Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube The Internet IT Technology

Jimmy Fallon Played a Video Game on Air, Meaning That Streaming Your Own Game Gets You Taken Down as a Pirate (boingboing.net) 168

AmiMoJo shares a report: NBC (and the other broadcasters) provides copies of its shows to YouTube's Content ID filter, which is supposed to protect copyright by blocking uploads of videos that match ones in its database of claimed videos. That means that if you own the copyright to something that is aired on NBC, any subsequent attempts by you or your fans to upload your work will be blocked as copyright infringements, and could cost you your YouTube account. The latest casualty of this is the video game Beat Saber. Jimmy Fallon played part of one of Beat Saber's levels, and so no one else cold upload their own gameplay of that level to YouTube without being accused of copyright infringement and blocked. After a lot of fast work by Beat Saber, they managed to get the ban lifted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jimmy Fallon Played a Video Game on Air, Meaning That Streaming Your Own Game Gets You Taken Down as a Pirate

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:08AM (#58516058)

    The system as it stands now is asinine. False claims bear no consequences, so companies just blanket content with them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JackieBrown ( 987087 )

      I don't think there was a false claim. Just a false flag from YouTube's automatic detection system.

      I don't disagree with you on punishment for false claims but you should use an example where there is actual damage - you now, more than people not being able to upload their game play onto youtube.

      Using this example to make your point weakens your point and that's not good for the cause.

      • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:19AM (#58516114) Homepage

        I don't think there was a false claim. Just a false flag from YouTube's automatic detection system.

        That's just semantics. An end-run around the DMCA. Youtube is (effectively) filing DMCA complaints against itself on behalf of content owners. It's only not technically true. Youtube's system could actually detect content that pre-existed the content owner's video by years, and leave that out of the flaggable content, but they don't even try.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The issue is lack of granularity.

          YouTube doesn't offer granular controls. You upload a video of your TV and it goes nuts copyright flagging everything. You can't highlight a section and say "the music here isn't mine, don't copyright flag it".

          Of course NBC could upload the show in segments, maybe with the sound cut for the video game section since they don't own it. But they didn't do that.

          So there is plenty of blame to go around, let's not be too worried about correctly metering it out.

          • This could easily be automated. Flag pre-existing content in any new video NBC uploads. Make sure any flagged pre-existing content is more than a month or two old so that it's not early pirate uploads of the same complete video. Then exclude those flagged portions from content ID.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              That would not work for people late to the copyright claim party, who upload old material that other people got to first.

              Remember that these companies demand their back catalogues are fully protected too.

              • They still have the ability to issue DMCA notices. The automated system is so full of flaws it just can't be relied on as a sole source of protection anyway.

                • I feel like this is a non-story. If anything, it was a simple case of miscalculated AI, resulting in a temporary miscalculated AI block. Everything has been sorted out now, so ...no story? But wait, it's 2019, so we MUST make a big deal about the potential risks involved with this automated youtube mechanism.

                  It's this type of mentality that keeps us from having nice things. If YouTube is forced to up their game on content-approval, then I'll bet our YouTube experience will change, vastly.

                  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @12:30PM (#58517250)

                    esulting in a temporary miscalculated AI block. Everything has been sorted out now

                    Actually... NOTHING has been sorted out. Youtube staff manually dealt with this one case, likely by snipping out/whitelisting this one bit of video from Content ID, because it became high enough profile and embarrassing --- cases like this happen all the time which are simply ignored, and it hurts people trying to use the platform.

                    Youtube have not made any fundamental changes to the AI to stop this same scenario playing out over again and again to individual creators.

                    • Youtube have not made any fundamental changes to the AI to stop this same scenario playing out over again and again to individual creators.

                      Ok, so stop using youtube? I mean look, if I came into work today and my boss told me that the work that I did yesterday was believed to be the work that someone else did, I'd point out how I can prove that I did that work, and no one else did that work. If my boss wasn't satisfied with that, and decided that I don't get a paycheck thiss pay-period, then I'll find another job.

                      If you're depending on youtube for employment, and they pull this sort of shit, maybe you should look for another job? There are

                    • > If you're depending on youtube for employment, and they pull this sort of shit, maybe you should look for another job?

                      I think a lot of YouTubers in that niche where they make a living from posting content on YouTube, but are not coddled by YouTube, have been looking to diversify to Patreon, live streaming, merch and other kinds of disaster recovery (more like disaster adaptation). I'm not aware of parallel posting to other VOD services, though --- possibly (probably?) that is forbidden somewhere?

          • by Sique ( 173459 )
            The issue is not just a lack of granularity.

            The issue is that NBC actually owns the copyright to the video segment. And at the same time, the game publishing company owns the copyright to the game. So we have two companies owning copyrights on the same piece of video.

            This happens very often. Lets say, someone reads a book on video. Then he owns the copyright on the performance of reading the book. The copyright to the book, he doesn't own, except he's also the author of the book. So while he owns the co

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Youtube should stop with the autodetection and just rely on real claims. Make the companies pay lawyers (and fines for false claims). Doesn't the auto-curating put Youtube on shaking legal ground anyway (they're approving content)?

        • So then people with the means will be able to flood the system with claims and Google is on the hook to pay people to sort through it? Sounds like a winner of a system....

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @10:25AM (#58516506)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I would imagine you have to first prove you have a legal right to upload to you tube to be able claim damages.

          As I said, I think there needs to be a battle fought, but this is not a good example to do that.

          The most you'll get is a more generic error on why the video cannot be uploaded making it harder for the end user to troubleshoot and correct.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @10:26AM (#58516514)

        NBC sent in an episode and claimed they owned everything in that episode.

        NBC did not, in fact, own everything in that episode.

        That is a false claim of ownership of everything in that episode.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          NBC do own that whole episode and are not wrong in claiming ownership of it.

          What they don't own - and don't claim ownership of - is copyright on the game being played. That Youtube's systems are incapable of differentiating between two distinct sources of identical looking IP isn't NBC's fault.

          (It's rare you get to type that)

          • by qbast ( 1265706 )
            It is completely NBC fault. You are supposed to use ContentID only if you hold exclusive copyright for the content. They don't, since game creator also has a claim on it. ContentID even allows to mark only parts of video as your sole property. By not doing it, NBC is violating terms of service. And why wouldn't they since it comes with no negative consequences?
            • by Cederic ( 9623 )

              Thank you for that clarification.

              Agreed, they do not hold exclusive copyright. I haven't ever submitted anything under Content ID so wasn't aware of that constraint.

      • Not being able to upload gameplay content to YouTube would be damaging if someone had a monetized channel

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        It is still the same basic problem though. Right now since there is so little consequence for either IP owners or YouTube, there is not much incentive for YT to worry about false positives and the automatic consequences of the system producing one.
      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        I don't think there was a false claim. Just a false flag from YouTube's automatic detection system.

        The false claim is Uploading footage containing somebody else's copyright work to a Content Identification system claiming ownership of somebody else's work that appears in your footage.

        • I get that (don't get being modded flamebait lol)

          My worry is that Google will just switch to extremely vague failure reasons and it will be harder for the individual uploader to resolve.)

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          claiming ownership of somebody else's work

          Good job they didn't do that then.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 )

      The system as it stands now is asinine. False claims bear no consequences, so companies just blanket content with them.

      Nobody other than the copyright holder is allowed to upload a copyrighted work. What you call "false claims" is 99.999999% of the time a non-copyrighted work that was confused with a copyrighted work.

      Here we have the 0.000001% case: Yes, it was a copyrighted work. The filter identified it absolutely correctly. The filter just didn't realise that out of billions of internet users, the uploader was the ONE person who was legally allowed to upload it.

      • BS, there are lots of fair use protections, including parody and criticism.

      • Here we have the 0.000001% case: Yes, it was a copyrighted work. The filter identified it absolutely correctly. The filter just didn't realise that out of billions of internet users, the uploader was the ONE person who was legally allowed to upload it.

        According to the summary, anyone uploading gameplay of the level would've been flagged. If correct, that's a 100% case, not 0.00001%. I don't know the game in question, but if it's got scripted cutscenes, then everyone's video of those cutscenes will be ide

        • Obviously what's missing from YouTube's algorithm is a provision where a copyright holder can say, "these few seconds of my video are not copyrighted, they're generic sounds or a fair use clip belonging to somebody else."

          According to "Qualifying for Content ID" by Google support staff [google.com], copyright owners who upload "music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity" as references could lose their access to Content ID. A copyright owner can comply by blacking out and muting anything to which the copyright owner lacks exclusive rights before the copyright owner uploads it as a reference to the Content ID database.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This happens more often than you might think. For example many musicians release their work under a CC sharing licence, and then others remix it. Then someone else's music label decides start enforcing copyright, and those samples or backing tracks get flagged against the original author.

        To make matters worse YouTube won't get involved. It doesn't arbitrate copyright disputes. You have to sue the person who stole your copyright.

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Nobody other than the copyright holder is allowed to upload a copyrighted work.

        Except because of fair use: a recognized consequence of the 1st amendment that is also enshrined into the copyright laws: people ARE legally allowed to upload a work that contains parts of other copyrighted works subject to conditions which are to be considered by the court on a case by case basis --- based on criteria such as the nature of the work whether factual or entertainment, purpose and character of usage such as t

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is a very large problem. In which case it's better to err on the side of caution than carpet bombing.

      It's a known fact, that clips from the late-night shows are memetic in nature, and for some god-forsaken reason they put the clips up on youtube before they air, thus it should literately be impossible for someone to have "stolen" something that hasn't aired yet unless you were sitting in the studio audience.

      So yes, there should be penalties, but the penalties should be reflective of the damage. eg,
      a) S

    • by alexo ( 9335 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @11:00AM (#58516746) Journal

      The system as it stands now is asinine. False claims bear no consequences, so companies just blanket content with them.

      The system works exactly as designed.
      A lot of money changed hands to make it so.

    • And if you get a copyright claim and you dispute it, guess who decides the issue? The party that filed the claim in the first place. This is insane.
    • After a lot of fast work by Beat Saber, they managed to get the ban lifted.

      There was a mistake. It was fixed quickly. Let's all get outraged by the travesty of justice.

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:13AM (#58516090) Homepage Journal

    The headline seems to blame this on Jimmy Fallon, when it's actually the fault of Google. It should be "YouTube's specious copyright violation algorithm erroneously rejects valid content after Fallon plays game on air"

    • It's good that you are rushing to his aid but I think the headline is just describing what happened and what it means. That said, it is a bit awkward and long for a title to a story.

    • Wrong. The title should be the same as what the subject line for all your posts should be: "Nothing to see here; move along."
    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, it's actually NBCs copyright claim combined with copyright legislation which requires Google to apply content filtering (like the recent EU copyright directive).

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Whatever a bot can do to maximize profits, that's the C-suite goal.

        I get that there are some leaf-node employees at Google with ethics, but they've been entirely ineffective at stopping Project Dragonfly or CIA drone image processing.

        Ideally these good people will leave and form Google's serious competition.

    • by ruddk ( 5153113 )

      Well. There’s a list in YouTube studio with videos that uses your content and it is quite easy to click and see the “offending” bit and then decide not to act on it. It is also quite easy to block mark it and demand it removed or contact the channel using your content.

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Blame NBC for claiming copyright to something they dont actually have copyright of.

  • by Miser ( 36591 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:22AM (#58516134)

    I would think there would be a way to set up streaming or content that could be used against NBC and get THEIR stuff taken down.

    The cynical side of me says that NBC is probably exempt....

    Miser

  • Game publishers should just add a clause to the EULA that states that anyone who participates in automated blocking systems such as ContentID are not allowed to broadcast any gameplay of that game. Either that or they could use the DMCA (Section 512(f)) to go after the networks for claiming copyright on works that they do not own.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • they could use the DMCA (Section 512(f)) to go after the networks for claiming copyright on works that they do not own.

      You don't seem to realize that the DMCA was bought and paid for by the copyright industry. Section 512(f) states:

      Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section (1) that material or activity is infringing

      The key word there is "knowingly." It's not enough that they filed a copyright claim on something they don't own. They need to know they don't own it, but file a

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:27AM (#58516170) Homepage Journal

    to be accused of pirating Jimmy Fallon clips.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Banksy had a copyright claim in his own shredding video, by some news channels showed showed some of the video

  • I will sleep sounder tonight knowing this.

  • by wikthemighty ( 524325 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @09:59AM (#58516354)
    When Fortnite hosted a Marshmello concert in-game, they had to be proactive to make sure YouTube videos of gameplay would not be taken down due to copyright. https://fortniteintel.com/cont... [fortniteintel.com]
  • Jimmy Fallon is a nauseating mix of self-aggrandizement and sycophantic ass-licking. He constantly arranges activities for his guests in which he participates himself, placing himself on the same level with his celebrity guests.

    No Jimmy, discerning viewers don't tune in to watch YOU singing, rapping, or otherwise performing with your guests. Nor do we enjoy the phony, forced, obligatory laughter that comes out of your stupid face after every comment.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No Jimmy, discerning viewers don't tune in to watch YOU singing, rapping, or otherwise performing with your guests.

      Did you ever actually think that his show was designed for discerning viewers? However accurate your criticisms are, there's obviously a market for his show. Suggest you change the channel to one of the better shows and congratulate yourself for not being the type to enjoy Fallon, guessing that's what you do anyway.

  • A significant portion of great YouTube content utilizes footage from other videos. Sometimes TV and movies, sometimes other YouTube content. When done well, these remixes can presumably benefit both parties (the original creator and the YouTuber).

    YouTube's revenue system, though, doesn't facilitate sharing. A claim by any party reassigns all revenue.

    In some cases, there are multiple pieces of copyrighted material in a video. For instance, an image, a song, and a video clip. YouTube has no way to compensate more than one of those people though.

    https://www.kialo.com/youtube-... [kialo.com]
  • Am I the only one who noticed the cold in the link title? Is that supposed to be there?

  • by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @03:25PM (#58518186) Homepage Journal
    I used to do Let's Plays on YouTube with a friend of mine (and hope to again one day). In one of my videos (gratuitous plug [youtu.be]) we were playing the game D [wikipedia.org]. It ended up getting flagged because the gameplay footage had also been used years earlier in a Japanese TV show called GameCenter CX [wikipedia.org], produced by Fuji TV.

    I ended up filing a dispute. To their credit, Fuji TV released the claim almost immediately. But it was still a damned nuisance.

  • When Google bought Youtube, I thought it wouldn't do harm and was going to be a good for everyone. But now when you search for any video on the net, the only results are Youtube links, like no other site exists. It is such a monopoly that the old video sites like metacafe etc are simply put out of business. Is it Google that writes the rules of the internet and our way of interacting the internet? I see Google now as the new Microsoft, the subcompanies like deepmind etc (which they also bought, not found) a
  • A similar thing happened a few months back with Linus Tech Tips. They pay some organization to program the youtube automated copyright strikes. And their was a problem earlier this year where everyone who tried to review certain computer parts were getting copy right strikes because they were getting the same benchmarks. and presumably everyone uses the same benchmark programs.

Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.

Working...