The Verge: How we built a copyright strike

[RejZoR]

Well, it just is broken. Everyone with 5 seconds of time can flail with their e-penis around claiming whatever they want and if you dispute it, they decide if dispute is valid. And when that happens, YOU get punished again. It's beyond broken indeed. It's distilled retardation.

[Spotty]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Fair use is a defense of copyright usage not a license.   It is a policy you can use to defend your use of copyrighted material, it does not automatically give you the green light. Which means if someone makes a DMCA claim, it is up to you as the defendant to argue fair use policy.

Indeed... However the issue is that creators on Youtube don't have the opportunity to use that as a defence when they receive a copyright claim on a video.

My understanding (and I've never been through the process, so forgive me if I'm mistaken) is that when a copyright claim is received on a video, the creator has the opportunity to flag the claim for review or request that the person filing the claim retracts the claim. The issue is that the claim is reviewed by the person who submitted the claim, meaning they have final say over whether or not it is indeed copyright infringement. There's no third party or adjudicator that reviews the claims authenticity, and that means that even if the creator may possibly be able to argue fair use as a defence, they have no avenue of doing so.

So, for example, if someone were to submit an entirely bogus copyright claim on your videos and send you an email saying "Send me 5 btc and I'll stop the copyright claim on your video", the only avenue the creator would have for fighting that claim would be submitting a review to the scammer. The scammer would have final say whether or not the copyright claim is legitimate, and then the creators channel can/will receive a copyright strike, potentially resulting in their channel being banned.
This is actually something that has happened.  https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1028059-youtubers-gets-false-copyright-striked-extorted-for-money-to-get-the-copyright-strikes-removed-and-why-the-cc-system-is-flawed/


 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You could try that in court but no Youtube is allowed as the owner of the private company service with it's own terms and conditions you accept to use the platform. Youtube copyright system is acting in the way all content creators have agreed to when creating an account to use the platform.

 

It's much like a publisher of story stories in a collection book, you could submit a story to be included, it gets included then later there is a dispute of who actually wrote the story story. The publisher then reprints the book without your story due to this dispute, at no point does DMCA actually play so the only legal action you can take is breach of contract or something to that extent.

For youtube to maintain safe harbor protection under the DMCA it has to enforce the copyright system, it maybe a privately organised and implemented system but it does so to meet the requirements of the DMCA.  Without the DMCA safe harbor youtube is open to litigation for copyright abuse. 

 

Failing that, as has been pointed out by others, the youtube service may not fall under the guise of "service provider", which is the only provision for safe harbor, they could be considered a publisher, which means they have to honor all contracts and can;t just delete videos (or pull books) based on bogus copyright claims.

 

This instance requires more thought because bitwit is going to have to call on fair use to defend his video, however there are plenty of other videos that have been pulled where zero CR infringement has occurred.  Youtube would be legally liable for those.

 

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Indeed... However the issue is that creators on Youtube don't have the opportunity to use that as a defence when they receive a copyright claim on a video.

My understanding (and I've never been through the process, so forgive me if I'm mistaken) is that when a copyright claim is received on a video, the creator has the opportunity to flag the claim for review or request that the person filing the claim retracts the claim. The issue is that the claim is reviewed by the person who submitted the claim, meaning they have final say over whether or not it is indeed copyright infringement. There's no third party or adjudicator that reviews the claims authenticity, and that means that even if the creator may possibly be able to argue fair use as a defence, they have no avenue of doing so.

So, for example, if someone were to submit an entirely bogus copyright claim on your videos and send you an email saying "Send me 5 btc and I'll stop the copyright claim on your video", the only avenue the creator would have for fighting that claim would be submitting a review to the scammer. The scammer would have final say whether or not the copyright claim is legitimate, and then the creators channel can/will receive a copyright strike, potentially resulting in their channel being banned.
This is actually something that has happened.  https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1028059-youtubers-gets-false-copyright-striked-extorted-for-money-to-get-the-copyright-strikes-removed-and-why-the-cc-system-is-flawed/


 

Yes, I know the system sucks and is being abused flat out,  but that doesn't change what fair use policy (doctrine) is and why it exists.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

For youtube to maintain safe harbor protection under the DMCA it has to enforce the copyright system, it maybe a privately organised and implemented system but it does so to meet the requirements of the DMCA.  Without the DMCA safe harbor youtube is open to litigation for copyright abuse. 

Youtube copyright claims are not DMCA claims, very different things. At the very end of a Youtube copyright claim process a DMCA can be filed but that does not always happen.

 

DMCA does not apply if it's not being used. Youtube copyright strike != DMCA filing.

[Spotty]

Just now, mr moose said:

Yes, I know the system sucks and is being abused flat out,  but that doesn't change what fair use policy (doctrine) is and why it exists.

I'm not entirely familiar with the laws surrounding "fair use", but it appears that when I get some spare time I'll have to read up a bit more on the topic.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Youtube copyright claims are not DMCA claims, very different things. At the very end of a Youtube copyright claim process a DMCA can be filed but that does not always happen.

 

DMCA does not apply if it's not being used. Youtube copyright strike != DMCA filing.

You don't need a DMCA claim to be under the provision of the DMCA safe harbor.  The whole youtube copyright system is their to meet the requirements of the DMCA.   The DMCA is not a claim system it is an act of law that covers several areas of copyright law.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You don't need a DMCA claim to be under the provision of the DMCA safe harbor.  The whole youtube copyright system is their to meet the requirements of the DMCA.   The DMCA is not a claim system it is an act of law that covers several areas of copyright law.

 

Quote

Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

 

[Stefan Payne]

holy shit, now its hitting really the fan...

 

Those Companys are dying and firing people left and right.

And now they're doing Copyright strikes to content they don't like because it shows how they work - they couldn't even be bothered to read the darn manuals that came with the stuff they used! 

 

This whole mess was handled badly - personal responsibility is something foreign to those people.

 

So there is only one thing to do:
blocking their URLs in all devices you are allowed to do so!

And tell your friends +family to do the same...

 

 

[leadeater]

@mr moose

DMCA doesn't not apply to Youtube but their status is a DMCA Safe Harbor which means they are largely protected from DMCA as long as they have their own copyright enforcement system, that system is not under the provisions of the DMCA itself so false claims are not legally punishable because they were not filed under the DMCA system.. Youtube must still comply with DMCA notices submitted to them, that is from an external entity to Youtube but that external entity could be a Youtube content creator not using the Youtube copyright system i.e. Content ID or Partner Agreement.

 

How Youtube handles copyright strikes differs depending on if you flag a video using the Youtube system or submit a DMCA to Youtube for an infringing video.

 

Quote

As part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), Congress granted online service providers (like YouTube) certain protections from copyright infringement liability, so long as they meet certain requirements. One requirement of this "DMCA safe harbor" is that online service providers must implement a "notice-and-takedown" system. Another requirement is that YouTube must cancel the accounts of "repeat infringers."

 

That's why, when YouTube receives a formal DMCA takedown notice from a rightsholder, it removes the video. It also puts a "strike" on your account, and requires you to complete a mandatory session in its online "Copyright School." Once you accumulate 3 "strikes" on your account, YouTube will cancel all of your YouTube accounts, taking down all of your videos and refusing to allow you back as a YouTube account holder.

 

A proper DMCA takedown notice must meet certain requirements, such as identifying the infringing material clearly and specifically, and stating that the sender has a 'good faith belief' that the material actually infringes copyright. Too often, however, we have come across improper notices and/or takedowns based solely on keywords or a purely automated process.

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

 

Why is it that Youtube has it's own copyright enforcement process? Because in a way it's to legally protect anyone making a counter claim, which means you are more likely to do so. That's an important thing for a user generated content platform without access to legal services to make sure they aren't stepping in a huge legal hole by making a DMCA counter claim.

 

Larger entities can prefer to use a DMCA instead of Content ID because they know it's very unlikely to be counter claimed, I doubt Kyle will. A Partner Agreement is another special case where you don't even get the right to counter the claim, however you don't get a copyright strike when that is used.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545

 

Quote

Sending a DMCA Counter-notice.

 

If your video was removed by a DMCA takedown notice, you can submit a "counter-notice". In order to be valid, however, the counter-notice must include your contact information, a signature, a statement under penalty of perjury that the "material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification," and your consent to the jurisdiction of your local federal court (if the rightsholder elects to sue you).

 

Quote

Deciding Whether to Challenge a Takedown

Because disputing a takedown can have potentially serious legal consequences, you should exercise care in deciding what to do. The following is intended to provide general information, and is not legal advice. We encourage you to contact a qualified lawyer if you intend to dispute or counter-notice to restore a video.

 

The first issue you might consider is whether the claim might be correct. Does your video use copyrighted material? Do you have a right to use that material?  There are many circumstances where copyright law allows you to borrow from pre-existing works owned by others. The most important of these are addressed by a legal doctrine known as "fair use," which excuses activity that might otherwise constitute copyright infringement.

 

Most people get nailed by the Content ID system or Partner Agreement with music companies, that fact that Kyle's video was taken down immediately leads me to believe it was an actual DMCA notice, doubt Vox has a Partner Agreement. So in short a Content ID flag is not a DMCA takedown notice so you can't submit a DMCA counter notice nor a nuisance/false DMCA claim, you must first use the Youtube dispute resolution process.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Isnt there a fair use policy for basic criticism? i know he was just mocking it for the entirety which makes it kinda defamatory but you get my point.

[The Benjamins]

Nitwit should reupload the video, and copy right claim his own video from another account to monitor it. Wouldn't that block the verge from copy right claiming the reupload?

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Nitwit should reupload the video, and copy right claim his own video from another account to monitor it. Wouldn't that block the verge from copy right claiming the reupload?

Then generate a lot of news buzz about it then when the Verge makes a video about it copyright claim their video 

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

This has lead to a lot of discussion recently that Youtube's copyright protection system is broken and open to abuse with illegitimate copyright claims and takedown requests which are difficult for the content creators to fight against.

It's not just youtube, copyright law as a whole is broken.

[Lurick]

Video was posted ~5 months ago. You would think if there was an actual claim they would have done something sooner.....

 

I think, as someone on Twitter posted, they were trying to hit the Like button and copyright striked it instead

[TopHatProductions115]

How do you copyright Sucking at Building a PC? 

[Spotty]

11 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

was going to give them the benefit of doubt and charity of incompetence ._. not anymore

Only now?

I gave up giving The Verge & the host the benefit of the doubt in regards to that video after the host Stefan Etienne's comments about the situation on his Twitch stream.

Spoiler

(Surprised that twitch clip hasn't been copyright striked yet :D)

 

Quote

 

Host: "I work for a big publication, basically I made a PC video and some very angry nerds are very angry with how I built a computer, but it still works... Sooo...."
Friend: "Ohh so you're just getting hated on because they're like oohhh if you just plugged it in here it wehrhewjjrjejire [indistinguishable]"

Host: "That's exactly what they're doing. And I mean like everything they've mentioned was corrected after the fact as well. But like it's not my first computer and it still fucking works, and it's a better computer than what most of them have and that might be elitist but it's the truth."

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/971926-this-pc-building-guide-that-verge-made-is-unbarable/?do=findComment&comment=11764866

 

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

How do you copyright Sucking at Building a PC? 

I'm wondering how the copyright claim holds up when the Verge deleted their video because it sucked.

[Spotty]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

I'm wondering how the copyright claim holds up when the Verge deleted their video because it sucked.

I'll let GN answer this one for us.

[BuckGup]

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Well if he used their media without their consent, there you go. 

That's not how copyright and free use work. He clearly modified the orginal in some way which is fair use. If you just reupload the whole thing then yeah it deserves to be taken down but this is not that

[samcool55]

Damn GN's answers are brutal holy crap, in a good way that is.

They really don't take any BS at all.

 

 

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

Damn GN's answers are brutal holy crap, in a good way that is.

They really don't take any BS at all.

I think that GN has had little love for The Verge since their editor^(?) claimed that tech youtubers aren't real journalists.
 

 

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Then generate a lot of news buzz about it then when the Verge makes a video about it copyright claim their video 

No I mean if Bitwit re-uploads his own video making fun of the verge, but then uses a second account to copy right claim himself making the ad revenue go to the second account, and due to it being claimed once the verge can't take it down because its already claimed.

 

It was just a random thought

[Fluxify]

Hopefully @Bitwit can solve the strike!

[JoostinOnline]

5 hours ago, Spotty said:

PewDiePie being copyright striked because a twitch streamer took offence to him calling her a "thot"

It's an incredibly offensive term. He's not really innocent on that one. He's a sexist asshole and kind of set his toxic fan base on her. Not a fan of either of them, but it's not a great example of abusing the system.

 

Anyway, while I don't like Kyle getting into trouble, it's not like he was unaware this was a very likely possibility.