Slashdot Mirror
Vox Lawyers Briefly Censored YouTubers Who Mocked the Verge's Bad PC Build Video (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In case you missed the latest drama to take place in the YouTube tech community, Ars Technica reports how Vox Media attempted to copyright strike two reaction videos that mocked The Verge's terrible PC build guide video that could have ruined a $2,000 system for a beginner PC builder. That effort failed when the tech community sounded the alarms; YouTube removed the copyright strikes and Vox Media had to retract their takedown notice.
From the report: "Last week, The Verge got a reminder about the power of the Streisand effect after its lawyers issued copyright takedown requests for two YouTube videos that criticized -- and heavily excerpted -- a video by The Verge. Each takedown came with a copyright 'strike.' It was a big deal for the creators of the videos, because three 'strikes' in a 90-day period are enough to get a YouTuber permanently banned from the platform. T.C. Sottek, the Verge's managing editor, blamed lawyers at the Verge's parent company, Vox Media, for the decision. 'The Verge's editorial structure was involved zero percent in the decision to issue a strike,' Sottek said in a direct message. 'Vox Media's legal team did this independently and informed us of it after the fact.' The move sparked an online backlash. Verge editor Nilay Patel (who, full disclosure, was briefly a colleague of mine at The Verge's sister publication Vox.com), says that when he learned about the decision, he asked that the strike be rescinded, leading to the videos being reinstated. Still, Patel defended the lawyers' legal reasoning, arguing that the videos 'crossed the line' into copyright infringement. It's hard to be sure if this is true since there are very few precedents in this area of the law. But the one legal precedent I was able to find suggests the opposite: that this kind of video is solidly within the bounds of copyright's fair use doctrine."
From the report: "Last week, The Verge got a reminder about the power of the Streisand effect after its lawyers issued copyright takedown requests for two YouTube videos that criticized -- and heavily excerpted -- a video by The Verge. Each takedown came with a copyright 'strike.' It was a big deal for the creators of the videos, because three 'strikes' in a 90-day period are enough to get a YouTuber permanently banned from the platform. T.C. Sottek, the Verge's managing editor, blamed lawyers at the Verge's parent company, Vox Media, for the decision. 'The Verge's editorial structure was involved zero percent in the decision to issue a strike,' Sottek said in a direct message. 'Vox Media's legal team did this independently and informed us of it after the fact.' The move sparked an online backlash. Verge editor Nilay Patel (who, full disclosure, was briefly a colleague of mine at The Verge's sister publication Vox.com), says that when he learned about the decision, he asked that the strike be rescinded, leading to the videos being reinstated. Still, Patel defended the lawyers' legal reasoning, arguing that the videos 'crossed the line' into copyright infringement. It's hard to be sure if this is true since there are very few precedents in this area of the law. But the one legal precedent I was able to find suggests the opposite: that this kind of video is solidly within the bounds of copyright's fair use doctrine."
are well protected under Copyright Law. This is not a problem of Copyright Law. This is a problem with the Youtube 3 Strikes rule. If youtube is not going to do legal reviews of takedown notices and instead depend on crowd's intelligence that is Youtube's choice but then it should not use a 3 strikes rule on such takedown notices which have not gone through proper review.
**Life is too short to be serious**
I would assume then that there's a corollary policy, where a YouTuber who gets three takedown notices rescinded in a 90-day period is also permanently banned from the platform (or at least permanently banned from issuing takedown notices)?
You're using my words and not paying *me* for them. And you're even CRITICIZING my choices and SLANDERING my good name in the process. You MISCREANT, I'll make you pay for this injustice! Just like the Tide Pod Eating Contest and the Pour Boiling Water on Yourself videos, it's not MY fault if I produce a bad outcome for you listening to me.
PEONS. Get your own life and quit interfering with my revenue stream.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Go to minute 2:30 and learn alot:
Screw in with confidence, but don't screw too hard...
How did this get released?
Basically nothing. The idiots that wrote the law never stopped to consider how badly it would be abused. In this case the people involved were lucky to be famous enough that they could get anyone to care. Unless you're already a big name on YouTube, good luck ever reaching a human being at Google regardless of problem.
At least The Verge will be rightly pilloried over this. I don't know if it will affect their readership though. I quit going to their site shortly after it launched because it was a bloated pile of shit that was utter hell on my slightly old hardware at the time. When will tech press realize that they just need a decent simple layout that doesn't distract from their actual content?
I remember Patel from Engadget back in the day. He has a law degree and should know better than to make such an asinine comment about this being anywhere close to copyright infringement.
My favorite part has to be the fake anti-static bracelet, LOL!
But seriously, can I take an entire 10+ minute video, overlay my commentary, and not expect a copyright infringement notice? That does seem like a stretch. I thought that 30-seconds was the court-established precedent for fair use. Consider this: suppose that someone posted a positive commentary on a good video, and the commented version became popular. Every time someone watched the commentary version, the original publisher gets nothing. That doesn't seem fair.
In this case, the mitigating circumstance is that the original video sucked, and it really did deserve a commentary. But from a legal standpoint, posting the entire video does seem to go beyond fair use.
So just fire all the lawyers on the legal team. You can't but the blame on somebody else and not do anything about it. If the lawyers are at fault they must be fired. All of them.
Lawyers abused DCMA/Copyright, company initially complies, people notice it's not legit and complain, company then investigates and fixes it. The system works, that's still 99%+ uptime. Not even a bad outcome.
But it's still a bad system -- it was a Verge editor that asked for the strike to be rescinded -- if not for that (which was surely only due to perceived bad publicity), then what would have happened?
Shaming DMCA abusers into backing down doesn't sound like a reasonable policy.
Yet again, YouTube demonstrates the sort of behavior that could never be tolerated if it weren't for having Alphabet as their sugar daddy. Say what you will about the general desire a lot of folks have to use antitrust laws to bust up Silicon Valley's darlings, but YouTube is one incredibly good argument for wielding it against Alphabet. Why? A few reasons:
1. They continue to operate at a loss.
2. Alphabet continues to tolerate their amateurish ways of dealing with ToS that pisses off folks at every turn--including gaming their premium content producers.
3. Their content regulation is a total amateur hour shit show that a for-profit company accountable to shareholders could never put up with.
4. Serious competitors struggle to gain ground because they're essentially treated as a loss leader by Google with access to Google's infrastructure and cash to subsidize them.
If they had been bought by Microsoft to join with Bing, a lot of their defenders would be railing at how Microsoft is crippling the market with that crap.
The original video is quite hilarious. He gets wrong almost everything that you can get wrong, and also some things you'd think you can't get wrong! He doesn't even know how to call things, like zip ties are "tweezers" and he calls various things (including the I/O shield) as "braces", the CPU socket a "holder" etc. The serious mistakes are applying a shitload of thermal paste *in addition* to the thermal pad the cooler had, installing the RAM in the wrong slots (non-dual channel), installing the PSU the wrong way, screwing the case radiator in without its fans...
For me the most hilarious parts are two:
- He wears some rubber band (unconnected to anything) on his arm to protect himself from static electricity (!).
- He goes on and on describing how he will use a "CPU applicator" to make it easy to "apply" the CPU, then, without saying anything, it is clear he's thrown it to the side and just drops the CPU in the socket as he should.
The second of the linked parody videos is quite funny too.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
If the takedown notice wasn't retracted after YouTube removed the copyright strikes, The Verge would have been obligated to go to court and probably lose due to the H3H3 decision that upheld fair use for reaction videos.
Rich of TechReviewUSA, the other person that The Verge went after, speculated that the takedown notice was a trial balloon to see if the removals would work before requesting ALL the reaction videos be removed from YouTube. If The Verge have went after all the reaction videos at the same and not the two most popular videos they didn't like the most, they might have had better success.
That's what I thought too, the original video is so bad it must be a parody. Let's see, in the first 30 seconds or so, if you have a metal table you need an anti-static mat because of all the static that builds up on a metal table but apparently not on the laminate/plastic-surface one he's using, the "tweezers" that are actually a zip tie, and an anti-static bracelet that's a livestrong bracelet by the looks of it. This has to be a parody...
So Yourtube, when will there be a strike system for false flagging? Youtube can't ignore the false claims or they'd lose safe harbor, but they can surely strike the flaggers Youtube account. i.e. flag and suspend VOX on Youtube for the fraudulent flags.
When will Youtube flag & suspend the Youtube accounts of companies making false DMCA claims? In this case, why wasn't the VOX Youtube account suspended as well?!?!?
No, it is a mix of know nothing know it alls, with stupidity is all.
V for Virtuous!
Do they also own Vice? I assume all the V-named radical left channels are the same.
Vice, Vox, Vezebel, Vhe Voung Vurks, ...
It was a horrible how-to video. Nicely produced, but really bad, bad information. The (sic) technician installed the powersupply upside down which is downright stupid and dangerous due to overheating. He mistook the vibration insulators on the powersupply as electrical insulators explaining the the power supply should never touch the metal of the case, not realizing the screw he just attached to the mount the power supply upside down touched both the case and the powersupply.
It was bad and deserved the mocking that it received. We won't even get into how much thermal paste he used on the CPU.
US copyright law, 17 USC 512, requires service providers to terminate the accounts of a "repeat infringer." YouTube's strike system is intended to satisfy this requirement.
If the takedown notice wasn't retracted after YouTube removed the copyright strikes, The Verge would have been obligated to go to court
If the video creator chooses to press charges, the Verge is still obligated to go to court.
The Verge (Vox actually) took the ad money on the video illegally, and youtube stats show exactly how many views a video gets and thus a minimum amount of damages in lost revenue.
Vox also violated copyright law and committed "libel per se"
Plain "libel" require proving in court there was malice, and you must show specific exact loses.
"libel per se" is when being falsely accused of a crime, among other things, and you can claim both specific loses as well as general harm and potential loses.
https://dictionary.law.com/Def...
broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.
Despite Vox committing crimes that are an open and shut text book case, the video creator still needs to pay a layer and go to court for their rights. Sadly that is all too rare.
I think the Verge was trying to emulate this video, but accidentally forgot to mention that it was a HOWnotTO.
They actually got it less wrong than the Verge did, e.g. correctly fitting fans to the radiator, even if it was done Verge style. So a deliberate wrong build was less wrong than the Verge's version.
they were specifically created to lean towards the copyright owner's benefit because it was assumed (rightfully I would say) that if they followed current fair use laws the major copyright lobbies would just buy new, stricter laws.
What I'm saying is, don't blame YouTube. Fix your bloody corrupt government and that "money is speech" bullshit. You can start with Liz Warren's bill. Hell, go elect her or Bernie (or both maybe?) to the presidency.
As an added bonus when the Notorious RBG steps down you won't get a third pro-corporate / anti-consumer SCOTUS nominee (go look up Gorsuch and the Frat Boy's actual record, they're crazy pro-corporate).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
>everything is fine, you complain about a copyright claim and it gets fixed
Wow, so, are you seeing Youtube from 2007 or something?
He got the wireless version of the Anti-Static bracelet ! =P
Problem is, system related to actual copyright strikes appears to work closer to 1% of the time, when target gets so much attention from big public names that it can get to insiders at youtube.
Overwhelming majority of people on youtube do not have that kind of clout, and their causes are far too numerous to be picked by big stars on youtube.
In the rest of cases, target channel is just fucked.
I don't want to watch the video, can anyone tell us what was so terrible about it?
#DeleteFacebook
Actually the victim complained on Twitter to YouTube, and YouTube emailed The Verge about the strike. The Verge then claimed that they fixed it on their own when they became aware of it and had not had any contact with YouTube, which is demonstrably false.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So what profits would Youtube get out of that? That's the motivation here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rule of Intent: If action A is likely to result in outcome B, and outcome B is obtained, then carrying out action A implies the intent to obtain result B.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
In this case, as with most modern legislation that is written by the fuckers who should be the focus of the regulation instead of by a competent legislature with the public's interests at heart, it's the confluence of the two that's the problem. The malice of existing media companies acted on the stupidity of the legislature.
They avoid losing credibility as a platform for everyone?
Oh my! It rook rike a Jackson Pollock painting!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.