8 ms·

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, e

• 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
      Or ”fuck you, we still made money”
  • acomjean 4y ago
    I wonder why its "all the money" not some portion of it. I mean if you make a documentary with historic footage, you have to clear (pay to use) each piece of footage you use. If you use a clip it doesn't mean they own your documentary.
    • recursive 4y ago
      Apparently, you can use the same scheme to get half your money back. 1. Commission some original background music on fiverr with copyright attribution. 2. Put it in a video. Post on youtube. 3. Copyright claim your own video from a different channel. 4. Show your copyright info if necessary. This way, you still get a fraction of your own video revenue by playing both sides.
• masswerk 4y ago
  This is pretty unbelievable! Not that I would doubt your account, but rather the world, actually…
  • mlyle 4y ago
    The workflow Youtube has is pretty bizarre. Step 1 is dispute claim. Step 1A is the claimant choosing to release or reinstate the claim. Step 2, if they reinstate the claim, you can "appeal". Step 2A, the claimant can either release the claim, or file a formal DMCA notice. Step 3, if they file a formal DMCA notice-- you can file a DMCA counter-notification. Step 3A, if they disagree, they can sue. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12104471#zippy=%2Cwhat-can-i-do-if-my-appeal-was-rejected-and-my-video-was-taken-down https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12104471#zippy=%2C...
    • unityByFreedom 4y ago
      > The workflow Youtube has is pretty bizarre. Is it? If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense. It does seem like a great reason for creators to not publish on YouTube, however. Once there is sufficient competition I would expect them to start adjudicating. And before someone jumps in and blames the money train, capitalism, etc. Please let me know how you would run a business that is not profitable. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere.
      • masswerk 4y ago
        The problem being, there must be at least one, unique competitor of critical mass. Otherwise, YT will be always the dominant platform.
        • unityByFreedom 4y ago
          I agree that the FTC should be looking at tech. Personally I'd like to see them aimed at regional broadband ISP monopolies first, since that is an underlying infrastructure for the services we use. I'm not sure where the FTC is on this, but I know the focus in media has shifted in recent years from Comcast etc. to FAANG. Perhaps that's because the problems from the platform-based monopolies enabled by ISPs are closer and thus more apparent to us. Or, maybe it's a campaign propped up by ISPs to take the focus off of them.
• ncmncm 4y ago
  Take the video down so the complainant does not get the cash, anyway...
  • sen 4y ago
    I did, and deleted my channel, but the damage is done.
    • xhxhskrry 4y ago
      Post it on rumble. Not so you get money. Simply so one more good peice of content goes to the competition.
    • prpl 4y ago
      maybe you could put it back up, then preemptively file a copyright claim against yourself.
      • Akronymus 4y ago
        Reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPIC2A_YeI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPIC2A_YeI0
• phibz 4y ago
  The DMCA does not require YouTube to be involved in any part of the judgement. By just being the messenger YT is granted legal immunity for their part in spreading the alleged infringing work. The complaintent is the judge _by design_! The law is broken and needs to change.
  • jjoonathan 4y ago
    Is it? I thought that once the situation was contested by both sides, youtube had the option to default either way, and it was simply their deci$ion to side with claimants because the traditional claimants held a ton of media licenses while individual creators held few.
  • gpm 4y ago
    My understanding of the DMCA is that the person receiving the complaint is the judge by design of the law. The complainant submits a complaint, the receiver submits a counter notice, youtube is granted immunity to put the content back up after 14 days (unless the complainant initiates a lawsuit within that timeframe) and the complainant has no recourse but to take the alleged-infringer to court.
    • cmeacham98 4y ago
      Ultimately, you are correct, but the problem here is that 14 days. Effectively anyone can DoS your content for 14 days just by submitting a form online. Technically, submitting a copyright claim with blatantly false information is perjury, but your only recourse as the victim is to beg a prosecutor to take the perpetrator to court over it. There is no civil remedy for false DMCA takedowns. As far as I am aware, not a single person has ever been convicted of perjury because of information supplied in a DMCA takedown.
      • gpm 4y ago
        This is all a bit besides my point, which is that youtube's system is not just the system required by law, but much friendlier to the accuser. That said, there are also civil penalties for false takedown notices under 512(f), which I believe have been successfully litigated. Still, the effort vs reward in litigating them is almost never worth it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
• jjoonathan 4y ago
  I feel like I've been hearing this same story every few months for a decade. Despicable.
• websap 4y ago
  Is it possible to claim copyright on videos uploaded by Alphabet and all it's subsidiaries - Google, Youtube, Waymo, etc?
  • jjoonathan 4y ago
    Given how many of these claims are A. scripted and B. bullshit, I'm sure that they have exempted themselves from their own shitty rules.
• admax88qqq 4y ago
  There should be an option to appeal after this step. Did you ever do that?
• sudosysgen 4y ago
  You need to sue them. It's not about YouTube, the way it's working is how the law is written.
• b0afc375b5 4y ago
  Interesting. Does this mean that anyone can claim any content from any YouTube content creator? I'm curious why this isn't being done more frequently, but if it is, what recourse do YouTube content creators have to still make it profitable for themselves.
  • madeofpalk 4y ago
    Video game developer Bungie's had a blow a few months back where a disgruntled player started 'impersonating' (in quotes - they just created a gmail account) Bungie's IP lawyers to issue fake DCMA takedowns for popular youtubers videos. Bungie is now suing them. I'm surprised they didn't go harder after Youtube, but I guess that's a lot more difficult in court. https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-senders-of-fake-destiny-dmca-notices-220328/ https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-send...
    • acomjean 4y ago
      >Does this mean that anyone can claim any content from any YouTube content creator? According to the article "yes", but google working on it. I'm surprised Bungie didn't go after google. They clearly talked to them, but Google's has a lot of money, as opposed to random disgruntled player.
  • kevingadd 4y ago
    Yes, anyone can claim your content. The only solutions are to be big and rich enough to throw your legal weight around or to exploit the same broken system to claim your own content (naturally this means paying extra fees to gatekeepers and potentially still splitting revenue with scammers)
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• rasz 4y ago
  So just like in Fran story you decided to lie down and take it? 8 digit views equals ~$30-60K payout, plenty to pay for a lawyer and keep fighting.
  • geoffeg 4y ago
    But you didn't get the 30-60k payout to pay the lawyer.
    • rasz 4y ago
      Is it really that hard to find a lawyer willing to write couple of letters for 50% of ~$50K windfall?
  • 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    All the money goes to the person making the infringement claim.
    • rasz 4y ago
      YT claims they will reverse the transfer if its counter claimed. https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/28/11532734/youtube-complaint-takedown-copyright-monetization-reversal https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/28/11532734/youtube-complain... "When both a creator and someone making a claim choose to monetize a video, we will continue to run ads on that video and hold the resulting revenue separately," the company said. "Once the Content ID claim or dispute is resolved, we'll pay out that revenue to the appropriate party."
  • pjc50 4y ago
    The more serious problem is that during that process they'd be banned from Google. Bus I suppose that might be worth the weeks of work to migrate all the accounts that use it as an email address.
• jv22222 4y ago
  Class action lawsuit anyone? It seems like this would be a perfect target for class action lawyers who go after very large targets (ie Google) for causing distress en-mass.
  • ta988 4y ago
    If you find a lawyers firm that want to help start that, it will be a really successful one. I know dozens of people that have been impacted (and just these together is likely close to a million revenue)
    • jv22222 4y ago
      I have not personally been affected by this, but these lawyers have won a class action law suit against Google in the past. https://www.lieffcabraser.com/contact/ https://www.lieffcabraser.com/contact/ You could try contacting them.
    • amelius 4y ago
      Except the original poster doesn't own the content either. They said: > I have private access to some pretty cool motorsports/boat-racing/etc stuff
      • detaro 4y ago
        You misunderstand the paragraph you quote from.
        • amelius 4y ago
          Ok. But now I can't delete my comment :(
  • simonh 4y ago
    Who are you going to sue? You have no contract with Youtube requiring them to host and monetize your videos for you. You can't class action every single last dog and pony trollster one by one. The flip side of Youtube being a free hosting service is that they have no obligation to host anyone's content. We think of Youtube as being a commons or community resource, but it's not, it's privately owned. You have no more right to put a video on Youtube than you have to put an advert on the side of Google HQ, it's their choice to make and they set the terms. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
• googlryas 4y ago
  Don't you just deny it, and it is up to them to actually file a full DMCA complaint?
• gamblor956 4y ago
  I've dealt with Youtube's copyright resolution process and I don't believe this story at all. You're either leaving out material facts that completely change the story or making the story up. For starters...Youtube's copyright strikes are geographical...IOW, you can't assert a copyright against a video posted by a user in another country. Second, Google doesn't let you file a copyright strike on the basis of a single word in the title. Words, by themselves, are not copyrightable. Especially not when they deal with trademarks... Third, after you file a counter notification, the claimant must prove that they've taken legal action against the purported infringer by providing evidence of such action. Generally, this means a copy of a complaint, or at the bare minimum a letter from your lawyer asserting your ownership and offering terms for a settlement. If they don't, Google treats the infringement claim as invalid and removes the strike. Fourth, if you dispute the strike (by filing the counter notification), Google doesn't pay anybody for the video until they receive proof of the legal resolution of the dispute, because if they pay the wrong party they'll end up having to pay the rightful copyright owner.
  • ben0x539 4y ago
    I've not had a lot of luck finding reports of successful actual-legal-DMCA counter notifications after copyright/content id claims, so I'm really glad to read your comment confirming that it basically works as advertised. Which side of those disputes were you on? Would you happen to have any experience with cases where Google doesn't restore the video/monetization after a counter notification? I mentioned this in another comment, but I found this article (which is somewhat old, and from a random website I'd never heard of) where apparently Google acknowledged the counter notification but chose not to restore the video out of contractual obligations to the claimant: https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusing_honor_dmca_counter_notices https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusi...
    • gamblor956 4y ago
      Both, the side asserting copyright and the side fighting the claim (for separate videos). Would you happen to have any experience with cases where Google doesn't restore the video/monetization after a counter notification? Yes, we contacted Google Legal with a letter from our General Counsel after the claimant failed to file a lawsuit asserting its ownership of the disputed content, and the matter was resolved within about a month. Google restored our ability to monetize videos and paid us for the amount held in escrow during the dispute. Note that, as with all things Google, if you let the customer support system handle your complaint, nothing gets done because the CS dept in India doesn't have the power to do anything. You have to go around the CS system and talk to a person in the department that's actually responsible for your issue. For a legal issue like this, that means reaching out to their Legal department directly.
• jbay808 4y ago
  > word "spirit" in my video title (it was part of the name of the vehicle itself) Just going to guess... Was this vehicle the Spirit of Australia II?
• amelius 4y ago
  Is this how the Nigerian princes of old times make money nowadays?
• pmarreck 4y ago
  you should "out" the account that essentially stole all the views