3 ms·

> I am sure my content does not infringe copyright and I'm willing to go to court for it This is exactly what the YouTube copyright counter notification is. Th

by Aunche 2y ago

> I am sure my content does not infringe copyright and I'm willing to go to court for it This is exactly what the YouTube copyright counter notification is. The problem is that YouTubers aren't lawyers, so they don't want to risk going to court. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en

blueflow 2y ago
Then hire a lawyer & sue, you have to enforce your rights.
- Aunche 2y ago
  Right. Part of the reason why it's hard to start a business is having to deal with unfair bullshit. Youtube streamlines enough of the process to get people started relatively easily, but they get a lot of shit from these same creators for not doing everything for them.
  - sleepybrett 2y ago
    they get a lot of shit because most youtubers would be forced to hand over their pii (name and address) to the reporter. Some reporters are doing this solely to get that information (stalkers, doxxers, etc). It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this through an attorney.
    - Aunche 2y ago
      > It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this through an attorney. Yes. An authorized representative is allowed to submit a counter notification on your behalf, so they would put their name and address instead.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Because all creators have the means and resources to hire a lawyer to fight forces much more powerful and wealthier than they are. This is blaming the victim.
    - Aunche 2y ago
      Welcome to being a business owner. Nobody is going to protect your business more than yourself. A tenant refuses to pay rent and eviction takes a year? Too bad. Next time, do a better job of screening for risky tenants. The problem with the victim first mentality is that it causes you to underestimate how much agency people actually have (e.g. being unaware of how excessive tenant protections decrease the supply of housing available to low-income earners).
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        You know not all content creators are out for money, right? If you want a trivial example, I am one of them. It may even shock you to learn that in the before-times, people even created content purely for fun and the entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now, especially reading this post I am replying to. That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? Why is the onus on them, rather than the platforms that enable this kind of behavior? Like, I'm not trying to be overly sarcastic here, I'm genuinely curious how you make sense of this in your head. Is it like "oh well, that's the way of the world, fuck em?" kind of thing, or is it based on some kind of sound principle? Because the way things are do not really help anyone, except behemoth media interests, and especially hurts the quality of content online, which if I can make an assumption, you and I both consume. Which also, ironically, hurts the very platforms that (I suspect) you are trying to stan for here. Make it make sense?
        Aunche 2y ago
        > people even created content purely for fun and the entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now, especially reading this post I am replying to. Believe it or not, I shitpost on the internet for fun. Sometimes, I get flagged for bullshit reasons (moreso Reddit than hackernews), and there's nothing I can do about it. Since it's for fun though, it doesn't really cost me anything outside some minor frustration. > That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? This article is talking about a small-time copyright troll who is obviously pretending to be Nintendo. There is virtually no risk of calling their bluff because they obviously aren't going to commit identity fraud in court. Chances are, the troll has better things to do than to leak your personal information, but if you're worried about that, you can hire a lawyer to file the counter notification for you for a couple hundred bucks. I'm sure there are ways to do this yourself as well if you need to fight a lot of claims. Just spitballing here, but if you have a business owner friend, you can use their business address and have them be your representative and file on your behalf. If we're talking about large corporations with armies of lawyers like real Nintendo, then there's not much you can do besides hiring a good lawyer and listening to their advice. For very straightforward cases, you can probably play lawyer yourself so long as if you do enough research and preparation (again, just spitballing). Also, it's not like Nintendo is unaffected by legal costs. In fact, any legal action will probably be several times more expensive for them than it would be for you. If they're pursuing legal action, they likely genuinely believe they're in the right.
- Vampiero 2y ago
  I make free videos why tf would I ever hire a lawyer to protect my parodies. It's incredibly stupid considering that I am not a billionaire and that the copyright holders are. I would be throwing my money in the bin. And they know this full-well, which is why the system works in the first place.
- nullc 2y ago
  Google shields the false-DMCA complainers and will absolutely not reveal their identities.
  - onli 2y ago
    Google has to given a court order. Or is that unachievable?
    - nullc 2y ago
      Perhaps if you're interested in bankrupting yourself fighting against Google's legal budget.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    The identity is in the takedown request. It's Tatsumi Masaaki from Nintendo USA. The problem is that it's fake.
    - nullc 2y ago
      Interesting, I suppose their practices have changed because in the past youtube/google absolutely stonewalled me.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Hilariously, now I ignore every single text/email requesting that I pay something, do something, etc. I owe money for a toll road? Hmmm, I must have accidentally blocked that user, deleted the message thread and reported it as spam. Sorry.

by Aunche 2y ago

blueflow 2y ago

Then hire a lawyer & sue, you have to enforce your rights.

Aunche 2y ago
Right. Part of the reason why it's hard to start a business is having to deal with unfair bullshit. Youtube streamlines enough of the process to get people started relatively easily, but they get a lot of shit from these same creators for not doing everything for them.
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  they get a lot of shit because most youtubers would be forced to hand over their pii (name and address) to the reporter. Some reporters are doing this solely to get that information (stalkers, doxxers, etc). It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this through an attorney.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    > It's unclear, to me, if youtubers could proxy this through an attorney. Yes. An authorized representative is allowed to submit a counter notification on your behalf, so they would put their name and address instead.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Because all creators have the means and resources to hire a lawyer to fight forces much more powerful and wealthier than they are. This is blaming the victim.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    Welcome to being a business owner. Nobody is going to protect your business more than yourself. A tenant refuses to pay rent and eviction takes a year? Too bad. Next time, do a better job of screening for risky tenants. The problem with the victim first mentality is that it causes you to underestimate how much agency people actually have (e.g. being unaware of how excessive tenant protections decrease the supply of housing available to low-income earners).
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      You know not all content creators are out for money, right? If you want a trivial example, I am one of them. It may even shock you to learn that in the before-times, people even created content purely for fun and the entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now, especially reading this post I am replying to. That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? Why is the onus on them, rather than the platforms that enable this kind of behavior? Like, I'm not trying to be overly sarcastic here, I'm genuinely curious how you make sense of this in your head. Is it like "oh well, that's the way of the world, fuck em?" kind of thing, or is it based on some kind of sound principle? Because the way things are do not really help anyone, except behemoth media interests, and especially hurts the quality of content online, which if I can make an assumption, you and I both consume. Which also, ironically, hurts the very platforms that (I suspect) you are trying to stan for here. Make it make sense?
      - Aunche 2y ago
        > people even created content purely for fun and the entertainment of others. Wow! Hardly believable now, especially reading this post I am replying to. Believe it or not, I shitpost on the internet for fun. Sometimes, I get flagged for bullshit reasons (moreso Reddit than hackernews), and there's nothing I can do about it. Since it's for fun though, it doesn't really cost me anything outside some minor frustration. > That said, again, how is a small creator, which at least several nines of all creators are, supposed to scratch up the legal and financial resources to fight massive corporate interests and industrial scale fraud? This article is talking about a small-time copyright troll who is obviously pretending to be Nintendo. There is virtually no risk of calling their bluff because they obviously aren't going to commit identity fraud in court. Chances are, the troll has better things to do than to leak your personal information, but if you're worried about that, you can hire a lawyer to file the counter notification for you for a couple hundred bucks. I'm sure there are ways to do this yourself as well if you need to fight a lot of claims. Just spitballing here, but if you have a business owner friend, you can use their business address and have them be your representative and file on your behalf. If we're talking about large corporations with armies of lawyers like real Nintendo, then there's not much you can do besides hiring a good lawyer and listening to their advice. For very straightforward cases, you can probably play lawyer yourself so long as if you do enough research and preparation (again, just spitballing). Also, it's not like Nintendo is unaffected by legal costs. In fact, any legal action will probably be several times more expensive for them than it would be for you. If they're pursuing legal action, they likely genuinely believe they're in the right.
Vampiero 2y ago
I make free videos why tf would I ever hire a lawyer to protect my parodies. It's incredibly stupid considering that I am not a billionaire and that the copyright holders are. I would be throwing my money in the bin. And they know this full-well, which is why the system works in the first place.
nullc 2y ago
Google shields the false-DMCA complainers and will absolutely not reveal their identities.
- onli 2y ago
  Google has to given a court order. Or is that unachievable?
  - nullc 2y ago
    Perhaps if you're interested in bankrupting yourself fighting against Google's legal budget.
- Aunche 2y ago
  The identity is in the takedown request. It's Tatsumi Masaaki from Nintendo USA. The problem is that it's fake.
  - nullc 2y ago
    Interesting, I suppose their practices have changed because in the past youtube/google absolutely stonewalled me.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Hilariously, now I ignore every single text/email requesting that I pay something, do something, etc. I owe money for a toll road? Hmmm, I must have accidentally blocked that user, deleted the message thread and reported it as spam. Sorry.