YouTube Strikes Now Being Used As Scammers' Extortion Tool (torrentfreak.com) 225
Scammers are reportedly using YouTube's "three strike" system for extortion. "After filing two false claims against [YouTuber ObbyRaidz], scammers contacted him demanding cash to avoid a third -- and the termination of his channel," reports TorrentFreak. From the report: The YouTuber, who concentrates on Minecraft-related videos, reports that he's received two bogus strikes on his account. While this is nothing new, it appears the strikes were deliberately malicious with longer-term plan to extort money from him. "I have been striked twice and basically extorted," ObbyRaidz revealed this morning. "If I don't pay this dude he's going to strike a third one of my videos down."
The alleged scammer contacted ObbyRaidz, who lives in Texas, via Twitter. He or she warned the YouTuber that unless he paid a sum via PayPal or bitcoin, another complaint and therefore a third strike would be added to his account. "Hi Obby, We striked you," the message from "VengefulFlame" begins. "Our request is $150 PayPal or $75 btc (Bitcoin). You may send the money via goods/services if you do not think we will cancel or hold up our end of the deal. "Once we receive our payment, we will cancel both strikes on your channel. Again -- you are free to charge back if we don't but we assure you we will." The YouTuber was then granted "a very short amount of time" to make his decision whether to pay the amount or potentially lose his channel. The YouTuber goes on to say that YouTube has not provided any assistance resolving this problem. "It's very unfortunate and YouTube has not done very much for me. I can't get in contact with them. One of the appeals got denied," he explains.
The alleged scammer contacted ObbyRaidz, who lives in Texas, via Twitter. He or she warned the YouTuber that unless he paid a sum via PayPal or bitcoin, another complaint and therefore a third strike would be added to his account. "Hi Obby, We striked you," the message from "VengefulFlame" begins. "Our request is $150 PayPal or $75 btc (Bitcoin). You may send the money via goods/services if you do not think we will cancel or hold up our end of the deal. "Once we receive our payment, we will cancel both strikes on your channel. Again -- you are free to charge back if we don't but we assure you we will." The YouTuber was then granted "a very short amount of time" to make his decision whether to pay the amount or potentially lose his channel. The YouTuber goes on to say that YouTube has not provided any assistance resolving this problem. "It's very unfortunate and YouTube has not done very much for me. I can't get in contact with them. One of the appeals got denied," he explains.
Good angle though (Score:5, Interesting)
say what you like, when big companies enact stupid rules there is always an opportunity for a good caper.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what the form, extortion is illegal though.
The first I would do if I was the youtuber would be to report the extortion to the fbi or police. If the youtuber can't get a response from Google I'm sure the FBI would.
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what the form, extortion is illegal though.
The first I would do if I was the youtuber would be to report the extortion to the fbi or police. If the youtuber can't get a response from Google I'm sure the FBI would.
The dollar amount is too small for law enforcement to be interested. That's probably *why* the amount is so small.
Another option is to take it up with Paypal, since apparently the scammer has a Paypal address. If Paypal makes a complaint to the police, that would be more likely to get action. The amount is still trivial, but Paypal has an incentive to nip this sort of thing in the bud.
That's Youtube for you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always appeal and file a SLAPP suit, you could even do this locally in a small claims without attorneys. Would've made your channel profitable!
Re: (Score:2)
If you appeal, whoever issued the strike has a set amount of time to respond.
If they don't respond, your video is reinstated and you win.
If they do respond, they can either drop the claim (your video is reinstated and you win) or reassert it.
If they assert it, you have the option of saying you're going to court. Once you show YouTube you're going to court, your video is reinstated and you win. YouTube doesn't care - they just care about not being on the hook for abetting copyright infringement. Once it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is circular because you're typing as you go down the goddam drain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, actually while a false claim can be enforced, the defense is "I believed I (or my client) owned the copyright", and lawyers are allowed to believe their clients. Even ones that repeatedly lie to them. So basically the false claims punishment only applies to those who don't have a lawyer on the pad.
senators not serious about space (Score:2)
Re:That's Youtube for you. (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA provides for anyone hit by a false claim to be entitled to "any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it." ( 17 USC 512(f)(2) ).
The primary problem as I see it isn't that there's no penalty, but rather that it's not enforced. The government is quick to bring the hammer down on infringers, but getting them to enforce the *rest* of the DMCA is often an exercise in frustration. Having said that, the DMCA also requires that the service provider's designated agent be notified (IN WRITING, and in a rather specific way) that the takedown notice was not valid before the government will do anything, and many people don't take that necessary step. In fairness though, YouTube doesn't make it particularly easy to do that.
For anyone that may be interested, YouTube's designated agent is:
Copyright Operations
YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave
San Bruno, CA 94066
Phone: 650-214-3010
Email: copyright@youtube.com
Other U.S. designated agents can be found here [copyright.gov]. Click on "Search the Directory" at the top right of the page. Per 17 USC 512(g)(3), the required information is:
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Understood, but like I said, the existing penalties can't even come into play without first notifying the service that the takedown was in error in the manner that's prescribed in the DMCA. Very few people do that.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be because the next step is a trip to court with the lawyer you can't afford during the vacation time you don't have and very little chance you'll get any of that money back and a fair chance you'll be saddled with penalties exceeding your annual income even if you're in the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be, but it isn't the case today. These days the plaintiff just says "you know, it's totally understandable that we mistook a robin singing for our latest death metal track!" and they get away with it. But is as a defendant you lose, you get the financial death penalty.
Re:That's Youtube for you. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an additional penalty: YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system. If you fight back a false claim that went through that method, and then the claimant sends a DMCA complain, whatever minimal remedies it provides are in theory applicable. But it rarely gets to that point. Most stuff gets taken down in a DMCA-less manner, bound only to YouTube's terms of use and contracts with its major media partners, and that's it.
A countering move (Score:2)
YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system.
I wonder why more people don't put out claims against media from the larger companies through these forms, subjecting them to potentially the same random takedowns and de-monetization that other YouTubers have to live with...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why more people don't put out claims against media from the larger companies through these forms
I guess lots of people do. And YouTube probably has set their system up so those are ignored, after all, it'd be bad for business to have random people taking down profitable "too big to fail" partners' videos and channels, so they most certainly get special exemptions.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system.
I wonder why more people don't put out claims against media from the larger companies through these forms, subjecting them to potentially the same random takedowns and de-monetization that other YouTubers have to live with...
I wonder why someone hasn't abused the shit out of that form and written some kind of script that files like 10 for every single video on youtube. See if they look at their system again after that.
Penalty vs damages. (but yes, do counterclaim) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad you pointed out that people can send a DMCA counterclaim. I wish more people knew about that. That's a very important part of DMCA, in my opinion. If you send a counterclaim, the service provider has to put the material back up, unless the complainant files suit in federal court. That's important!
On the topic of a penalty, imagine I steal $50 from you. You prove that I stole it, so I have to give the $50 back, and that's it. That's not a *penalty*. That's just "give it back".
Yes someone who makes a false DMCA claim is responsible for the expenses they cause, just as pretty much anyone is responsible for costs they cause in a wide variety of circumstances. That's not a penalty, that's just "you pay the cost of stuff you do".
I was involved in several rounds of comments and changes to DMCA and an actual penalty for reckless or negligent filing is the one thing we missed; we thought we had a pretty decent balance between the rights of copyright holders and those who use copyrighted worked (including the very important counterclaim provisions).
If I had to it to do over again, I'd advocate for a *penalty* for negilgent in addition to damages of the greater of treble damages or $1,000. Reckless notices would have a greater penalty, perhaps $10,000 or 5X damages.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to it to do over again, I'd advocate for a *penalty* for negilgent in addition to damages of the greater of treble damages or $1,000. Reckless notices would have a greater penalty, perhaps $10,000 or 5X damages.
I'm in agreement that it's not so much a penalty as "making the unfairly accused whole". To the suggestions you made (and in the spirit of what the OP I responded to said), I would also add that a reckless/negligent notice (or a false accusation that can be proven to be a deliberate action
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even come close to making the whole. Consider the time and effort involved. And the risk that even if you have a solid claim, a court may find the other way.
The DMCA is a good argument for burning down the entire copyright system. Sony Bono was bad enough, but the DMCA is so bad that I can't see any possible redemption except tossing it our and starting over with, say, the copyright laws existing in 1800.
Re: (Score:2)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Music Industry).
Re: (Score:2)
Why should YouTube care (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes there is right and wrong and he is likely in the right, but there is also business, and if you cost more than you make for corporate, they will just spit you out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A content provider fom my company is reported multiple times. He crashes and burns with his channel locked. Now, should we initiate a rescue effort? Take the number of views, A, multiply by income per view, B, multiply by average time to resolve, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than cost of lawyers and PR, we don't do one."
Same old, same old...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because if this style of extorsion becomes a "thing", the thiefs will eventually go after the big youtube guns, you know, the ones that bring millions of revenue to youtube. So it's in youtube's interest to nip this thing in the bud.
Youtube doesnt care, at all, which monetized video is being watched. They get their revenue either way. The lack of some videos, no matter how popular, will not reduce the number of viewer hours, and will only alter which videos were viewed but not the number of ads served.
This is why we should not allow such systems (Score:2)
This same stuff happens with the credit system, and the government had to step in and make regulation. And this is what happens with no-fly lists, where people show-up to an airport and the helpful man behind the counter says they are on the list, but can't say how or why or what to do about it. YouTube has a list now too, and there's no due process there either. The more we automate decision-making, the farther away we are from human judgement.
Your OS manufacturer can take software away from you, and th
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a good example of why this stuff is broken, I have seen reports of videos on the official VHTelevision Van Halen channel (videos uploaded by or with full permission of the band themselves) being blocked by copyright crap.
File a criminal complaint (Score:2, Informative)
The little fucker needs to file a criminal complaint for the extortion, and a complaint with PayPay since the little fucker has given him his PayPal account.
The rest of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Hey it's fun bashing on YouTube and trust me, I'm all game for a good pointing out how much YouTube's system of strikes and take downs suck. However, let us all stop for just a second to realize that YouTube did indeed reach out and fix the issue. [twitter.com] Still their system sucks, though. It is heavily favored to take downs rather than legitimate moderation. They made amends in this instance I guess, but still it took way more energy than it ought to.
Re:The rest of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press. Even then, they did nothing toprevent it from happening again.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press. Even then, they did nothing toprevent it from happening again.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
It would seem outnumbered could easily fix the problem. Send youtube the extortion message, send a fuck you to the scammer, when the scumbag sends a third strike YouTube ignores it and wipes the first two off. Once it becomes unprofitable the scammers wil move on.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press
Yeah clearly you didn't finish reading my comment.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
I don't know, I don't care. Point being the platform is trash, it should go down like a stinking inferno it is. And the platform that replaces it, prediction, it's pretty good, till it becomes too profitable and then turns to trash. I'm going to bet a $1 that will be the case forever. So long as mass media companies drag whoever is the new hotness into court, this whole cycle will continue forever. Centralized services start great, end trash, and profit
Re: (Score:2)
To an extent YouTube's hands are tied by the need to obey the DMCA. If they get claims they have to act on them, there is no provision for them to determine if the claimant really does own the copyright they are claiming to.
The onus is on the victim to sue. The DMCA does make it a crime to falsely claim copyright ownership in bad faith, but good luck getting the FBI to investigate.
Re: (Score:2)
To an extent YouTube's hands are tied by the need to obey the DMCA.
YouTube doesn't really use the DMCA process. They'll honor it if they receive a DMCA takedown notice, of course, but they make it much easier to use their own complaint process, which has the three-strike rule. The YouTube process has nothing to do with the DMCA, other than the existence of the DMCA process wast the motivation for YouTube to create a different one that's less cumbersome to administer, in order to discourage people from using the DMCA process.
So in this case, the scammers sent no DMCA tak
Nasim Aghdam did nothing wrong. (Score:2)
File a police report and go public (Score:2)
If you are victim of this kind of extortion, file a police report, contact YouTube asking for the strikes to be canceled, and if they don't, go public and shame them into doing it.
Since filing a false police report is a crime by itself in most if not all US jurisdictions, you are basically daring YouTube to call you a lying criminal by their continuing to honor the false strike made by the criminal doing the extortion.
Heading for legal troubles? (Score:3)
Re:Heading for legal troubles? (Score:4, Informative)
Possibly. This would be untested waters in as much as how does computer defined responses contribute to an illegal act. Because that's what this is. Everyone knows Youtube takes care of this without human interaction which has already been abused, but not to the point where it's aiding and abetting an illegal act.
And then, what does Youtube have in terms of liability by having a system that is known to be abusable in this manner? It's going to be hard for them to claim they didn't know it could be used like this, after all of the publicity of being abused exactly like this.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a right to a profitable YouTube channel. So no.
I'm awestriked (Score:2)
by creative grammar.
words (Score:2)
Execution on accusation.
There's nothing wrong with a Report button.
There's a lot fucking wrong with a Report button hooked up to nothing but scripts/flowcharts.
There's a colossal smell of bullshit* when a Report button is hooked up to nothing but algorithms and can be pressed by algorithms.
If your concern is "there's no way for me to argue the claim" then that circumstance is a member of the second sentence.
*also known as evidence that money is being made/saved/changing hands, likely at expense of something
Monopolies are bad mmmmmkay? (Score:2)
The internet any time youtube is utterly useless and broken because it has zero serious competitors: "OMG why is youtube like this???"
Re: (Score:2)
What Youtube competitors? The only one I know of not dedicated to 15-second clips is the Japanese site Niconico, and that comes from the typical Japanese 'Yahoo home page' school of crowded UX design.
YouTube is aiding and abetting (Score:2)
Automated Moderation (Score:3)
This is what you get when you refuse to employ humans to process claims from other humans. Humans are smart, they will game your automation, every time, guaranteed.
I'm afraid I can't really blame YouTube directly for this sort of thing. We're all kind of responsible for this. We don't want to pay people to moderate our internet. So this it the result. Enjoy?
Why YouTube doesn't give a fuck (Score:2)
YouTube is a business. First and foremost. A business that makes money by showing ads to people. At least so I heard. Anyway, what does NOT generate money is lawsuits. They cost money. Now, what's more likely to cost YouTube money: Losing one of the roughly 20 billion Minecraft-Let's-Players or looking into the issue of him getting scammed?
Everyone should start copying striking random folk (Score:2)
When the dmca shitlists pile to the fucking roof I would think youtube would be forced to change the system so it forces people that copy strike to show identification and proof they own the item before a dmca takedown can be issued.
I know that's easier said than done...
really wish there was an alternative to youtube
why slashdot sucks (Score:2)
this whole thread is basically a circle-jerk around one AC's troll-dump at 1:46PM.
Alternatives to YouTube (Score:2)
Re:I'm having a very hard time being empathic on t (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other... cry me a river, Youtuber isn't a real job. It has, to me, that same air of illegitimacy that instagram 'infulencers' have.
If people/companies/organizations pay you to do something, it is a job. Whether you like it or not does not change its legitimacy. Many would say singing is not a job, but there are multi-millionaire recording artists.
Also Youtuber is a pretty high stress job (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take the 9-5 over being a Youtuber any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming that Leonardo da Vinci didn't have patrons? Because the people giving him money certainly expected results. So did those who paid Michaelangelo.
I think your idea of what a patron expects is a bit shaped by fanciful fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have videos stored up to cover your two week break (upload them before go, just publish while you are away using hotel wifi or whatever) then you are stretching yourself too thin.
I'm glad that people can make a living off YouTube, because they make some good content that I enjoy. I wish YouTube would provide more stability for them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can sill record ahead of time and schedule videos to go live while you're on vacation. Not that it's easy producing that much content.
It's not the cancelled sub that's the problem (Score:3)
More than once I've subscribed to a Youtuber, forgot to click the bell (or accidentally unclicked it) and a few months later wondered "gee, they dropped off the net" only to find I'd missed 4 or 5
Re: (Score:3)
Click on "subscriptions" and it shows you a list of all videos posted by channels you subscribe to in chronological order. I use it every day to see the latest videos from channels I'm interested in.
This works on desktop, mobile and smart TV.
Re:That's not what he says. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apropos, I do think that multi-millionaire recording artists are a sign that there's something wrong with copyright as we know it. Of course, many other things are wrong with copyright also. But as it stands, it's legitimate. Even though I don't like it.
Why? Even with minimal copyright laws, you'd have multi-millionaire recording artists. A top selling artist or band who puts out a top selling album every couple of years can make a lot of money, and then there's the money that can be made touring. Even if all their songs were out of copyright, top selling bands will still sellout arenas doing their own music. The Rolling Stones made something like $558,255,524 on their Bigger bang tour, with U2 even making more.
Seems public performance is a job that pays well and just needs enough copyright to protect them when starting out with the original 14 years being plenty to become established.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG what a gatekeeping asshole you are. It's not up to you to judge other people's livelihoods.
Re: (Score:2)
At least give him some creme for that BURN...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Youtuber isn't a real job.
job. noun.
1 a paid position of regular employment.
2 a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
So not only is it a job, but it is especially a job.
It has, to me,
No one gives a fuck about your own personal and incorrect definitions of existing words.
Re: (Score:2)
And YouTube doesn't pay the people making videos to be in a position that makes videos, nor is it regular employment, nor is it a task, nor is it work for hire.
It fails all of those tests.
YouTube publishes their videos and, if they get any views, people can choose to run ads on them and get a cut of the ad revenue. That's not a job. It's not even gig or contract work. It's exhibition.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an acquaintance who makes his living busking, it's a job even though he sets his hours and only gets paid by people throwing money at him if they choose and the pay is very erratic.
Re: I'm having a very hard time being empathic on (Score:4, Insightful)
You cared enough to write back. I stick by what I said. Fake job. Are you a struggling youtuber? Is that your butthurt?
The world's youngest self-earned billionaire did it via social media.
So...yeah.
Re:I'm having a very hard time being empathic on t (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that YouTube is used by people for all sorts of reasons, right?
A few years back, a plumber I called out was telling me about posting videos on YouTube. His business was already doing just fine, but he was passionate about plumbing and wanted to see more people feel comfortable doing simple repairs. Let's suppose that he talked to a musician and procured the rights to use one of their tracks as a backing track for his videos. A few months later, what's to stop someone else with the rights to that music from making a claim against him? Enough fo those, and all of his videos could be taken down.
There were reports just last week of a Star Wars video that had its audio stripped out (to highlight the importance of John Williams' music) getting hit with a copyright strike by a company that has some of the rights to Star Wars music, despite the fact that all of the audio had been subbed for sounds the video's author made himself.
For me, this stuff actually matters.
Besides posting YouTube videos for fun with some friends (we have a few thousand subscribers to our Let's Play channel, but have turned off monetization since we're just in it for fun), I also post sermon videos for the church I attend. They're nothing fancy, but it's something we can do to include ill and infirm people in the weekly happenings of the church. We've recently been talking about livestreaming, as well as expanding it to cover the entire service. Expanding it would mean needing to procure the rights to stream musical performances for the various hymns and choruses we sing (we're already properly licensed to perform them, just not to stream those performances). Licensing for Christian music almost always goes through the CCLI [wikipedia.org], but there are a lot of new musicians cropping up all the time, and it's conceivable that not all of them understand the intricacies of licensing. It's conceivable as well that despite being properly licensed to perform and stream a performance of a song, some artist or other rights holder may be unaware of our license with the CCLI and initiate a strike against us, or else some ne'er-do-well may try to extort us.
Given that we risk losing access to years' worth of prior content, these aren't small questions. What happens to my plumber's videos or my church's videos may be small potatoes to you, but multiply that by everyone else at risk and it becomes clear that many of us stand to lose something personal that matters to us.
Re:I'm having a very hard time being empathic on t (Score:5, Insightful)
many of us stand to lose something personal that matters to us.
?? Really? Where's your local backup? YT is a distribution system. If YT (or your other cloud provider) goes bust/away for a day/ever, then you're back to sneakernet or torrents or floppies or something.
But the original masters should never leave your hands. If they DO then you're doing it wrong. Yep, it'd be a hassle to reupload somewhere else and send out new links and attract a new audience and all that, but it's possible. If YT has your only copy and for whatever reason it "goes away", then game over.
Don't DO that. The cloud is literally just "someone else's computer" -- if they get tired and turn it off, that should just be an inconvenience for you, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is an example of something thats 100% correct, but yet does not reflect reality.
users, in the real world, do not back up shit. Users expect the cloud to save them. Users are barely aware of the concept of files or a file system, or where their shit is stored.
At the same time, there is additional content there with youtube videos. You may have a back and forth comments, extra content, that youtube is removing. Sure you could back up all those posts, but absolutely no user will do that. The problem
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think that there would be a ton of christian music out of copyright, it's not like christian music is a recent invention.
Still, these stories show some of the problems caused by perpetual copyright. If all copyright was 14 years, it wouldn't be hard to find music of any genre that was out of copyright. I've got a stack of records that are all at least 20 years old and a stack of CD's where most are at least 14 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple of videos on Youtube that have classical music in the background, the music being under Creative Commons/Royalty Free releases. I've probably received 10-12 DOZEN copyright claims /DMCA takedown/content claim requests from Youtube for dozens of companies claiming copyright to the music, often at the same time for the same piece of music. I dispute, win my dispute, but a few days later another claim would come in. So I just gave up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, 75 odd years of copyrighted performances.
Question, does even correctly licensed such as the gp posters CCLI stop the fraudulent notices/claims?
Re: (Score:2)
The music may be public domain, but a specific performance of it is still under copyright - and there are actually not many public domain recordings of classical music, because of the expense of getting an entire orchestra together and the awkward fact that the copyright term in some countries is about the same as the time since audio recording technology has been around.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like there's an additional problem, though: copyright detection algorithms can't always distinguish the slight differences between performances of the same work, so they flag a freely-licensed performance based on the similarity to a copyrighted performance. This isn't surprising when you consider that the detection is loose enough to flag videos that happen to be playing a song on the radio softly in the background, too.
The only solution to these problems is a loss of legal rights for repeated fa
Re: (Score:2)
We can talk about news reporters having a job, but only if we also talk about how to legalize the torture of infomercial folks.
Re:That's what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
The video portal is built for it.
Advertising and ad revenue sharing is it's core function.
The problem is the concessions the copyright lobby have forced upon them - they made them implement automated systems for copyright infringement strikes with no oversight and no repercussions for false claims.
Re: That's what happens (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hilarious actually. Copyright being used to harm the content creators.
Bravo, well done; pass the anchovies, please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly as intended. Scammers driving little people off youtube only further benefits the big guys. And they even get to keep their hands clean!
Re: (Score:2)
Is this even legal I wonder. The GDPR requires there to be a 'human in the loop' when automated decisions have a serious impact on someone's life. For big youtubers this could qualify?
Re:That's what happens (Score:4, Insightful)
GDPR is not a US law, so it would be rather difficult to enforce in the case of a US person interacting with a US company from within the US.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube and parent Alphabet have substantial operations in the EU. You can submit GDPR requests via your Google account that you use to log in to YouTube, or go directly to takeout.google.com.
It's not really clear how GDPR would help in this case though.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the concessions the copyright lobby have forced upon them - they made them implement automated systems for copyright infringement strikes with no oversight and no repercussions for false claims.
If enough people were to submit blatantly false copyright claims, wouldn't YouTube eventually be forced to provide more oversight and implement repercussions for making false claims? This would essentially make copyright infringes innocent until proven guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't happen with DMCA take down notices. How many people or companies have been prosecuted for perjury for filing a claim against something they don't own?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: $150!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why extort $150,000 when you can extort $150 1000 times with a script? And that way you can't even be charged with grand theft if you're caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did not a single top comment in this article, or the source article, or slashdot's commentary article mention this mechanism?
Because this isn't about a claim against a single video. It's about the way YouTube implemented their "three strikes" policy that would delete the channel before the single-video issue could be resolved.
Doesn't help that 8 days later your video was un-blocked when your channel was already deleted.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some channels are more equal than others. You don't think that people haven't tried to do some retaliation strikes on some of the official channels of the studios that routinely drop strike cluster bombs, not caring who or what they hit?
IndieWeb lacks a recommendation engine (Score:2)
host your own website.
You appear to advocate replacing the YouTube silo with a site built on IndieWeb principles [indieweb.org]. I want that to be a viable option. But one thing that IndieWeb is currently missing is a recommendation engine [indieweb.org]. How does a viewer watching a video on someone's own website go about discovering related videos on other people's own websites?
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking up the network effects that give rise to vapid social media celebrities who turn the Internet into a trashier version of cable TV should be sold as a feature rather than seen as a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to post a video on your website, how would you direct prospective viewers to your website to view it?
Same company operates YouTube and Search (Score:2)
how would you direct prospective viewers to your website to view it?
Otherwise, people who visit your site will see it.
I asked how people would visit your site in the first place.
Or your site may show up in a search.
The same company operates both YouTube and Google Search. Copyfraud scammers can derank your video there as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're looking for a business-friendly video monetization platform rather than a way to share videos with your friends for free. Have you tried cable TV? How about YouTube, sounds almost perfect for what you want...