Youtube terminates Teamfourstar.

[IceForce]

OP updated saying they managed to get the channel back up. So woohoo!!!!

Might be worth putting an edit on the end of the thread title too, "(edit: back up again!)" or something like that, to avoid confusion.

 

[sXeth]

Its a bit of a complicated mess, which likely can't resolve without major overhauls in the ten year old (or more) laws.

Content creators, even if they banded in a class action, probably can't afford to haul through the court process against any of the major players. They might push off a few of the lower level companies/individuals who usually try to censor out content and the like, but up against Sony/Disney/etc, its implausible. The most obvious victories there would be against the outright trolls who claim content with no reasonable basis simply as a quick cash steal.

Youtube/Google basically can't improve the system much while complying with DMCA. They'd have to hire a staff of millions to possibly filter content manually as it stands. They certainly could expand their customer service branch a bit, but it'd still probably fall short of the demand on the service.

Fair Use itself is also kind of nebulously defined. While parody is largely well-covered, reviews and Let's play's drawing on IP have never really gone through the court system to have precedent set for the amount of content that they can use legally. You can certainly try and say "Fair Use" as a defense to get the claimant to release, but they can say "No its not", until one of these disputes actually hits a court for precedent to be set and a decision to be made.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

major overhauls in the ten year old (or more) laws.

The laws are fine. YouTube is just throwing the people that help it make money under the bus because they are afraid of getting sued. The claimants don't have to prove anything, which is the problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[JayRPG]

Require the claimants to upload a short sample clip of their content that they are claiming copyright on.

An automated program should be able to check the metadata to make sure it wasn't just ripped from the content creators channel, and then that program checks the sample video against the claimed video. If either the audio or video is significantly altered (like a completely original voice over from the original content) or if the match is not of sufficient length (e.g if there is only a 5 second fragment in the entire video) then the program denies the copyright claim.

If it finds a sufficient match it automatically takes the video/channel down like it does now.

It shouldn't be too much to ask of the self-proclaimed copyright owner to provide a short sample of their alleged copyrighted material, then a program can do all the rest.

There would still be some false positives, sure, and some false negatives, but the disputes team would have far fewer claims and would be able to process a lot more, and having any type of requirement, even something as small as this, would deter the truly outlandish troll claims.

Jim Sterling spoke about his last video being taken down because it had a 2 second video only clip of splatoon in it with his entirely original voice over. It just seems like that could be easily detected by a program that analyzes certain parameters of a claim.

 

[JimB]

Explain "Weird Al" Yankovic, please.

I don't know how his whole operation works, but I know Mr. Yankovic pays at least some of the artists royalties (which is probably not the right word but you know what I mean) for the right to parodize their music; in an interview for some program about famous music beefs, he said that Coolio is being disingenuous about his beef regarding "Gangsta's Paradise" because he was cashing Mr. Yankovic's checks while still saying his song was being stolen.

 

[rcs619]

Depends on the jurisdiction. The US allows such bollocks, but most legal systems have both laws and legal principles against signing away your rights. Even if you sign fully aware of that, you can still sue afterwards because some rights can't be taken away.

That's completely fair. I was assuming that any lawsuit filed against youtube/google would take place within the US (probably somewhere in Texas or some other district that is notoriously friendly to corporations in these sorts of suits). With international companies, I'm not sure how that would work. Do they insist that the case happens in their home country to make it more expensive for foreigners to sue them, or do they do it in the US, where our legal system is currently very friendly to corporate entities.

But that's why I favour going after the copyright mafia over complaining to Youtube. Youtube is also a victim here, of people who file false copyright strikes, under a system that the US assigned exclusively to help the copyright mafia. Youtube is neither the party filing false strikes, nor the one who designed the underlying legal system. You run the risk of losing because Youtube is simply not a party in the dispute.

Pretty much, yeah. All you could go after youtube for would be (potentially) lost wages as a result of the videos going down. Suing them isn't actually going to help fix the underlying system, or stop outside entities from abusing that system through youtube (which is basically just a middle-man in all this). Youtube needs to change its current system, but I imagine if they make any radical changes, they run the risk of potentially getting sued by copyright holders themselves for not doing enough to defend their copyright (I believe that has happened before a couple times too).

 

[RaikuFA]

So Jim Sterling put this up last night


Then IHE put up this, proving that there are legitimate scammers abusing this for a quick buck


There's also someone who put up a video to prove how easy it is to steal ad revenue for yourself. While they don't condone this, I say someone do it on a big name youtuber. Can't someone try it on like Pewdiepie or Markiplier to cause a big enough stink, then give the money back to that person when YouTube finally fixes it?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Then IHE put up this, proving that there are legitimate scammers abusing this for a quick buck

I was just about to post this video myself; it's ridiculous that people who have no claim on the actual content of the video can still claim the video is their own! It's a serious problem and it needs to stop. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if major Youtubers do indeed try to make a competitive service to Youtube.

 

[Something Amyss]

I broke my boycott of Channel Awesome (long story no one cares about) because I was insanely curious to see how the Nostalgia Critic handles one of the most fascinatingly awful movies I've ever seen, Spawn, and I unfortunately do not know how they handled it because their player buffered endlessly until I could no longer stand to watch it. Oh well.

I moslty avoid CA because a lot of the content is just plain lame and honestly, I'd rather not give Doug or Rob any money if I can avoid it.

There are some people I do follow, though. Mostly Linkara and Rap Critic. Fortunately, they both semi-adopted YouTube./ They may be evil overlords, but I'll take the videos I can play over ones I can't.

But yeah, buffering is one problem I've had with them.

Have you tried lately? I couldn't watch videos here for, like, two months, and then one day I came back on a whim and whatever the problem was seemed to have fixed itself without any changes on my part.

Well, I'd try, but I'd have to find a video I want to watch, and the only thing I really bother with anymore is Critical Miss when I remember. If I wasn't already posting on the forum, I probably wouldn't even bother with that.

Weird Al is parody. Probably transformative, as well. It should also be noted that Al always asks the musician's permission before making a parody or a video. He also has been sued in the past, but he won the case (this is actually why he started asking permission). I see the parallel you are making, though.

Weird Al sought permission in prior cases, too. But he sought permission through lawyers and the like, which is how the Coolio lawsuit happens. Al now seeks permission personally, which is likely what you're thinking of.

Still, the point is that the law is on his side. He has been sued. And he won.

Your "Japanese" argument doesn't work, as such suits would happen in the US court system. Or, in the case of CDs, point of distribution, where Al would have already had to have sought rights for distribution.

Even still, it wouldn't surprise me to find Weird Al's videos blocked on Youtube in some countries. This is not the same as attempting to shut down his channel.

The only difference I can name is that Weird Al uses his own music, while T4S' transformative works rely on the video of the original content creators. In some limited instances, courts have ordered a level of compensation to the original rights holders. This is not common, however, so I have trouble seeing it be an issue.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Explain "Weird Al" Yankovic, please.

I don't know how his whole operation works, but I know Mr. Yankovic pays at least some of the artists royalties (which is probably not the right word but you know what I mean) for the right to parodize their music; in an interview for some program about famous music beefs, he said that Coolio is being disingenuous about his beef regarding "Gangsta's Paradise" because he was cashing Mr. Yankovic's checks while still saying his song was being stolen.

Just quoting to say "royalties" is the right word here.

The only difference I can name is that Weird Al uses his own music, while T4S' transformative works rely on the video of the original content creators. In some limited instances, courts have ordered a level of compensation to the original rights holders. This is not common, however, so I have trouble seeing it be an issue.

Weird Al has used other people's entire songs and music videos, though he has shown he doesn't necessarily need to rely on them. Also, I seem to recall that, on occasion, Weird Al will alter some used songs in order to fit his parodied version.

So, my point to Saltyk in our discussion was in questioning how Weird Al's use of copyright material through Fair Use was proven legal, yet T4S' use is somehow not legal even though the usage of copyright material between the two for parody purposes, by my perception, is pretty damn close to being the same.

 

[Something Amyss]

Weird Al has used other people's entire songs and music videos

Such as?

Hopefully this doesn't count as low-content, because I literally have no way of further reacting without being able to determine the veracity of this claim.

Edit:

Wait, I think I get the contention here.

Weird Al uses entire songs as parody, but doesn't use the actual original recorded content. This is what I was speaking to in terms of paying money. Al relies on his own musicianship or other artists, sometimes even the original artists for pay, and I believe he's even noted samples where appropriate.

It's one thing to perform a parody of "Gangsta's Paradise" using the original track and rapping over it. It's another thing to record your own version and rap over it.

The difference I was trying to illustrate was between Weird Al doing original recordings (even if they are parodied works) vs extensive use of the original product (such as, say, using the actual animation from DBZ). That level of reliance on the original material sets up a difference in the way things are looked at. That doesn't mean it can't still be transformative, but different factors are involved.

Fair Use is about multiple factors, and how much each come into play. For example, the amount of material used. One of the big problems with YouTube is that a 30 minute video can get flagged for a 3 second picture or sound byte, even if it's criticism, satire, etc.

 

[Scarim Coral]

The channel is back up and with a new video. They're pretty much part of the "Where's teh fair use?"-

 

[Saltyk]

Weird Al is parody. Probably transformative, as well. It should also be noted that Al always asks the musician's permission before making a parody or a video. He also has been sued in the past, but he won the case (this is actually why he started asking permission). I see the parallel you are making, though.

Weird Al sought permission in prior cases, too. But he sought permission through lawyers and the like, which is how the Coolio lawsuit happens. Al now seeks permission personally, which is likely what you're thinking of.

Still, the point is that the law is on his side. He has been sued. And he won.

Yes, I was thinking of the Coolio case. I had forgotten about him having sought permission through legal means in the past. Which honestly, does make a difference in this discussion. Al had legal permission. Knowing that, why would Coolio even bother with a suit? He was destined to fail at that point.

Team Four Star does not have permission from Toriyama or Toei to use their material. And while they are on friendly terms with Funimation, that doesn't exactly protect them from Toei. On that grounds alone, it makes comparing TFS to Al v Coolio sort of pointless. Al should have won even without Fair Use.

Your "Japanese" argument doesn't work, as such suits would happen in the US court system. Or, in the case of CDs, point of distribution, where Al would have already had to have sought rights for distribution.

Admittedly, I can't say what would happen in a case between Toei and TFS. Even if Toei would not be able to prosecute them in Japanese court, I doubt TFS wants to fight a legal battle. The fact is that they don't have the resources for a lengthy court battle.

My larger point there was simply that there are differences in Fair Use laws between different nations. There are difference even between the US and Canada or the UK. So I could certainly see a Japanese company believing the law favors them and pursuing a case based on Japanese law (though I don't know if Japanese law would be different on that front).

Really the issue is that this shouldn't even be a question. They should be protected by Fair Use and that should be clear to everyone. The laws need to be updated to clarify this sort of thing.

Even still, it wouldn't surprise me to find Weird Al's videos blocked on Youtube in some countries. This is not the same as attempting to shut down his channel.

Well, that's on Youtube's policies more than anything. According to TFS's recent video they had four copyright strikes and that instantly takes their channel down without a grace period. So, this isn't so much international law as it is Youtube's shitty policies when it comes to Fair Use and copyright claims on their platform. A channel shouldn't be taken down simply because of alleged copyright violations. Nor should a company be able to claim a channel's ad revenue without proving a claim.

Though, I would not at all be surprised to find that Al or TFS has videos that can't be viewed in certain countries. That happens all the time.

The only difference I can name is that Weird Al uses his own music, while T4S' transformative works rely on the video of the original content creators. In some limited instances, courts have ordered a level of compensation to the original rights holders. This is not common, however, so I have trouble seeing it be an issue.

That is actually something I meant to touch on as well. But I couldn't really find any information confirming that Al does perform the music himself. As such, I didn't want to make claims that I didn't feel confident were true.

Fair Use is about multiple factors, and how much each come into play. For example, the amount of material used. One of the big problems with YouTube is that a 30 minute video can get flagged for a 3 second picture or sound byte, even if it's criticism, satire, etc.

I've heard of plenty of cases where Youtube's automated system flags videos that it shouldn't. Jim had Nintendo claim his last Jimquisition because he used video from a Splatoon trailer in it. It didn't even have the audio. I doubt you could find a reviewer who hasn't had their video's claimed for similar issues.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, I was thinking of the Coolio case. I had forgotten about him having sought permission through legal means in the past. Which honestly, does make a difference in this discussion. Al had legal permission. Knowing that, why would Coolio even bother with a suit? He was destined to fail at that point.

It's been rumoured hat Yankovic's label may have lied to him on the subject. This is why he now does all his dealings in person.

Team Four Star does not have permission from Toriyama or Toei to use their material.

Which is entirely meaningless, as fair use means Al doesn't need permission. That's why the suits were settled in his favour. But there's this other thing you touch upon:

Well, that's on Youtube's policies more than anything.

This is all about YouTube's policies, though. Fair Use doesn't play into it. This isn't happening because of legal action, upon which there would be no grounds. In fact, one of the problems with YouTube's policies is that they have provided a way to literally end-run around fair use in the first place.

 

[FalloutJack]

So, in other words, Youtube fucks up again, and on a beloved parody franchise. Bastards.

 

[Saltyk]

Yes, I was thinking of the Coolio case. I had forgotten about him having sought permission through legal means in the past. Which honestly, does make a difference in this discussion. Al had legal permission. Knowing that, why would Coolio even bother with a suit? He was destined to fail at that point.

It's been rumoured hat Yankovic's label may have lied to him on the subject. This is why he now does all his dealings in person.

I don't tend to listen to rumors. It's rumored that Dragon Ball was supposed to end at [arbitrary end point]. It's rumored that Goku was supposed to die on Namek. These rumors have no basis in reality.

Unless Al comes out and says as much, there is no reason to believe them.

Team Four Star does not have permission from Toriyama or Toei to use their material.

Which is entirely meaningless, as fair use means Al doesn't need permission. That's why the suits were settled in his favour. But there's this other thing you touch upon:

Perhaps. But, I tend to like having an added level of security on these types of things. And it seems Al does, too. Which is why he personally seeks the permission of the artists he is planning to parody. Not having to worry about frivolous litigation is a nice thing.

I'm sure TFS would love to have a guarantee from Toei or Toriyama that they would not seek any sort of litigation. It's one thing to win a case against you. It's another to never have to defend yourself in the first place.

Well, that's on Youtube's policies more than anything.

This is all about YouTube's policies, though. Fair Use doesn't play into it. This isn't happening because of legal action, upon which there would be no grounds. In fact, one of the problems with YouTube's policies is that they have provided a way to literally end-run around fair use in the first place.

Exactly. At the end of the day, this is really about Youtube's policies and not Fair Use. Youtube allows practically anyone to make claims on content creators works with no evidence. That needs to be fixed, first. Fair Use barely even comes into play as it seems none of these claims through Youtube's system ever go further than making the claim and are never acted upon further.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Then IHE put up this, proving that there are legitimate scammers abusing this for a quick buck

Check this out


This Merlin company apparently they don't even take the token effort to check the video or even the audio at this point. What's even more interesting is that this video maybe more important then we might think. This either means that they look for the name or the picture and not the audio which they said was the reason to copyrighted it, or it?s not being done by a robot but a person. Either way that?s damning evidence on multiple levels if anyone wants to bring Merlin to court.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't tend to listen to rumors. It's rumored that Dragon Ball was supposed to end at [arbitrary end point]. It's rumored that Goku was supposed to die on Namek. These rumors have no basis in reality.

Like the rumour you took for granted that you literally just spread? The one I was responding to here? At least I labeled mine rumour. Y\ou've been arguing points that, according to your own claims about rumours, have no basis in reality. So I'm just going to ignore you at this point, but I feel this is worth bringing up to the larger group:

Almost 100% of the information regarding "Amish Paradise" is hearsay or rumour.

This is important when we are discussing legal cases and precedent. I kind of accepted these other points for the sake of argument, running with the story to get to a point about fair use. This appears to have been moot.

 

[Saltyk]

I don't tend to listen to rumors. It's rumored that Dragon Ball was supposed to end at [arbitrary end point]. It's rumored that Goku was supposed to die on Namek. These rumors have no basis in reality.

Like the rumour you took for granted that you literally just spread?

What rumor? Nothing in my post was rumor. Everything I know of the Amish Paradise case is generally accepted as fact. And that is that Al had permission from Coolio, Coolio sued him anyway, Al won the case. Those are the only things I know of the case and the only things I've really brought up. You're the one who brought up something about Al's label lying to him. And you're literally the first person I have ever heard suggest that. Something which sounds eerily conspiracy theory to me.

My comments about Fair Use are entirely because the law is vague. The case with Al may not necessarily set precedent with Youtube videos and Abridged series. So far no one has been willing to take a case to court, largely due to how easily abused Youtube's policies are and probably due to how many videos are uploaded to it everyday.

The one I was responding to here? At least I labeled mine rumour. You've been arguing points that, according to your own claims about rumours, have no basis in reality. So I'm just going to ignore you at this point, but I feel this is worth bringing up to the larger group:

I get it. You're morally superior and I'm a dick. I feel like we've had this discussion before. I feel like you have this discussion a lot.

Almost 100% of the information regarding "Amish Paradise" is hearsay or rumour.

But only one of these 'rumors' sounds like something someone pulled out of thin air. The only evidence I can see for such a claim is that Al changed labels following the release of Bad Hair Day, the album with Amish Paradise on it. But there is also a rumor that Coolio gave permission and changed his mind after the fact.

Really bringing up these concepts are red herrings, and I really don't appreciate that someone would do this and try to frame me as dishonest. Really goes to show the type of person I have been talking to here. This entire conversation was done in bad faith apparently.

 

[Saltyk]

The thing about the "Amish Paradise case" is that there was no case, as there was never a lawsuit.

Well, what do you know. You're right. I checked some other sources and after rereading them, I realized that there is never any mention of a suit. Only that Coolio and Al each commented on it.

Not sure where I was getting that there had been a suit. Thanks for the clarification.

According to both sides [http://weirdal.0catch.com/txt/coolio.html], Al told his label he wanted to do the song, two people from his label assured him that Coolio approved it, then told him later that Coolio's management had a problem, but it was still fine, while according to Coolio, a reporter asked him about the song during the Grammy's and he made his statement about how he never gave his approval and didn't approve of it, but knew he couldn't do anything about it because it was fair use. That was pretty much the end of it. Later, Coolio realized how stupid he had been over it and regretted his comments and they've since made amends.

Yeah, I was fully aware that Coolio and Al had made amends, though. And that Coolio had admitted that he was overreacting. If anything Al had probably made his song more popular.

I'm not sure where the idea that there was a lawsuit involved came from, but that was the most inaccurate rumor of the whole exchange, whereas the "rumor" that Al's label lied to him is one of two possible scenarios based upon what Weird Al himself said about it, that two different people from his label assured him that Coolio gave them his personal approval. So either the people from the label lied about getting Coolio's approval, or Coolio gave them his approval, only to later tell a reporter that he did not and he was upset that the song was recorded.

The thing is that unless Al says that his label had lied to him, I wouldn't say that it is factual. I would think that it's just as possible that Al's label talked to Coolio's label and they authorized it. I checked and it seems that a publisher has the right to okay the use of a song by others, like for sampling. I also checked and both albums were released by different labels.

So, it could be a third option. Al's label got permission from Coolio's label. Coolio himself wasn't okay with it, but had no legal recourse in the situation.