4 ms·

I think there's another side of this that is being glossed over. While Nintendo are being a bit overbearing (and IMO self-defeating), they're sending these take

by smcl 4y ago

I think there's another side of this that is being glossed over. While Nintendo are being a bit overbearing (and IMO self-defeating), they're sending these takedowns to YouTube who are happily executing them, and are seemingly uninterested as to whether they're without merit. Now I know that this is nothing new, YouTube and Google generally are famously indifferent to their users, but I think it's important not to ignore this.

stefandesu 4y ago
Yeah, this is definitely an issue that comes up with YouTube again and again, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. I still understand that creators stick with YouTube, especially because there's nothing like it out there in terms of reach for long-form content.
coldpie 4y ago
Well, YouTube is kind of in a hard place. There are massive penalties for hosting others' IP, and basically no penalties for not doing that. The incentives are strongly aligned with taking content down if there's any hint that it may be infringing. If you'd like that to change, then you need to change the incentives -- the laws. YouTube is just operating in the system Disney and Cher created.
- smcl 4y ago
  I understand that laws are weird and that you'd want to err on the side of caution. I don't understand that it's so easy to get someone's content taken down to the extent that (for example) a DMCA takedown request is a common retaliatory tactic between YouTubers when they're beefing, and that there's little recourse other than getting enough people Tweeting about it that a YouTube exec stumbles upon the issue during their morning coffee. I also don't understand why there's seemingly no process to revisit such strikes, or get a human involved in the process. I guess there's some section of their TOS stating "we might just nuke your account because we feel like it" so they're legally in the right to do whatever they feel like. Just feels like such a weird way to operate such a business - to just go completely hands-off and let all participants tear each other apart via content reporting or takedown requests.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Yeah it's pretty bad. But look at it from their end: Option A) Be a little more strict about honoring takedown requests, possibly get hit with $X,000,000 in damages by incorrectly hosting infringing content, or Option B) Honor takedown requests unquestioningly, and incorrectly take down a tiny fraction of the site's content, which might have served like $20 in ads. It's not a hard choice. Unfortunately.
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    If a channel gets three copyright strikes it's done... and all those subscribers and followers you lose. It's incredibly high stakes if youtube is your job.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    IMO, the win-win situation for YouTube, YouTube content creators, and copyright holders is for Google to simply make the DMCA claim/counter-claim system as streamlined as possible. The DMCA lets YouTube not give a shit after a counter claim gets made, because they've earned their immunity. Someone who makes a living uploading stuff to YouTube have a professional interest in making sure their content remains up, so they'll respond with the appropriate "your claim is bad, if you disagree sue me" counter-claim quickly. And for copyright holders, getting a reputation for successfully suing infringers will rapidly serve to chill people's abuse of their material.
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    > Just feels like such a weird way to operate such a business - to just go completely hands-off and let all participants tear each other apart via content reporting or takedown requests. It's a free hosting site, the correct way to operate that business is to lower your operating costs as much as possible, such as for example by not employing thousands of additional lawyers to arbitrate in complex legal queries where, if the case goes to court, there is a significant chance the finding would be different to a legal analysis anyway (most analysis of fair use claims by a competent lawyer would have a substantial part of the answer be "I don't know but there's a risk..."). If you want a hosting provider who'll do that, bluntly they are much more expensive than YouTube are.
  - 4y ago
jchw 4y ago
Well, this is basically how DMCA takedown requests (as opposed to YouTube copyright claims, which are not legally binding, and the strikes system) work, though—YouTube definitely does have to process legitimate DMCA takedowns unless they want to be liable. It would be noble if they decided to preemptively take the potential liability of frivelous takedowns against ostencibly fair use videos, but the entire reason why the current copyright claim/strike (NOT DMCA takedowns, mind you) and content ID system exists was to quell the lawsuits from IP owners. This is the real reason for the copyright strike system that can shut down channels. YouTube is broken, yes... But the law is broken much more. And lest you think the U.S. laws are draconian, Japanese law surrounding copyright is significantly worse. I remember a lot of streamers who once streamed on YouTube moved to Twitch, often citing the fear of copyright claims (and lack of communication about such issues) as their primary motivators. This includes some pretty large YouTubers, like probably most notably moistcr1tikal. Twitch had more lax policies, especially about streaming copyrighted music, whereas YouTube pretty much treated stream VODs the way they treated videos. Lo and behold, not more than a couple years later, Twitch has its own copyright panic, specifically involving the use of music on streams. For all of YouTube's failures, you're going to see all of the same crap anywhere that competes with them, pretty much. Google may be horrible at PR, support, etc. but I think the biggest complaints about YouTube are difficult to avoid. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have more competitors in the space, but I also do not expect more competitors to necessarily improve this particular problem. It might make it worse by fragmenting things. If you want to see the end of frivelous copyright claims and takedowns, we need copyright reform that strengthens and expands fair use and adds serious liabilities for bad faith claims.
lesuorac 4y ago
YouTube may have taken down the videos but they also allow him (because of the DMCA) to file a counter-claim and make a claim that the videos aren't infringing. I think you need to take a look at this objectively. There is a company who obviously made a bunch of games/IP and is telling YouTube that this other person doesn't have the rights to use those games/IP. It seems very reasonable to assume the company is correct. They have a ton of lawyers on staff to knows these kinds of things! Of course, Eric has been left with a recourse. He can claim to YouTube that yes he does indeed have rights to use those games/IP. It seems entirely reasonable if out of the two parties, one claims that the other doesn't have the rights and the other when presented with the option to claim they have rights doesn't make such claim, that Eric doesn't have the rights to use the games/IP.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > YouTube may have taken down the videos but they also allow him (because of the DMCA) to file a counter-claim and make a claim that the videos aren't infringing. Naive of you to think that works. When you counter-claim, YouTube basically asks the original claimant "Are you sure?", and of course they're gonna say yes. Exibit A: https://youtu.be/z4AeoAWGJBw https://youtu.be/z4AeoAWGJBw - TLDW: Someone filed a false copyright claim against TheFatRat on one of his own songs. TheFatRat counterclaimed, and the dispute was not approved. YouTube does not at any point make a judgement call.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Videos aren't great for evidence since they don't typically have the exact statements made by anybody else and often omit useful information. TheFatRat did get their video back so system worked. TheFatRat sounds like a Content ID issue and not DMCA. Eric mentions DMCA a bunch and also mentions the next step being a counter-claim. So I do not believe this is a Content ID issue and so TheFatRat's case is not apples-apples. So, the way I see Eric's case is "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas!". He was told he can do a counter-claim and has not even tried. --- I suspect he thinks 1) Nintendo is within their legal rights 2) Nintendo doesn't approve of neither his modded nor edgy content and therefore wants to use public opinion to convince Nintendo to go back to ignoring him.
iLoveOncall 4y ago
Because neither content creators nor content consumers are Youtube's customers. They're Youtube's assets. Brands are Youtube's customers. Would you sacrifice 0.0000001% of your assets (this guy) to keep a massive customer like Nintendo happy?
CM30 4y ago
Yeah, YouTube definitely has a role to play here. I've heard about people getting copyright strikes for contesting unfair takedowns, even when logically that should fall back to the DMCA system and the claimant should be ready to put their money where their mouth is (aka sue over it). Sites like YouTube and Twitch (and Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc) are completely uninterested in following the law in any reasonable manner, and would rather fold the second they get any corporate pressure rather than let the parties settle it themselves. Notice how independently hosted sites covering the same material (including major news sites) are often completely unaffected by these issues, since even companies like Nintendo realise how shaky their legal case might be if they tried to pursue it.

by smcl 4y ago

stefandesu 4y ago

Yeah, this is definitely an issue that comes up with YouTube again and again, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. I still understand that creators stick with YouTube, especially because there's nothing like it out there in terms of reach for long-form content.

coldpie 4y ago

Well, YouTube is kind of in a hard place. There are massive penalties for hosting others' IP, and basically no penalties for not doing that. The incentives are strongly aligned with taking content down if there's any hint that it may be infringing. If you'd like that to change, then you need to change the incentives -- the laws. YouTube is just operating in the system Disney and Cher created.

smcl 4y ago
I understand that laws are weird and that you'd want to err on the side of caution. I don't understand that it's so easy to get someone's content taken down to the extent that (for example) a DMCA takedown request is a common retaliatory tactic between YouTubers when they're beefing, and that there's little recourse other than getting enough people Tweeting about it that a YouTube exec stumbles upon the issue during their morning coffee. I also don't understand why there's seemingly no process to revisit such strikes, or get a human involved in the process. I guess there's some section of their TOS stating "we might just nuke your account because we feel like it" so they're legally in the right to do whatever they feel like. Just feels like such a weird way to operate such a business - to just go completely hands-off and let all participants tear each other apart via content reporting or takedown requests.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Yeah it's pretty bad. But look at it from their end: Option A) Be a little more strict about honoring takedown requests, possibly get hit with $X,000,000 in damages by incorrectly hosting infringing content, or Option B) Honor takedown requests unquestioningly, and incorrectly take down a tiny fraction of the site's content, which might have served like $20 in ads. It's not a hard choice. Unfortunately.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  If a channel gets three copyright strikes it's done... and all those subscribers and followers you lose. It's incredibly high stakes if youtube is your job.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  IMO, the win-win situation for YouTube, YouTube content creators, and copyright holders is for Google to simply make the DMCA claim/counter-claim system as streamlined as possible. The DMCA lets YouTube not give a shit after a counter claim gets made, because they've earned their immunity. Someone who makes a living uploading stuff to YouTube have a professional interest in making sure their content remains up, so they'll respond with the appropriate "your claim is bad, if you disagree sue me" counter-claim quickly. And for copyright holders, getting a reputation for successfully suing infringers will rapidly serve to chill people's abuse of their material.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  > Just feels like such a weird way to operate such a business - to just go completely hands-off and let all participants tear each other apart via content reporting or takedown requests. It's a free hosting site, the correct way to operate that business is to lower your operating costs as much as possible, such as for example by not employing thousands of additional lawyers to arbitrate in complex legal queries where, if the case goes to court, there is a significant chance the finding would be different to a legal analysis anyway (most analysis of fair use claims by a competent lawyer would have a substantial part of the answer be "I don't know but there's a risk..."). If you want a hosting provider who'll do that, bluntly they are much more expensive than YouTube are.
- 4y ago

jchw 4y ago

Well, this is basically how DMCA takedown requests (as opposed to YouTube copyright claims, which are not legally binding, and the strikes system) work, though—YouTube definitely does have to process legitimate DMCA takedowns unless they want to be liable. It would be noble if they decided to preemptively take the potential liability of frivelous takedowns against ostencibly fair use videos, but the entire reason why the current copyright claim/strike (NOT DMCA takedowns, mind you) and content ID system exists was to quell the lawsuits from IP owners. This is the real reason for the copyright strike system that can shut down channels. YouTube is broken, yes... But the law is broken much more. And lest you think the U.S. laws are draconian, Japanese law surrounding copyright is significantly worse. I remember a lot of streamers who once streamed on YouTube moved to Twitch, often citing the fear of copyright claims (and lack of communication about such issues) as their primary motivators. This includes some pretty large YouTubers, like probably most notably moistcr1tikal. Twitch had more lax policies, especially about streaming copyrighted music, whereas YouTube pretty much treated stream VODs the way they treated videos. Lo and behold, not more than a couple years later, Twitch has its own copyright panic, specifically involving the use of music on streams. For all of YouTube's failures, you're going to see all of the same crap anywhere that competes with them, pretty much. Google may be horrible at PR, support, etc. but I think the biggest complaints about YouTube are difficult to avoid. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have more competitors in the space, but I also do not expect more competitors to necessarily improve this particular problem. It might make it worse by fragmenting things. If you want to see the end of frivelous copyright claims and takedowns, we need copyright reform that strengthens and expands fair use and adds serious liabilities for bad faith claims.

lesuorac 4y ago

YouTube may have taken down the videos but they also allow him (because of the DMCA) to file a counter-claim and make a claim that the videos aren't infringing. I think you need to take a look at this objectively. There is a company who obviously made a bunch of games/IP and is telling YouTube that this other person doesn't have the rights to use those games/IP. It seems very reasonable to assume the company is correct. They have a ton of lawyers on staff to knows these kinds of things! Of course, Eric has been left with a recourse. He can claim to YouTube that yes he does indeed have rights to use those games/IP. It seems entirely reasonable if out of the two parties, one claims that the other doesn't have the rights and the other when presented with the option to claim they have rights doesn't make such claim, that Eric doesn't have the rights to use the games/IP.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> YouTube may have taken down the videos but they also allow him (because of the DMCA) to file a counter-claim and make a claim that the videos aren't infringing. Naive of you to think that works. When you counter-claim, YouTube basically asks the original claimant "Are you sure?", and of course they're gonna say yes. Exibit A: https://youtu.be/z4AeoAWGJBw https://youtu.be/z4AeoAWGJBw - TLDW: Someone filed a false copyright claim against TheFatRat on one of his own songs. TheFatRat counterclaimed, and the dispute was not approved. YouTube does not at any point make a judgement call.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Videos aren't great for evidence since they don't typically have the exact statements made by anybody else and often omit useful information. TheFatRat did get their video back so system worked. TheFatRat sounds like a Content ID issue and not DMCA. Eric mentions DMCA a bunch and also mentions the next step being a counter-claim. So I do not believe this is a Content ID issue and so TheFatRat's case is not apples-apples. So, the way I see Eric's case is "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas!". He was told he can do a counter-claim and has not even tried. --- I suspect he thinks 1) Nintendo is within their legal rights 2) Nintendo doesn't approve of neither his modded nor edgy content and therefore wants to use public opinion to convince Nintendo to go back to ignoring him.

iLoveOncall 4y ago

Because neither content creators nor content consumers are Youtube's customers. They're Youtube's assets. Brands are Youtube's customers. Would you sacrifice 0.0000001% of your assets (this guy) to keep a massive customer like Nintendo happy?

CM30 4y ago

Yeah, YouTube definitely has a role to play here. I've heard about people getting copyright strikes for contesting unfair takedowns, even when logically that should fall back to the DMCA system and the claimant should be ready to put their money where their mouth is (aka sue over it). Sites like YouTube and Twitch (and Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc) are completely uninterested in following the law in any reasonable manner, and would rather fold the second they get any corporate pressure rather than let the parties settle it themselves. Notice how independently hosted sites covering the same material (including major news sites) are often completely unaffected by these issues, since even companies like Nintendo realise how shaky their legal case might be if they tried to pursue it.