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.
There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
The system as it stands now is asinine. False claims bear no consequences, so companies just blanket content with them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
> 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We are apes, and we learn by imitating other people. And before we invent new Works of Art, we try to copy the ones we've experienced before.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they remove that portion? They had as much right to upload it as any game streamer. Content ID is treated as automatic and currently all-or-nothing - reliance on this is the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
NBC uploaded a video containing content that they did not own
They didn't need to own it. There are specific exemptions in copyright law both for news and reviews.
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't Publishing the video -- NBC can upload videos for simple publication purposes all day, as long as this upload process isn't for
claiming ownership of everything uploaded; the issue is NBC uploading video of someone else's work For the purpose of Content ID
Re: (Score:3)
Umm. NBC _do_ own the copyright on that footage.
That the footage includes additional material for which someone else holds the copyright is immaterial to NBC's legitimate claim.
What's going wrong is Youtube identifying someone else's game stream as a copy of the NBC footage instead of a copy of the game.
The entire point of the article is that if you're streaming the game you're not breaching NBC's copyright, but that doesn't mean NBC don't have copyright over their own broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
That the footage includes additional material for which someone else holds the copyright is immaterial to NBC's legitimate claim.
Wrong. ContentID terms of service for the privileged publishers explicitly say: Copyright owners must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. [google.com]
So if NBC uploads a piece of footage which has another copyright holder (even if co-owned by NBC) into ContentID, they're violating the terms of service. YouTube is correctly identifying content which was claimed by NBC in bad faith.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you get copyright quite right. NBC owns the copyright for the entire footage they uploaded, including the parts where Falon plays Beat Saber. Beat Saber's copyrights don't come into play at all, because Fallon's use was fair use (like pretty much all streamed games).
NBC has 100% of the copyright on that video, there is no portion of the video they do not own the rights to. If someone just cut out the portion where Fallon plays Beat Saber and uploaded it with no new transformations (like commen
Re: (Score:1)
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)?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:4, Insightful)
YouTube is an effective monopoly. For professional YouTubers, there is simply no alternative. Worldwide damage is not $0, why would you think that? It's the lost ad revenue from everyone who was blocked. I don't know if any high-profile streamers were affected (usually, problems like this only get fixed if that happens), but if so the amount could be large. How much do you think PewDiePie makes from a letsplay stream that 1 million people watch? Hint: it's more than $0.
If people don't like youtube, they can trivially fire them and replace them with a their own website.
If people don't like being excluded from town, they can just make their own town, no harm done! If people don't like being bared from eating at that restaurant, they can just start their own restaurant, no harm done! Yeah, no. That's not how "civilization" works.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
ust because YouTube is better in some respects than other platforms does not make them a monopoly.
The non-YouTube viewership/ad revenue is roughly 0.000% of the YouTube viewership/ad revenue. That's exactly what a monopoly is.
YouTube having the audience and ad revenue is due to YouTube's efforts to innovate and develop their product.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether YouTube is a monopoly. You're merely arguing they're not abusing their monopoly power. I disagree with that statement as well, but that's a topic for another time.
Re: (Score:2)
"professional YouTubers"
Gee, I so pity the plight of "you tubers", "influencers", "instagram models", and other such "professional", barely warmed over Tila Tequila clones.
Do you feel the same about professional actors? Professional athletes? Do you believe a profession must meet with your approval before its members have a right to earn a living?
Re: (Score:2)
If Youtube were doing this because of fraudulent or negligent DMCA notices being sent by a third party (e.g. NBC), I would support any any all action to destroy the aggressor, financially and physically.
Can't decide if this is trolling or crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps both and neither. I can tell we've definitely opened a portal to another universe, though, where Youtube's users and Youtube don't have a consensual relationship. (Alternate universe portals and madness go hand-in-hand, so we shouldn't be surprised to see oddities on the other side. One of the people I saw through the tunnel even used the term "professional youtuber!")
In my universe, youtube and its users do have one of those, and it's always subject to cha
No recommendation engine for IndieWeb (Score:5, Informative)
If people don't like youtube, they can trivially fire them and replace them with a their own website.
There's a wiki called IndieWeb about switching from silos [indieweb.org] (such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) to running your own website. One thing that IndieWeb acknowledges to be missing is a recommendation engine [indieweb.org]. How would someone who uploads a video to his or her own website find viewers?
Re: (Score:2)
Any such 'recommendation engine' is the last thing I want baked into the content provider. Word of mouth, friends/family, random assholes on the interweb.
How does the second person to see your video (the first being you) find your video in the first place in order to bootstrap "word of mouth"? If via "friends/family", then how do you find friends other than your family?
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:1)
Not being able to upload gameplay content to YouTube would be damaging if someone had a monetized channel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
claiming ownership of somebody else's work
Good job they didn't do that then.
Re: There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
If NBC can have an auto uploaded content ID, why can't I? Why can't NBC be auto-banned?
Because NBC has more money and owns more legislators than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
And if provable, they should be taken outback and shot
They're in America, it's probably easier and cheaper to shoot them in the Mojave desert than fly them all the way to Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Content ID is for entities that control copyright in a large number of works that many YouTube users upload, according to "Copyright Management Tools" by Google support staff [google.com].
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
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.
Re: There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:1)
BS, there are lots of fair use protections, including parody and criticism.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Mute what you don't own before uploading to CID (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:There need to be penalties for false claims (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Headline seems to blame this on Fallon (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Headline seems to blame this on Fallon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
fix your homepage retard your page doesn't even load
Re: Headline seems to blame this on Fallon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if the Feds would come knocking if you had used 192.168.1.1 instead...
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's actually NBCs copyright claim combined with copyright legislation which requires Google to apply content filtering (like the recent EU copyright directive).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame NBC for claiming copyright to something they dont actually have copyright of.
Use it against NBC! (Score:3)
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
Push Back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to realize that the DMCA was bought and paid for by the copyright industry. Section 512(f) states:
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
How embarassing (Score:5, Funny)
to be accused of pirating Jimmy Fallon clips.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
can be worse (Score:1)
Banksy had a copyright claim in his own shredding video, by some news channels showed showed some of the video
Glad that's been sorted out (Score:2)
I will sleep sounder tonight knowing this.
Similar situation - Fortnite's Marshmello event (Score:5, Informative)
Why Jimmy Fallon Sucks (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
YouTube needs revenue sharing systems (Score:3)
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]
Cold (Score:2)
Am I the only one who noticed the cold in the link title? Is that supposed to be there?
Bumped Into This Myself (Score:3)
I ended up filing a dispute. To their credit, Fuji TV released the claim almost immediately. But it was still a damned nuisance.
monopoly (Score:1)
Linus Tech Tips (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
to guarantee the freedom to use cultural content in a not-for-profit way,
Is that possible with Youtube? Either Google is footing the bill for hosting the video, or they're making ad revenue. It's possible that they might accept a large portion of their content not taking in ad revenue, but it isn't sustainable for them.
Re: The law is what should be changed (Score:1)
Google will kill any project that is not making them billions of dollars. Youtube is not excluded from this rule.
Re: How come I can't stream myself watching a movi (Score:2, Interesting)
Fair use allows you to create derivative works with significant artistic interpretation. Playing the game is different each time, and so is an artistic derivative work.
Filming yourself sitting on a couch watching a movie does not add significant artistic value to the movie, so it is not covered under fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Servo, Crow T. Robot, and Gypsy would like a word or two with you!
Re: (Score:2)
> Therefore regular broadcasts of games being played should divert a good chunk of ad revenue to game creator, and some to game player.
Does that happen with sports in the real world?
Basketball, Chess, F1, Football, Go, Golf, Hockey, MotoGP, Nascar, Soccer, etc.?
Re:How come I can't stream myself watching a movie (Score:4, Interesting)
Short Answer: Free Advertising (for eSports.)
Long Answer:
What games are or aren't allowed depends on how archaic & myopic companies are. Laws are constantly getting fucked up due to greed & corruption.
If you try to stream reading a book you'll have (almost) no audience. It's not really popular compared to other mediums of entertainment. Publishers will probably whine about it and give you a copyright strike because they are assholes.
If you try to stream any first party Nintendo game they will bitch and whine about bullshit copyright claims giving you a strike while they are completely fucking clueless about free advertising. Fuck them.
But you try to stream Fortnite -- now Epic has no problem since they aren't stuck in the 1500's and see any streaming as free advertising.
Age of Empires II, a 20 year old game (!) has seen a resurgence due to streaming. i.e. YouTubers: T90, SotL.
One of the reasons Minecraft got popular was due to streaming.
Blizzard has tried to get eSports going with Starcraft 1 & 2, and Overwatch.
MOBAs such as League of Legends and DOTA have allowed streaming for ages.
Most people don't give a fuck if someone streams art in all of its various forms (books, movies, games). It is only people trying to hold onto some form of artificial control that are fucking clueless that it isn't the 1500's anymore.
I watched a ~3 hr video of all the cutscenes from The Last of Us and wasn't going to buy it. Someone gifted me a copy and it's boring as fuck. If it's more enjoyable to watch the fucking cutscenes then to play the game then maybe something is wrong with the gameplay and not the streamers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to stream any first party Nintendo game they will bitch and whine about bullshit copyright claims giving you a strike
Actually; Nintendo encourages streaming [nintendo.co.jp] --
As long as you follow some basic rules, we will not object to your use of gameplay footage and/or screenshots captured from games for which Nintendo owns the copyright ("Nintendo Game Content") in the content you create
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo is still draconian.
So if they "believe" it is inappropriate, in-spite of it being legal, you are fucked.
Also, they DON'T actually define what is "inappropriate" aside this boilerplate shit:
Re: How come I can't stream myself watching a mov (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming is clearly fair use
I strongly doubt that. Sharing the entire 80 hour story that's taken a team of hundreds several years to write, model, paint and render isn't 'fair use'.
Which fair use exemption are you seeking to claim this falls under?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How come I can't stream myself watching a mov (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot optionally protect a copyright. (Without specifically granting licenses.) By not enforcing their copyright, game companies are essentially saying I can rip their content for other purposes as well.
Horeseshit. There are a number of companies who have no trouble allowing fans to use their works in non-commercial fan projects, while still going after unauthorized commercial projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks can be lost for not enforcing or defending them. Copyright or patents cannot be lost for non-enforcement, though you might find a court will decline to award full or any damages if you game enforcement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is false.
Trademarks have to be enforced or lost. Copyright does not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing Copyright with Trademark.
You do need to protect a Trademark.
Re: (Score:1)
you're confusing COPYRIGHT (automatic protection for the duration of copyright law) with TRADEMARK (must be used and actively defended by its holder)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot optionally protect a copyright. (Without specifically granting licenses.) By not enforcing their copyright, game companies are essentially saying I can rip their content for other purposes as well.
You are confusing copyright with trademarks.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still news because it happens all the time - this is just a high-profile example.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people singing songs they wrote, or performing original music, get muted.
How do they know they wrote it? Per Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (the "My Sweet Lord" case), accidental copying is still infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
if two authors happen to write the same thing, there is no violation.
Unless the second author has, at some point in his or her life, had access to the first author's work.