5 ms·

I have a friend/acquaintance who had a similar experience on YouTube itself. He had created a large number of instructional videos on his YouTube channel, and f

• johansch 11y ago
  That seems like almost criminally incompetent by YT. They don't even look at upload timestamps in whatever automated or manual process they use for this?
  • icebraining 11y ago
    You can't assume the videos are owned by someone just because they uploaded them first - many videos are ripped from other sources and uploaded first by unlicensed parties. They followed the same procedures as described in the DMCA (even if this probably wasn't an official takedown request): if someone claims they represent the copyright holder and the videos are infringing, the service provider must take them down expeditiously.
    • marincounty 11y ago
      I haven't seen YouTube care about customer's concern after the acquisition by Google? That is unless the video gets a lot of attention, or you are someone other than me? I have videos up I literally can't get off. Their was a password clitch in their software when Google bought YouTube. I tried to get to my account, and got tired of hearing, "Go to the help boards sir-". I got to the point where it just wasen't worth the frustration. Too bad--at one time I really liked YouTube! Now--I only go there when absolutely necessary; Then I turn down the sound--try to guess when the skip advertisement pops up, watch, and gone for months. (I have used YouTube from pretty much day one. I put up self help stuff for Contractors --A lot of This is How you put in a Hydronic Heating System. They were terrible, but I always had the option to remove/replace? I can now only get to them as a commenter. In one video, my dog died the previous week, and you could tell in my voice I wasen't doing well. Even one commenter suggested I should redo the video. I explained to him in the comment section I can't even get to the video.)
• pen2l 11y ago
  When did this happen? In my experiences, Youtube these days are pretty responsive to even the small guys in settling out problems of this nature.
  • chronic32 11y ago
    Do you have evidence of this?
  • plorg 11y ago
    This was two or three years ago.
  • magicalist 11y ago
    Yeah, this would have had to have happened two or three years ago or more. After a ContentID claim you file is disputed the video is restored and you have to file a real DMCA takedown notice. If that gets disputed, the video is again restored (though you'll likely end up with ten days of it taken down) and you have to file a lawsuit, same as any other DMCA takedown.
• viraptor 11y ago
  I'd like to hear more of this story and what channels of communication were used exactly. DMCA is pretty clear on how this case should be handled and even if it's a stupid procedure that takes you down for a few days, I don't believe YT can legally refuse to act on the counter-claim. If they do and you relied on the income from those videos, you could sue them. So why did it take months? How were they blocked in the first place? (DMCA?) Was there an official counter-claim? Refused? Why?
  • neotek 11y ago
    I'd put money on it being an abuse of YouTube's Content ID. It's a common YouTube scam - find a video with a lot of views that's rising quickly, download it and reupload it to your own account and submit it to Content ID. YouTube will automatically scan its library for copies of "your" video, and gives you the option to either take the copies down, or monetise them via ads. Because of the DMCA's stupid counter notification process, it takes YouTube two weeks before they'll release the copyright claim, by which time the video is no longer viral and the original content creator has missed out on the bulk of the video's revenue. The thing is, YouTube isn't really to blame for all of this, it's the idiotic way the DMCA is written and applied. As a service provider, YouTube is obliged to immediately respond to DMCA claims, regardless of how spurious a claim might be, or risk losing its protection under the DMCA's safe harbour provisions. If the person against whom the DMCA takedown was lodged wants to challenge its validity, they have to send a counter notice, which starts a two week timer. If the person who submitted the takedown doesn't start actual legal action by the end of that two week period, YouTube is allowed to reinstate the content... at which point the DMCA troll can submit another takedown request, starting the whole Kafkaesque process again.
    • nitrogen 11y ago
      ...YouTube isn't really to blame for all of this... In the case of ContentID, which bypasses the DMCA, yes, they are to blame, along with all the media companies that demanded its creation.
      • dragonwriter 11y ago
• marcosdumay 11y ago
  Sounds like something you solve with the help of a lawyer. I mean, Youtube was serving pirated versions of his videos, refusing to block them, and refusing to attribute credit to him. Youtube was also gaining money from the operation.
  • hobarrera 11y ago
    Plus, the third party was actually willingly lying about ownership with the sole purpose of profit. That's an even easier case for a lawyer.
• Buge 11y ago
  I had someone steal one of my videos on youtube. I reported it for infringement and it was taken down in 30 minutes. I found that pretty impressive. A month ago one of my videos about a reported and fixed XSS vulnerability was taken down for violating some rules (it didn't say what rules exactly). I submitted an appeal and it was reinstated a few days later. Several years ago one of my videos that used some public domain footage was taken down for copyright infringement. I appealed it saying the footage was in the public domain and they reinstated my video several days later.
  • stephen_g 11y ago
    I don't understand the point of your comment - it's obvious and well known that YouTube's copyright protection procedures work in some cases. Describing a few of those situations doesn't really add anything to this thread of the conversation or do anything to invalidate the fact that in some specific ways it's incredibly stupidly broken..
    • Flimm 11y ago
      Anecdotes invite more anecdotes, and contrasting ones are the most informative because they remind us of how little anecdotes are actually worth.
  • beedogs 11y ago
    So... uh... I guess it works sometimes in favor of the actual content owner. But I'm not sure what your point is.
    • Buge 11y ago
      He posted an anecdote of a bad thing happening to a friend and it not being resolved. I posted how all 3 times I've had something negative happen on youtube, it was resolved through the appeals process. I'm trying to give hope/advice to people that appeals do work in many cases.
• thegeomaster 11y ago
  Back in the day, I uploaded a music video of my relative, with filming, production and post funded completely by her, and with her retaining all the copyright. It was a couple of years before and I was the "guy who knows this computer stuff" so I did it for her. Fast forward to 2014, and I receive a claim that a company which acts on behalf of a certain nationwide TV station here has put a copyright claim on the video and that it will be either taken down or monetized (with the revenue going to that company). I angrily issue a counter-notice on her behalf saying that she holds all the copyright and there is no possible way that the claim has legal ground. A few days after that, I'm informed by YouTube that the company has lifted the claim and the video is back online. What happened here is that there's a talk show on that TV station where she appeared as a guest, and they aired the music video during the show (with her consent, of course). The episode got uploaded to the Content ID system and YouTube detected the music video as part of the station's intellectual property. However, the fact that they immediately lifted the claim without even bothering to ask for a legally binding document, signed by her, confirming what I said in the counter-notice, is indicative of the fact that these claims are all hit-or-miss and that the companies who issue them are blatantly aware of that. As soon as someone issues a counter-notice, they bail out pretty quickly in order to escape the potential legal ramifications of issuing false DMCA notices, even though my counter-notice could have been completely false and with no legal ground of itself.
  • nothrabannosir 11y ago
    Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? Somebody read your e-mail, looked up the video in question, searched for a contract proving they had the copyright. Finding none, they determined either you were right, or someone else was, but it wasn't them either way, so might just as well leave it with you. And that's why it took a few days?
    • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? // That's entirely possible but the company making the claim that they owned copyright is committing a [serious IMO] fraud and should be punished severely for it. If copyright infringement is a such a crime as the corporate world tries to suggest then false claim on copyright is far worse. The company knows that they will get false positives but continues. One reason it's worse than mere infringement is it's an attempt to deprive either the public domain or the original owner in order to make financial gains whilst mere infringement is usually just for use. It's much closer to theft than plain infringement as it seeks to deprive the owner (or public domain) of the enjoyment (i.e. use or licensing) of the work whilst mere infringement generally does not. AFAIK such fraudulent claims to ownership are not treated at all harshly in IP law? This is a case where it should be considered criminal [rather than just as a tort] as generally it's the action of a larger organisation against a content creator - the state should protect its citizens particularly when there are such imbalances of power.
• minusSeven 11y ago
  can you post the links to what you are talking about ?
  • plorg 11y ago
    I don't know if this is going to be useful to you, but here is the original channel, now suspended: https://www.youtube.com/user/GeekSquadSupport https://www.youtube.com/user/GeekSquadSupport and here is one such video, including the logo of the original channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ0rEa-4mMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ0rEa-4mMk If you spend enough time scrolling through the offending uploader's account you will find a whole block of videos blatantly taken from the channel known as GeekSquadSupport.
• tiatia 11y ago
  > After several months of shouting In my experience a letter or even just an email from a lawyer does wonders here. Dunno why.
  • plorg 11y ago
    Forgive my rhetorical flourish, he actually did have lawyer who consulted on this. I don't have the complete information, because it wasn't a situation in which I was directly involved, but from what I (vaguely) understand about Google's ContentID and DMCA process he followed the procedure to dispute the claim and went as far as he could without suing, as he did not consider the cost to be worth it, having moved on to something else.