Youtube Copyright Trolls Scare Yogscast Into Privacy

[GamerDad]

So there's a copyright troll by the name of Web Sheriff going around flagging the Yogscast parody music videos for copyright infringement.

Because of this, Yogscast has announced on its Reddit subforum that they have made all of their remaining music videos private to avoid having those videos flagged as well.

 

It is important to note that Youtube, being a US-based company, is subject to the fair use clause of the copyright act which grants the ability to use copyrighted works in a few cases including commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

This means that the Yogscast parody videos do have the fair use right to use the music of a song and change the lyrics under the protection of the parody and commentary exceptions.

This is also the case for Let's Plays which are clearly commentative and critical reactions to game play as well as unique performances of the works in question.

 

The problem, as we all know too well, is that Youtube's system assumes guilt rather than innocence of the accused and the appeal process can take months to resolve robbing the accused (without recompense) of any income during this process.

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Yogscast/comments/1wegn6/wheres_the_modding_api_video_claimed/
 

[Ghost]

Relevant. Before people start ranting, watch this.

 

[Jaybird]

I love scott manley. I wish youtube had an appeal button so that I would be sent to someone to actually verify it. plus, I think people with some 1,000 videos should almost nearly be innocent before guilty with these type of things. I can understand if some guy makes one account and uploads one video that is forsure copyright then it shouldnt have to go through a process. 

[FizzyFantom]

I'm fairly sure that covers and parodies of music are acceptable so long as they are not monetised (but they probably won't be monetised due to recent Google fuckup-ery anyway). Also the Yogscast are partnered with Polaris, so they should theoretically be fine.

[Ghost]

I love scott manley. I wish youtube had an appeal button so that I would be sent to someone to actually verify it. plus, I think people with some 10,000 subscribers  videos should almost nearly be innocent before guilty with these type of things. I can understand if some guy makes one account and uploads one video that is for sure copyright then it shouldn't have to go through a process. 

FTFY

[Jaybird]

FTFY

appreciated 

[jbr]

I love scott manley. I wish youtube had an appeal button so that I would be sent to someone to actually verify it. plus, I think people with some 1,000 videos should almost nearly be innocent before guilty with these type of things. I can understand if some guy makes one account and uploads one video that is forsure copyright then it shouldnt have to go through a process. 

 

They do, or at least they used to whenever you got a copyright message.

If the person who filed the claim doesn't respond to the counter claim the video gets unlocked and the strike removed.

 

Anyone filing false copyright claims can have their accounts frozen also.

[Ethnod]

How does Youtube even let this happen? What kind of business model is this? Scare aware the people making us money?

Someone else is going to create a Youtube for the people then and only then will they react

[GamerDad]

I'm fairly sure that covers and parodies of music are acceptable so long as they are not monetised (but they probably won't be monetised due to recent Google fuckup-ery anyway). Also the Yogscast are partnered with Polaris, so they should theoretically be fine.

 

Two words: Weird Al.

 

 

They do, or at least they used to whenever you got a copyright message.

If the person who filed the claim doesn't respond to the counter claim the video gets unlocked and the strike removed.

 

Anyone filing false copyright claims can have their accounts frozen also.

Yes but if the troll's account closes, all he has to do is open a new one and immediately keep trolling. The accused however, ceases to receive income from the flagged video immediately when accused. The troll has ONE MONTH to respond and the process can be pushed to 2-3 months more all the while the accused doesn't receive income and doesn't get reimbursed for lost income if proven innocent.

Also, if the troll flags three videos from the same user, the user's account is immediately locked.

It is a completely unfair process and certainly not a legal one but it has to go to the courts in order to sort it out. Google won't fix it unless forced to by law simply because the Hollywood lobby is too powerful vs the little guy.

[Bonsai99]

So there's a copyright troll by the name of Web Sheriff going around flagging the Yogscast parody music videos for copyright infringement.

That name...they must think they are the best keyboard warriors on teh whole planetz.

[Misanthrope]

I'm fairly sure that covers and parodies of music are acceptable so long as they are not monetised (but they probably won't be monetised due to recent Google fuckup-ery anyway). Also the Yogscast are partnered with Polaris, so they should theoretically be fine.

 

They are fair use even if monetized: You can purchase parody music cds at a store or launch them for profit at a radio station can't you not? What's good for the goose it's good for the gander: Google are just being scared assholes bending over backwards to serve interests contrary to those of themselves and their content creators and they will pay dearly for it at this rate they will run most people out of the site i.e. It would only potentially take one overzealous PC manufacturer to shut down Linus completely by claiming infringement on his reviews of their products since Linus would have to either give in and take the videos down or not monetize them or fight em and if he contests more than 2 claims at the time he runs the risk of getting 3 strikes and have the entire channel shut down, even before anything goes to court and youtube has anything but the word of the manufacturer as evidence.

That is how fucked up their system is.

[Misanthrope]

Two words: Weird Al.

 

 

Yes but if the troll's account closes, all he has to do is open a new one and immediately keep trolling. The accused however, ceases to receive income from the flagged video immediately when accused. The troll has ONE MONTH to respond and the process can be pushed to 2-3 months more all the while the accused doesn't receive income and doesn't get reimbursed for lost income if proven innocent.

Also, if the troll flags three videos from the same user, the user's account is immediately locked.

It is a completely unfair process and certainly not a legal one but it has to go to the courts in order to sort it out. Google won't fix it unless forced to by law simply because the Hollywood lobby is too powerful vs the little guy.

 

Google is "the little guy"? Who are you kidding Google has enough bank to steamroll all over them: They can literally buy more than a couple major studios in their entirety. They are just not interested in fighting them at all they are just showing incredible shortsightedness and are choosing Hollywood's side because they so arrogant they think they can just fuck over their content creators and just have more come in since they're so big.

[GamerDad]

Google is "the little guy"? Who are you kidding Google has enough bank to steamroll all over them: They can literally buy more than a couple major studios in their entirety. They are just not interested in fighting them at all they are just showing incredible shortsightedness and are choosing Hollywood's side because they so arrogant they think they can just fuck over their content creators and just have more come in since they're so big.

In what world would you think I said Google was the little guy? Google is the middle man with THE USERS being the little guy. I think that was quite clear in my statement.

[Raikuman]

Since noticing the recent videos being private on the YOGSCAST channel, I've been doing a bunch of research on this topic. Web Sheriff isn't a troll (but it is one anyways) but an anti-piracy company located in the UK. And do clear another thing up, the fair use does include parody, but the parody in this case must make fun of the original song instead of ripping the melody and adding some new lyrics and calling it a parody. This puts YOGSCAST in a tough spot to unprivatize their videos.

[mr moose]

Bugger me,  If someone did a parody of my work I would be honored, because it would mean my work was well known enough that people would get the parody,  that kind of PR is cheap.

[mikeeginger]

Wow this and Goldglove getting his 3 channels being taken down dam you copyright trolls!  

[LAwLz]

This is also the case for Let's Plays which are clearly commentative and critical reactions to game play as well as unique performances of the works in question.

Oh no not this again...

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it GamerDad, it is still not confirmed nor denied that it is fair use. We do not know if it's fair use or not since the fair use law is so vague.

Just because you think it should be classified as fair use, doesn't mean it is fair use.

 

I am not sure how much "parody" their songs were though, because that is important. Like Raikuman said, you can't just take the melody of a song and then put random lyrics on it and call it a parody. Even people like Weirld Al (was brought up earlier in the thread) asks for permission for every song he puts on his albums. Lady Gaga's manager didn't approve of his "Born this way" parody and that's why he didn't put it on his album (instead he put it up on his website to download for free).

 

I think it's really weird how everyone on the Internet seem to be an expert at copyright laws these days, even though it is very complicated and often up for interpretation.

[mr moose]

Oh no not this again...

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it GamerDad, it is still not confirmed nor denied that it is fair use. We do not know if it's fair use or not since the fair use law is so vague.

Just because you think it should be classified as fair use, doesn't mean it is fair use.

 

I am not sure how much "parody" their songs were though, because that is important. Like Raikuman said, you can't just take the melody of a song and then put random lyrics on it and call it a parody. Even people like Weirld Al (was brought up earlier in the thread) asks for permission for every song he puts on his albums. Lady Gaga's manager didn't approve of his "Born this way" parody and that's why he didn't put it on his album (instead he put it up on his website to download for free).

 

I think it's really weird how everyone on the Internet seem to be an expert at copyright laws these days, even though it is very complicated and often up for interpretation.

 

Ahhh Weird Al, one of the last vestiges of human decency in the entertainment industry.

[StingBull]

Oh no not this again...

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it GamerDad, it is still not confirmed nor denied that it is fair use. We do not know if it's fair use or not since the fair use law is so vague.

Just because you think it should be classified as fair use, doesn't mean it is fair use.

 

It's best if you take a side rather than wait for law to magically fix everything for you. The laws are ever changing and YOU are the one that'll change them. Rather waiting for a judge to decide whether or not something is legal, speak your mind. If enough people believe that it should be legal it will be legal.

[WanderingFool]

Two words: Weird Al.

 

 

Yes but if the troll's account closes, all he has to do is open a new one and immediately keep trolling. The accused however, ceases to receive income from the flagged video immediately when accused. The troll has ONE MONTH to respond and the process can be pushed to 2-3 months more all the while the accused doesn't receive income and doesn't get reimbursed for lost income if proven innocent.

Also, if the troll flags three videos from the same user, the user's account is immediately locked.

It is a completely unfair process and certainly not a legal one but it has to go to the courts in order to sort it out. Google won't fix it unless forced to by law simply because the Hollywood lobby is too powerful vs the little guy.

I am basically going to say the same argument that I said before, and that it isn't necessarily Google not wanting to fix it, but rather the law restricting them.  More specifically the DMCA.  Youtube can get in serious trouble if they permit videos that are flagged as copyright and do nothing.  So it isn't about the law forcing google to stop, but rather the law forcing google to continue.

 

The problem is in cases such as this, the punishment for false claims doesn't fit the crime.  In order to penalize the person for false claims would be for the channel itself to sue (and not Youtube, but the channel itself) and thanks to the wonderful DMCA act, all you would be able to win is lost damages and some small fine.  So blame the DMCA, not google...the reason why other web video providers aren't doing this amount of automation yet is simply because Youtube is getting the most traffic....actually so we are clear of the process, you have to contest the claim and then wait up to 15 business days (I think that was the number), then if there is a suit presented it will remain down, if there is no suit then the video will be back up, and you could sue (but the thing is you have to prove the company knew it was a false claim....and in cases of fair use it would have to be painfully obvious it was fair use).

 

One last thing, you brought up Let's Play, but some lets play clearly do not fall under the fair use....also when the companies do take the ad revenue instead of taking it down, it is under the same DMCA and copyright act....if an item that is considered infringing has been added to the video (say your voice of the reactions), if it is considered infringement the company actually has the right to claim the income from "your work" because your work was based on the companies infringing content.  *That is why it has to be taken to courts ultimately if you want your money back because the laws in the US really give the rights to the copyright holders....and it really is a guilty until proven innocent*

[Dylan522p]

Relevant. Before people start ranting, watch this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ls47fGMsS8

Too late. You expect too much from this forum. Most the users don't know what they are talking about, but they act like they do.

[TechFanboy]

LOL!         that *amn copyright =))