FSTDT Forums
Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Askold on April 06, 2014, 02:22:46 pm
-
A while ago Sony sent a DCMA request to youtube and a video showing the 3d short Sintel was removed. The only problem is that Sony does not own Sintel or anything in it. It was a crowdsourced indie film that can be freely shared.
So what we are seeing in action is that Youtube removes clips just because person or organisation X demands it. This system has enabled a new form of copyright theft. Simply claim that you own a video and it will be removed or better yet you can get the ad money into your pocket. And since people are now trying to earn money with their videos on Youtube this has created new opportunities for scam.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/sony-demands-removal-of-open-source-indie-short-sintel-from-youtube-98182.html
Furthermore, the removal of the video is done automatically and no one will check to see if the claim has any truth in it unless there is a counter claim from the Youtube user. This means that taking down videos is very fast and trying to get them back up takes time thereby meaning a loss of income to people who need the ad revenue. So even if you do get the video back up trolls can cause economical damage to people by flagging their videos.
I think we've already talked about how this system is also abused to remove any negative reviews that people make but that is another thing that needs to be remembered.
-
Furthermore, the removal of the video is done automatically and no one will check to see if the claim has any truth in it unless there is a counter claim from the Youtube user.
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
-
It only counts in the courts (if then). Private businesses can do whatever the hell they want.
-
Proof that there is, in fact, such a thing as too much automation.
-
Furthermore, the removal of the video is done automatically and no one will check to see if the claim has any truth in it unless there is a counter claim from the Youtube user.
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
YouTube is not the justice system. Also, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong here, but YouTube has a lot to lose and very little to gain by not pulling down a video automatically. Copyright law means they are at blame for user-uploaded content if they don't take it down as soon as they hear about it*. So taking time to figure out what's a legitimate copyright claim and what isn't puts them at risk of being sued; taking down first and then having the user have to submit a claim to get it back up is safer.
*I think, anyway.
-
Furthermore, the removal of the video is done automatically and no one will check to see if the claim has any truth in it unless there is a counter claim from the Youtube user.
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
YouTube is not the justice system. Also, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong here, but YouTube has a lot to lose and very little to gain by not pulling down a video automatically. Copyright law means they are at blame for user-uploaded content if they don't take it down as soon as they hear about it*. So taking time to figure out what's a legitimate copyright claim and what isn't puts them at risk of being sued; taking down first and then having the user have to submit a claim to get it back up is safer.
*I think, anyway.
Though it kind of makes me wonder:
If youtube doesn't check claims to see of they're true, what would happen if people masquerading as copyright holders started flagging videos on the channels of the actual copyright holders?
-
Furthermore, the removal of the video is done automatically and no one will check to see if the claim has any truth in it unless there is a counter claim from the Youtube user.
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
YouTube is not the justice system. Also, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong here, but YouTube has a lot to lose and very little to gain by not pulling down a video automatically. Copyright law means they are at blame for user-uploaded content if they don't take it down as soon as they hear about it*. So taking time to figure out what's a legitimate copyright claim and what isn't puts them at risk of being sued; taking down first and then having the user have to submit a claim to get it back up is safer.
*I think, anyway.
Though it kind of makes me wonder:
If youtube doesn't check claims to see of they're true, what would happen if people masquerading as copyright holders started flagging videos on the channels of the actual copyright holders?
That's essentially what's already happening.
-
Google, as YouTube's owner, is a big enough, rich enough corporate entity to change their policy to; prove you are the copyright owner before we take it down.
A high profile media company like Sony should be able to provide that proof immediately, right? Otherwise, as this instant yank down policy proliferates, YouTube will be less popular, less advert income will be generated by fewer viewers and etc.
-
The instant yank down policy has been going on for several years now (possibly since the beginning? I don't know). Any negative effects would already have happened.
-
The hyperbole that comes from referring to copyright infringement as "theft" helps to perpetuate these abuses.
All in the name of "tough on crime".
-
DCMA requests are a terrible idea in practice because someone has to verify that stupid amounts requests are accurate and not malicious. Then deal with whiny private companies whining because their request was not processed instantly. The same thing happens with file hosts too. A dedicated workforce is needed to just to go through the motions or they just take everything requested down.
The only people who benefit from this are lawyers. Hell Internet Service Providers used to get sued, now legislation such as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) exists just to cover their ass. At least Google has some sort of transparency. (https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/)