sharing your passion with the world only to be frozen out by some morons that are enabled by a billion-dollar company that doesn't care about you? Copyright strikes are such a blatant example of the legal system being bought and paid for by the wealthy, it's not even funny.

armchairhacker 4y ago
Even without demonetization, just getting views as a content creator is really hard. You only see those who succeed. Nothing against creating content for yourself, or your friends, or future people though. Just don't expect fame or money.
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  Absolutely, which must make this all the more frustrating. If you're one of the lucky few to build a large audience and you draw the attention of the trolls, that would drive me insane.
brightball 4y ago
I wonder if this happens with podcasts?
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Realistically, any popular creator is producing hundreds or eventually thousands of videos. If some of them get locked out, it's still a smart portion of their overall channel. It is a problem, but it's not genuinely an obstacle for creators finding audiences. Making good content that people like and getting enough traction to have a userbase is orders of magnitude more of a risk than getting a copyright strike.
woojoo666 4y ago
Post on decentralized platforms. Peertube, Odysee, etc. They are still small for now but they need to start somewhere. You can even set it up so any video you post to youtube gets automatically mirrored to the other platforms

29athrowaway 4y ago

It's so ridiculous that if you generate completely pseudorandom white noise and upload it, there will be copyright claims on it.

rasz 4y ago
Its ridiculous that after someone claims your noise you just lie down and take it.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  The copyright fraud is so vast that there are fake artists with fake albums, fake songs and fake compilations of those. They take a song, rename it under a fake name, and then when you upload the actual song you get a copyright claim from the fake song. They especially do this with small and traditional record labels that do not have an online presence.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  Content ID automatically finds a copyright holder to pay with ads on your video of white noise. It's an automated system that Google built, and it's ridiculous. This is not about one creator vs another and filing counter-claims via DMCA, this is about extra-judicial automated bureaucracies designed by Google.
  - stock_toaster 4y ago
    I wonder how many of the ContentID claims are actually even real. With so little transparency, maybe the system just generates fake ones to pad earnings?

whyenot 4y ago

In YouTube world, you are guilty until proven innocent, and if you get too many "strikes" you get shut down and lose your voice on one of the biggest platforms for creators. The sad thing is TikTok and FB/Meta are even worse. We live in a world now where large corporations get to decide who can speak and who ceases to exist online. How sad, and how far we've strayed from the early dreams for the open internet.

j-bos 4y ago

I've noticed many infotainment youtubers joining Curiosity Stream to avoid this and the demonitization policies. Still curious how well it can hold against the eyeballs on youtube.

sen 4y ago

I have private access to some pretty cool motorsports/boat-racing/etc stuff that a majority of people don't get to see (prototype/development vehicle testing, etc). I thought it might be fun for me to make some videos of these and share them, with the full support of the owners/teams behind this stuff. They gave me extra access, let me film everything over 2 days (3 full days of work considering the remote location in another state etc), and I put my first video up on YouTube showing off a prototype vehicle that was going for a world record. The video went pretty viral... 8 digit views, got me 5 digit subscriber count, was posted on dozens and dozens of news sites and blogs and shared widely. I was excited, off to a great start with this whole YouTube thing. No music, no audio other than the engine sounds, absolutely zero reason anyone could possibly do a copyright strike... right? Nope, some church minister in some tiny country did a copyright strike saying they own the rights to the word "spirit" in my video title (it was part of the name of the vehicle itself)... so they got all the money I earned from that video + I got a strike on my channel and a scary warning from YouTube saying my entire Google account could get banned including my Gmail. I disputed it with a very clear explanation of the situation, and they quickly reply saying they sided with the complainant and they'll be ignoring all future disputes. Fuck YouTube/Google. Edit: I went back to find the emails from Google and realised the story is even crazier than I remember. YouTube never reviewed the dispute, they let the person making the claim review their own dispute!! > Hi [Name], > After reviewing your dispute, [Dodgy Fuck's Name] has decided that their copyright claim is still valid. > Copyrighted content: Spirit > Claimed by: [Dodgy Fuck's Name]

jazzyjackson 4y ago
> so they got all the money I earned from that video Makes me wonder if anyone at Google is aware of the term "perverse incentive"
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Or "collaboration to defraud".
  - nikanj 4y ago

andrewstuart 4y ago

YouTube seems like one of the most easily disrupted services - not by small fry, but by the big guys. If Apple made a YouTube-alike or Microsoft, they would likely find the YT creators are champing at the bit to get onto their platform. Has there ever been a real go at YouTube by a company with significant resources? Yes I am aware of Nebula but it is not a serious competitor to YouTube. I say that because I tried to use it on PlayStation - which is where I watch all my YouTube and couldn't, which means Nebula is not a serious competitor. Any serious competitor must be available on all the most popular media consumption platforms, and it must not require signup/signin to start watching - that's the baseline set by YouTube. Even NetFlix - why have they not created a new service for user created content?

jazzyjackson 4y ago
Probably because they would have to navigate the same lawsuits and agree to the same kind of automated take-down system to the satisfaction of the largest rights-holders (Sony, Warner Bros, Disney etc) See this comment [0] in this thread, the current incarnation of youtube is the result of millions spent in legal fees. What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? IIRC YouTube wasn't profitable until very recently. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  I don't agree that the big companies would be deterred by that. The CEO's of those huge companies aren't likely to be even interested in legal matters unless it's the DOJ calling about anti monopoly practices - that's what they pay their legal counsel for. I don't think they'd give the slightest rats about fighting out the content ownership issues, especially since YouTube has already shown that it can be done. >> What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? Why "little hope of success"? No-one at that level has even tried. It's completely different from trying to take on facebook, in which you need to build the network before the whole thing works. With user created content they can start at any size.
- GuB-42 4y ago

jazzyjackson 4y ago

I appreciate that Fran has an example of monetizing content without claiming copyright (she digitizes public domain footage and is free to run ads on her channel, the money comes from an agreement with the broadcaster to advertise to her audience, nothing to do with the ownership of the content) People assume that without copyright there would be no way for artists to make an income, but the two aren't really related. It's actual purpose is to prevent art from being made unless it is sufficiently "original"

andrewstuart 4y ago

It should cost a small amount of money to lodge a copyright complaint, to deter drive-bys.

memorable 4y ago

Alternative front-end version: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=1qCM9L_FaFU https://yewtu.be/watch?v=1qCM9L_FaFU

masswerk 4y ago
> "The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported." – Hum…
- memorable 4y ago
  Doesn't seem to happen to me on Firefox (Librewolf). What are you using?
  - masswerk 4y ago
    Safari 15.5 and Firefox 102.0.1 (64-bit, current) on macOS 11 (Big Sur) / M1. (May be a network issue. I'm located in Europe.)

WesBrownSQL 4y ago

Until it is litigated or you are charged and convicted it isn't against the law. YouTube and the entertainment industry have zero interest in your rights. Media companies make agreements between themselves. They make agreements with YouTube to avoid litigation. Larger YouTubers who make a living via YouTube don't have the motivation to band together, biting the hand that feeds you and all. "Because copyright protection happens so easily, and lasts so long, you should assume that any work you want to use is copyrighted, unless it is very old or produced by the U.S. government." https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543 https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543 The U.S. government would have to go to YouTube and assert they produced the work in question and then sue YouTube. It doesn't help there is no clear definition how much of a work you can use before it is considered infringement. This means each claim that is made and disputed could end up in court to be decided. I don't have the solution to this. Until new laws are passed to change the situation people without the means to challenge lose.

cato_the_elder 4y ago

She keeps saying "everybody's going to tell me I'm a whiner" with a ridiculous tone. She is indeed a whiner. Not because of protesting YouTube's ridiculous copyright system, but because she uses that smug tone to talk to people who owe her nothing, and are making reasonable suggestions (like syncing with alternative platforms) for mitigating the problem.

mlyle 4y ago
Having other people seizing the fruits of your work is upsetting. Syncing to other platforms is just more work and doesn't prevent the primary problem. Calling her a whiner is unnecessary abuse.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > Syncing to other platforms is just more work and doesn't prevent the primary problem. Maybe, but my objection isn't to the fact that she doesn't want to use alternative platforms. That's understandable. It's to how she looks down on people who dare to make that suggestion.
- cowtools 4y ago
  The immediate problem is that her video got flagged, but the "real" problem is being over-reliant on youtube without having any leverage against censorship and racketeering. Even if the immediate problem were fixed, it would ultimately not change anything in the long run because it would only motivate uploaders to continue entrenching themselves on the website. You cannot have real change without competition. Being called a whiner is not "abusive". She complains about the website, yet she goes on to unfairly disparage the alternatives. By the end of the video she is patting herself on the back for being a "youtuber" and staying loyal to the website.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  > Syncing to other platforms is just more work Welcome to adulthood. She wants a full time income doing something fun, using a free platform that does the marketing for her at no cost and complains when the rug gets pulled. This is business. Even in a job you can be replaced, fired or your skills go out of date. Life is a constant fight, everyone has to be up for that.

II2II 4y ago

I am a bit saddened that Fran Blanche produced this video in the way she did. Fran is clearly, and justifiably, frustrated by the circumstances. She has every right to be. Yet claims like she owns the copyright if anybody since she owns an original reel is poorly articulated. I think Fran meant to say she may own the copyright to her transfer of the reel and she has the right to make a copy of the reel since the film is in the public domain. The copyright situation is a mess though. Another poster said that they nope out of the idea of creating content due to stuff like this. I understand that feeling. On the other hand, their content would simply be ripped and reposted on somewhere else without some sort of technical means to enforce copyright. Either way, people who know how to abuse the system are going to abuse the system to their own benefit. There is no effective means to combat that abuse. The courts are out of reach to most people. Even a company as big as Google would have trouble handling and verifying claims. Even if they could dedicate the resources, it would probably expose them to being successfully sued in borderline cases. (Fran can point to her original reel, not everyone can do the same.) EDIT: for those who are insisting that I am twisting Fran's words, I made it perfectly clear that she said if anybody. If you disagree with what I am saying, fine, but please don't claim that I am saying she said something she didn't because I am not.

bloudermilk 4y ago
Fran was unequivocal in her belief that no one can claim copyright on the content. If you’re referring to the quip she made along the lines of “if anyone” I think you’re missing the point of her video
jazzyjackson 4y ago
> Yet claims like she owns the copyright if anybody since she owns an original reel is poorly articulated. I interpreted this as having a laugh at how ridiculous it is for someone else to claim it's their footage, "I have the original right here!"
- II2II 4y ago
  Different people are going to interpret what she said in different was. In my case it was Fran venting her frustration. In my case, I realize she wasn't making a copyright claim, but it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine somebody out there would interpret Fran's words in that manner.

ilaksh 4y ago

What are some alternatives to YouTube? That's the fundamental problem, is centralizing everything like this. There should be some decentralized platforms.

woojoo666 4y ago
Odysee and Peertube are both decentralized. Still relatively small, but are the biggest I know of
- RL_Quine 4y ago
  Odyswe is cryptocurrency garbage. Their “decentralized” system is just videos hosted on OVH.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    What's OVH? Don't they use LBRY? And it's honestly hard to avoid cryptocurrency for a decentralized platform. There needs to be incentive to host
ehnto 4y ago
The trouble is that YouTube is more of a social phenomenon than a technical platform. There's been countless technical recreations of YouTube, but people don't want to be there, they want to be part of the YouTube movement so to speak. They want to be YouTubers, they want to talk to YouTubers, watch YouTubers and so on. No one wants to be a Vimeoer. Videographers want to upload their videos to Vimeo, and it's just as good of a video platform as YouTube (better in some ways). But there's no social movement around it, or many other video platforms, and that's what people actually congregate to.

unityByFreedom 4y ago

Imagine you're the copyright adjudicator for this claim at YouTube. You don't know if the claim is accurate. If it is and you leave the content up, your employer might be fined, and you get a write-up from your boss. If you take the content down, no fine, no write-up. What would you do? Even if you try to side with creators, you might eventually be let go for making too many mistakes. I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off. If this is an accurate framing of the situation, then incentives may not be properly aligned. Alternatively, YouTube (and others) simply have a monopoly position that needs to be out-competed.

rasz 4y ago
>Imagine you're the copyright adjudicator for this claim at YouTube. there is no such thing. All YT is obligated to do is give you and claimant a place to voice your opinions, and if you still insist to own rights to a piece of content then claimant can file DMCA, if you counter DMCA then they are free to sue.
- unityByFreedom 4y ago
  > I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off.

WebbWeaver 4y ago

Yes the free internet is dead and the implications are bad. You can win a battle but not the war so we have to deal with this shit. I don't know why we keep re-hashing how the internet is dead to knowledgable people who 'are not supposed to be there' or are not being financially supported from someplace. It is just true. These days it is VERY hard for a "consumer" wait sorry a "human product" to curate and share their own interests. Most popular internet platforms and forums are toxic to independents or people without money. While I'm sad that we're enabling content demolishing trolls but everyone around this topic is exhausted. I'm probably going to delete this but damn can we not. This conversation isnt productive and people who can make this outrage productive are too expensive. Every time I see something like this I do a spit take and water my plants with Brawndo cause Brawndo's got electrolytes because thats what plants crave. As an aside, I used to really love how cable tv attracted all of the advertising idiots while the internet wasn't pummeled to death with money and influencers. Cable and the internet had their own place. Now we see web destruction on a scale we cant replace or re-create a space for what the internet used to mean. There is no 'side stream' to filter out non consumer traffic.

todorus 4y ago
Internet is bigger than the mainstream. It's not just YouTube and Facebook. If you really wish to have a side stream, maybe go on 4Chan or visit the dark web. Because let's not pretend that the internet was easy to navigate back in the day. You wanted the alternative nichy stuff, you needed to work for that. That never changed, neither online nor offline.
- WebbWeaver 4y ago
  >4Chan or visit the dark web Wow thanks for the advice. I cant believe I didn't know those existed.
  - 93po 4y ago
    Judging by the green name, you're new here. You might want to read the community guidelines. Snark doesn't add anything to a conversation and it's boring to read.

dqpb 4y ago

Google - ok with being evil since 2015

exabrial 4y ago

All of your YouTube creators are begging you to go to Nebula... probably time to listen

latch 4y ago
Off topic, but I never heard of nebula (don't watch much videos). It's amazing how slow that site loads for me. Their /videos takes around 10s to load. I need to wait almost 3 seconds for _something_ to show up on the page. https://cloud.typography.com/6361472/632446/css/fonts.css https://cloud.typography.com/6361472/632446/css/fonts.css takes ~700ms https://standard-fonts.s3.amazonaws.com/789323/56D15C61E7EF463A8.css https://standard-fonts.s3.amazonaws.com/789323/56D15C61E7EF4... takes 2.1 seconds. Even once cached, the entire site (e.g. search), is slow enough to be noticeable. About 9 years ago I worked for a fairly large (20+ million users) video platform. These numbers on catalog pages would have been barely accepted for an entire page load, let alone a couple CSS file.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

quickthrower2 4y ago

Not your platform, not your business. She doesn’t want solutions and instead will just give up and go back to work. But for anyone else: your own domain, videos on s3, sponsors instead of ads. Pay a techie to set it up if you are not techie. Use YouTube too but just for traffic into the site. Shorter/lower quality video there with link to site for better videos. Your site will have the better UX! You can get them on a mail list. Get closer to the audience. See if they want to pay for a premium membership.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Isn’t S3 or AWS for that matter also subject to DMCA takedowns?
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  This is the beauty of using RESTful hypermedia! You can change video host without changing the URL your fans have bookmarked. Maybe use some Switzerland based host! In terms of the domain name system and takedowns: You are subject to the law still but I believe that it will be the law itself rather than a Go program in a google server saying “tough shit” Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
- racingmars 4y ago
  Yes, but actual DMCA process, not YouTube's process that isn't really based on DMCA at all. The process DMCA uses is: 1) person claiming their copyright is being infringed sends a DMCA takedown notice to the platform. 2) Platform takes down the content (doesn't "keep it up and redirect revenue" like YouTube does) and notified the person who posted the content. 3) The person who posted the content can submit a counterclaim, at which point platform provider reinstates the content. Then the person claiming their copyright is being violated disagrees, they have to sue the person in federal court for copyright infringement at that point. Also there are penalties for making false DMCA claims. There don't appear to be ANY penalties for repeated, egregious violations of YouTube's own claim system. What YouTube is doing isn't DMCA enforcement AT ALL.
- deleted 4y ago

vivegi 4y ago

Would a class-action lawsuit brought by content creators/owners who have been unfairly impacted by YT's poor enforcement of copyright strikes have a chance against the Alphabet/Google rent-seeking advertising juggernaut? It is quite sad and irritating that unencumbered content is under attack by IP trolls who raised dubious claims and are prevailing under YT's flawed system.

birdyrooster 4y ago

I would donate $50k for lawyer fees if other people would too

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sizzle 4y ago

Seems simple to kill this broken DMCA system as it is currently implemented…? Let’s say you create a program that people all around the world can run that uses random t0r exit nodes to submit GPT-3 filled DMCA take-down form submissions programmatically and varies it in a way that it can’t be profiled by anomaly detection systems related to submission characteristics, etc. Thoughts? Or how would you hypothetically improve the design of this theoretical thought-experiment?

aasasd 4y ago

I would be angry and irritated about this kind of shenanigans, if I didn't think that with this YouTube are slowly taking a shotgun and shooting right up their nose from both barrels. And I lately come to enjoy some nice corporate mess in slo-mo, in the spirit of J.G. Ballard's ‘Crash’. YouTube are a monopoly on public web tv. That needs to change, and YouTube are the ones who are gonna bring on that change.

amatecha 4y ago

This kind of bullshit is why I don't post anything to YouTube anymore. I only view YouTube content via Invidious, as well.

a123b456c 4y ago

Can you file a copyright claim against yourself, before anyone else does? And then accept your own appeal?

ben0x539 4y ago
It sounds like there can be multiple independent claims on the same video. I guess in theory they could be claiming content at different timestamps.

hjkl0 4y ago

Me: this is a bad title. And the video description doesn’t add anything either.

phtrivier 4y ago

I would love to see an experiment where various HN users create bogus - yet original - content (say, a single person saying "Hi mom", or something), then other HN users file copyright claims claiming they own "Hi" and / or "Mom". I'd grab my popcorn watching the results.

Pyrodogg 4y ago

The Lofi Girl streams were recently taken down by a false DMCA claim. https://twitter.com/lofigirl/status/1546601374527508480 https://twitter.com/lofigirl/status/1546601374527508480 After public outcry, YouTube issued an apology and banned the claimant. https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2022/07/12/lofi-girl-returns-youtube-apologizes-for-removing-popular-music-stream-due-to-abusive-copyright-notice/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2022/07/12/lofi-girl-... While I'm an occasional stream listener, I've been mostly away from tech for a month and only noticed the coverage in this video from TAETRO. "a big problem for music producers on youtube" - TAETRO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A49EKpd5rrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A49EKpd5rrE They talk about the Lofi Girl situation and also describe the same issue Fran describes but with sample-based music production (as opposed to sample-based video production). Even if you're using non-exclusive, royalty free samples, you can get screwed by another producer using the same samples. "My Video Was Demonetized by 16 Record Labels...I'm Pissed" - Rick Beato https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3NnrWrkKZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3NnrWrkKZM This is another take on the broader issue of hyper aggressive algorithms being poor judges of Fair Use. Rick has a few great videos on the subject (any many more on making music).

pasdechance 4y ago

I have watched a small number of videos about this topic. All of the videos make it seem like this is something easy to do: * create account * find victim * make claim * earn money I watched this one and thought to myself that it almost seemed like an ad for recruiting trolls. One of these content creators should create a second account and file claims against themselves, and perhaps other willing victims. Then produce a video about how easy it was to show the flaw in the system.

cthor 4y ago
The self-claiming thing has at least been done already (through the use of online music labels): <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w> and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo> YouTube doesn't let just anyone make ContentID claims and start trolling. You do need to jump through a few hoops to get an air of legitimacy first.

dusted 4y ago

As far as I understand, youtube is a private company, I don't see how their users could claim to have any rights at all on their platform ? Even if the copyright claims are illegal, youtube can still chose to do whatever they want in regard to blocking or removing content on their platform with no regard to anything or anybody. (I believe we need Internet access, e-mail and hosting of various types of media to be public infrastructure rather than spurious privately owned services) [edit] Of course this was downvoted, and that's fine, but tell me how I'm wrong, or what you disagree with..

toto444 4y ago

YT could charge people who make claims and pay people to investigate them. Wouldn't that solve the problem ? You make a claim ? That costs $50. You win : we refund you You lose : we make $50 And here you go

tjpnz 4y ago
Sounds good on the surface but the DMCA doesn't afford YouTube much leeway in being able to make such decisions.

Beegle 4y ago

I am super naive when it comes to just about everything and especially this. I never comment on HN because of this and because I know I’ll get flamed by the people on HN (but here goes this one time). I was curious though how easy it is to make a claim on a video and started the process on a video from one of my favorite creators. I did NOT finish but found that it is surprisingly easy just to start a claim. I (kind of) understand why Google/YT has created such an easy arbitration process once a claim has been made because they don’t want to deal with the legal headache, and the associated costs, with having to get in the middle if everything. What I don’t understand, and am hoping someone can explain to me without flaming me, is why they don’t make the process to START a claim a little more complicated. The way it is setup now, I could create a fairly anonymous (yeah, I know) Google account and then make a claim on just about any random YT content. There is no process at all to identify ME. As an example, if I want to market a mobile app in an app store, I have to provide proof of my business name, tax status, business license (if applicable in my local jurisdiction), etc. As another example, if I want to start a retail store that sells the Nintendo Switch, in order to buy the units at the “wholesale” price, I have to provide documentation of much of the same for marketing a mobile app plus I have to sign agreements that I won’t sell the units for a price outside the range dictated by the manufacturer. Lots of process involved in these two examples. Why does Google not require verification of at least being some sort of a real entity? Is it again just too much headache (i.e. work) to do so? Is it because that would be too exclusive and on this end of the spectrum they are actually defending the little guy by allowing anyone to lay claim to something? Thank you, btw, to the OP for introducing me to this channel. She has a very ‘interesting’ personality and some intriguing content.

sneak 4y ago
Because big pipes are biased toward big content because they know where the money is. It's basically a pro-censorship-by-default position at the behest of the big rightsholder cartels.

Danborg 4y ago

Seems like NASA should step in and help with this.

Asooka 4y ago

Copyright and its consequences have been a disaster for human culture. We should just have author's rights, which must be non transferable. Non profit file sharing should be allowed in all cases. I say this because we effectively live in that scenario, except sometimes, very rarely, someone is sued if they get big enough.

hoistbypetard 4y ago

That's outrageous. Also, in her rant about people who tell her to lawyer up, she referred to her hypothetical interlocutor as "colonel trucknutz." I plan to steal that and use it in conversation to address people when they disagree with me.

hellisothers 4y ago

Several complaints here (including Fran’s) come from religious organizations, what is the connection there?

solar-mariner 4y ago

So what if you posted content to Youtube, and then soon afterwards, issued a DMCA complaint against your own content, using another account / identity that you own? What effect would that have on other subsequent DMCA complaints?