Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used It In Family Guy and DMCA'd the Original (torrentfreak.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used It In Family Guy and DMCA'd the Original (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday May 20, 2016 @04:00AM from the patently-absurd dept.

An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: This week's episode of Family Guy included a clip from 1980s Nintendo video game Double Dribble showing a glitch to get a free 3-point goal. Perhaps surprisingly the game glitch is absolutely genuine and was documented in a video that was uploaded to YouTube by a user called 'sw1tched' back in February 2009. Interestingly the clip that was uploaded by sw1tched was the exact same clip that appeared in the Family Guy episode on Sunday. So, unless Fox managed to duplicate the gameplay precisely, Fox must've taken the clip from YouTube. Whether Fox can do that and legally show the clip in an episode is a matter for the experts to argue but what followed next was patently absurd. Shortly after the Family Guy episode aired, Fox filed a complaint with YouTube and took down the Double Dribble video game clip on copyright grounds. Perhaps YouTube should also be blamed for this.

75 of 311 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ok, why? by drakaan · 2016-05-20 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why should YouTube also be blamed for this? Why should they be blamed for following the takedown process that the MPAA/RIAA forced upon them?

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
1. Re:Ok, why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 04:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why should they be blamed for following the takedown process that the MPAA/RIAA forced upon them?
  Did the MPAA/RIAA force Youtube to make it as easy as they did? Admittedly, I would probably just not care and give them an automated system as well, but I still think that deserves some blame.
2. Re:Ok, why? by Stolpskott · 2016-05-20 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority (i.e. copyright ownership) to be able to enforce the notice.
  However, such checks would go a long way toward invalidating the defense used by media companies who abuse the DMCA provisions when faced with such patently absurd filings - that they filed this specific request in error as a result of a failure of an automated reporting system, and that nobody at the media company making the filing was aware that the filing was incorrect. In the meantime, sanctions related to the number of DMCA notices received against content uploaded by specific accounts remains triggered even when many/most of the notices are shown to be bogus/in error, meaning that there is no incentive for the media companies to change and there are no satisfactory mechanisms in place for small uploaders to recover their content/challenge the behaviour.
3. Re:Ok, why? by PhrostyMcByte · 2016-05-20 04:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Youtube makes takedowns exceptionally easy, but the process of getting a video put back up can take months and there are no repercussions for a bad takedown.
  Remember the other part of the DMCA safe harbor bits -- you need to take the video down immediately, but if the person says to put it back up, it becomes squarely that person's legal issue, not Youtube's. Youtube is not adequately capturing this workflow.
  Then again, it's not clear if these takedowns are actual DMCA requests or if it's just an agreement Youtube has. I know that Youtube supports both.
4. Re:Ok, why? by drakaan · 2016-05-20 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is a great idea, if you can afford to employ enough people to do that. The rightsholders should be responsible for screening their takedown requests. The problem is that there's no limit placed on the supposed rightsholders to prevent them from abusing the system for automated takedowns without reviewing them first. Again, that was forced on YouTube by the rights agencies. Again, why blame YouTube?
  
  --
  "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
5. Re:Ok, why? by c · 2016-05-20 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  Why should YouTube also be blamed for this?
  There's enough history to suggest that DMCA complaints from these idiots should go directly into the "known abusers, extra scrutiny required" pile.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
6. Re:Ok, why? by macs4all · 2016-05-20 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because instead of brainlessly taking down any video because of a DMCA request they could run it through a sanity check first, but that would take a little bit of effort, so its just easier not to piss off the people with money to sue you.
  Or, howabout they just follow the longstanding and bright-line Doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued?
  
  Anything else (and any law to the contrary) is blatantly Unconstitutional, and void ab initio. I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
  
  No Court could find differently; and it's HIGH-TIME that that was Tested...
7. Re:Ok, why? by drakaan · 2016-05-20 04:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  See my reply to Stolpskott. It's not about caring, its about resources. There are a huge number of videos getting posted and a huge number of takedown requests.
  
  --
  "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
8. Re:Ok, why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says.
  I, on the other hand, could not.
9. Re:Ok, why? by Solandri · 2016-05-20 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The DMCA doesn't require the party filing the DMCA notice to provide YouTube a copy of the original so they can compare. All it requires is that they claim they own the legal copyright that the other work is infringing.
  
  The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims. The only punishment is if the filing party knows they don't own the copyright but files the claim anyway. That is, the filing party can always say "I thought I owned the copyright, but I guess I was wrong" and get away with it without even having to say "I'm sorry." That's what's led to the copyright industry filing DMCA claims willy nilly with little regard for accuracy.
10. Re:Ok, why? by 110010001000 · 2016-05-20 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I never understood this argument. Google literally has TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CASH. They have plenty of resources. They just choose not to spend it. Ridiculous.
11. Re:Ok, why? by taustin · 2016-05-20 04:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases. A DMCA takedown notice isn't a criminal case. The only thing that matters here is statutory law.
  The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder).
  The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
12. Re:Ok, why? by Frobnicator · 2016-05-20 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
  Agreed. That is about the only safeguard in place in the act, and it is not enforced.
  Swearing under penalty of perjury isn't what it used to be. General perjury on a sworn document is up to five years in prison, but like most such laws, is only enforced if you offend a prosecutor or officer of the court.
  When the lawyers who sign the bulk takedown requests start to end up in prison and lose their license, the others will start to take more care.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
13. Re:Ok, why? by amicusNYCL · 2016-05-20 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims.
  That's true, that's the problem. There's a solution, though. Google has a net income of over $16 billion and a market cap of almost $500 billion. I would love for them to put up an 8 figure bounty to a lobbying firm that can get sane copyright laws pushed through Congress.
  The current situation is a great example. Any human at Fox, when faced with this case, would admit that they do not own the copyright. But they're using software which doesn't know the difference. The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly? If they don't want a penalty, then they need smarter software. They need a way of identifying their own source material with a series of flags which says which sections they do and do not own the copyright on, and smarter software to look at those and skip the sections where they can't enforce copyright. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty in the DMCA for people or companies submitting repeated false positives. One penalty could be that section about the penalties for not immediately removing the material are waived for all complaints submitted by the party in question, pending a formal review of the submitted complaint. Maybe a year to respond to the initial complaint would be a good starting point.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
14. Re:Ok, why? by Calydor · 2016-05-20 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?
  It is not spending more money than you have to.
  In another article a few days ago I saw someone who did the math; apparently Google would have to employ 56,000 people JUST to monitor uploaded Youtube clips in real time. Let's say they get a pitiful 20,000 dollars a year each for staring non-stop at inane video clips (many of which would likely be trolling uploads of Tubgirl, Two Girls One Cup etc.), that amounts to approximately 1.1 BILLION dollars per year.
  Just to avoid something like this happening too often.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
15. Re:Ok, why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-05-20 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  What I really wanna see is Nintendo sue Fox for copyright violation. Let them pick on someone their own size.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
16. Re:Ok, why? by XXeR · 2016-05-20 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder)
  A lawyer isn't required to "sign his name" on a DMCA takedown. The person claiming to be the copyright owner can (and usually does) do so.
17. Re:Ok, why? by ninthbit · 2016-05-20 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  The problem lies in the cost of the testing. The entire entertainment industry's legal force would be up against Google/YouTube. That's not a cheap fight. Which costs less, pissing off some mom/pop content producers that would lose their entire subscriber base if they switch services, or fight all of Hollywood? Their motto may be "Don't be evil", but nothing in that says "Don't be a chicken shit to Hollywood." They know that if they paint a bulls-eye on their back, that they'll have so many injunctions and other debilitating orders that other services like Vine or Twitch will assume the model and take over. Then, even if they beat the corruption and win the Supreme Court, they still only serve as martyrs like Betamax.
18. Re:Ok, why? by just_another_sean · 2016-05-20 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  My understanding is that they didn't even get a DMCA notice from Fox. Content ID is to blame IIUC. I haven't been able to find anything definite but this quote seems to suggest that and I've seen other comments about this story that seem to back that up...
  
  "It's most likely that this is just another example of YouTubeâ(TM)s Content ID system automatically taking down a video without regard to actual copyright ownership and fair use. As soon as FOX broadcast that Family Guy episode, their robots started taking down any footage that appeared to be reposted from the show â" and in this case they took down the footage they stole from an independent creator," Lyon says.
  Lyon referring to Jeff Lyon, the CTO of Fight for the Future.
  Is anyone really sure that Fox issued a notice and that this isn't just another example of Content ID failing miserably?
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
19. Re:Ok, why? by akpoff · 2016-05-20 05:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, but the algorithm could be a bit smarter. In this case, checking the post date of the alleged infringing video against the air date of the Family Guy episode would be enough to suspect it's not infringing.
20. Re:Ok, why? by omnichad · 2016-05-20 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If it wasn't Youtube's own Content ID system, FOX could probably be sued for issuing a false takedown notice. Maybe they still could. Hiring a hit man makes you no less guilty of murder.
21. Re:Ok, why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority
  
  Stop.
  If you host content for other people, are an ISP, etc. then you are required to comply with the initial take-down notice unless you want to become liable.
  Then the uploader can file a counter-claim, and get the content reinstated.
  Then the original filer can pursue further action if they want.
  The problem with youtube, is that as soon as you receive a DMCA notice you get a 'strike' against you.
  What should happen is you should receive no penalty until the period for contesting the DMCA order passes.
  If you file a counter-claim within that time window, you should not get any penalty and your video should automatically go back up.
  If the person pursues legal action, you should not get a penalty until the legal proceedings complete.
  In addition, if a person submits a DMCA claim, which then gets a counter-claim filed, they should get flagged.
  If they start getting enough counter-claim which either never get contested or pursued, or claims which get over-turned in court later on, they should lose all access to the automated take-down system and have to file everything manually. Youtube's legal department should additional review their actions, and file lawsuits for abuse of process, etc. and to reclaim legal fees and costs.
  Once a person is flagged as an excessive DMCA abuser, any video which gets a DMCA filed against it should also give that person some sort of alert, something like "Your video has been subject to a DMCA claim, filed by someone who has been identified as submitting excessive numbers of fraudulent or unproven claims. Contact our legal department at xxx for assistance."
22. Re:Ok, why? by omnichad · 2016-05-20 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
  Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
23. Re:Ok, why? by Firethorn · 2016-05-20 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think they should DMCA that episode that contains the offending clip wherever it might be found.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
24. Re:Ok, why? by slazzy · 2016-05-20 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I just had a bunch of revenue stolen on my youtube videos. The copyright claim was based on my audio, but the audio I was using was youtube's own free music. The system is out of hand. I would have complained but the link doesn't work. For videos, ALWAYS put on a watermark to help prove your ownership.
  
  --
  Website Just Down For Me? Find out
25. Re:Ok, why? by omnichad · 2016-05-20 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Don't want to awaken the beast (Nintendo). Nintendo has been issuing their claims on gameplay videos and taking all the ad revenue.
26. Re:Ok, why? by Solandri · 2016-05-20 05:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Read the DMCA a little closer:
  
  ''(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
  In other words, the perjury charge isn't about claiming copyright when you don't own the copyright. It's about claiming you're authorized by the copyright owner to enforce the copyright on their behalf, when you're not. There is basically no penalty for filing a false DMCA claim; the only penalty (perjury) is if you know the claimant doesn't own a copyright and file a DMCA notice anyway. The copyrighted work doesn't even have to be anything like the video being taken down - as long as the copyright owner alleges the video is infringing, the person filing the DMCA notice gets a free pass.
  
  It's a terrible law with no checks and balances.
27. Re:Ok, why? by friesofdoom · 2016-05-20 05:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem is that often these false takedown notices are made against people who are using youtube as a legitimate source of invome. Youtube will redirect all monetisation from your video with the fake takedown notice into the pockets of the person who made the fake takedown notice. There are other issue with these trikes blocking content creators from posting videos. Youtube are also impossible to contact and never respond to any inquiries about a false takedown notice. The whole system effectively just lets you steal money from other people.
  
  Here are some content creators talking about the problem, they can explain it better than I can:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqFAMOtwaI
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvCbNDGwypk
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K59XnF-hN78
28. Re:Ok, why? by Calydor · 2016-05-20 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure that's data that even gets sent in the DMCA notice or complaint or whatever it's called. I am pretty sure (though not from any kind of experience, so here's a grain of salt so you don't have to take your own) it just goes "We have determined this video infringes on our stuff. Get rid of it."
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
29. Re:Ok, why? by amicusNYCL · 2016-05-20 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  The law should just be structured so that any submission needs to be done with a "good faith" understanding that you own the copyright. It then moves the burden of determining that to the people filing the complaints. Any complaint received will be assumed to be a good faith complaint. If the people filing the complaints are using substandard software to identify content and file complaints without human intervention, then that's their problem and they should get penalized for filing invalid complaints. The burden of due diligence should not be on the people hosting content or the people who own or uploaded the content. Using bad software and then just saying in court that no one reviewed those complaints before they got filed should not be an excuse. If the complaint gets filed then it's treated like any other complaint, the people filing the complaints should have the burden of ensuring the complaints are valid before filing, not after.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
30. Re:Ok, why? by mythosaz · 2016-05-20 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Fox could easily air material owned by them produced well before the date of a YouTube video - something they purchased from the archives or another company, or featuring music recorded decades ago - thus rendering simple date checking useless.
31. Re:Ok, why? by mjm1231 · 2016-05-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ironically, some people are being ironic, even when they didn't mean to be.
  
  --
  Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
32. Re:Ok, why? by macs4all · 2016-05-20 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
  Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
  I actually forgot about the Safe Harbor provision when I wrote my OP.
  
  That really DOES take the "fight" out of the "Content Provider's" hands, and puts it right where it belongs; between the "aggrieved parties".
  
  That is probably the ONLY semi-reasonable thing in that damnable piece of legislation.
33. Re:Ok, why? by phishybongwaters · 2016-05-20 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  that was my first though, fox files DMCA against dude who posted it, then Nintendo will file DMCA against both, and profit.
34. Re:Ok, why? by phishybongwaters · 2016-05-20 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's 99% automated. Literally. In fact, it could actually have played out this way: Fox steals content from youtube, fox reposts this video to youtube to get it fingerprinted, automated system takes care of the rest. I've been dealing with a shitfuckington of youtube takedown requests, all of which are automated. Youtube is actually pretty good with this, many times they simply direct the ad revenue to the content owner, or display ads or remove the sound. only a few of my videos were blocked outright.
35. Re:Ok, why? by omnichad · 2016-05-20 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  And then I saw in another comment that this is a Konami game, so a lot less likely.
36. Re:Ok, why? by pseudorand · 2016-05-20 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  In this particular case, it /could/ be automated if Google simply required the DMCA filer to provide the date of the copyright they say is being violated. In this case, this weekend > 2009, so clearly the claim is false. Could they not refuse on those grounds?
  Additionally, can this guy not file a DMCA notice with Fox itself, forcing them to take that episode of Family Guy off any of their streaming services until it went to court?
37. Re:Ok, why? by Lumpy · 2016-05-20 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?"
  Yes I do, you lie cheat and steal it from poor people. Yes that is EXACTLY what all these companies do. Workers are exploited at unfair wages and work hours, pricing set to the MAXIMUM that people will pay, etc...
  You get really rich by being an asshole, or winning the lottery with blind luck. Those are the only TWO ways of doing it. Nobody ever got rich by working hard and saving money.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
38. Re:Ok, why? by pseudorand · 2016-05-20 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  > "Your video has been subject to a DMCA claim, filed by someone who has been identified as submitting excessive numbers of fraudulent or unproven claims. Contact our legal department at xxx for assistance."
  Or better yet "click here to automatically file a counter-claim using our one-click-counter-claim feature". Of course, Amazon them would probable sue Google because Jeff Bozos thinks he owns anything "one click".
39. Re:Ok, why? by Onuma · 2016-05-20 07:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nearly half of all lottery winners go bust within 5 years of receiving their winnings. They might be rich, but it is only in a very transient sense; it's not wealth.
  
  You're basically inserting your "fairness" bullshit into an economic argument. It's sanctimonious, and reeks of someone who has no idea about economics, business, or capitalism.
  
  What is fair? Who determines the price of a product or service? Who determines wages?
  
  You can find many examples of extraordinarily wealthy entrepreneurs who began with little or nothing, worked diligently, saved money, and started their businesses leading to [eventual] success. The fact that you have not done so belies your entire, weak argument.
  
  --
  What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
40. Re:Ok, why? by Travis+Mansbridge · 2016-05-20 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, the way the DMCA is written, YouTube is supposed to follow the DMCA takedown request essentially blindly while any appeals are supposed to be filed by the user directly. I feel the same way as you, though, that the site hosting the material should have some responsibility. I'm sure the MPAA feels something similar about YouTube's responsibility for infringing content..
41. Re:Ok, why? by pnutjam · 2016-05-20 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, people get lucky all the time. There are probably dozens of people reading this who have found a $20 bill on the ground. That doesn't change what it is, just because people want to pretend their exceptional, or hard workers.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
42. Re:Ok, why? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2016-05-20 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Ironically, some people are being ironic, even when they didn't mean to be.
  Ironically, some people are being ironic, even when they don't mean to be.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
43. Re:Ok, why? by imatter · 2016-05-20 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe they should have to provide that information in the complaint, like when they claim that their copyrighted material was created.
44. Re:Ok, why? by suutar · 2016-05-20 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  except the perjury part doesn't apply to "this infringes our copyright", it only applies to "I am or represent someone who has a copyright". The law was carefully crafted to penalize impersonation of a corporation but not false accusation.
45. Re:Ok, why? by UnderCoverPenguin · 2016-05-20 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure the MPAA feels something similar about YouTube's responsibility for infringing content
  
  Based on recent complaints from both the MPAA and RIAA, they want youtube and other similar sites to hold posted content until it's verified to be non-infringing.
  
  --
  Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
46. Re:Ok, why? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2016-05-20 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  It seems like this was automatedly cut after Fox aired the clip... it would be nice if Google posted a "why" document for takedowns.
47. Re:Ok, why? by Altrag · 2016-05-20 14:32 · Score: 2
  
  Try this: Pull out a $100 bill. Place it in front of your computer. Go to sleep.
  How much code was written when you wake up the next day? Dollars aren't "resources." They can be used to pay for resources, but in and of themselves, dollars are pretty useless things.
  Secondly, assets aren't cash. Google might be worth 10s of billions of dollars on paper, but unless they're willing to sell all of their IP, all of their buildings, fire all of their employees, etc, I'd be willing to bet the amount in the back typically hovers more in the 10s of millions. Certainly a hell of a lot by the standards of an average person (or even other businesses) but still multiple orders of magnitude lower than their claimed asset value.
  Could they do more? Probably. You can always hire another person. Is it worth them doing more? That's another question. How much of this kind of thing will one extra person prevent? 10? 100? 1000? Probably still not enough given the scale of their problem, and by the time you're hiring 1000 people you're starting to show a pretty big hit on your SEC filings, even for a company the size of Google.
  Which is why they do things like autoaccept takedown requests from "trusted" partners and other algorithmic procedures for first-line defense. Computer time is very close to zero, at least in comparison to human time. Nobody (including Google) believes that their tricks are 100% accurate but its still better than eating the cost of 1000 new hires, because Google is still a business and still needs to maintain a profit margin to continue existing.
  Really though, the fact that their algorithms screwing up once in a while makes national news kind of shows how well they're doing, in a bit of a round-about way. If things were as bad as you claim, we'd be hearing about these sort of issues daily rather than a few times a year (well we wouldn't actually, because algorithms that bad wouldn't be in use for long.. but you know what I mean.)
48. Re:Ok, why? by Slick_W1lly · 2016-05-20 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  Warren Buffet has done a *heapload* of a-hole things. Some guy released a book about it a number of years ago.. I was surprised..
  Things like - he made a monopoly of industrial railroads. He bought up the indvidual railroad operators and then intentionally shut them down or reduced service so the companies who ship.. coal, grain, steel etc would have to pay more to use HIS (now only) railroad.
  This raised the price of grain / coal / steel.. etc - so he bought those - used his rail monopoly to see increased profits.. etc etc..
  Like I said - I was quite surprised. I had thought him a 'standup guy' - but apparent he's an a-hole.
49. Re:Ok, why? by Altrag · 2016-05-20 14:57 · Score: 2
  
  That assumes their video is even uploaded to Youtube, which is pretty unlikely for something like a brand new episode of Family Guy. And being uploaded to Youtube is definitely not a prerequisite for a DMCA claim (or anywhere else for that matter.. you own your copyrights whether or not you decide to post your work online.)
  We all get up in arms because its a big relatively hated company profiting off the little guy, and rightfully so, but if we step away from our outrage it becomes a little bit harder to see exactly how this should have been handled better.
  Its definitely in Fox' interest to fire off as many DMCA claims as they can get away with (which seems to be damned near anything that even shares a few pixels with their works.. but that's a problem with the law and Fox is just abusing it as best they can, which is what you'd expect them to do.)
  Its definitely in Google's interest to minimize the amount of manual labor required to process the DMCA claims. DMCA claims effectively amount to Google having to foot the bill for other people's enforcement of their copyrights, so the less they can spend on it the better.. again, to the point that they can get away with it.
  Both companies are acting perfectly rationally. The problem is the law itself not having really any deterrent to false claims. Fox certainly doesn't care if somebody else' work gets taken down. Google doesn't care at all they're only doing it because they have to.
  The only people that care are individuals who get thrown under the bus by a government that they supposedly elected but writes laws tailored to the sole benefit of companies that care only for their own bottom line, no matter what the cost is to everyone else.
50. Re:Ok, why? by thegarbz · 2016-05-20 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  You give big data waaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. Because ultimately that's what we're talking about, comparing a video in a DMCA request to a potential excerpt of something that needs to first be identified, then checked against potentially hundreds of databases to find the correct air-date.
  A much better example would be to actually take this into account in the DMCA laws in the first place. Require people submit all this information. Require all defendants to provide a reply within a reasonable time before something can be taken down. But the entire law was so horribly fucked that we all predicted from the very first draft that this is exactly what would happen.
Payback by tnk1 · 2016-05-20 04:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only right and proper response is, when the original video returns to YouTube, to DMCA the Fox video. It will likely last a microsecond due to Fox lawyers being all over it, but they deserve to have to deal with that shit.
1. Re:Payback by wardrich86 · 2016-05-20 04:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Is the original video monetized? He should sue them for $5.5 million dollars, since he lost out on potential views and revenue.
2. Re:Payback by Alain+Williams · 2016-05-20 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Youtube should recognise that Fox is not exercising due diligence before making use of its automated take down system. Thus Fox should no longer be allowed to use automatic take down. I believe that the DMCA process involves some statement of truth; Fox is abusing the courts should take note.
3. Re:Payback by Sloppy · 2016-05-20 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The owner of the video (i.e. the guy that posted it to Youtube) can and hopefully will file a counter-notice. Youtube is then obliged by law to reinstate the deleted material in a reasonable time frame.
  That is incorrect (in US; I don't know about NL).
  After the counter-notice, Youtube can reinstate the material and they'll be free of liability to Fox. But that's all. DMCA does not contain anything requiring service providers to provide services to users. Youtube wasn't even required to provide hosting to sw1tched before the fraudulent notice, and the notice didn't magically give sw1tched new rights to hosting services.
  A big part of the point of the notice/counternotice stuff is to give companies like Youtube a way out of being too involved in the battle between Fox and sw1tched. They want to be "just the messenger" and their concerns are primarily what this part of the law was intended to address.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
4. Re:Payback by omnichad · 2016-05-20 05:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Nintendo has been stealing/claiming ad revenue for recently made gameplay videos. I wouldn't draw any attention to myself if I was hosting a Nintendo gameplay video.
5. Re:Payback by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-20 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  The trick is to add some infringing content from a company that doesn't allow monetization. For example, Blizzard allows infringing videos but doesn't allow you to turn on the monetization (adverts). So stick 30 seconds of WoW on the end of the video, to ensure that their robots flag your video as "no monetization".
  That way even when Nintendo claims your video they won't be able to turn on the ads. The video stays up, ad free.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Release the hounds by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a kickstarter to fund legal action against Fox.
If the video owner can catch them for the copyright infringement they can hammer them for Perjury for the DMCA notice.
1. Re:Release the hounds by taustin · 2016-05-20 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  And remember, infringement for commercial purposes is criminal, as well as civil.
  I'd contribute to that.
This Often Happens by cyriustek · 2016-05-20 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

DMCA is used far too often for things that do not make sense. The only people that really profit from it all is the lawyers, especially in a case like this where there is evidence of prior art.
Shame on Fox. Shame on MPAA. Shame on RIAA. Shame on all of the Congress critters for creating this legal pile of excrement.
1. Re:This Often Happens by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, Don't blame Fox. Don't blame the MPAA. Don't blame the RIAA. And surely don't blame Congress...
  The blame lies directly on the consumers and voters, nowhere else. It's simple math.
  Good idea: place the blame squarely on the only group that had nothing to do with the problem and have no power to fix anything.
2. Re:This Often Happens by Opportunist · 2016-05-20 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  Damn right, they could have voted for Kodos. This would have made all the difference!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
These can be fought. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 04:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I upload for preservation. Some Italian music group filed a DMCA against it. Turns out some duo had lifted a major section of the intro (all of one video file on the psx) for their mix.
I disputed in a rant and they rescinded the notice.
Disgusting by pr0t0 · 2016-05-20 04:11 · Score: 2

This shit is getting out of hand. Someone has to stop this, and as I'm typing this rant, I feel YouTube has capability and responsibility to do so.

--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Let me see if I have this right by H3lldr0p · 2016-05-20 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I were to download a song and listen to it in the privacy of my own home/car/phone at work, I would be liable for a lot of money damages. But Fox gets to take a clip from YouTube, put it into a very successful commercial show and then turn around and claim that it came from them in the first place AND suffer no financial damage.
Interesting. It's like the law has been twisted so that it only benefits the wealthy and well-to-do.
Put the blame where it belongs... by QuietLagoon · 2016-05-20 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Congress. Because it was Congress that was purchased by the media industry, and told by their media industry overlords to pass over-reaching digital restriction laws.
No need for quotes by sjames · 2016-05-20 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is no need to quote stole here. Fox has not only copied the video (which would justify the quotes), they have asserted ownership of the work (actual theft).
It's funny how it's primarily the entities that whine about infringement and call it theft that commit the actual thefts.
1. Re:No need for quotes by Opportunist · 2016-05-20 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Because in their mind they own anything anyway. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, and if you complain here's 10 lawyers that blanket you with lawsuits 'til you cry uncle.
  Fuck them. If terrorists cared for good PR, they'd pick different targets.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
under DMCA, Youtube isn't the judge and jury by raymorris · 2016-05-20 04:55 · Score: 5, Informative

> [Youtube should be blamed] mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority
That's not the way the law works. Under DMCA, Youtube isn't the judge and jury, they don't have any subjective decisions they are allowed to make. Youtube has little to no choice here. Here's the process that the DMCA law specifies:
1. Complainant notifies hoster (youtube) that they claim infringement.
2. Youtube may immediately contact respondent (uploader).
3. Youtube temporarily disables the content.
4. Respondent may send Youtube a counter-notice, saying that they dispute the original DMCA notice.
5. Upon receiving counter-notice, Youtube re-enables the content.
6. Complainant may file suit in federal court (expensive).
The process is pretty well set in stone by law. The one place where Youtube has some choice to make is that they have to disable/remove the content "quickly", but how quickly? A host can choose to contact the uploader and give them 24 hours to counter-notice before removal, or they can remove it right away and put it back when they get a counter-notice.
I wish more people understood the counter-notice part, meaning the content goes right back up if you dispute the notice. You just reply saying "this notice must have been sent by mistake" and sign it (forms are available online). If more people understood about counter-notices and an amendment to the law added statutory damages for reckless filing of improper notices, the system would probably work pretty well. As it is, reckless notices aren't penalized enough to matter, and most people seem to think that there's nothing they can do if they are on the wrong end of an erroneous notice. Just send back a counter-notice. You don't have to argue your case, just state that you think the notice is wrong and leave it at that.
1. Re:under DMCA, Youtube isn't the judge and jury by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-20 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I wish more people understood the counter-notice part, meaning the content goes right back up if you dispute the notice. You just reply saying "this notice must have been sent by mistake" and sign it (forms are available online). If more people understood about counter-notices and an amendment to the law added statutory damages for reckless filing of improper notices, the system would probably work pretty well.
  
  Except that's not how it actually works. YouTube received a bogus takedown notice for a video I posted (someone decided they didn't like me and just wanted to be a prick). I filed a counter-claim and it was ignored and there was no response to the e-mails I sent asking about it.
Host your own shit by WaffleMonster · 2016-05-20 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

If everyone hosted their own content from their own systems we wouldn't have these problems. If the demand existed we would trivially have the capability to publish easily. Sane naming and caching architectures either P2P and or hosted by ISPs that don't discriminate and play favorites like current CDNs would be widely deployed to facilitate distribution.
The more everyone sucks on the teet of big content to do EVERYTHING for them the more the Internet becomes Cable TV. The more capabilities are not exercised the more impossible and outlandish it seems to do anything for yourself.
While youtube is convenient the opportunity costs in allowing a handful of companies to own a majority of eyeballs and bandwidth are enormous.
The very premise of the Internet is that it is a network of PEERS not a network of SPECTATORS.
1. Re:Host your own shit by foradoxium · 2016-05-20 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  I wish I had mod points, because WaffleMonster speaks the truth! The buttery, sticky truth!
  Everyone needs to go back to Internet 1.5, where we hosted our own sites..Bring back Webrings! lol
2. Re:Host your own shit by omnichad · 2016-05-20 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  If everyone hosted their own content from their own systems we wouldn't have these problems
  Yes and no. They'll either issue the DMCA notice to the hosting company or your ISP if you run your server directly. And then your whole web site goes offline.
  It's true that it's harder to scan the entire Internet vs. a monolithic video hosting service. But that's not a fundamental difference.
Golden Rule by hughbar · 2016-05-20 05:22 · Score: 3, Funny

The golden rule has just operated perfectly, to wit: those who have the gold make the rules.

--
On y va, qui mal y pense!
DUN, ADSL, and CGNAT killed home servers by tepples · 2016-05-20 05:55 · Score: 2

The very premise of the Internet is that it is a network of PEERS
In practice, three factors killed this premise:
Dial-up networking The characteristics of Internet access over POTS and ISDN encouraged users to connect only when viewing documents or when posting them to a better-connected server. Asymmetric home connections ADSL is generally always on, unlike POTS and ISDN. But it offers upstream throughput unsuitable for serving documents to the same extent that one views documents, again encouraging people to post them to a better-connected server. And some DSL ISPs, too accustomed to the old POTS model and too cash-strapped to make their subscribers true peers, used PPPoE to replicate the old circuit-switched model of the POTS and ISDN data link layers. Carrier-grade network address translation IPv4 address exhaustion caused some ISPs to put home subscribers behind CGNAT, making their computers unable to accept incoming connections. The workaround is to bounce documents off a "supernode" run on a better-connected server.
All three of these factors encouraged users to lease servers, a practice that would later come to be called "the cloud" to disguise it.