4 ms·

Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. That should be actionable, possibly in a group action? Continued l

Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. That should be actionable, possibly in a group action? Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on?

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
It is common for racketeers to steal revenue from a popular video until YT sorts out the legal ownership a few weeks later. It is a known con... one often not worth the $50k to extradite and haul them in front of a judge to recover your losses. =3
- 8note 2y ago
  its crazy that those funds arent held in escrow until the video publisher gets to respond/the dispute is resolved
  - trogdor 2y ago
    The funds are held in escrow. GP is wrong.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      When the copyright strike is issued a video is taken offline from the publishers channel. In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers. It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3
      - trogdor 2y ago
        Fair enough. I was referring to the Content ID system. >In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. I make my living from YouTube and I have never heard of this. Can you point me to evidence of what you are referring to?
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        There are quite a few cases, but probably using a different search engine will help with citations: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-shows-just-how-far-copyright-trolls-have-go-theyre-stopped https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s... https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-settles-lawsuit-with-alleged-dmca-extortion-scammer-for-25000-191016/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-settles-lawsuit-with-allege... https://videogamelaw.allard.ubc.ca/2019/10/18/settlement-between-youtube-and-dmca-extortion-scammer/ https://videogamelaw.allard.ubc.ca/2019/10/18/settlement-bet... Content ID is just as bad... if not worse... given no one checks for fair-use cases. A lot of old public-domain stock-footage was re-uploaded under dubious conditions, and will get your content auto flagged. Best of luck =3
        trogdor 2y ago
        You originally wrote that extortion of funds is an ongoing pervasive issue: > In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers. The three links you provided are all about the same, single, extreme case - from seven years ago - that ended with YouTube suing the person who was extorting money. I still don’t think there is any evidence that extortion of money through abuse of notice-and-takedown is an ongoing pervasive issue.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        Indeed, I gather you don't often talk with very many other content producers. What made the case exceptional, was the fact they caught the guy and there were legal consequences. Usually, this does not occur... at best it wastes everyone's time, at worse it costs you like any other SLAPP lawsuit. Best of luck, and check if your commercial insurance covers legal expenses. =3 Note, this is often used for political purposes as well: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-lawsuit-1.6504366 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-... https://ifex.org/a-dark-year-for-media-in-belarus-and-slapp-cases-increase-in-europe/ https://ifex.org/a-dark-year-for-media-in-belarus-and-slapp-... YT gives zero Fs about anything not making them money =3
avianlyric 2y ago
> Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a copyright claim, and taken the video down as a consequence. They're just stating facts, they're not making any assertions regarding the accuracy or correctness of the copyright claim, simply stating that it exists. > Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on? You seem to misunderstand what free speech means. Free speech means protection from the government from having your speech prevented, or compelled. That same protection extends to companies. To have the government punish YouTube for failing to distribute a video, would itself be violating YouTube's own free speech, and in the US, and clear and obvious violation of the 1st ammendment.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  Unless the government deems youtube a provider of a neutral platform for user content -- as it does in section 230.
  - krapp 2y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
    - mjburgess 2y ago
      I think this misunderstands the sense in which 230 is at issue. It's not that 230 itself requires anything --- it's that its a law in place at the whim of lawmakers who granted it expecting a certain sort of behaviour. The relevant claim is, "if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it". This is how the intention of the law is currently read: that it will persist so long as platforms do, in effect, treat user content without editorial bias. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean, unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility. It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230 will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced. The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is common across the law -- since they function much like states in the provision of universal services, or public spaces. Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.
TZubiri 2y ago
Here, you dropped this >>>> IANAL

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

It is common for racketeers to steal revenue from a popular video until YT sorts out the legal ownership a few weeks later. It is a known con... one often not worth the $50k to extradite and haul them in front of a judge to recover your losses. =3

8note 2y ago
its crazy that those funds arent held in escrow until the video publisher gets to respond/the dispute is resolved
- trogdor 2y ago
  The funds are held in escrow. GP is wrong.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    When the copyright strike is issued a video is taken offline from the publishers channel. In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers. It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3
    - trogdor 2y ago
      Fair enough. I was referring to the Content ID system. >In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. I make my living from YouTube and I have never heard of this. Can you point me to evidence of what you are referring to?
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        There are quite a few cases, but probably using a different search engine will help with citations: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-shows-just-how-far-copyright-trolls-have-go-theyre-stopped https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s... https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-settles-lawsuit-with-alleged-dmca-extortion-scammer-for-25000-191016/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-settles-lawsuit-with-allege... https://videogamelaw.allard.ubc.ca/2019/10/18/settlement-between-youtube-and-dmca-extortion-scammer/ https://videogamelaw.allard.ubc.ca/2019/10/18/settlement-bet... Content ID is just as bad... if not worse... given no one checks for fair-use cases. A lot of old public-domain stock-footage was re-uploaded under dubious conditions, and will get your content auto flagged. Best of luck =3
        trogdor 2y ago
        You originally wrote that extortion of funds is an ongoing pervasive issue: > In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers. The three links you provided are all about the same, single, extreme case - from seven years ago - that ended with YouTube suing the person who was extorting money. I still don’t think there is any evidence that extortion of money through abuse of notice-and-takedown is an ongoing pervasive issue.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        Indeed, I gather you don't often talk with very many other content producers. What made the case exceptional, was the fact they caught the guy and there were legal consequences. Usually, this does not occur... at best it wastes everyone's time, at worse it costs you like any other SLAPP lawsuit. Best of luck, and check if your commercial insurance covers legal expenses. =3 Note, this is often used for political purposes as well: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-lawsuit-1.6504366 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-... https://ifex.org/a-dark-year-for-media-in-belarus-and-slapp-cases-increase-in-europe/ https://ifex.org/a-dark-year-for-media-in-belarus-and-slapp-... YT gives zero Fs about anything not making them money =3

avianlyric 2y ago

> Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a copyright claim, and taken the video down as a consequence. They're just stating facts, they're not making any assertions regarding the accuracy or correctness of the copyright claim, simply stating that it exists. > Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on? You seem to misunderstand what free speech means. Free speech means protection from the government from having your speech prevented, or compelled. That same protection extends to companies. To have the government punish YouTube for failing to distribute a video, would itself be violating YouTube's own free speech, and in the US, and clear and obvious violation of the 1st ammendment.

mjburgess 2y ago
Unless the government deems youtube a provider of a neutral platform for user content -- as it does in section 230.
- krapp 2y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    I think this misunderstands the sense in which 230 is at issue. It's not that 230 itself requires anything --- it's that its a law in place at the whim of lawmakers who granted it expecting a certain sort of behaviour. The relevant claim is, "if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it". This is how the intention of the law is currently read: that it will persist so long as platforms do, in effect, treat user content without editorial bias. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean, unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility. It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230 will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced. The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is common across the law -- since they function much like states in the provision of universal services, or public spaces. Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.

TZubiri 2y ago

Here, you dropped this >>>> IANAL