Jimquisition: Copyright War

[furai47]

Well, as I understand things a lot of what they did was covered under "fair use" and by the fact that a lot of the material used was presented to be used publically by the companies to begin with. The big problem of course is that "fair use" is under fire. Not to mention that big platforms like Youtube are dependent on advertising from major corporations, and they can't say choose to selectively snub video game publishers for being jerks, without raising concerns from other companies about how Youtube might treat them. As a result it has to side with it's business interests and what's going to keep the money rolling in, as opposed to it's users and content producers. Not to mention that things could get complicated if Youtube itself was ever found complicit in copyright violations by refusing to take action.

Exactly. The only issue I have with this paragraph is that "fair use" isn't relevant on Youtube. They have their own rules regarding these things, their own "fair use" as it were.

That said I think part of the reason why things have gone so crazy is that Youtube is acting largely off of the accusations being made, rather than requiring every specific claim to be vetted or aimed at particular pieces of content, which should be the case before a video is taken down or disabled. Youtube is pretty much playing too nice with the corporate interests. Sure, it can be argued that in say 110 videos someone like this might have used copyrighted footage they weren't supposed to put up. However given the release of promotional footage and such, the guys making the accusation should be forced to specify where and when each specific violation occurred, with the person putting up the video being able to make a defense before any administrative action is taken. It seems likely that what your seeing is a bunch of proxy companies taking a shotgun approach and saying "ban these videos for showing scenes of the video games made by our client" when they may or may not have the right to do that if the material was knowingly released into the public domain by the companies to begin with.

Cor blimey, that's an excellent suggestion. I know Youtube isn't going to implement it (have they ever enacted a user generated change before?) but if they had it would probably solve pretty much all of the copyright crusades. Maybe modify it so that once the specific claim has been made the video is taken down immediately so it's a bit easier for Youtube and the companies to swallow and that's it. Baby steps.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I appreciate him when he gets mad, and I almost feel bad because it's the only time I routinely like his videos. The rest of the time he comes off as fake and plasticky. I mean, I do appreciate when he shows what's wrong with a game, but most of the time, he comes off as rather insincere.

It's always easier to come across as sincere talking about something you hate, than something you like.
Especially on the internet...

But Angry Joe's biggest problem, is that he's being cheesy most of the time he's happy with something, and it detracts from what he's saying. Even when he's being sincere.

The way I can (usually) tell when he's being sincere when giving praise, is when he actually backs his claims up with demonstrations. That, more than anything, elevates his videos above the vast majority of "professional" game critics out there who gloss over all manner of things (including here on The Escapist, but I'm going to hold my tongue on what I think beyond that. At least on these forums.)

And if I might turn more germane for a moment, I think this scattershot approach should be punishable. I doubt it will be, but it should be. Abuse of the system should carry with it some strike setup like the penalties for infringement in the first place, where people who just make claims over and over with no basis lose their privileges.

Damn right it should be punishable, but it won't.

Fair Use won't be upheld at all (even where valid) unless someone takes legal action against Google.
Which just isn't happening, and would be highly unlikely to succeed anyway.

 

[rbstewart7263]

is there a petition against this because if so Id like to sign it? If not where would you make such a thing?

 

[Spud of Doom]

I think you might be a bit off the mark here with the Capcom hate for once, Jim. They have made posts on their twitter asserting that they have not been intentionally making claims, and are encouraging people to dispute Content ID attacks on their videos.

https://twitter.com/Capcom_Unity/status/410559475959885824
https://twitter.com/Capcom_Unity/status/410824748021448705

 

[Thanatos2k]

Youtube betrayed every single one of its users the moment it instituted systems that automatically flag content. It was bad enough that companies previously would flag everything in sight erroneously or not and let the users sort it out by having to appeal.

An algorithm will NEVER be able to determine whether content is legal through Fair Use, because programmatically it will look identical to copyrighted content. Only a human with a brain will be able to tell otherwise. Youtube has instituted an absolutely disgusting practice, but what else is new? The site is rapidly going down the tubes thanks to their Google+ idiocy.

 

[furai47]

...An algorithm will NEVER be able to determine whether content is legal through Fair Use...

Fair Use isn't relevant on Youtube. It would really help if you've actually read both Fair Use and Youtube's guidlines before stepping on your soapbox.

...Only a human with a brain will be able to tell otherwise...

OK, so it's fair to say you'll be first in line when Youtube starts hiring people to watch each and every single uploaded video and carefully inspect it for possible copyright infringement? You may also want to recruit some of your friends to do so because Youtube has about 100 hours of content uploaded to it's servers EVERY MINUTE.
I hope you can imagine why they've decided to make the process automated. Asking actual people to do a job like that is out of touch with reality.

...Youtube has instituted an absolutely disgusting practice, but what else is new?...

What's disgusting to me is that people who have no bloody clue about the legal or practical matters of what's being discussed are the ones trying to use such big words. Listen, if you're coming here after your favourite Let's Player or online critic uploaded an angry video and you haven't put in the effort to even READ the terms then shut up and let the adults talk.

If my assumption is not true and you did something more than simply follow someone else's opinion then I must politely apologise.
You sure as hell don't act like you did though.

 

[Thanatos2k]

...An algorithm will NEVER be able to determine whether content is legal through Fair Use...

Fair Use isn't relevant on Youtube. It would really help if you've actually read both Fair Use and Youtube's guidlines before stepping on your soapbox.

What are you going on about? Using copyrighted materials for reviews, parody, or transformative works is absolutely covered under fair use, and that's what most of these videos are doing.

...Only a human with a brain will be able to tell otherwise...

OK, so it's fair to say you'll be first in line when Youtube starts hiring people to watch each and every single uploaded video and carefully inspect it for possible copyright infringement? You may also want to recruit some of your friends to do so because Youtube has about 100 hours of content uploaded to it's servers EVERY MINUTE.
I hope you can imagine why they've decided to make the process automated. Asking actual people to do a job like that is out of touch with reality.

Which is EXACTLY why automated systems don't work, and copyright claims MUST be done reactively. Youtube should not be policing the content of their site, similar to how ISPs don't police content that flows through their pipes. If someone uploads something illegal to Youtube and someone flags it as such Youtube should absolutely check it out and take it down. If someone says "We should be getting the revenue from videos that use our stuff" they need to give Youtube the list of videos actually infringing, not Youtube saying "Oh, here's a list our robot drew up, we'll automatically screw all those users for you and let them sort out the mess!" It is crystal clear automated approaches don't work, and the false positives are doing far more damage than any videos correctly flagged were before.

They don't do this because they caved to the big copyright holders threatening them, that's all. They cried about how they didn't want to have to put in the effort to find actual misuses of their copyrighted stuff, so Google better do it for them or they'll sue. Google used to fight in court over stuff like this, now they take the lazy and easy way out and let themselves be pushed around while they continue to silently keep the cash from the advertising revenue of all the videos that are now suddenly "illegal."

 

[furai47]

What are you going on about? Using copyrighted materials for reviews, parody, or transformative works is absolutely covered under fair use, and that's what most of these videos are doing.

I've had to explain this on page 7, read it. Here's the link ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.836410-Jimquisition-Copyright-War?page=7#20503870 )

...Youtube should not be policing the content of their site, similar to how ISPs don't police content that flows through their pipes....

I haven't heard of an ISP being sued when a user did something illegal using their service. I have seen attemps to make them responsible but they've all failed. Youtube however has been sued when users uploaded illegal content. Therefore, since they can be held accountable they absolutely have the right to "police their content".

...If someone uploads something illegal to Youtube and someone flags it as such Youtube should absolutely check it out and take it down. If someone says "We should be getting the revenue from videos that use our stuff" they need to give Youtube the list of videos actually infringing, not Youtube saying "Oh, here's a list our robot drew up, we'll automatically screw all those users for you and let them sort out the mess!" It is crystal clear automated approaches don't work, and the false positives are doing far more damage than any videos correctly flagged were before.

Where are you going to find people to do that job though? There's too much content to do it both manually and cost-effectively. We're talking thousands of people being paid thousands of man-hours to watch videos back to back trying to find copyrighted material when a strike is filed. How on Earth do you imagine this being financially viable? Are the users going to fund this system?
Automated systems are there for a reason and you really can't appreciate their usefulness until you work with them. For every video that is falsely flagged there are thousands that are legit infringements. If it were the other way 'round the system would be ditched because again, it would be a money waster.
I've aldo conceded to a possible solution earlier on this very page by the way. Read some of the thread sometime.

They don't do this because they caved to the big copyright holders threatening them, that's all. They cried about how they didn't want to have to put in the effort to find actual misuses of their copyrighted stuff, so Google better do it for them or they'll sue.

And as is the case with most of the companies that have the big buck to follow through, that's enough reason to comply.

 

[Thanatos2k]

What are you going on about? Using copyrighted materials for reviews, parody, or transformative works is absolutely covered under fair use, and that's what most of these videos are doing.

I've had to explain this on page 7, read it. Here's the link ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.836410-Jimquisition-Copyright-War?page=7#20503870 )

...Youtube should not be policing the content of their site, similar to how ISPs don't police content that flows through their pipes....

I haven't heard of an ISP being sued when a user did something illegal using their service. I have seen attemps to make them responsible but they've all failed. Youtube however has been sued when users uploaded illegal content. Therefore, since they can be held accountable they absolutely have the right to "police their content".

And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

Where are you going to find people to do that job though? There's too much content to do it both manually and cost-effectively. We're talking thousands of people being paid thousands of man-hours to watch videos back to back trying to find copyrighted material when a strike is filed. How on Earth do you imagine this being financially viable? Are the users going to fund this system?
Automated systems are there for a reason and you really can't appreciate their usefulness until you work with them. For every video that is falsely flagged there are thousands that are legit infringements. If it were the other way 'round the system would be ditched because again, it would be a money waster.
I've aldo conceded to a possible solution earlier on this very page by the way. Read some of the thread sometime.

Youtube shouldn't be doing it. The users shouldn't be doing it. It should be on the onus of the copyright holder to find and send notices against infringing copyright. And if that is not "financially viable" then too bad for them.

It doesn't matter if there are 100 to 1 hit vs miss with the automated system - that 1 miss is more damaging than the 100 videos would have been if left alone.

 

[Atmos Duality]

They don't do this because they caved to the big copyright holders threatening them, that's all. They cried about how they didn't want to have to put in the effort to find actual misuses of their copyrighted stuff, so Google better do it for them or they'll sue.

And as is the case with most of the companies that have the big buck to follow through, that's enough reason to comply.

That's unfortunately the truth of the matter.
These companies can get away with breaking* the same copyright law they love to invoke, because of the cost of enforcement and appeal. It's much higher for the average user to sustain than the big media.

(*last I checked, Fair Use is in fact part of copyright law, and the law comes ahead of anything in any corporate-written EULA)

In practice, it's a double standard, and part of why I don't feel terribly sympathetic for their cause.

 

[Habballah]

Oh jimmy
your right you don't need them. I would watch your shit regardless.
but there's going to be some causality jim.

and u tube doesn't have the resources to run every video through a fine filter.
U tube was always a pirates den of thieves.

it was main stream 4 chan.
...you know that part where i go hold up i went to far,
no u tube has always been this wild west as you put it,

where people got away with way, way, way to much. there are ways to use fair use those video's weren't using.

and I'd be glad to tell you in pm,
but revealing that topic in public would get me trolled.

legions of hasbro fans have worked free use down to a fine science.
Easily.
if you see this feel free to ask.

 

[furai47]

And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...okay.

I was hoping you'd get the implication of my previous post but no matter. ISPs CAN NOT BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There is no law that allows this currently that I am aware of. As I've pointed out in my previous post, some interest groups are pushing for such laws to be passed but none were succesful as of yet.
Youtube and Google CAN BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There are laws that allow that.

There is not comparison here. It's not that ISPs have massive balls of carbotanium, it's that they know full well they can't be sued.

Youtube shouldn't be doing it. The users shouldn't be doing it. It should be on the onus of the copyright holder to find and send notices against infringing copyright. And if that is not "financially viable" then too bad for them.

It doesn't matter if there are 100 to 1 hit vs miss with the automated system - that 1 miss is more damaging than the 100 videos would have been if left alone.

This going to be a bit of a hyperbole, but it's necessary for you to understand what you're up against.

You're saying copyright holders should find the offending videos and send notices. Alright, I can see that appeasing the users.
Now, give me (or rather them) a reason to do so. Also please keep in mind the astronomical figures of money you've cost them by removing the automated process and forced them to employ thousands of people to watch videos back to back. Think of all the medical and psychological complications a person could face when they have a job of sitting in a chair for 8 hours and watching mostly cat videos every single day and people playing Happy Wheels.

Now find a reason that isn't "you have to do it, deal with it, if you can't too bad for you you still have to I wanna watch my LPs" because I don't know if you're aware but in the corporate world that doesn't fly. Backing every decision are hours upon hours of meetings and charts and reports and, as is the case in the western world, money. And what you're proposing is known in the business world colloquially as "suicide".

 

[Thanatos2k]

And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...okay.

I was hoping you'd get the implication of my previous post but no matter. ISPs CAN NOT BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There is no law that allows this currently that I am aware of. As I've pointed out in my previous post, some interest groups are pushing for such laws to be passed but none were succesful as of yet.
Youtube and Google CAN BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There are laws that allow that.

There is not comparison here. It's not that ISPs have massive balls of carbotanium, it's that they know full well they can't be sued.

*sigh*

Look. The ISPs have *already* been sued. They fought and won.

Here's an example:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-rights-group-sues-isps-over-pirate-tax-130501/

Laws don't matter to copyright holders. And you better believe the copyright holders think everyone should pay. They sue and sue and most of the time their targets cave to prevent long protracted and expensive legal battles. Google used to fight those. Now they take the easy way out.

This going to be a bit of a hyperbole, but it's necessary for you to understand what you're up against.

You're saying copyright holders should find the offending videos and send notices. Alright, I can see that appeasing the users.
Now, give me (or rather them) a reason to do so. Also please keep in mind the astronomical figures of money you've cost them by removing the automated process and forced them to employ thousands of people to watch videos back to back. Think of all the medical and psychological complications a person could face when they have a job of sitting in a chair for 8 hours and watching mostly cat videos every single day and people playing Happy Wheels.

Now find a reason that isn't "you have to do it, deal with it, if you can't too bad for you you still have to I wanna watch my LPs" because I don't know if you're aware but in the corporate world that doesn't fly. Backing every decision are hours upon hours of meetings and charts and reports and, as is the case in the western world, money. And what you're proposing is known in the business world colloquially as "suicide".

Youtube doesn't make money from copyright holders. Youtube makes money from content creators, that is - their USERS. (Well they make money off the advertisements shown around that content but you know what I'm saying). Youtube *should* have incentive to fight for its users and ignore the copyright holders. After all, all the copyright holders do is take down videos reducing the amount of content that Youtube has to show, reducing their revenues.

Again, Youtube USED to thumb their nose at all but the most egregious and legitimate copyright claims, similar to how ISPs don't wish to go after people using bittorrent and the like over their networks (because those people are PAYING CUSTOMERS and if Comcast starts kicking those people off they stop sending checks...) Comcast knows when you're using bittorrent. They KNOW what you're doing is almost certainly illegal. But they don't care, and only do the bare minimum policework when someone with legitimate copyright claims tells them to stop certain activity. Youtube needs to go back to that model, and fight for themselves in court like the ISPs did.

Now they're just tools on the wrong side of the copyright war.

 

[furai47]

So is pissing off your cash cows which is what Youtube is doing by flagging/taking down everyone's content.TBH I'm less inclined to give a fuck about the Pro Youtube defense since you are willing to burn down a forest just to catch some thieves.This system will fail and Youtube will be forced to change it.

Apparently someone important thinks more money could be lost in trials than in people ceasing to upload video game content. Also I must repeat myself, there are thousands of legit copyright infrigements caught by the system along with the legally uploaded. What you're presenting with the forest analogy is as far from the truth as Timbuktu is from where I'm sitting.

It's also funny how you think Google has to do anything about it. "The system will fail and Youtube will be forced to change it." Just how far back does your memory serve? People have been spouting trite like that since they started changing their layout. People have been doing the same when Facebook introduced changes. Every single time this happens a bunch of people get up in arms about this and that but in the end they all suck it up because they can't live without their entertainment and social media.

Youtube will stay. Short of some other company somehow gaining enough capital to rival Google you're not going to see an alternative gain as much traction. If it does, Google or one of its proxies will buy it, just like it did Youtube. The ones who are not bought out and kick off will eventually have to cave in to the same bullshit outdated copyright law that Google and Youtube have been caving to. I mean sure you have Vimeo and Blip and DailyMotion etc. but convincing people to use those instead of the familiar is going to be hard.

Lastly, lol. Trying to put me in the "pro-Youtube" camp. It's like this is a political debate.

 

[furai47]

*sigh*

Look. The ISPs have *already* been sued. They fought and won.

Here's an example:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-rights-group-sues-isps-over-pirate-tax-130501/

They haven't had a ruling yet and you're saying they've won? Are you reading the same article I am? Also in that article you linked lies the answer the conundrum, let me quote it:

"Providing Internet access is a 'mere conduit principle': Forwarding information without any intervention also means that an Internet provider can not and should not be liable for the content distributed over the Internet,"...

ISPs forward information while Youtube stores information on their servers. That's the important distinction and why IPSs can't be as easily sued as Youtube can for copyright infringement. The latter stores copyrighted data on their servers, they are in possesion of it and if it turns out it's illegaly there then that's a bit of a hairy situation.

Laws don't matter to copyright holders. And you better believe the copyright holders think everyone should pay. They sue and sue and most of the time their targets cave to prevent long protracted and expensive legal battles. Google used to fight those. Now they take the easy way out.

In 2010 Viacom sued Youtube and Google for 1 billion USD because of copyright infringements. The ruling was given on the 23rd of June. Following that there was an appeal which concluded on the 29th of April of this year I believe. You're wrong when you say they used to fight them or that they've given up. The content match is stricter sure, but after legal battles like that I'd be surprised if nothing was done to avoid similar things in the future.

Youtube doesn't make money from copyright holders. Youtube makes money from content creators, that is - their USERS. (Well they make money off the advertisements shown around that content but you know what I'm saying). Youtube *should* have incentive to fight for its users and ignore the copyright holders. After all, all the copyright holders do is take down videos reducing the amount of content that Youtube has to show, reducing their revenues.

Again, Youtube USED to thumb their nose at all but the most egregious and legitimate copyright claims, similar to how ISPs don't wish to go after people using bittorrent and the like over their networks (because those people are PAYING CUSTOMERS and if Comcast starts kicking those people off they stop sending checks...) Comcast knows when you're using bittorrent. They KNOW what you're doing is almost certainly illegal. But they don't care, and only do the bare minimum policework when someone with legitimate copyright claims tells them to stop certain activity. Youtube needs to go back to that model, and fight for themselves in court like the ISPs did.

Now they're just tools on the wrong side of the copyright war.

I know Youtube makes money off of their users. I also know they're aware of how much money improperly (read: copyright infringing) content makes them. They most certainly have incentive to keep those views coming in. However, they also have incentive to try and appear nice to the copyright holders because billion USD lawsuits and lawyer fees are not negligible.

I've adressed the second paragraph above already. By the way look at the case when you have the time. You should be able to find it under something like Viacom International versus YouTube. Wikipedia has a half decend article on it but it's barebones and missing some important details. I'd suggest the actual court case. It's an interesting read or listen, whichever you prefer.

I'm off to uni so I'll be posting when I get back.

 

[Althenias]

Having at one time been a youtube Let's Player, I understand full well how difficult it can be to make content and avoid copyright infringment. seeing these companies make it that much harder for what is essentially free advertising for them, and a potential way of life for me is disgusting.

... Also I like your new hat Jim.

 

[hexFrank202]

So, this guy says that Jim is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-S6Bj3r-JM

Is this guy right?

Judging by what he said, his points make enough sense I guess. I dunno, it just confuses me now.