11 ms·
Company ‘Hijacks’ Blender’s CC By-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes User
- superchroma 4y agoJust youtube and its mediocre moderation team doing what they always do. Google is a zero support company. They do not care about ordinary people, only about their commercial advertisers, and, even then, only the top percentage of them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoThis is the point where one should actually get a copyright lawyer to help fight it out.
- polotics 4y agoCopyright lawyers cost money... If any company can create such a headache for a case that clear-cut, then how can YouTube not be trusted to be a major source of aggravation all-round?
- bawolff 4y agoThe amount lawyers cost depend on the complexity of the case. IANAL, but just sending a counter notice i imagine would be pretty cheap.
- ImHereToVote 4y agoIn a modern society it is your fault for not affording the help of the invisible hand of the market. Stop! Being! Poor!
- dthul 4y agoI get that mistakes can happen, but companies filing frivolous DMCA notices should be barred from this avenue in the future. Further, YouTube's appeals process is fundamentally broken if it can't get such obvious cases right.
- thinkmcfly 4y agoIt shouldn't be just the companies that are barred from filling new notices, but that the copyrighted item itself loses its protection. But how could a bunch of old people who don't care about tech have put that into law 20 years ago
- tremon 4y agoHow would that have worked in this case? User posts Blender video $X on youtube, $idiotCompany files frivolous DMCA suit claiming copyright on $X, Blender loses its copyright on $X?
- thinkmcfly 4y agoIf $idiot is being paid by blender or acting at their request, yes, otherwise no
- techdragon 4y agoAlways remember that YouTube is for the most part not using DMCA notices. ContentID has nothing to do with the DMCA and everything to do with the Viacom lawsuit and YouTube’s persistent desire to avoid any further lawsuits of that nature. It’s a rigged system in favour of traditional copyright holders and anyone who can weasel their way to the other side of the ContentID system to register themselves as a copyright “owner” and are thus blessed by YouTube as special and to be trusted with the task of only making legitimate claims against their own intellectual property… which we all know is bullshit and abused by almost everyone who has access to it. Notable exceptions being companies like Epidemic Sound who have made their access to that system/API into a valuable business differentiator… regardless it’s rigged against the individual content creators that made YouTube into the behemoth it is today.
- gpderetta 4y agoI wonder if a retaliatory clause in CC licenses where if you issue an erroneous DMCA notice your license is immediately terminated and you can be targeted would help.
- bawolff 4y agoPretty sure its already purjury to intentionally send a fake dmca notice, which has a much harder punishment than anything a license can do (albeit basically never enforced)
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoThere is some weirdness that makes the perjury clause ineffective in most cases (something like the perjury only applying to some generally-true part of the claim).
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agoThere are two parts to a DMCA claim: First, claiming that you own some copyright. Second, claiming that some work being hosted infringes on your copyright. The first part is the bit that is claimed under penalty of perjury, the second isn't. The article doesn't indicate what work ZO'R TV claims to have the copyright on, only that they claim the portion of the video using Blender's content infringes their copyright on whatever work they own. Without the text of the actual DMCA claim, there's no way to determine if the perjury clause is relevant.
- poizan42 4y agoBeyond a reasonable doubt vs. Preponderance of evidence. It's much easier to win a civil suit.
- emn13 4y agoFurthermore, turning this into essentially a contract law issue allows for enforcement by the broader community (depending on how the contract is worded, and with whom it formally is, of course), rather than waiting for prosecutors that may not care much about making an example of some Uzbek TV station (IANAL).
- DarthNebo 4y agoSlow clap..... YouTube needs to penalize such false copyright claims with demonetization ot rate limiting the ability to do so in the future
- richrichardsson 4y agoI'd go further; with such bullshit claims akin to this the entity making the false claim should be perma-banned from YouTube.
- bawolff 4y agoIsn't this the second time this happened? I thought i heard about this years ago.
- rjmunro 4y agoI expect it happens about 100 times / day - most just don't make it to here. I've had a false copyright claim on a video I posted - it was a recording of a church service where a historic hymn was sung - out of copyright years ago. The algorithm matched it to another recording of the same tune, but different words, and they claimed copyright. I clicked the appeal button, and explained that it was out of copyright. I heard nothing back. As the video was only a test, I only expected about 3 views, and it didn't block the video, just take the revenue, I ignored it.
- bawolff 4y agoI mean blender specificly. I found https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-courses-blender-videos-and-more-180618/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c... from 2018
- CoastalCoder 4y agoIANAL. Does this count as Slander of Title? I.e., does the DMCA indemnify a company that makes a clearly false claim?
- shapefrog 4y agoIt is fraud
- hooby 4y agoThis seems like something the EFF might be able to provide a lawyer for. They have repeatedly fought for Open Source Licenses in court in the past, and helped get legal representation for people who couldn't afford to fight large companies on their own budget.
- type0 4y agohttps://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en > Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license. Do they add some sort of their own license terms on top of creative commons with this?
- emn13 4y agoI think the point is that youtube will not provide tools for video authors to label their youtube hosted videos as CC if there is any non-CC portion of the video. Which seems at least somewhat reasonable, given the unreasonableness that is copyright.
- thomastjeffery 4y agoThe failure here is in the word "use". They are enjoying the effects of the CC license (as applied to the original content) without applying it to their derived content.
- neilv 4y agoTorrentfreak.com seems to have built its business upon benefiting financially from media pirates. Massive media piracy seems to be what enabled (if not necessitated) the DMCA process in question here. As well as numerous human-hostile technologies and legislation. I don't know about the situations in other countries, but in the US, this whole dynamic driven by media piracy the last 2-3 decades has always seemed incredibly stupid and shortsighted. If there's a news story about a DMCA takedown Kafkaesque process, can we get a more objective source?
- shapefrog 4y agoTorrenting is for downloading and archiving linux ISOs /s
- zozbot234 4y agoThe media pirates in this case are the nitwits from Uzbekistan who issued the groundless DMCA notice.
- neilv 4y agoIn this outlet, the story might as well be like the steady stream of now-familiar US political party base-rousing: Subtext: "Those darned anti-piracy things are so unreasonable! This justifies pirating! Let's pirate harder! Don't forget to use our affiliate codes to sign up for a piracy-friendly VPN scam!"
- capableweb 4y agoJust as a FYI, Blender runs their own PeerTube instance (that you can subscribe to via ActivityPub/Fediverse (so Mastodon and all of those others)) which they fully control: https://video.blender.org/ https://video.blender.org/ Reason they created that in the first place was because of a similar accident in the past. Maybe hopefully soon they'll stop using YouTube fully as YouTube doesn't seem to care about solving the core problem of driveby copyright strikes.
- shapefrog 4y agoElon should buy Youtube and make it free again.
- capableweb 4y agoAs a lover of everything not-YouTube, I concur.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoHe would Make The Thumbs Down Great Again and fire half of the staff randomly by Tweet.
- ohgodplsno 4y agoRight. What YouTube needs is much more money burned on it and to have even more far right content pushed onto people
- danuker 4y agoHow will it make money? When Google bought it, it wasn't profitable.
- nkozyra 4y ago"$8" is the answer I'd expect
- 4y ago
- paulgb 4y agoAssuming the facts reported here are true, it seems that YouTube is putting its safe harbor in jeopardy by not complying with the counter-takedown: > Following receipt of a compliant counter-notice, the online service provider must restore access to the material after no less than ten and no more than fourteen business days, unless the original notice sender informs the service provider that it has filed a court action against the user. https://www.copyright.gov/512/ https://www.copyright.gov/512/
- zozbot234 4y agoIt only counts as non-compliance if they fail to restore the content within ten to fourteen business days, assuming that the takedown notice issuer has not taken the matter to court.
- paulgb 4y agoThe 10 days is to give the original claimant time to respond, but to do that YouTube needs to forward the counter-takedown to the original claimant, which they have refused to do. > (B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
- phpisthebest 4y agoYT has this weird format text that you have to EXACTLY copy and paste into the form for it to be processed, Several Lawyers on YT have talked about how to "successfully file a counter notification" and say that if you do not paste that EXACT terminology from their Help Document it will almost ways be rejected
- danuker 4y agoThat does not mean it is legal to reject it.
- oefrha 4y ago> Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked him for filing it – but still declined to process it. Uh, dealing with YouTube is fun on every level. Not long ago I was helping a successful content creator friend bootstrap a YouTube channel, and since she has a large number of existing videos, I wrote a program using YouTube Data API v3 to automatically upload them. Turned out the upload API has been restricted since a few years ago, one has to submit a lengthy application form and go through manual approval, or all videos uploaded through the API are automatically locked as spam. So I submitted the application, and a few days later, I got an email rejecting my application, which ends in the following: > To reapply, you may complete and submit the appropriate form once the above concerns have been addressed. Please do not reply to this email. > Feel free to reach out to us with any questions. So, I'm supposed to "feel free to reach out to" them, but I should "not reply to this email", leaving the only way to reach out to them the application form, which doesn't have any Q/A field, and incidentally they just rejected it. Did anyone think about their process when they authored that email template? Anyway, I eventually managed to identify the problem and pass the review.
- hobs 4y agoReminds me of google ads, I made a simple utility site to help people with calendar notifications and after the tenth "you need to change something about your site" without telling me what it was I gave up on the service altogether.
- danuker 4y agoHeadline should be "YouTube does not recognize user's right to post CC By-Licensed film"
- blooalien 4y agoAnd yet YouTube is willing to protect the other party in their "right" to outright steal Blender Foundation content (as that's what they're doing when they claim copyright over content they have no actual copyright over, as is the case here).
- blueflow 4y agoHow many times does this need to happen again until people stop uploading their OC to Youtube?
- MaxBarraclough 4y agoI'd adjust the question slightly: why do so few people think to mirror their YouTube uploads elsewhere?
- gee_totes 4y agoApplying occam's razor here, I wonder if this was caused by a corrupt Google employee taking a bribe from the TV station in Uzbekistan? Social network content moderators have been known to take bribes[0][1]. The fact that there was a manual DMCA review involved makes this more sus [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-onlyfans-bribed-instagram-to-put-creators-on-terrorist-blacklist/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-onlyfan... [1]: https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/former-twitter-employee-convicted-of-spying-in-saudi-bribe-scheme/ https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/former-twitter-employee-con...
- rideontime 4y agoHow in the world is this applying Occam's razor?
- hombre_fatal 4y agoSince even the first time it was uttered on HN, it just means you’re about to take a pet stab at something.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 4y agoIn reverse
- bedast 4y agoI don't think you understand what occam's razor is. Occam's Razor would be incompetence. Either an automated system is not allowing proper processing of the counter-notice or someone reviewing the situation doesn't understand the license. A conspiracy would be the opposite of Occam's Razor.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoHmm, at which level of generalized corruption does the premise become inverted ? (This reminds me of Russian milicemen obviously trying to extract bribes from European tourists, the tourists being completely oblivious as to what is going on, and not understanding what the milicemen are very not subtly hinting at that any Russian would immediately recognize, while the milicemen are increasingly getting frustrated at their usual tactics somehow failing to work...)
- SergeAx 4y agoCan we ask EFF to fire a lawsuit against YouTube on that case? Or open a funding campain for that exact case if EFF cannot fund it from their primary stream of donations? This is a crystal clear case, easy win.
- LightHugger 4y agoIt seems like the TV station company has violated the CC license, so why not copyright strike their video and save other people the pain down the line?