The Verge: How we built a copyright strike

[Spotty]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

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.

Offensive behaviour is not copyright infringement. So using a copyright claim as retaliation for offensive remarks is definitely an abuse of the copyright system.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

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.

H3H3 already had a huge lawsuit over this very issue. Someone tried to sue them for making a reaction video where they critisize the video. They used a good portion of the video but added alot of commentary. The judge ruled in H3H3's favor saying that because the video that H3H3 created wasn't a substitute for the original content because it was transformative they were protected under fair use regardless of how much of the original content they used. In the case of Kyle's video it's pretty clear that it's not a replacement for the original content because it is satirical in nature and has a very diffrent purpose than the original content. It's sad that there isn't much they can do when going through youtube's system. 

[TacoSenpai]

Using a "copyright claim" system to censor and get rid of anyone critical of your "journalism" and articles....now why would anyone..

 

 

Spoiler

Oh owned by vox...

 

 

[mxk]

fuck the verge

[JoostinOnline]

37 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Offensive behaviour is not copyright infringement. So using a copyright claim as retaliation for offensive remarks is definitely an abuse of the copyright system.

And he was using her copyrighted material. The fact that youtubers usually let it slide has led many people to believe that it means they don't actually have the rights to do so. They absolutely do. It's like going getting pulled over for going 1mph over the limit, but then calling the cop an idiot, and subsequently being angry that you get a ticket. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect a warning if you're polite.

[imreloadin]

5 hours ago, Triventular said:

and lets not forgot where a youtuber got his clip stolen by another youtuber who then copyright striked him for literally using his own uploaded content. @Spotty

 

but these strikes are really getting out of hand, even non tech youtubers are feeling it. the most ridiculous case i heard was someone just sung a part of a song for less than 2 seconds and boom haha this system can just be abused so much by the one who wants the stike and there's not much the strikee can do

I think that was someone who made a gameplay video for a football game and then Family Guy used the clip in their show and Fox claimed the dude's video that they lifted it from...

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Fox claimed the dude's video that they lifted it from...

Fox didn't claim shit. The automated system did, and Fox reversed it when the owner reached out to them.

[TVwazhere]

7 hours ago, Spotty said:

Is the video available on Floatplane?

To the surprise of no one, it is.

[Undated]

What’s funny is that they posted this two days before

[Spotty]

15 minutes ago, Undated said:

What’s funny is that they posted this two days before

 

Spoiler

 

Or maybe when they wrote and published that article that was the first that the brilliant team at The Verge heard of copyright strikes, and thought "Hey... Wait a minute... Maybe we could use this..."

[Misanthrope]

Here's what's cool: nobody at youtube will do a goddamn thing to mediate. Kyle options are basically to sue or to get fucked. But since this isn't a petty, small time idiot like it was the case with H3H3 suing isn't really an option so Kyle's main option is to get fucked.

 

Hell I am not even sure if Youtube would actually help mediate for someone like Linus if they claim him unless is fairly blatantly false. 

Is almost as if building a personal brand business off a social network platform of unregulated user content was a terrible idea for people to invest their money and professional careers into. They might be able to delay getting broke too quickly with Patreon and Floatplane and other "keep your head above the water" schemes for a while but at the end of the day, it's the youtube algorithm that drives the audience growth and without it (And henceforth, without youtube and their unmanageable, unenforceable giant automated systems mess) most of your favorite youtubers are destined to hemorrhage viewers and again, revenue support from crowd funding and parallel services. It might be 2 years or 5 years or 10 years but long term most of your favorite youtubers will crash and burn and will be looking for some "day jobs" at one point or another.

[EarthWormJM2]

What baffles me is why they waited almost 6 months, after all the media exposure, countless articles, memes, and videos about it are all already out there. The buzz around it has mostly died off and the Verge has now been immortalized on the internet as a joke to anyone with even the slightest tech knowledge. Copyright striking to remove these videos after so long... the damage has already been done... lol

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Hell I am not even sure if Youtube would actually help mediate for someone like Linus if they claim him unless is fairly blatantly false. 

@LinusTech right now...

[imreloadin]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Fox didn't claim shit. The automated system did, and Fox reversed it when the owner reached out to them.

Well they didn't exactly give the the guy credit for it during the episode now did they?

[Fasauceome]

2 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

And he was using her copyrighted material. The fact that youtubers usually let it slide has led many people to believe that it means they don't actually have the rights to do so. They absolutely do. It's like going getting pulled over for going 1mph over the limit, but then calling the cop an idiot, and subsequently being angry that you get a ticket. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect a warning if you're polite.

You can use any amount of copyrighted material you want if it's transformative in your work.

 

It would be more like getting a ticket for going at the speed limit.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

You can use any amount of copyrighted material you want if it's transformative in your work.

 

It would be more like getting a ticket for going at the speed limit.

And you say this based on what?

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

And you say this based on what?

This is what fair use is designed for, protection of parody, criticism, and discussion. Are you actually siding with the companies that copyright claim videos with a fraction of a second of their music, or covers?

 

It has been well understood that you can always use someone else's work if you're doing something transformative with it, no matter what. Somehow you missed the memo though.

[Spotty]

Just now, fasauceome said:

It has been well understood that you can always use someone else's work if you're doing something transformative with it, no matter what. Somehow you missed the memo though.

That's not true, certainly not "no matter what".

In the event of legal copyright claims, its up to the courts to decide if the content was transformed enough from the original to no longer constitute copyright infringment of the original material.

For example could I upload Justin Bieber music video along with the audio if I added a single, brief voice over saying "Justin Bieber is gay" at the end of the video but left the rest of the material unchanged? No. I would receive a takedown notice within seconds.

However if I create a 15 minute video complaining about the song, and show a very brief clip of the music video as a way of expressing my criticism, then it could still be copyright striked, but I may have a chance of successfully arguing in court that I transformed the original content enough that it no longer is infringing on the original content and is considered fair use.

 

(At least that's my understanding of it, if we're talking about US laws, as it will vary depending on country. I still need to read up on it... But it definitely doesn't give you a blanket free pass to use whatever content you want)

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

That's not true, certainly not "no matter what".

In the event of legal copyright claims, its up to the courts to decide if the content was transformed enough from the original to no longer constitute copyright infringment of the original material.

Not that I mean "no matter what" applies to how transformative it is, but to be more clear it's how much content is used.

 

You are correct in saying there are different criteria for actually transformative content. 

[JoostinOnline]

14 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

This is what fair use is designed for, protection of parody, criticism, and discussion. Are you actually siding with the companies that copyright claim videos with a fraction of a second of their music, or covers?

 

It has been well understood that you can always use someone else's work if you're doing something transformative with it, no matter what. Somehow you missed the memo though.

That's not what fair use is designed for. That's what it's sort of become, but they are two different things.

 

I didn't even mention music, so I don't know why you would jump to a conclusion about me "siding" with some companies.

[S w a t s o n]

I used to consider the verge a semi-reliable source of decent quality articles. Are they asking to join the ranks of kotaku, polygon, and tom's hardware?

[imreloadin]

2 hours ago, Undated said:

What’s funny is that they posted this two days before

It's almost like this writer gave the executives the idea

2 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

... half my heart now rests on the possibility that this might be an automated takedown ._.

If it was automatic then why did it take so long?

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I didn't even mention music, so I don't know why you would jump to a conclusion about me "siding" with some companies

You claimed that PewDiePie was wrong to use the clips he did in the way that he did (although it's clear you actually don't know the fashion in which that was carried out) which is pretty reminiscent of false copyright strikes endemic of YouTube right now.

Overall, PewDiePie was well within his rights to use elinity's content as he saw fit, because he was not infringing on her intellectual property. His work was transformative.

 

5 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not what fair use is designed for. That's what it's sort of become, but they are two different things

Alright, explain what it's for then.

[Fasauceome]

Deleted

[mxk]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

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.

lol

 

How the actual hell is thot an offensive term? I'm sorry, but as a high schooler, it's used more as a joke now but describes a certain personality of people in its actual definition (not even women, we have a term called "man-thot").

 

That

Hoe

Over

There