YouTube Gets Alleged Copyright Troll To Agree To Stop Trolling YouTubers (theverge.com) 70
Alleged copyright troll Christopher Brady will no longer be able to issue false DMCA takedowns to other YouTubers, according to a lawsuit settlement filed today. The Verge reports: Under the new agreement, Brady is banned from "submitting any notices of alleged copyright infringement to YouTube that misrepresent that material hosted on the YouTube service is infringing copyrights held or claimed to be held by Brady or anyone Brady claims to represent." Brady agreed to pay $25,000 in damages as part of the settlement. He is also prohibited from "misrepresenting or masking their identities" when using Google products, including YouTube. "This settlement highlights the very real consequences for those that misuse our copyright system. We'll continue our work to prevent abuse of our systems," a YouTube spokesperson told The Verge.
"I, Christopher L. Brady, admit that I sent dozens of notices to YouTube falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights," he said in an apology, shared by YouTube with The Verge. "I apologize to the YouTube users that I directly impacted by my actions, to the YouTube community, and to YouTube itself." YouTube claimed the investigation caused the company to "expend substantial sums on its investigation in an effort to detect and halt that behavior, and to ensure that its users do not suffer adverse consequences from it." YouTube also said that the company may be "unable to detect and prevent similar misconduct in the future," as a result of the various methods Brady took to cover up his identity.
"I, Christopher L. Brady, admit that I sent dozens of notices to YouTube falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights," he said in an apology, shared by YouTube with The Verge. "I apologize to the YouTube users that I directly impacted by my actions, to the YouTube community, and to YouTube itself." YouTube claimed the investigation caused the company to "expend substantial sums on its investigation in an effort to detect and halt that behavior, and to ensure that its users do not suffer adverse consequences from it." YouTube also said that the company may be "unable to detect and prevent similar misconduct in the future," as a result of the various methods Brady took to cover up his identity.
What (Score:5, Insightful)
a fucking asshole.
That's just one (Score:5, Insightful)
How many more are there? And how many hide behind limited liability and shell companies?
He'll also now have a whole new business in tuition if he wants it.
Re: (Score:3)
How many more merely make accusations for political censorship? Copyright trolling doesn't have to make a profit to achieve a goal.
Re: (Score:2)
One that is about to be class action sued by a whole bunch of youtubers, discovery and the search for who paid him and make them the targets of that class action law suit.
Re: (Score:1)
He is a felon. Why is he not in prison?
This whole DMCA thing is bullshit
YouTube isn't the govt. May go to prison, be sued (Score:2)
The victims may still sue him. He's officially admitted it, so winning would be virtually automatic. He can certainly be prosecuted for extortion. Again, conviction would be almost automatic, depending on the wording of statute in whichever state he's prosecuted in.
It's YouTube who decided that *for their part*, they were going to take $25,000 and an order turning any further hyjinx by him into contempt of court. That's Google, not "this whole DMCA thing". "This whole DMCA thing" lets the victims sue and
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it is this whole DMCA thing. We can't have laws that allow people to take down material on a claim, that is complete bullshit. They have to come with proof, after a judge or jury has determined there was infringement. The law was created for the entertainment industry. And we don't need DMCA to lock up people for perjury in their false claims. That rule stands on its own
Okay, new tipic then (Score:2)
Taking material down is a completely different topic than penalties for extortion. So you'd like to switch topics now?
Here is the process under the DMCA (YouTube has a different process they ask people to use, but this the DMCA process):
A. You notice someone posted your song on YouTube. YouTube and person who posted it are sharing the advertising revenue (you aren't getting any).
B. You send a letter to YouTube saying "hey, you and Bob are infringing my copyright. Cut it out.
C. YouTube contacts Bob, saying
Re: (Score:1)
DMCA was designed with this kind of extortion in mind. DMCA is extortion.
We're going to keep infringing your rights until a federal court orders us to stop... Do I have that correct?
Not even close. There is no infringement until the court says so. The material should stay up until then. It helps to boost the urgency for a quick solution. This isn't about youtube, it's about anyone that puts content on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no infringement until the court says so. The material should stay up until then
Okay, so YouTube or whoever can just keep ripping you off until a court orders them to stop ripping off that song. Then they do the next song. No penalties for copying your stuff and them taking the money, they just have a limit of about two years per song, until after the court rules. Gotcha.
Pretty much, YouTube or anyone else can just rip you off with no repercussions at all, as long as they stop ripping you off
Re: (Score:1)
There is no (legal) "ripoff" until the court says so. All the money gained during that time shall be forfeited to the "victim" depending on judgement on infringement. It could/should be that simple. DMCA was designed to reverse that and make extortion the preferred method of removing so called "infringing" material. It's a form of censorship, "Put them on ice" for a few months. DMCA is totally, absolutely bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
> says so. All the money gained during that time shall be forfeited to the "victim" depending on judgement on infringement.
So Youtube (and I) should be required to infringe on your rights, then pay you for having done so?
Okay, I hereby demand that you host infringing copies of my book on your site. I'll sue you over it later.
You did say you want people, including YouTube, to be prohibited from removing content from their sites, even when nobody claims it doesn't infringe, right?
The current law (DMCA) is
Btw I'll tell you what went wrong (Score:2)
Btw I can tell you exactly what went wrong with the DMCA notice process, as well as the basic reason simplistic solutions don't work. We took about a year and half devising a system that would work, because there is a fundamental problem (and we still missed one issue, which broke the system.)
Suppose it's 1995. You own a web site with a forum, something like Slashdot. Except people can post pics. You get a letter from Playboy (or Perfect 10) saying "your site is infringing on our copyright. You have a bun
Re:What (Score:5, Interesting)
A lucky asshole.He got done civilly and had to pay some go-away money.
Knowingly making a false copyright claim isn't a civil offense, its a criminal offense, and in fact one of the very few elements of copyright law that actually mandates a criminal penalty (copyright violation is a murky area and tends to require a commercial motivation to invoke criminal charges) , as a knowingly fake copyright strike is actually fraud. Its lying to obtain a financial benefit at someone elses expense via deception.
It really only requires a cop taking an interest in this for it to go from bad to worse for him (And a criminal court doesn't care whether he agreed to a civil penalty in a previus mediation, thats only interesting for the judge down the hallway in the commercial courts, and theres no double jepardy between civil and criminal cases)
Speaking of copyright offenders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Crap (Score:3)
Google basically did nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or else.....well nothing.
Or else jail. Turned TOS into contempt of court (Score:5, Interesting)
That type of clause is common, and used in perhaps most regulatory enforcement actions against companies, because it turns a violation into contempt of court, which can mean jail time.
Before, there was the YouTube TOS that said "if we catch you, we can block that account and you'll just make a new one". Now, if he does it again he'd be violating a court order. Judges *really* don't like it when you do that. The judge can hold you in contempt and send you to jail, or impose fines or other penalties.
When it comes to violating a court order, the court can choose to treat it as civil contempt and order a fine paid either to the government or the other party, or dispose of it as criminal contempt subject to imprisonment for a time frame specified by the court ( United States v. United Mine Workers,242 ).
.
Re: (Score:2)
It was already against the rules. He violated them anyways. Google didnt do shit about it other than re-iterate the already existing rule that he already willfully violated.
Nobody else will go to jail for it (Score:3)
If anyone else violated that part part of YouTube's TOS, their account could be closed and they'd need to make a new account.
If this guy violates it, he's violating the court order, which means contempt of court. Judges really hate that, and send people to jail for that.
Re: (Score:2)
He's admitted to filing false claims. Maybe now's a good time to test the provisions of the DMCA that specifically punish this behaviour.
Wait, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it 3 strikes, you're gone for 99+% of users, but several dozen strikes for this guy (likely hundreds+), and he's keeping an active account?
I'm not asking for the sake of fairness - but for the sake of security and logistics. Why keep such a bad actor that will almost certainly generate much more blowback than any other user?
I'm just not seeing an angle where the usual 'greed' motivations play out. Even if this guy has beefy lawyers, I can't imagine the legal team at Google really seeing savings capitulating to the guy in particular, and keeping his account active.
Why keep that relationship active for this guy?
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird, but it seems like they can't take any legal action against him, so this is the best Google can do. At least, that's how I read the story.
Isn't knowingly filing false DMCA notices supposed to be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for 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 U.S.C.A. 512
Re: Wait, why? (Score:2)
Well, I would say his apology indicates he knew. Although I'm sure he would just say it was coerced.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal? (Score:2)
How is this legal? He admits to making false claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "confessed to extortion", which I'm pretty sure is a Federal offense or two.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean "confessed to extortion", which I'm pretty sure is a Federal offense or two.
If committing a federal offense or two means I give the court 5% of the money I make, keep all the rest, and then get to go back out to continue extorting with the courts blessing... Where do I sign up?
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
On youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably delivery the summons in a flying car, typed up on a linux desktop.
So broken (Score:2)
The fact that he was able to do this (and anyone else still can) shows just how broken the YouTube copyright system is.
Far too many people have lost years of work and their livelihoods as a result of false claimes and the demented Google Brain on which the various algorithms run.
Shame.
Re: (Score:2)
You confuse cheap with demented, it works the way it works on purpose they get to keep any income your video generated before they blocked it, they backdate that income and whilst they still get it, you do not. The purpose of the tool is to block as many youtubers as possibly immediately after the peak interest period and pretend it was before the peak interest period, so they keep the bulk of the money generated by your content and then block you from getting the crumbs. This design is not by accident, pai
Admitted guilt - time to sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He committed a felony. Nobody is filing charges? That's fucked up..
What felony? (Score:3)
What felony do you think of committed?
The penalty of perjury clause in 17 USC 512?
The attestation under penalty of perjury is that you are the authorized representative of the owner of the *original work* mentioned in the complaint. You couldn't state as fact that some other work infringes on yours because that's a question of law, not a question of fact.
So the perjury clause would come in if I sent a DMCA notice about something infringing on Lord of the Rings. Because I don't own the Lord of the Rings co
Re: (Score:2)
How about Blackmail/extortion?
Re: (Score:2)
Did he tell the creators of the videos "I won't send a bogus copyright claim against you if you pay me"? I haven't seen anyone suggest that he did.
Correction: Yes that probably IS extortion (Score:3)
I just read about me more of the factual background. Apparently he DID tell victims "if you pay me I won't send another complaint". That DOES sound like extortion, depending on the state.
It would depend on the jurisdiction, some have language like "threaten the use of force against a person, or to reveal a secret". Depending on which states are involved, he could go to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe some jurisdictions also have "falsely accuse of a crime"
Re: (Score:2)
And he didn't commit perjury in the claims?
Not if he owned a video. But extortion (Score:2)
A DMCA notice has two main sections:
A) I own the song Yippee Yoo
B) I think the song Pippy Goo copied my Yipee Yoo, and therefore infringes my copyright
Only the first statement* is under penalty of perjury.
The second statement isn't a true/false fact. It's a matter of opinion and a question of law, not fact. How much of the song was copied? How much wasn't copied? Was too much copied? It's a judgement call, so it can't be perjury.**
However, it looks like this person probably committed extortion by sendin
Re: (Score:1)
You need "A" to get to "B". Saying somebody copied *my* material is a claim of ownership. If the law says differently, that's fucked up. An entire DMCA claim must be under the same rules of perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people think that Katy Perry's song "Dark Horse" sounds a lot like the song "Joyful Noise". Perry must have copied Flame, they think. Other people think the songs are very different.
You can listen to the songs yourself and come up with your own opinion. Reasonable people disagree whether they are "too much alike". Two different juries can (and do) make opposite decisions on the same pair of works.
That's the number one reason why "his work is a lot like mine, he must have from mine" can't be subject
Re: (Score:1)
Some people think that Katy Perry's song "Dark Horse" sounds a lot like the song "Joyful Noise". Perry must have copied Flame, they think. Other people think the songs are very different.
Those kinds of cases should be thrown out with extreme prejudice. A person filing such claims should have to pay for the court's time.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think you SHOULD be allowed to copy someone else's work? Copyright shouldn't exist?
Re: (Score:1)
There is a finite number of possible combination of musical notes. You can only do your regular G-C-D in so many ways. Of course there will be similarities over time. It simply can't be helped. Everything is built on the previous. And, to be honest, music really hasn't changed much since Chuck Berry anyway. These cases are bogus.
Yes, copyright in its present form is rent collecting theft, and a convenient method of censorship. It absolutely needs to be abolished. The entire law was specially created to prot
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud? Libel? Contract interference?
Those are torts (things to sue over) (Score:3)
Libel and interference are torts, things you can sue someone for. They aren't felonies.
Fraud, also known as lying, is like an intent - it can be an "element* of a tort or crime, such as identify theft. I can fraudulently claim to be an astronomer while making posts on Slashdot about a satellite and that wouldn't be unlawful. Fraudulently claiming to be a doctor or attorney while *accepting payment* for professional services would be a violation of the Business and Occupations code. Lying (fraud) isn't un
Re: (Score:2)
Reading more on it, it looks like on the criminal side, extortion would be the best fit, and like fraud would fit since the lying was for financial gain. Legally speaking, claiming to be an astronomer on /. is just lying, not actual fraud since there is no financial gain even though more colloquially doing that might get one called a fraud.
Fair point on Libel and interference.
Re: (Score:2)
A few crimes that include fraud as one element of the offense:
identity theft
insurance fraud
mail fraud
credit/debit card fraud
securities fraud
telemarketing fraud
wire fraud
bankruptcy fraud
tax evasion
The statute of frauds covers a number of points of contract law. Family law and the law of marriages contain several provisions related to various types of fraud, which can lead to annulment or other results.
Black's Law Dictionary defines fraud as:
FRAUD
Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, re
I apologize .... (Score:2)
But don't worry, my
My coffee (Score:2, Insightful)
pay $25,000 in damages [..] This settlement highlights the very real consequences for those that misuse our copyright system
This highlights a system that's highly favoring trolls and ignoring collateral damages.
There's plenty small channels that already have losses in that order of magnitude due to trolls. There's channels that removed hundreds of video's because they didn't want to risk a 3rd strike.
Youtube is a great platform but i really wish they worked on their appeal system instead of blindly locking people's channels and content or having people self-censuring their content out of fear for trolls, megacorps and strikes, n
"Alleged" (Score:1)
Bad example. (Score:3)
Don't ask for permission. Just do it and if you get caught, offer a fake apology and a token amount of money as compensation.
If anything, this is an encouragement for others to follow in his footsteps. Does anyone here think he extorted less than 25 grand from this?
Also in the news, people who listen to music the wrong way get slapped with lawsuits for billions, settle for millions and have their life ruined over basically nothing. With the exact same law, by the way.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't ask for permission. Just do it and if you get caught, offer a fake apology and a token amount of money as compensation.
If anything, this is an encouragement for others to follow in his footsteps. Does anyone here think he extorted less than 25 grand from this?
Also in the news, people who listen to music the wrong way get slapped with lawsuits for billions, settle for millions and have their life ruined over basically nothing. With the exact same law, by the way.
While the initial example seems less than acceptable by the punishment-- this does set in motion a trend that YouTube might take in more swift action against others going forward possibly acting as a deterrent from "false flagging" and "copyright trolling".
One drop in a bucket (Score:2)
Perjury? (Score:2)
Submitting a DMCA takedown notice is under penalty of perjury, so why does Youtube have to sue the guy, why can't the legal system take over and do what was meant to be done from the start?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's not. Perjury is a crime in the US, both at the state and federal levels. Individuals don't bring suit against people for crimes the government does. Individuals can only bring suit for civil matters.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not "alleged" (Score:2)
Turning point (Score:1)
This can be seen as a new trend to combat frivolous claims made on YouTube videos in hopes that it will diminish said "trolling" actions from would-be bad actors in the YouTube space.
This has been problem for quite sometime on the platform, and should hopefully catch ground with the ever-growing habits such as this being displayed by todays current emotional, and assumed politically correctness climate.