Lofi Girl live stream taken down after abusive copyright claim

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar 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.

oh i know companies are not our friends, i have no illusions of that at all. I'm just baffled that so many people can look at the clearly broken systems (both the law and youtube's implementation of it) and just say "well, nothing can be done" unironically and just leave it at that.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

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

Well, we could all vote with our wallets and boycott companies that file DMCA's toward fan-content.

 

Though I think the reality of the situation is that "small creators" need to boycott licensing any music or video. Either just use the small fragments you want to use, and in turn demand Youtube turn ContentID into a proper licensing system, let the creator upload a manifest of what they licensed and tell "rights owners" to piss off. Let "rights owners" upload a manifest of everything they claim to have a rights on, and anything that has a conflict with another rights owner has to be resolved before ContentID will negotiate a license with the content uploader. Then ask Youtube uploaders to always upload two audio tracks (one as intended, and one with all the licensed audio assets missing), should a claim arise, switch to the muted licensed audio for those claimed assets.

 

Quit giving these idiotic recording companies leverage. Twitch at least figured out a path of less-resistance by having the track-2 VOD system, but that's only going to help if the creator knows how to properly set it up. Youtube could support the same mechanism for it's live streams and also uploads. Pirates will never have both audio tracks, and re-uploads will thus be easier to spot.

 

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

oh i know companies are not our friends, i have no illusions of that at all. I'm just baffled that so many people can look at the clearly broken systems (both the law and youtube's implementation of it) and just say "well, nothing can be done" unironically and just leave it at that.

Well what do you suppose we do then because for me personally trying to change things is a futile effort and honestly out of all of the things I would like to change this probably is way down on the list. I mean yeah it isn't ideal or perfect but there are so many other things I would rather change like stop predatory games like Diablo immortal and the like which are essentially getting away with gambling without being designated as a gambling game. 

[tkitch]

36 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well what do you suppose we do then because for me personally trying to change things is a futile effort and honestly out of all of the things I would like to change this probably is way down on the list. I mean yeah it isn't ideal or perfect but there are so many other things I would rather change like stop predatory games like Diablo immortal and the like which are essentially getting away with gambling without being designated as a gambling game. 

But DI isn't gambling!  You buy (one of about 25) in game currency!  Which can be used to buy things!

Just cuz that one crest has a 0.05% chance of being something useful.....  Shhh, details.....  (You could just spend more and get more Plat and buy it off the AH for about 400$.)

[spartaman64]

On 7/11/2022 at 9:56 AM, HarryNyquist said:

The problem is that the "police" in this case only work with you if you're high enough profile. If you're a random person on YouTube, and someone abuses the broken DMCA to take you down, you're just done. There's no help for you. YouTube just terminates your account and tells you to go fuck yourself.

if you fight it in court and win you can have your lawyers send youtube the court order. i know this is not viable for most people but youtube cannot chose to circumvent the legal system

16 hours 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. 

youtube is a big company but they are not bigger than all the music label companies and movie studios combined. and they cannot fight hundreds of thousands of copyright lawsuits. so youtube relies on the creator to fight the lawsuit and give them the court order after its done. the dispute is between the music label company and the creator not with youtube. 

[HarryNyquist]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

if you fight it in court and win you can have your lawyers send youtube the court order. i know this is not viable for most people but youtube cannot chose to circumvent the legal system

Remember that Destiny 2/Bungie debacle where someone fraudulently represented Bungie and MASSIVELY SUCCEEDED at taking down droves of videos? That is YouTube, not DMCA. DMCA requires verification that you own or legally represent the copyright that you're making a claim about. YouTube is just like "ok :)" and leaves the uploader no option than to do a court case? That's broken. That needs corrected. It's not against DMCA or Safe Harbor regulations to verify that the person claiming copyright on an uploader is or has been verified as the holder/legal representative of that copyright.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, HarryNyquist said:

Remember that Destiny 2/Bungie debacle where someone fraudulently represented Bungie and MASSIVELY SUCCEEDED at taking down droves of videos? That is YouTube, not DMCA. DMCA requires verification that you own or legally represent the copyright that you're making a claim about. YouTube is just like "ok :)" and leaves the uploader no option than to do a court case? That's broken. That needs corrected. It's not against DMCA or Safe Harbor regulations to verify that the person claiming copyright on an uploader is or has been verified as the holder/legal representative of that copyright.

yep that was on them but this and the majority of dmca claims are a different case. also if the person just started a company and filed as that company then youtube would still need to honor the claims 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Is it just idiotic me or are some people confusing copyright claims with copyright takedowns/takedown requests? AFAIK, there's a difference between those two. 

 

 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

4 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

yep that was on them but this and the majority of dmca claims are a different case. also if the person just started a company and filed as that company then youtube would still need to honor the claims 

Wasn't there an instance where YT rejected a copyright takedown/dmca request during the act man drama? IK the drama is long over but just a thing to bring up to reduce my confusion

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Wasn't there an instance where YT rejected a copyright takedown/dmca request during the act man drama? IK the drama is long over but just a thing to bring up to reduce my confusion

i mean in this case youtube is also rejecting a dmca claim putting themselves at risk. so yes they do sometimes decide that its worth it to protect a valuable asset like lofi girl. but they are not going to do it for the millions of small channels when its not worth the cost

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Is it just idiotic me or are some people confusing copyright claims with copyright takedowns/takedown requests? AFAIK, there's a difference between those two. 

 

 

People are always going to conflate the two, because the "copyright takedown" is the legal process, where as "claims" are something Youtube does without a legal justification. Just like eBay's VeRO system.

 

Basically the point of a DMCA or VeRO claim on eBay is to take the thing down and punish the uploader under the assumption it was a malicious (eg pirate/bootleg) item. Unfortunately these get stretched into some real absurdities.

 

A claim, is handled internally, and is usually a not something reported by the copyright holder, it's reported by internal algorithms, or users of the site who do not have a copyright stake in the video.  This is why humans can't really do this, because humans will use their judgement on things they know nothing about. People will write novels about why something violates someone elses copyright, but because the person reviewing it has no understanding of the subject, they won't see it, or won't care.

 

Hence "copyright claims" without necessarily being "copyright violations"

 

Honestly, the whole thing is a mess, and how it should have always worked is a copyright escrow system, where the "claims" can't just automatically take revenue from videos, they have to negotiate. 

eg:

- designate a % of the total video based on the amount of use of the copyrighted material. 

or

- designate an all-or-nothing (Eg music videos, react videos) stake, where the copyright claim is based on the subject material (eg a LP of a story game might be "claim for all", but a highlight video with the player narrating would not) for videos where it's possible that the video acts as a substitution for their own.

 

Both stake holders must negotiate within a reasonable time (eg 14 days,) or no revenue will be released to either party, it will remain withheld, collecting interest until an agreement is reached or automatic rules kick in. 

 

- If more than one rights owner makes a claim, then the rights owners must designate which global region they are making the claim for. If two or more make claims for "global" then they must negotiate among themselves before the "rights owner" revenue is released.

 

Automatic rules would be like:

- determine the % of the video containing each claim, minus dead air

- determine the context of the video from auto-caption/uploaded captions, chapters, etc (no captions = possibly a low-effort video, certain keywords trigger brand-safety flags to demonetize )

- determine the engagement volatility of the content. If it appears to be primarily negative engagement, demonetize the video. If there are high levels of profanity or sexual language, also demonetize the video.

 

It's within the "claimed" rights owner's best interests to not let the automatic rules kick in, because it could result in the video being demonetized entirely. If they do not want their content being used on, say, a politically charged video, or a hate video, then they should just straight up go for the DMCA instead.

 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 7/13/2022 at 7:19 PM, spartaman64 said:

i mean in this case youtube is also rejecting a dmca claim putting themselves at risk. so yes they do sometimes decide that its worth it to protect a valuable asset like lofi girl. but they are not going to do it for the millions of small channels when its not worth the cost

Damn youtube being morally and legally sus 

[sounds]

Another day and it's Gamer's Nexus this time:

 

 

If you want to watch the video it's still there as of right now:

 

https://youtu.be/La-dcK4h4ZU

[spartaman64]

12 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Damn youtube being morally and legally sus 

not really legally sus. they just signaled that they are willing to fight the copyright claim in court if FMC doubles down because they think lofi girl is valuable enough. which is what is supposed to happen with copyright claims.

 

people think dmca claims are between them and youtube no its between you and the company claiming your video. if you fight it in court and win and have your lawyers send youtube the court order youtube will reinstate your video 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

not really legally sus. they just signaled that they are willing to fight the copyright claim in court if FMC doubles down because they think lofi girl is valuable enough. which is what is supposed to happen with copyright claims.

 

people think dmca claims are between them and youtube no its between you and the company claiming your video. if you fight it in court and win and have your lawyers send youtube the court order youtube will reinstate your video 

Aren't they legally bound (or something like that) to accept every dmca/takedown request and let the parties "fight it out"?

[Kisai]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:15 PM, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Aren't they legally bound (or something like that) to accept every dmca/takedown request and let the parties "fight it out"?

More or less, however there is no provision in the DMCA to prevent repeat takedowns when incorrect. Just a "good faith" claim that they believe it to be infringing, no requirement to actually check. Many automatic shotgunning of DMCA notices are based on keywords in the titles of videos or descriptions, not anything infringing.

 

Sometimes Youtube's algorithm works against the real rights owner in some insane ways. This is more prevalent on Google search itself, where brands send DMCA's to Google to to remove competition (be it legit, or unfair competition, eg counterfeit/pirate.)  On Youtube it can look like a brand is trying to greenwash their company or content by eliminating "fair use" cases of their content that negatively discuss them, while leaving up low-quality infringement like react videos/memes and compilations.

 

Remember the case of the 

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/home-video-prince/story?id=3777651

Quote

In the video, the child is seen bouncing and swaying for the camera, as, faintly, the Prince hit "Let's Go Crazy" plays on a CD player in the background.

 

Twenty eight people, mostly friends and family, had viewed the YouTube video by June, when mom Stephanie Lenz said she received an e-mail from YouTube informing her that her video had been removed from the site at the request of Universal Music Publishing Group, the recording industry's largest label, and warning her that future copyright infringements on her part could force the Web site to cancel her account.

 

Some "rights owners" are just absurd. Prince is absolutely one of them.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/princes-legal-legacy-contract-fights-886521/

Quote

Throughout the years, Prince has consistently raised eyebrows with an assertiveness bordering on manic.

 

In 2014, for example, he sued 22 Facebook users for linking to bootlegs of his recordings. A few days after filing, amid a big public backlash, the lawsuit was withdrawn. He later explained to the BBC, “Nobody sues their fans … I have some bootlegs of Lianne [La Havas] but I wouldn’t sell them. But fans sharing music with each other, that’s cool.”

 

I'm sure there are probably hundreds of singers and artists who are in the same mindset, that they do not have "fans", they have "customers", and any sharing is stealing. The American and Japanese recording industries are very much of that mindset, with JASRAC notably responsible for MIDI files pretty much going extinct. Games that allows you to play music (eg Mabinogi, Archeage, Final Fantasy 14, Raft, etc) had to put some road cones in the way of the player from being able to just play crappy midi versions of commercially sold music in the game because it "could be infringing" despite the fact that players still got around it by writing programs to transcribe the midi's or macro-play them in the game. 

 

There is a certain level of control that the music and film industry want over platforms like youtube, and they will not be happy until the platform dies.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 7/16/2022 at 8:33 PM, Kisai said:

More or less, however there is no provision in the DMCA to prevent repeat takedowns when incorrect. Just a "good faith" claim that they believe it to be infringing, no requirement to actually check. Many automatic shotgunning of DMCA notices are based on keywords in the titles of videos or descriptions, not anything infringing.

 

Sometimes Youtube's algorithm works against the real rights owner in some insane ways. This is more prevalent on Google search itself, where brands send DMCA's to Google to to remove competition (be it legit, or unfair competition, eg counterfeit/pirate.)  On Youtube it can look like a brand is trying to greenwash their company or content by eliminating "fair use" cases of their content that negatively discuss them, while leaving up low-quality infringement like react videos/memes and compilations.

 

Remember the case of the 

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/home-video-prince/story?id=3777651

 

Some "rights owners" are just absurd. Prince is absolutely one of them.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/princes-legal-legacy-contract-fights-886521/

 

I'm sure there are probably hundreds of singers and artists who are in the same mindset, that they do not have "fans", they have "customers", and any sharing is stealing. The American and Japanese recording industries are very much of that mindset, with JASRAC notably responsible for MIDI files pretty much going extinct. Games that allows you to play music (eg Mabinogi, Archeage, Final Fantasy 14, Raft, etc) had to put some road cones in the way of the player from being able to just play crappy midi versions of commercially sold music in the game because it "could be infringing" despite the fact that players still got around it by writing programs to transcribe the midi's or macro-play them in the game. 

 

There is a certain level of control that the music and film industry want over platforms like youtube, and they will not be happy until the platform dies.

Sounds like the same stupid YT BS but a different day