Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Strikes Now Being Used As Scammers' Extortion Tool (torrentfreak.com)

Scammers are reportedly using YouTube's "three strike" system for extortion. "After filing two false claims against [YouTuber ObbyRaidz], scammers contacted him demanding cash to avoid a third -- and the termination of his channel," reports TorrentFreak. From the report: The YouTuber, who concentrates on Minecraft-related videos, reports that he's received two bogus strikes on his account. While this is nothing new, it appears the strikes were deliberately malicious with longer-term plan to extort money from him. "I have been striked twice and basically extorted," ObbyRaidz revealed this morning. "If I don't pay this dude he's going to strike a third one of my videos down."

The alleged scammer contacted ObbyRaidz, who lives in Texas, via Twitter. He or she warned the YouTuber that unless he paid a sum via PayPal or bitcoin, another complaint and therefore a third strike would be added to his account. "Hi Obby, We striked you," the message from "VengefulFlame" begins. "Our request is $150 PayPal or $75 btc (Bitcoin). You may send the money via goods/services if you do not think we will cancel or hold up our end of the deal. "Once we receive our payment, we will cancel both strikes on your channel. Again -- you are free to charge back if we don't but we assure you we will." The YouTuber was then granted "a very short amount of time" to make his decision whether to pay the amount or potentially lose his channel.
The YouTuber goes on to say that YouTube has not provided any assistance resolving this problem. "It's very unfortunate and YouTube has not done very much for me. I can't get in contact with them. One of the appeals got denied," he explains.

6 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. File a criminal complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The little fucker needs to file a criminal complaint for the extortion, and a complaint with PayPay since the little fucker has given him his PayPal account.

  2. The rest of the story by slack_justyb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey it's fun bashing on YouTube and trust me, I'm all game for a good pointing out how much YouTube's system of strikes and take downs suck. However, let us all stop for just a second to realize that YouTube did indeed reach out and fix the issue. Still their system sucks, though. It is heavily favored to take downs rather than legitimate moderation. They made amends in this instance I guess, but still it took way more energy than it ought to.

  3. Re:That's Youtube for you. by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DMCA provides for anyone hit by a false claim to be entitled to "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 USC 512(f)(2) ).

    The primary problem as I see it isn't that there's no penalty, but rather that it's not enforced. The government is quick to bring the hammer down on infringers, but getting them to enforce the *rest* of the DMCA is often an exercise in frustration. Having said that, the DMCA also requires that the service provider's designated agent be notified (IN WRITING, and in a rather specific way) that the takedown notice was not valid before the government will do anything, and many people don't take that necessary step. In fairness though, YouTube doesn't make it particularly easy to do that.

    For anyone that may be interested, YouTube's designated agent is:

    Copyright Operations
    YouTube, LLC
    901 Cherry Ave
    San Bruno, CA 94066
    Phone: 650-214-3010
    Email: copyright@youtube.com

    Other U.S. designated agents can be found here. Click on "Search the Directory" at the top right of the page. Per 17 USC 512(g)(3), the required information is:

    (A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
    (B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
    (C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
    (D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  4. Re:Heading for legal troubles? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Informative

    Possibly. This would be untested waters in as much as how does computer defined responses contribute to an illegal act. Because that's what this is. Everyone knows Youtube takes care of this without human interaction which has already been abused, but not to the point where it's aiding and abetting an illegal act.

    And then, what does Youtube have in terms of liability by having a system that is known to be abusable in this manner? It's going to be hard for them to claim they didn't know it could be used like this, after all of the publicity of being abused exactly like this.

  5. Penalty vs damages. (but yes, do counterclaim) by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm glad you pointed out that people can send a DMCA counterclaim. I wish more people knew about that. That's a very important part of DMCA, in my opinion. If you send a counterclaim, the service provider has to put the material back up, unless the complainant files suit in federal court. That's important!

    On the topic of a penalty, imagine I steal $50 from you. You prove that I stole it, so I have to give the $50 back, and that's it. That's not a *penalty*. That's just "give it back".

    Yes someone who makes a false DMCA claim is responsible for the expenses they cause, just as pretty much anyone is responsible for costs they cause in a wide variety of circumstances. That's not a penalty, that's just "you pay the cost of stuff you do".

    I was involved in several rounds of comments and changes to DMCA and an actual penalty for reckless or negligent filing is the one thing we missed; we thought we had a pretty decent balance between the rights of copyright holders and those who use copyrighted worked (including the very important counterclaim provisions).

    If I had to it to do over again, I'd advocate for a *penalty* for negilgent in addition to damages of the greater of treble damages or $1,000. Reckless notices would have a greater penalty, perhaps $10,000 or 5X damages.

  6. Re:I'm having a very hard time being empathic on t by jpaine619 · · Score: 3, Informative

    By your logic "Lottery Player" would be a perfectly legitimate "job"

    Who is paying you to play the lottery? Fans pay recording artists by buying albums or attending concerts.

    If you can find someone to pay you to scratch lottery tickets, then yeah, it's a job.