Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Defending Select Videos Against DMCA Abuse

Posted by timothy on from the where-bread-is-buttered dept.

Galaga88 writes: It's not a complete solution, but YouTube is going to begin stepping up to defend select videos in court on fair use terms, including covering court costs. Will this help stem the tide of bad DMCA takedown requests, or just help the select few YouTube doesn't want to lose? From the blog post linked: We are offering legal support to a handful of videos that we believe represent clear fair uses which have been subject to DMCA takedowns. With approval of the video creators, we’ll keep the videos live on YouTube in the U.S., feature them in the YouTube Copyright Center as strong examples of fair use, and cover the cost of any copyright lawsuits brought against them. ... In addition to protecting the individual creator, this program could, over time, create a “demo reel” that will help the YouTube community and copyright owners alike better understand what fair use looks like online and develop best practices as a community.

18 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Defense will be based on advertising dollars by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users. All they care about is advertising money. Now that there are some alternatives to Youtube, big channels are threatening to leave if the flood of false DCMA notifications does not stop.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users."

      nitehawk214 does not care if you know if that is true, as he has no idea if it is or if it isn't, but he does hate Google, and will write whatever he can against them in hopes that he can sway your opinion of them.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users. All they care about is advertising money. Now that there are some alternatives to Youtube, big channels are threatening to leave if the flood of false DCMA notifications does not stop.

      Google and Youtube are doing the right thing. Does it matter if they are doing it for the right or wrong reason?

    3. Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users. All they care about is advertising money.

      Why is this marked "troll"? Google is an advertisement company, and if DCMA complaints drive the top channels away, they will lose money. So they kick their legal team in gear to protect revenue, which is a smart move for your average corporation, but sounds even better because they can talk about "fair use" etc. and get some PR cred out of it too.

    4. Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that there will be quite a number of fair use cases that end up not being defended in large part because the video (or the channel it's in) doesn't make any money for YouTube. Not only that, they'll probably throw some money at less-than-fully-legitimate fair use videos only because the video (or the channel it's in) does make money for YouTube. For better or worse, It's all about the money.

    5. Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He doesn't have to sway people's opinions as it pretty much matches the situation. There are more and more alternatives to youtube popping up that don't let people rip off content creators by sending false DMCAs or false claims against videos to block advertising revenue the content creator should have received (Due to the whole fair use issue - so many instances of people getting claims on their videos because they even -mention- a game.)

      If Google cared about fair use, they wouldn't have the system they have that assumes large businesses are the only ones that can be trusted simply on their word, while the little guys have to jump through hoops to prove their innocence. (Which generally means jumping through hoops to get the big company to admit they were wrong.)

      Now that people are starting to abandon youtube over this bullshit, they actually have to act like they care. And that's what they're doing.

      tl;dr: If google cared, they would have done this YEARS ago when they were effectively the only game in town.

  2. rights should not depend on a Corporation charity by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's what this is - a large corporation deciding to charitably pay huge amounts of money to defend it's customer's rights.

    While I understand their desire to do this, we need a legal system that does it automatically.

    Most privacy violations are clear. No one puts someone else's songs up there 'accidentally'.

    If all DMCA cases, we should have loser pays rule. Right now, the poster can be required to pay huge damages, so why shouldn't the claimant be required to pay double the court costs.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  3. Between a rock and a hard place... by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is entirely of their own making.

    They didn't need to create the ContentID system and allow it work the way it does. But they did.

    By law they needed a way to respond to DMCA notices but they didn't need to automate it. And now those chickens have come home to roost.

    All in all, Google stepping up to start sorting out this mess they made all by themselves is a good thing. I am hopeful they see it through by changing the way their system works and maybe taking out some of the automation that is one of the biggest problems with it. May they also push some sane legislation that will make it possible to do away with the worst abuses of the Notice system.

    1. Re:Between a rock and a hard place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This does not have anything to do with content ID.

      There's a serious problem where scumbags will target small-medium youtubers, steal and repost their videos, then file claims against the original owners. And they do it all in a more or less automated fashion.

      This is a tiny bit oversimplified but it's basically this, and a bunch of other related schemes. Point is it works because it's a pretty asymmetric attack. The scumbag has automation and volume and zero chance of being caught.

      Worse, all they have to do is steal traffic for a small amount of time. Many of these videos are topical and will generate the most views near when said topic is hot. (Like a new game, or a news event, or recently popular social topic/meme/whatever) In many cases delaying a video is as bad as killing it outright since it a late video about a hot topic will generate basically zero revenue for a youtuber.

      And it's not just about video theft. You can shut out competitors. You can harm others by depriving them of visibility and revenue.

      And you can censor criticism but harming the revenue of critics. - Yanking a video on a hot topic at the height of its 'hotness' is just as bad, revenue wise, as having it removed forever. That's enough of a threat to cause critics to censor themselves in some circumstances.

    2. Re:Between a rock and a hard place... by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google had no choice.
      Originally, YouTube was fueled by piracy, but content owners didn't really care : low quality videos and YouTube didn't have enough money to make a lawsuit profitable.
      It changed the instant Google bought it. The content owners, now realizing that behind YouTube was sitting billions in cash quickly turned to Google and basically asked for their share. Google had no choice if they wanted to keep the service and not run it at a loss.

  4. This won't help by dottrap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't going to affect anything. DMCA abusers still have financial incentives to continue abusing (by automatically diverting ad money to themselves on claimed videos) and have no financial disincentives to stop doing this. If it gets to the rare point where Google does step in, they can just release the video in question while simultaneously continue abusing a thousand other videos.

  5. Re:Yeah, nice self publicity YouTube by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call me back when they've made it their policy to protect every video that has a strong fair use defense.

    You forgot to list your phone number.

    Never mind, we can probably get it from Google.

  6. Re:All Google cares about is hits by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    And starting places are starting places.

  7. Dailymotion/Vimeo by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've already seen people backing up and dual broadcasting due to DMCA takedowns on youtube. Most are podcasts or game reviewers that are getting DMCA take downs, and after 3 your account is removed. Scary. I have no loyalty to youtube or twitter, or any other service that decides to swing the ban hammer on content producers for political reasons hiding behind a DMCA takedown.

    1. Re:Dailymotion/Vimeo by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, the Worth a Buy Shadow of Morder review alleges that Warner Brothers was threatening to issue DMCA takedowns to youtube reviewers who didn't have a branding agreement with Warner Brothers. I've been hearing similar allegations about other games from a number of reviewers. Obviously that didn't happen with Mack's video, as it's still up, but it highlights the kind of abuse that's possible under existing laws.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  8. Fair use? Best practice? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why the heck do you think we bought that law? That's about us being able to dictate what can and cannot be shown and at what terms, get lost with your "fair use" bull! The DMCA was helluva expensive, you can't take that away like that, who do you think you are?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When there is a massive power imbalance, i.e. corporation vs. individual, the standard should really be recklessness or carelessness -- you have 14,000x as many resources as the person you're accusing, you can afford to take a few minutes to make sure the bug you're squashing is actually biting you. When a corporation shotguns takedowns and hits the short movie they licensed to make their big movie, it would be pretty easy to prove carelessness.

    Scant chance of that making it into law, of course.

  10. Re:rights should not depend on a Corporation chari by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    While I understand their desire to do this, we need a legal system that does it automatically.

    Until people can choose among competing legal systems, for the best value, the monopoly systems will be for sale to the highest bidder (cf. history). Don't waste your time trying to fix the current monopoly system.

    The DMCA is the best copyright system Disney could buy (rest in pieces, Fritz Hollings). Maybe Google can buy a little bit back. And yes, this sucks.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)