Lofi Girl live stream taken down after abusive copyright claim

[Arika]

9 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

shoot first, ask questions later

that is the youtube way

 

  

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well then they have a beef with the current state of copyright laws as they basically necessitate this method so as to not be held legally liable. I'm not saying it's ideal but I do realize that youtube doesn't have much of a choice. 

I have beef with the current copyright laws AND the way youtube decide to enforce them

[AnonymousGuy]

9 hours ago, emosun said:

I have a hard time believing that in 2.3 years the stream never once disconnected due to ISP , power outage , crash , ..... a basic windows update that required a restart............ doesn't seem plausible

I'd bet they're running out of a cloud instance.  It's not possible to have 100% uptime on a residential connection because you're eventually going to get forced off for a modem update or node maintenance or some shit like that.

 

Pure non-network uptime: I've had my windows server run for months on end without rebooting.  I think I had one get close to a year before I had shut it down for hardware upgrades.  My power grid is really stable with 99.99% uptime and it's on a 2 hour battery backup anyways which is longer than the longest outage that has happened in 10 years.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

that is the youtube way

 

  

I have beef with the current copyright laws AND the way youtube decide to enforce them

How to break youtube and piss off free content creators:

Step 1. Find a CC/PD song everyone uses

Step 2. Steal it and put it on a music licensing site

https://www.stockmusicsite.com/stockmusic/archive/Pop/Pop-EDM/Summer-Nights-Instr/687745

 

Step 3. Claim every use of the CC-BY track on Youtube

 

Because the original track was released as CC-BY, the original copyright owner isn't going to do anything about it. If you really want to use it, are you really going to risk a copyright strike over a song that isn't even yours, even though you have permission to use it? No.

 

The ability for people to steal PD/CC music, re-upload it to monetization services, and then have those services claim it on youtube is just so asinine.

 

Like when it comes down to it, if you are creating content. It's come down to "never license music", because the person you license it from, may have also stolen it, or they may license it to someone else who will then make claims against you.

 

Case in point:

This is what will happen if you use music that you did not expressly commission, AND, have not negotiated exclusive use of.

[Taf the Ghost]

Problems like this won't get fixed until someone truly runs a full Black Knight OP. A random Destiny streamer that was pissed off nearly took down that entire YT community, and he'd have gotten away with it if he wasn't stupid. A dedicated group with a little pre-planning could basically obliterate the entire YT Livestreaming Ecosystem along with almost locking up the entirety of the major content creators. 

It'll get fixed when someone does it to a big event going on. Either Sports or Politics. One or the other.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

I have beef with the current copyright laws AND the way youtube decide to enforce them

Ultimately though a reason the way the enforcement has become like this though is precisely because of the copyright laws.

 

Like when YouTube was fighting billion dollar lawsuits for not enforcing the copyright system well enough.  It created the birth of content-id, but of course now YouTube has a way to actually detect such a thing...so YouTube now out of fear of more lawsuits needs to abide by content-id.  What needs to change is how copyright itself is handled in the law and making it better balanced for our modern age.

[Arika]

47 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Ultimately though a reason the way the enforcement has become like this though is precisely because of the copyright laws.

 

Like when YouTube was fighting billion dollar lawsuits for not enforcing the copyright system well enough.  It created the birth of content-id, but of course now YouTube has a way to actually detect such a thing...so YouTube now out of fear of more lawsuits needs to abide by content-id.  What needs to change is how copyright itself is handled in the law and making it better balanced for our modern age.

pretty sure there's nothing in copyright law that says:

 

"if someone used 15 seconds of copyright music in a 15 minute video, you're allowed to take 100% of all money made on that 15 minute video"

 

Yes th old system wasn't great, but youtube went and tipped the scales in the complete opposite direction, fucking over innocent people because of a buggy as fuck content-ID system and scummy as fuck copyright holders who know they can strong arm youtube into giving them what they want.

[wanderingfool2]

45 minutes ago, Arika S said:

pretty sure there's nothing in copyright law that says:

 

"if someone used 15 seconds of copyright music in a 15 minute video, you're allowed to take 100% of all money made on that 15 minute video"

But that completely overlooks the reality of the copyright laws and how much YouTube can be punished by it.

 

There isn't a cap on infringement.  If lets say YouTube knew or had the capability of knowing about infringing videos, they could have their safe harbour portion removed, at which point its going to be billions. (It's why there is also the strike system, avoiding liability)

 

The reason all revenue is redirected is simply because that's sort of how the copyright system is built up.  Remember, if YouTube decided to do "splits" based on that, then they could easily have copyright holders decide it's not enough and pursue legal actions.

 

iirc, there is already a lawsuit that took place over YouTube removing the ability for a company to use content-id because of abuse (and then they proceeded to sue).  The unfettered nature of damages of copyright make it a force to be reckoned with...YouTube will do everything in their power to make copyright holders "whole", as they are the ones who can force multi-million dollar lawsuits to happen.

[Lightwreather]

I'll just leave this here:

[Arika]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

YouTube will do everything in their power to make copyright holders "whole", as they are the ones who can force multi-million dollar lawsuits to happen.

they don't make them whole, they make them "whole" and give them the rest of the other person too.

 

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Remember, if YouTube decided to do "splits" based on that, then they could easily have copyright holders decide it's not enough and pursue legal actions.

and youtube can defend that in court

 

"this video only contained 15 seconds out of 15 minutes, so we paid them for the 15 seconds"

i cannot see any court or legal system say "fuck that, not enough, give them more".

 

Why do creators have to just roll over and take it? they don't have the funds to fight multi-million dollar lawsuits. This is alphabet we're talking about, they're a $1.7trillion dollar company. Google had the "don't be evil" in their company constitution, they never used to be a doormat, they still aren't, but instead they lay their creators down to be the biggest doormat for them. I don't see how you can defend that.

 

If no one fights copyright law, then nothing changes. if Google starts to fight and they start to win, then precedent has been set and changes can start occurring. Change sure as shit isn't going to come from the copyright holders.

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

and youtube can defend that in court

 

That costs Youtibe money. The way they're doing things now doesn't. Making money is their primary objective.

[Brooksie359]

17 hours ago, Arika S said:

that is the youtube way

 

  

I have beef with the current copyright laws AND the way youtube decide to enforce them

As far as I am aware youtube has come up with their policies specifically to not get sued so idk if it's justifiable to blame youtube when they are just trying to not be legally liable. 

[Arika]

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

That costs Youtibe money. The way they're doing things now doesn't. Making money is their primary objective.

 

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

As far as I am aware youtube has come up with their policies specifically to not get sued so idk if it's justifiable to blame youtube when they are just trying to not be legally liable. 

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

Why do creators have to just roll over and take it? they don't have the funds to fight multi-million dollar lawsuits. This is alphabet we're talking about, they're a $1.7trillion dollar company. Google had the "don't be evil" in their company constitution, they never used to be a doormat, they still aren't, but instead they lay their creators down to be the biggest doormat for them. I don't see how you can defend that.

 

If no one fights copyright law, then nothing changes. if Google starts to fight and they start to win, then precedent has been set and changes can start occurring. Change sure as shit isn't going to come from the copyright holders.

It is justifiable to blame youtube when they are complicit in it. 

 

As much as I dislike epic, at least they stood up for their values and (they claim) consumers, putting themselves in the firing line for change on mobile so stores. Which has actually done something. Google hasn't even admitted that their current system is a problem, so regardless of whether or not it's the law's fault, they outwardly just don't care and are happy to let their creators get fucked over just so they don't get sued. 

[wanderingfool2]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

and youtube can defend that in court

 

"this video only contained 15 seconds out of 15 minutes, so we paid them for the 15 seconds"

i cannot see any court or legal system say "fuck that, not enough, give them more".

No they can't.

 

It doesn't matter if it's 15 seconds in a 15 minute video.  That's not going to get the court on your side saying things like "it's hardly anything".

 

If the copyrighted work is a registered copyright, the minimum damages is $750.  That in itself would be more than most channels make in advertisement  per video...and that's minimal damages on a registered copyright.  You can look at license fees as well for said works, which likely range in the thousands.  Some of the movies pay well in excess of $20,000 - $60,000 to use a song in a movie.  If they can show they charge that for licensing, then they could realistically request that being the minimal charge.  More likely they would purse them as distributing it though, which means they could be asking for millions for a simple use of their work.

 

YouTube does what they do because it of how copyright law works.  If they decide to only give a portion of the revenue back, the creators could easily just use a copyright lawsuit instead.

[Brooksie359]

44 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

It is justifiable to blame youtube when they are complicit in it. 

 

As much as I dislike epic, at least they stood up for their values and (they claim) consumers, putting themselves in the firing line for change on mobile so stores. Which has actually done something. Google hasn't even admitted that their current system is a problem, so regardless of whether or not it's the law's fault, they outwardly just don't care and are happy to let their creators get fucked over just so they don't get sued. 

No it's not justifiable to blame youtube for laws they have 0 input when they were made. They are just following them. Also epic games just wanted more money and the whole thing about actually caring about mobile stores is total pr bs. Sure they may have helped others by advocating foe their own self-interest but that doesn't change the fact that there is 0 chance they would have done so if it was not about money. 

[Arika]

43 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No they can't.

 

It doesn't matter if it's 15 seconds in a 15 minute video.  That's not going to get the court on your side saying things like "it's hardly anything".

 

If the copyrighted work is a registered copyright, the minimum damages is $750.  That in itself would be more than most channels make in advertisement  per video...and that's minimal damages on a registered copyright.  You can look at license fees as well for said works, which likely range in the thousands.  Some of the movies pay well in excess of $20,000 - $60,000 to use a song in a movie.  If they can show they charge that for licensing, then they could realistically request that being the minimal charge.  More likely they would purse them as distributing it though, which means they could be asking for millions for a simple use of their work.

 

YouTube does what they do because it of how copyright law works.  If they decide to only give a portion of the revenue back, the creators could easily just use a copyright lawsuit instead.

 

20 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

No it's not justifiable to blame youtube for laws they have 0 input when they were made. They are just following them. Also epic games just wanted more money and the whole thing about actually caring about mobile stores is total pr bs. Sure they may have helped others by advocating foe their own self-interest but that doesn't change the fact that there is 0 chance they would have done so if it was not about money. 

Got it, so one of the most powerful company's in the world shouldn't do anything about it and just roll over because "laws" instead of advocating for change while their creators continue to get royalty fucked over it.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Kisai]

50 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No they can't.

 

It doesn't matter if it's 15 seconds in a 15 minute video.  That's not going to get the court on your side saying things like "it's hardly anything".

This really is where and why copyright in the US has "fair use", The problem is youtube is not going to bat (very often) for creators for fair use. They are not the creator, and can not read the creator's mind.

 

In my personal view, the following should be fair use, even if it looks kind of abusive:

- Using less than half of the source material in time from a first generation copy, as long it can not be extracted back out (eg no copies-of-a-copy, eg using a pirate copy in lieu of ripping the disc/netflix/disney+/etc yourself)

- Using less than half of the source material without it's accompanying synchronized audio or video (eg a sound or video excerpt)

- Using any amount of material in an educational or commentary context, without making it a substation for the source material (eg you can't just watch a movie on a stream, an occasionally laugh over it, you have to actively cut out material you're not providing context for.)

 

One of the reasons I'm super-not-fond of "react videos" is because they often are a replacement for the source material. So you get into situations where X youtuber with 100,000 subscribers watch your video, which gains you only one view, but that big youtuber likely made at least $100 in ad revenue from talking about it, and now it's permanently part of the video. At the very least Youtube should develop a stand-alone desktop player to enable a "watch together" system, where the you enter the URL of the "host", and whatever the host watches/seeks/pauses, the player moves in sync, so that every video the host watches, the guests can view the video themselves, and the stats youtube needs to pay other creators are tracked.

 

It's in Twitch and Youtube's best interests for some player like that to exist, and likewise for Disney+, Netflix, and all the other VOD systems. So when you watch together, the host just shows a seek-time on screen for content that is paywalled. That would in effect, drive more subscriptions to services instead of people pirating things.

 

 

50 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If the copyrighted work is a registered copyright, the minimum damages is $750.  That in itself would be more than most channels make in advertisement  per video...and that's minimal damages on a registered copyright.  You can look at license fees as well for said works, which likely range in the thousands.  Some of the movies pay well in excess of $20,000 - $60,000 to use a song in a movie.  If they can show they charge that for licensing, then they could realistically request that being the minimal charge.  More likely they would purse them as distributing it though, which means they could be asking for millions for a simple use of their work.

 

YouTube does what they do because it of how copyright law works.  If they decide to only give a portion of the revenue back, the creators could easily just use a copyright lawsuit instead.

 

Nah, youtube does what they do because they are all robots. Speaking from experience, people who work in copyright claims departments at big companies, are only permitted to use boilerplate language and tell the impacted user to negotiate with the one making the copyright claim.  This is under the assumption that the claim is legit...

 

Which is usually the case for extremely big companies, who employ lawyers. But individuals who wish to sabotage other individuals? 

 

 

This user has been harassed by another user stealing their content maliciously and then DMCA'ing them.

 

Like, the fact that this is possible, tells you why you don't give tools to individuals, only large companies that have lawyers that review things.

 

 

Even then, sometimes people get access to those tools and are irresponsible with them.

 

Pirates are even getting their SEO links back into Google by sending counter-notices with fake contact information, and Google just goes "send us a court order" (read: waste your time and money fighting someone who doesn't exist)

 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This really is where and why copyright in the US has "fair use", The problem is youtube is not going to bat (very often) for creators for fair use. They are not the creator, and can not read the creator's mind.

 

In my personal view, the following should be fair use, even if it looks kind of abusive:

- Using less than half of the source material in time from a first generation copy, as long it can not be extracted back out (eg no copies-of-a-copy, eg using a pirate copy in lieu of ripping the disc/netflix/disney+/etc yourself)

- Using less than half of the source material without it's accompanying synchronized audio or video (eg a sound or video excerpt)

- Using any amount of material in an educational or commentary context, without making it a substation for the source material (eg you can't just watch a movie on a stream, an occasionally laugh over it, you have to actively cut out material you're not providing context for.)

 

One of the reasons I'm super-not-fond of "react videos" is because they often are a replacement for the source material. So you get into situations where X youtuber with 100,000 subscribers watch your video, which gains you only one view, but that big youtuber likely made at least $100 in ad revenue from talking about it, and now it's permanently part of the video. At the very least Youtube should develop a stand-alone desktop player to enable a "watch together" system, where the you enter the URL of the "host", and whatever the host watches/seeks/pauses, the player moves in sync, so that every video the host watches, the guests can view the video themselves, and the stats youtube needs to pay other creators are tracked.

 

It's in Twitch and Youtube's best interests for some player like that to exist, and likewise for Disney+, Netflix, and all the other VOD systems. So when you watch together, the host just shows a seek-time on screen for content that is paywalled. That would in effect, drive more subscriptions to services instead of people pirating things.

 

 

 

Nah, youtube does what they do because they are all robots. Speaking from experience, people who work in copyright claims departments at big companies, are only permitted to use boilerplate language and tell the impacted user to negotiate with the one making the copyright claim.  This is under the assumption that the claim is legit...

 

Which is usually the case for extremely big companies, who employ lawyers. But individuals who wish to sabotage other individuals? 

 

 

This user has been harassed by another user stealing their content maliciously and then DMCA'ing them.

 

Like, the fact that this is possible, tells you why you don't give tools to individuals, only large companies that have lawyers that review things.

 

 

Even then, sometimes people get access to those tools and are irresponsible with them.

Honestly most react videos generally help with youtube channel growth and looking at some stats related to this it's pretty consistent that this is true in 90% of the situations especially if the video is good as most people when they see a good video they might want to look at the creators other videos. 

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

Got it, so one of the most powerful company's in the world shouldn't do anything about it and just roll over because "laws" instead of advocating for change while their creators continue to get royalty fucked over it.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

If you think it would be an easy fight for youtube your are very much wrong. The players behind copyright laws are huge as well and there are more than one of them so to even try to go against them would be very expensive and likely accomplish little. From a business standpoint it would make little sense. 

[Arika]

49 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you think it would be an easy fight for youtube your are very much wrong. The players behind copyright laws are huge as well and there are more than one of them so to even try to go against them would be very expensive and likely accomplish little. From a business standpoint it would make little sense. 

So nothing ever changes. copyright holders keep their stranglehold on everything. The government isn't just going to wake up one day and think "today i'm going to change copyright law". Change has to start from somewhere, it's not going to just happen.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

So nothing ever changes. copyright holders keep their stranglehold on everything. The government isn't just going to wake up one day and think "today i'm going to change copyright law". Change has to start from somewhere, it's not going to just happen.

Well yeah that tends to happen when you have alot of people who have alot of money and have monetary interest in keeping the copyright laws as is. If you want to go any try and change the laws for copyright then go ahead but for me personally that seems like a futile endeavor. 

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly most react videos generally help with youtube channel growth and looking at some stats related to this it's pretty consistent that this is true in 90% of the situations especially if the video is good as most people when they see a good video they might want to look at the creators other videos. 

Citation needed.

 

If I'm watching a big streamer do a media share, and they watch Gordon Ramsey videos for 4 hours. None of that is helping Gordon Ramsey. Unfortunately the lazy meta on Twitch is to watch youtube for all day.

 

If I watch a streamer "react" to some stupid compilation video of other videos, that's certainly not helping the source video's or the compilation maker, but at least it can be argued that the original videos already went viral.

 

But the thing that would help, or even resolve copyright issues in the first place would be for metadata (eg Davinci Resolve, Adobe Premiere Pro, etc) about what asset being used at what point in the timeline, and uploading a manifest of the licensed assets, so that ContentID claims are automatically resolved by going "yep, that's something they licensed, f*ck off now."

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

On 7/11/2022 at 7:08 AM, LouKs said:

Summary

After more than 20,800 hours live, Lofi Girl live stream was taken down on saturday, July 9, 2022 because of a false, abusive copyright claim by Malaysian recording company "Fantasia Music City" (FMC Music), which generated a strike on the channel and took down the live stream. Because of the strike, the channel wouldn't be able to live stream for 90 days.

A day later, on monday, Youtube team responded on twitter claiming that the issue has been resolved, the claimants account has been terminated and that everything should be back to normal in 24 to 48 hours

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Even though YouTube has solved this quickly this time, It shouldn't have happened in the first place. Companies being abusive with their copyright claims is becoming more and more of a problem on the platform, see what Nintendo is doing to videos about Switch emulation on the Steam Deck. Also, as you can see on the twitter thread, a lot of small content creators have had problems with (allegedly) false claims and YouTube has never lifted a finger to help them.

I'll never forget about a video I saw where the creator made a simple jingle and registered it on a music distribution platform, so he can copyright claim his own video and protect himself from the system (since that way he'd be able to receive the revenue from the copyright owner: himself)

 

Sources

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/youtube-says-will-reinstate-lofi-girls-live-streams-false-copyright-cl-rcna37613

Don't worry, the system is so broken, you too can send abusive copyright claims with a simple Gmail account.

 

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Citation needed.

 

If I'm watching a big streamer do a media share, and they watch Gordon Ramsey videos for 4 hours. None of that is helping Gordon Ramsey. Unfortunately the lazy meta on Twitch is to watch youtube for all day.

 

If I watch a streamer "react" to some stupid compilation video of other videos, that's certainly not helping the source video's or the compilation maker, but at least it can be argued that the original videos already went viral.

 

But the thing that would help, or even resolve copyright issues in the first place would be for metadata (eg Davinci Resolve, Adobe Premiere Pro, etc) about what asset being used at what point in the timeline, and uploading a manifest of the licensed assets, so that ContentID claims are automatically resolved by going "yep, that's something they licensed, f*ck off now."

 

For most of the react content I watch the content creators are OK with people reacting to their videos and the ones that aren't people stop reacting out of respect for the creator. And again those creaters are generally doing great and have had pretty drastic growth following big streamers reacting to their videos. 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

This really is where and why copyright in the US has "fair use", The problem is youtube is not going to bat (very often) for creators for fair use. They are not the creator, and can not read the creator's mind.

Section 230 pretty much defeats the incentive.  If they start going to bat for people, and they are wrong in that case they lose their section 230 protection and thus become fully liable.  Copyright cases are expensive, even in some cut and dry ones.  If they start sticking up for everyone they will find a flood of lawsuits which they will spend millions if not billions on defending.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

In my personal view, the following should be fair use, even if it looks kind of abusive:

- Using less than half of the source material in time from a first generation copy, as long it can not be extracted back out (eg no copies-of-a-copy, eg using a pirate copy in lieu of ripping the disc/netflix/disney+/etc yourself)

- Using less than half of the source material without it's accompanying synchronized audio or video (eg a sound or video excerpt)

- Using any amount of material in an educational or commentary context, without making it a substation for the source material (eg you can't just watch a movie on a stream, an occasionally laugh over it, you have to actively cut out material you're not providing context for.)

A general problem is what happens when someone has a materials library.  By most definitions you are only using a small snippet of the copyright, and in some cases it's quite different (but still visible that it's from the same source...e.g. the classical brick game texture).  Yet some people for a living create specific shots/texture shots that can used like that (and it gets licensed out).

 

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

Got it, so one of the most powerful company's in the world shouldn't do anything about it and just roll over because "laws" instead of advocating for change while their creators continue to get royalty fucked over it.

It shouldn't be up to YouTube to defend someone else's rights or lobby for laws that aren't directly affecting them.  Also you are conviently forgetting that companies they have to go against aren't exactly small companies.

 

e.g. Disney, Sony, MGM, Time Warner, and the list goes one.  The list also includes the music industry as well.

 

So yea, it's not like they can just lobby and have things changed.

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

 

And? I think i know what point your trying to make, but if you know your history, (when i went to school here in the UK it was taught in fact as part of the curriculam), companies have repeatedly time, and time, and time again chosen to knowingly kill their workers, or their customers, (or both), and generally act in an incredibly abusive way toward all and sundry as long as it makes them more money. 

 

Companies are not your friend and beyond how they can either get your money or use you to get someone else's money they do not care about you. History has shown this countless times.