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.
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.
On the other... cry me a river, Youtuber isn't a real job. It has, to me, that same air of illegitimacy that instagram 'infulencers' have.
If people/companies/organizations pay you to do something, it is a job. Whether you like it or not does not change its legitimacy. Many would say singing is not a job, but there are multi-millionaire recording artists.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
OMG what a gatekeeping asshole you are. It's not up to you to judge other people's livelihoods.
The video portal is built for it.
Advertising and ad revenue sharing is it's core function.
The problem is the concessions the copyright lobby have forced upon them - they made them implement automated systems for copyright infringement strikes with no oversight and no repercussions for false claims.
It's hilarious actually. Copyright being used to harm the content creators.
Bravo, well done; pass the anchovies, please.
Sounds like someone is grumpy because their YT channel didn't take off like they had hoped.
Exactly as intended. Scammers driving little people off youtube only further benefits the big guys. And they even get to keep their hands clean!
you never get a break because if you take two weeks off you come back and find 2/3rds of your subscribers gone. As for Patreon, the people "donating" are doing so with the expectation of more content. They're not really patrons in the traditional sense (e.g. a rich person throwing money at the arts with little regard to the results) they're basically pre-ordering the next vid, and if it doesn't arrive they cancel fast.
I'll take the 9-5 over being a Youtuber any day of the week.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Youtuber isn't a real job.
job. noun.
1 a paid position of regular employment.
2 a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
So not only is it a job, but it is especially a job.
It has, to me,
No one gives a fuck about your own personal and incorrect definitions of existing words.
Going big would only accomplish one of 2 things: get you caught or get you unpaid. The trick is to make it an amount where the loss, hassle, or inconvenience of either not paying or fighting off the extortion is less than the value of just paying the ransom. No one is going to pay 150k. They either dont have the cash or will go to the cops. Almost everyone can scrape up $150, and throw cops would laugh you away at 150.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press. Even then, they did nothing toprevent it from happening again.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
GDPR is not a US law, so it would be rather difficult to enforce in the case of a US person interacting with a US company from within the US.
You cared enough to write back. I stick by what I said. Fake job. Are you a struggling youtuber? Is that your butthurt?
The world's youngest self-earned billionaire did it via social media.
So...yeah.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There's an additional penalty: YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system. If you fight back a false claim that went through that method, and then the claimant sends a DMCA complain, whatever minimal remedies it provides are in theory applicable. But it rarely gets to that point. Most stuff gets taken down in a DMCA-less manner, bound only to YouTube's terms of use and contracts with its major media partners, and that's it.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
You do realize that YouTube is used by people for all sorts of reasons, right?
A few years back, a plumber I called out was telling me about posting videos on YouTube. His business was already doing just fine, but he was passionate about plumbing and wanted to see more people feel comfortable doing simple repairs. Let's suppose that he talked to a musician and procured the rights to use one of their tracks as a backing track for his videos. A few months later, what's to stop someone else with the rights to that music from making a claim against him? Enough fo those, and all of his videos could be taken down.
There were reports just last week of a Star Wars video that had its audio stripped out (to highlight the importance of John Williams' music) getting hit with a copyright strike by a company that has some of the rights to Star Wars music, despite the fact that all of the audio had been subbed for sounds the video's author made himself.
For me, this stuff actually matters.
Besides posting YouTube videos for fun with some friends (we have a few thousand subscribers to our Let's Play channel, but have turned off monetization since we're just in it for fun), I also post sermon videos for the church I attend. They're nothing fancy, but it's something we can do to include ill and infirm people in the weekly happenings of the church. We've recently been talking about livestreaming, as well as expanding it to cover the entire service. Expanding it would mean needing to procure the rights to stream musical performances for the various hymns and choruses we sing (we're already properly licensed to perform them, just not to stream those performances). Licensing for Christian music almost always goes through the CCLI, but there are a lot of new musicians cropping up all the time, and it's conceivable that not all of them understand the intricacies of licensing. It's conceivable as well that despite being properly licensed to perform and stream a performance of a song, some artist or other rights holder may be unaware of our license with the CCLI and initiate a strike against us, or else some ne'er-do-well may try to extort us.
Given that we risk losing access to years' worth of prior content, these aren't small questions. What happens to my plumber's videos or my church's videos may be small potatoes to you, but multiply that by everyone else at risk and it becomes clear that many of us stand to lose something personal that matters to us.
many of us stand to lose something personal that matters to us.
?? Really? Where's your local backup? YT is a distribution system. If YT (or your other cloud provider) goes bust/away for a day/ever, then you're back to sneakernet or torrents or floppies or something.
But the original masters should never leave your hands. If they DO then you're doing it wrong. Yep, it'd be a hassle to reupload somewhere else and send out new links and attract a new audience and all that, but it's possible. If YT has your only copy and for whatever reason it "goes away", then game over.
Don't DO that. The cloud is literally just "someone else's computer" -- if they get tired and turn it off, that should just be an inconvenience for you, nothing more.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Apropos, I do think that multi-millionaire recording artists are a sign that there's something wrong with copyright as we know it. Of course, many other things are wrong with copyright also. But as it stands, it's legitimate. Even though I don't like it.
Why? Even with minimal copyright laws, you'd have multi-millionaire recording artists. A top selling artist or band who puts out a top selling album every couple of years can make a lot of money, and then there's the money that can be made touring. Even if all their songs were out of copyright, top selling bands will still sellout arenas doing their own music. The Rolling Stones made something like $558,255,524 on their Bigger bang tour, with U2 even making more.
Seems public performance is a job that pays well and just needs enough copyright to protect them when starting out with the original 14 years being plenty to become established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism