Day One: Garry's Incident Devs Accused of Censoring Bad Review

[runic knight]

The main issue with youtube is it became top dog for what it is too early and has no real competition. Everyone knows youtube is the place to go for videos. So, because they have not needed to fight for the position, they never learned to fix mistakes and instead only address things when it is a direct inconvenience to them. Because advertisers and corporations speak far louder then the general audience, changes made tend to favor them almost entirely.

Youtube needs to fix the shoot first and ask later way they handle DMCA claims. But because they are already king, and no serious threat to that crown exists yet, there is not need to improve anything. People who want their stuff watched know youtube is on of the only choices, ,and easily the most known and accessed. Google knows they will put up with garbage management of the sight and it is cheaper to not bother fixing anything then to try to. Besides, I am sure the way it is abused by corporations for their own gain is not unnoticed.

 

[Gezzer]

The problem with your idea there is that the burden of proof falls on the accused, which flies in the face of every legal system in a democratic nation. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who follows LittleKuriboh of Ygo Abridged fame, and his videos get blocked on a more or less regular basis. Can you imagine being him and under your idea having to prove your innocence each and every time, instead of the accuser?

I was thinking more along the lines of civil cases where a supposedly injured party brings a case against the one that allegedly injured them. The respondent has a period of time to respond with their proof that the case is groundless, if they don't respond in time or don't prove their case then they lose the case. Which is pretty much what it is, a civil matter. Not a criminal matter where the STATE charges the defendant on behalf of the people and then the burden of proof falls on prosecutor. It's kind of why you can still sue for wrongful death even if the accused is acquitted of the killing.

Secondly if you had read further I mentioned there should also be a penalty for frequent abusers of the takedown system. This goes hand in hand with a response to accusers system. If "LittleKuriboh of Ygo Abridged fame" gets numerous takedown notices but every time he shows, say by simply sending a quick email of the offending video to Google for their decision, that it's a groundless charge and he is then awarded a monetary sum, how long do you think his videos will continue to receive notices? Google could even have a clause that for every repeat offence against the same person uploading a video they say is in violation when in fact it's not, the fine will double.

The major problem is that there is no way that big media will ever let YouTube function without some sort of system designed to deal with copyright infractions. It'll never happen. The system needs to be one where the copyright holders have a sense that they can effectively deal with violations but they can't abuse it for more sinister purposes.

 

[Strazdas]

I hate Youtube's "shoot first, ask questions later" policy with regards to copyright claims for just this reason.

I used to be a semi-active uploader, but I started getting hit with claims on videos that clearly fell under fair use. I never even monetized my channel, but that didn't matter. It's one of the main reasons why I stopped (along with no longer having the time or inclination).

I know I'm not the only one either. I have a list of inactive or deleted channels I used to follow that fell victim to bullshit copyright claims, be it from a faceless corporation like Warner Music Group to random assholes flagging videos for shits and giggles. Simply put, the system is broken and needs a complete overhaul. If Google wants quality content on Youtube, they have to provide the means to protect providers from shit like this.

Its not youtube policy. They recieve a cease and dessist request from a company (which in itself has abosolutely nothing to prove they arent lieing. its just a lawyer speak for "stop showing this content or else", and they are obligated by law to actually stop the content. the laws are set up in such a way that a company can censort any video they want instantly and the video uploader then has to complain about wrong claim. the claim assumes the person is guilty before being proven so. there was incident with a revierwer of movies and google, where movie company would claim the reviews were violating copyright (and it was text reviews) and google stopped indexing the site meaning lost revenue. this went back anf forth multiple times and google didnt even admit they were wrong, becuase all they did was follow the law.
the actual cease and desists order looked like a list of (i kid you not) over 500 different websites under a generic claim "this violates our copyright".
The system is broken. The copyright law is broken.

 

[Neta]

Does it work in reverse? Can a random YouTuber claim that some company's video violates THEIR copyright?

 

[Atmos Duality]

And it appears that this act is biting WGS in the ass more than it's helping.
Main reason I wouldn't bother with hosting anything on Youtube is because of their loose willingness to uphold Fair Use where it's due (unless you're in a partnership program, which means your opinion is basically owned by someone else and thus worthless).

Only other thing of note is the large amount of hatred for TB in this thread.
I never really understood this.

Yeah, he has an ego, but so does Yahtzee and people freaking love him here.

TB's criticisms are at least forward and practical.
You can see the context of his complaints/praise right there in the videos and decide for yourself if it's fair since it's not obfuscated under a pile of PR-edits, balls-less generalizations, or selective editing.

 

[Charli]

Does it work in reverse? Can a random YouTuber claim that some company's video violates THEIR copyright?

Hahahahahahahahahaha. No.

We don't have money therefore we have to actually file complaints manually. And are screened far more ruthlessly.

Like TB outlines this system is designed for large corporations or companies. Not for us.

Getting copyright strikes removed is even more painful a process if you dare to be a singular entity trying to make money off Youtube videos.

 

[RikuoAmero]

The problem with your idea there is that the burden of proof falls on the accused, which flies in the face of every legal system in a democratic nation. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who follows LittleKuriboh of Ygo Abridged fame, and his videos get blocked on a more or less regular basis. Can you imagine being him and under your idea having to prove your innocence each and every time, instead of the accuser?

I was thinking more along the lines of civil cases where a supposedly injured party brings a case against the one that allegedly injured them. The respondent has a period of time to respond with their proof that the case is groundless, if they don't respond in time or don't prove their case then they lose the case. Which is pretty much what it is, a civil matter. Not a criminal matter where the STATE charges the defendant on behalf of the people and then the burden of proof falls on prosecutor. It's kind of why you can still sue for wrongful death even if the accused is acquitted of the killing.

Secondly if you had read further I mentioned there should also be a penalty for frequent abusers of the takedown system. This goes hand in hand with a response to accusers system. If "LittleKuriboh of Ygo Abridged fame" gets numerous takedown notices but every time he shows, say by simply sending a quick email of the offending video to Google for their decision, that it's a groundless charge and he is then awarded a monetary sum, how long do you think his videos will continue to receive notices? Google could even have a clause that for every repeat offence against the same person uploading a video they say is in violation when in fact it's not, the fine will double.

The major problem is that there is no way that big media will ever let YouTube function without some sort of system designed to deal with copyright infractions. It'll never happen. The system needs to be one where the copyright holders have a sense that they can effectively deal with violations but they can't abuse it for more sinister purposes.

Okay, I can see where you're going with this. Myself, I'd like it if, instead of the current system (someone fills out a form just saying they hold the copyrights to Video XYZ by Uploader ABC, no proof) they instead send to Youtube/Google documentation that they do indeed hold the copyrights to the video in question. If I wanted to, right now, I could censor whatever videos I wanted by simply filling in that form. Perhaps also post a bond of some sort, one that's refunded if the accuser wins the case.

 

[BoogieManFL]

If you make a bad game, you should just accept the fact that people are going to tell other how bad it is. Okay, sure, maybe you just ran short of money or time. It happens. But trying to censor people for offering their opinion about your game that you don't like just makes you look like a dick.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I thought what it came down to was they tried to take down all the videos with higher view counts so their trailer would show up when searching. Still bastards though.

 

[Saika Renegade]

I wish I were a bigger man than this, but you know what? Good. I sincerely hope this outrage spiral the devs brought on themselves becomes a death spiral for their entire operation. I will sit here steepling my fingers and going "Good...good..." if they fold next year.

This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated, and steps must be taken to punish it as severely as possible. Censorship is bad enough but censorship of genuine consumer warnings is especially vile, and abusing the copyright block ability on Youtube (a bucket of worms for another rant, but let's just say that like many things it's a very basic and reasonable notion on the surface that has been shot to pieces by absolutely horrid execution) is, quite frankly, just low of them or any other developer or publisher, and it needs to be stopped before the idea spreads to wider circles. Just imagine, denying copyright holders the legal right to use the copyright takedown function when evidence of misuse would certainly make them think long and hard before doing anything -but- defending their copyright for legal purposes.

Developers and publishers need to be reminded that they are beholden to us and not the other way around, for it is our money and goodwill they need to survive.

 

[LordLundar]

Anyone here with a legal education that can tell my whether the law actually favors TB's case, or if technically, Wild has the juridical right to do exactly what they did?

The problem is that Wild isn't from the US, their local laws may allow them to have the footage removed. I think their a French/Canadian dev team, and don't know how copyright laws work in those nations. I actually find it funny how everyone is going on about American law this that and the other, the devs aren't American, if their laws allow them to have it taken down then Youtube is required to follow suit.

Doesn't matter. There was a written agreement between two companies that detailed precisely what was going to happen. In both the US and Canada such an agreement supersede any copyright claim because of the explicit agreement to void such accusations.

Or in layman's terms, the developer agreed in writing to let Bain's company use the code for their game for the WTF videos which was spelled out that Bain's company would be making money off of it. When they realized the review was unfavorable they tried to say they didn't agree to it and had it pulled. Had they kept with the claim instead of withdrawing it, they could have been sued for breach of contract.

And for a fun twist, They rescinded the claim against Bain's channel and are now going after other, smaller ones who can't sue them into oblivion.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

"Day One: Garry's Incident" makes "Ride to Hell: Retribution" look like GTA V. I am not even kidding.

That's pretty harsh language there buddy. I wanted to watch that video on it a few days ago but it was still down.

OT: Youtube partners aren't getting much in the way of support from Google? That's not new unfortunately.

Pulling down a critique of your game produced by someone with a Law Degree?

Spoiler

 

[Unnamedenemy]

There should be some sort of penal system for this kind of thing. Like making more than 3 false copyright claims makes your drinking water toxic.

Strictly speaking, it's already illegal. The DMCA notice tells you that you are making this claim "under penalty of perjury", meaning that making the claim KNOWING that it's a lie can get you a felony charge.

The developers are idiots... any other reviewer and this would just go away, but not fucking TotalBiscuit. TB is an asshole, and loves to take shit personally, so of course there'd be a backlash from this.

This is ridiculous in itself - censoring reviews is bullshit, but this game is pretty evidently shit anyway - they had a perfectly good opportunity to create a very minimalist and really challenging survival game... but no, magic macguffins.

Any other reviewer and it would STILL be illegal and unethical, and with nearly any other reviewer it would be far more damaging than it was for TB. And I'm sorry, but someone trying to censor your professional opinion -- the thing you make your living off of -- SHOULDN'T be taken seriously? Are you high? It's always interesting to see the irrational hate and stupid double-standards TB is subject to for no reason that I have ever been able to discern.

 

[Sansha]

There should be some sort of penal system for this kind of thing. Like making more than 3 false copyright claims makes your drinking water toxic.

Strictly speaking, it's already illegal. The DMCA notice tells you that you are making this claim "under penalty of perjury", meaning that making the claim KNOWING that it's a lie can get you a felony charge.

The developers are idiots... any other reviewer and this would just go away, but not fucking TotalBiscuit. TB is an asshole, and loves to take shit personally, so of course there'd be a backlash from this.

This is ridiculous in itself - censoring reviews is bullshit, but this game is pretty evidently shit anyway - they had a perfectly good opportunity to create a very minimalist and really challenging survival game... but no, magic macguffins.

Any other reviewer and it would STILL be illegal and unethical, and with nearly any other reviewer it would be far more damaging than it was for TB. And I'm sorry, but someone trying to censor your professional opinion -- the thing you make your living off of -- SHOULDN'T be taken seriously? Are you high? It's always interesting to see the irrational hate and stupid double-standards TB is subject to for no reason that I have ever been able to discern.

You're misunderstanding me - yeah I think he's a dick, but it's his livelihood and it shouldn't be threatened over some stupid shit like this. It's not fair, especially since adding strikes to his account puts him at serious risk. You're right about perjury, and it certainly is unethical and absolutely should be taken seriously.

I'm on his side, here - I don't agree with his opinions or the way he delivers them but I don't think he should have that expression, especially professionally, taken from him for some stupid shit like this.

 

[gnihton]

You know, the youtube Atheists have been suffering from this sort of thing a lot longer.

Though, they're generally called in for "hate speech" when criticizing religious homophobes; though said religious homophobes have also used youtube's copyright policies to try and silence their critics as well.

Not saying all homophobes are religious, nor am I saying that all religious people are homophobes...

but the key thing here is that youtube's policies have been abused in the past, and they have never done anything to fix that.

Youtube has never set up a system to punish those who file false reports like this, and they bloody well need to.

But they're going to care now, because it's happened to someone popular.

 

[CorvusFerreum]

TB has followed up on this in his latest Vlog:
(2:45-7:20)


To some people I especially recommend listening to the part from 5:50 onward.

As for the issue on discussion: That was just a really bad move on WGS' part. I really hope it leads to Youtube taking a second look in their copyright claim system. But if the SEGA incident didn't do this , this won't make them move either. It's sad really.

You know, the youtube Atheists have been suffering from this sort of thing a lot longer.

Though, they're generally called in for "hate speech" when criticizing religious homophobes; though said religious homophobes have also used youtube's copyright policies to try and silence their critics as well.

Not saying all homophobes are religious, nor am I saying that all religious people are homophobes...

but the key thing here is that youtube's policies have been abused in the past, and they have never done anything to fix that.

Youtube has never set up a system to punish those who file false reports like this, and they bloody well need to.

But they're going to care now, because it's happened to someone popular.

Well, the SEGA incident hit TB as well (twice) and it didn't make Youtube change its policies. And this nuked a whole lot of smaller channels as well. This time it "only" hit TB, so I'm not confident it will make them move. But perhaps I'm mistaken, since this time it's on a more recent video and gained much more momentum.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Seems like copyright is being used specifically to cursh minor opponents nowadays.

Sad, the game seemed kind of interesting.

 

[Gezzer]

Okay, I can see where you're going with this. Myself, I'd like it if, instead of the current system (someone fills out a form just saying they hold the copyrights to Video XYZ by Uploader ABC, no proof) they instead send to Youtube/Google documentation that they do indeed hold the copyrights to the video in question. If I wanted to, right now, I could censor whatever videos I wanted by simply filling in that form. Perhaps also post a bond of some sort, one that's refunded if the accuser wins the case.

That's a totally sensible system. That's also why you'll never see it.

You have to remember how the current system came into being. Google buys YouTube, an already successful internet service. With Google driving it it's popularity increases including pirated video/music content. Big media threatens to take Google to court and have the site/service taken down unless Google personally goes through every video and removes any infringing copyrights. Google sensibly explains that going through each and every video would be not only impractical but also impossible at the current rate of submission. Big media counters that if they don't deal with copyright violations YouTube is dead in the water. So Google comes up with a compromise that can be totally automated.
Anyone wanting to check for copyright material on YouTube can use a crawler bot very similar to the one Google uses for it's search engine. I don't know if Google supplies it or not. It's job is to crawl all videos looking for infringing images, titles, video, and audio fitting the criteria it's supplied. When the bot finds anything it notes it and then moves on. At the end of the crawl it will have a number of videos that fit it's criteria. I might be wrong and the list needs to be submitted manually, but as far as I know the bot just sends the list to a submission bot at YouTube which simply pulls the videos listed. No human intervention is needed, well at least as far as Big Media and Google are concerned. Now for a smaller complaint it might be a manual submission, but I still think at Google's end it's an auto pull because that's how the whole system is designed to work.
But like any fully automated system there are false positives. It's not unheard of that say Sony pictures will get a video it uploaded to YouTube for promotional purposes pulled because it was flagged. They just tell Google it was an okay video and it's restored. Your system removes the no/little cost automation that both Big media and Google love. What's more not only does it increase the human workload involved but it increases Big media's workload. Think even with the billions they make that they'll let that happen? Not a chance. Things would simply go back to where they stood before. Big media threatening to get YouTube pulled by court order. So no matter the shortcomings the current system of automated no proof pulls is going to stay. That's pretty much a given.
So pretty much the only thing Google can do is rework it so that it's much harder to use it to cheat, and there's repercussions for cheaters. I'm not even holding my breath for that one. As far as I can see small channels are at the mercy of the system abusers and larger channels with some resources will have to take the same abusers to small/civil court to get compensation for any damages they receive. And yeah, that pretty much sucks.

 

[Winterbird]

The video is back up, so I guess it all ended well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjTa_x3rbJE