[HN Gopher] CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for u...
___________________________________________________________________
CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
Author : Keverw
Score : 230 points
Date : 2020-02-03 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| lostmsu wrote:
| It has been restored, AFAIK.
| hawkesnest wrote:
| Maybe because "Angry" Joe Vargas is more recognizable than the
| average...uh...Joe.
| macinjosh wrote:
| I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to
| realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it
| is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they
| only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and
| partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win.
| Social and legal norms be damned
|
| I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way
| like: floatplane.com and watchnebula.com
|
| Support creators you care about or they may not be around much
| longer.
| taytus wrote:
| "I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers
| to realize the YouTube platform is failing them"
|
| I don't think that is the case. For what I've seen, the
| discontent has been growing for years. Youtube is to video what
| google is to search.
|
| Yeah. there are competitors but we all know it's a monopoly.
| patmcc wrote:
| YouTubers absolutely realize, but YouTube is the biggest game
| in town by a huge margin. If you're making non-porn videos on
| the internet, it's very very hard to be successful outside of
| youtube.
| VectorLock wrote:
| It feels like most YouTubers know and have vocalized their
| issues with YouTube, but lack any viable alternatives. The
| benefits they get with YouTube with the large audience already
| using the platform and potential help the 'Suggestions' system
| on YouTube gives them outweigh the freedom they'd get from
| switching platforms.
| zadkey wrote:
| I agree, there is about to be a large market gap for
| streaming content creators. If someone had the team, the
| skill, and the funding they could effectively roll out a
| viable competitor to YouTube.
|
| I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising
| could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of
| YouTube.
| VectorLock wrote:
| You could do everything YouTube does, but better, and still
| have a hard time of it because content creators audiences
| are still on YouTube
| izacus wrote:
| Well the creators absolutely know that... but they also know
| that those exact advertisers are the ones that are paying them
| as well. Who else is giving them money?
|
| There's a few creators who managed to get Patreon as a second
| source of funding, but there's just no getting away from the
| fact that Google signed up advertisers who actually pay for a
| lot of YouTubes hosting, infrastructure and payout costs.
|
| If creators move away from the platform they'll need to handle
| those deals by themselves from a weaker negotiating position.
| It's significantly easier to get money from all three: Patreon
| donations, their own in-video advertisements AND youtube
| advertiser payouts.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| CBS All Access needs the publicity - good or bad, Joe guy is
| doing them a favor.
|
| Hulu has The Orville which I think has proven definitively that
| anyone can take the Star Trek formula and pump out a watchable
| show. Who needs CBS?
| rriepe wrote:
| I'd argue that CBS can't, but they didn't really use the Star
| Trek formula for Picard. The Orville has definitely shown us
| it's the ideas which are cherished, not the IP.
| fullshark wrote:
| I also think the structure: self contained episodes, is why
| it works. Old star trek episodes were like bite sized scifi
| movies with usually at least one interesting idea within
| them. This long form spy thriller serial format is a drag if
| the overarching plot isn't really compelling.
| sharpneli wrote:
| Companies typically do this to censor reviews. Is Picard really
| so crappy of a show that they have to resort to this?
| deadbunny wrote:
| Indeed it is.
| nimbius wrote:
| from TFA this was a manual takedown, meaning CBS had someone in
| meatspace take this down. If i had to guess why this happened its
| two reasons:
|
| - Joe had a negative review of the show, and made several valid
| points about its lackluster writing and dialogue.
|
| - CBS' streaming service, "All Access" is getting hammered by
| critics on reddit and blogs. Even after gobbling up Nickelodeon
| kids programming its still underperforming. A week after Picard
| aired, CBS released the first episode on Youtube free of charge
| in order to drum up business.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-s...
| danso wrote:
| It's interesting that Angry Joe got taken down; AFAIK,
| RedLetterMedia's review didn't get taken down, and it featured
| decent chunks of non-trailer footage (not sure if any of them
| were 10+ seconds consecutively) [0]. And, like AJ's, it was a
| very negative review. I don't doubt AJ was the victim of manual
| review, I'm just surprised RLM wouldn't be on CBS's shit list as
| well.
|
| (and tangentially: both are right; the "Picard" show is
| depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep,
| but it had more gratuitous (and cheap looking) martial arts
| action than several seasons of TNG.)
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I
| Shivetya wrote:
| sadly RLM was right, it is an atrocious show because certain
| people in Hollywood and political friends of their are more
| than willing to trash the legacy of respected shows and movies
| to score political points and show how "woke" they are.
|
| Gone is the attempt to tell good stories and now we are stuck
| with political preaching which always requires all the canon of
| the show or movie being used to be trampled if not insulted.
|
| RLM pointed out the defining difference between Gene
| Roddenberry's Star Trek and all the tripe we have today. When
| he wanted to deal with race he had the characters blow it off,
| it was such a non issue then they could not take offense
| because it did not occur to them. (episode with Abraham
| Lincoln)
|
| Instead we are served the tripe and hatred that the woke
| political movement uses to silence those it does not agree with
| or those who dare call them out.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _now we are stuck with political preaching_
|
| You might want to (re)watch Star Trek TOS. Glaring in my mind
| is The Omega Glory where Kirk reads off... well, spoilers:
| it's absolutely a political episode (as is most of Star Trek)
| and it rather killed the episode in my opinion.
| eranima wrote:
| If you think Star Trek hasn't always been political, then you
| haven't been paying attention to any of the themes in Star
| Trek.
| modzu wrote:
| its funny how some execs can slap the name on something and
| anyone expects it to be anything like what was the labor of
| roddenberry's life. can a bunch of people get together in a
| room and release a new "elvis" album cuz the name is owned by
| some studio?
| danso wrote:
| DS9 was created without Roddenberry's involvement. And to
| your point, it severely clashed with his original vision,
| particularly the inherent non-exploration built into the
| setting and the dark interpersonal conflicts. But it's
| arguably still very good - even if you dismiss the later
| seasons as being too serial and warfare-oriented.
|
| "Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only
| by the sentiments the fanbase has for Capt. Picard.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| DS9 still had a lot of respect for the 'source material' so
| to speak. New Trek just wants to keep the iconography and
| tell whatever kind of story they feel like.
| generalpass wrote:
| YouTube can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't change the fact
| that Picard is DOA.
|
| I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so
| they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.
| raverbashing wrote:
| A good reminder to avoid doing free publicity of big copyright
| content.
|
| Sure, it's fair use, it's what people are talking about etc.
| Still, it's free publicity.
|
| If not, content creators should be very aware of possible abuses
| and should add anti-abuse language to their contracts, like this:
| https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-c...
| Keverw wrote:
| I've heard that one popular channel accidentally sent a take
| down for their own content once, then some companies just scan
| for keywords. I forget where but remember reading that some
| blog was a take down because some studio ran a bot looking for
| keywords and assuming anything that mentions their movie titles
| is a download even though that site didn't host an actual
| downloads of the movie. So say for example you had a movies
| review blog, just mentioning the movie can cause some studios
| to flag it in bulk without reviewing your website or
| considering any fair use.
|
| Then even if you license royalty free music, there's bot's that
| flag it so you can to dispute even if you paid since they don't
| know you got a license, they just auto assume that you didn't.
| Then also sound loops so, like Garageband Loops [0] you are
| allowed to use them in a larger project, but not the loops
| standalone... but some songs use these loops and samples, so
| say some artist used a Apple Loop in their song and got popular
| to be part of ContentID, then that artist starts flagging
| content from Apple they never created in the first place.
| Sounds like YouTube requires your music doesn't contain third
| party licensed royal free stuff within them but sounds like
| they still get submitted to YouTube anyways. And this isn't
| just a Apple Garage Band problem, happens with other music
| programs too like FL Studio and a bunch of others. Wouldn't
| surprise me if two digital drums (I guess music programs call
| them "virtual instruments" sounded too much alike if it would
| be flagged either, since remember hearing nothing but white
| noise got flagged once...
|
| [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201808
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| It was footage from a trailer so it's not like CBS is losing
| money from pirated footage. They give it away freely.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle
| copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the
| poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal
| directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal
| to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the
| claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you
| are out. So instead of fighting claims, posters are encouraged to
| just roll with the punches and be glad they get any money.
| Youtubers at this point will openly say "I'd show a clip but then
| I won't make money on this video" even when that clip would 100%
| be fair-use.
|
| Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie
| / Music publishers to either give them stronger tools than the
| DMCA provides or face a blackout from these major publishers.
| They wanted final control over their IP on Youtube and they got
| it, damn the law. If they had to file real DMCA claims, these
| claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.
| ikeboy wrote:
| >You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but
| in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your
| account.
|
| Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims.
|
| "If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on
| obviously fair-use materials would disappear."
|
| So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims
| because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only
| option was strikes then they would vanish? How do you figure?
| kube-system wrote:
| YouTube "manual claims" are not DMCA claims. You can follow
| these instructions here to file one -- the process does _not_
| include filing a DMCA request:
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en&ref_.
| ..
| ikeboy wrote:
| That's correct, but those manual claims, as well as
| automatic content ID claims are not strikes and have no
| negative effect on the channel.
| adamc wrote:
| Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.
| quest88 wrote:
| What did they do wrong in this case?
| chc wrote:
| They intentionally created the system that allows this sort
| of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible
| for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any
| content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold
| responsible?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| What are you paying Google for their video hosting
| service? Why are you entitled to have them do convenient
| things for you?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally
| required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system
| dx87 wrote:
| Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't
| effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because
| they don't have the manpower to manually review
| everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google
| relying on algorithms to do everything.
| iso1631 wrote:
| > because they don't have the manpower to manually review
| everything.
|
| Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to
| manually review everything.
|
| Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded
| every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call
| it $10b.
|
| Alphabet made $86b last year.
| munk-a wrote:
| I find it highly unlikely that more than 1/8th of
| Alphabet's profits are coming from YT, so that'd make it
| a cost center... and I'm willing to bet it'd be deep deep
| in the red.
| amylene wrote:
| It's possible that a human review system would be even
| worse. Have you seen the studies that show how insurance
| adjusters, working from the same inputs, with clear
| evaluation rules, have spreads of > 40% for the same
| case?
| falcolas wrote:
| Content ID is above and beyond the DMCA. Media companies
| asserted that, due to the size of YouTube, utilizing the
| DMCA reactively was insufficient. To avoid the media
| companies taking legal action (and possibly setting bad
| legal precedent), Google voluntarily created Content ID
| to proactively identify copyright misuse.
|
| It worked - the media companies backed off. It's also a
| massive failure, in that it's been abused to the
| detriment of the content creators since it came into
| being.
| chc wrote:
| No, there was no such requirement in the DMCA. Remember,
| we're talking about legislation that was written in the
| late '90s -- the idea of Content ID would have been
| completely alien to them. YouTube has actually
| implemented a completely parallel system to the DMCA's
| takedown process.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.
| darkarmani wrote:
| > it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.
|
| Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the
| fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2
| Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-
| Rose_Music,_....
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y
| moron4hire wrote:
| Parody in particular has lots of precedence backing it up
| as Fair Use.
|
| Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal _defense_ that you may
| use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the
| litigation from going forward.
|
| And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair
| Use if the defendant is making money directly off of
| whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a
| teacher who makes copies whole-clothe of newspaper articles
| doesn't make money directly off of sharing articles with
| students, a YouTuber putting up videos for ad revenue is.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Commentary also has a long tradition of being fair use.
| People sold newspapers with reviews in them and they were
| absolutely able to quote from the sources they were
| reviewing. Quoting 30 seconds of a half-hour show as part
| of a review seems to fit comfortably in the tradition of
| fair use, whether it's a commercial use or not.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content
| creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the
| clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel <link at top>, you
| can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of
| YT.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| In general, this possibility has been back-stopped by lack of
| alternatives. The companies in question have enough money to
| throw around to buy up alternatives that threaten to become
| as big as YT without the technical clout to implement the
| same kind of fingerprinting YT did. Blip (my personal
| favorite that seemed to be attracting reviewers when
| ContentID went live) met this fate.
|
| YT is about the only player in the market that the MPAA can't
| scrounge enough pocket change to meet the price of, but they
| don't have to because it plays ball with their demands.
| alecco wrote:
| I'm pretty sure YT forbids linking to other video platforms.
| blackearl wrote:
| YT forbids a lot of stuff until you're a big company or one
| of those paul brothers
| blackearl wrote:
| I thought Vimeo was aimed more at artistic videos, not stuff
| like reviews/blogs, most of the stuff that gets dumped on YT
| wouldn't be allowed on Vimeo. I see more creators making free
| videos then asking for Patreon donations rather than fighting
| the awful YTDMCA
| rasz wrote:
| YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to
| another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this
| once, reversed because famous
| https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-
| accounts-...
| gbrown wrote:
| It seems like that might offer a good target for anti-trust
| action.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| BlindWave is doing it now.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I really don't think Google even wants YouTube. I think
| they'd be more than happy to buy the personal data of
| customers from a competitor. I think their problem is that no
| one wants to compete because it costs unreal amounts of money
| to store the amount of data that YouTube does, let alone the
| legal fees they must swallow each year. At this point, I
| imagine that they simply take the anti-consumer choice
| whenever a dilemma comes up in the hopes that it might
| finally be the bullet to put them out of their money-losing
| misery.
| behringer wrote:
| Oh they do. What you're sensing is Google's lack of any
| kind of respect or care for their content creators or
| customers. You'll see this across every product they offer.
| Google develops systems that suits themselves, puts
| pressure on the rest of the internet so that nobody can
| compete, then they stagnate and sometimes fail leaving no
| real alternative.
|
| Does Google care when their products fail? No, they just
| move on to the next data vacuum one of their developers
| designed or that they acquired.
| munk-a wrote:
| Some of the video essay YTers have done this already with
| Nebula[1], some of the gaming YTers have done this with
| DLive[2]... So I think it's pretty fair to say people are on
| the same wavelength as you, whether or not it's economically
| viable for them to jump ship is still to be determined.
|
| 1. https://watchnebula.com/
|
| 2. https://dlive.tv/
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT
|
| Who knows?
|
| But what I do know is that about half of the YouTube channels
| I follow have already started putting videos up on other
| services -- they're eager to get out of the YouTube
| ecosystem. And I'm eager to follow them.
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| YouTube has been behaving like this for over a decade, so I
| don't expect it to be their undoing any time soon.
| jbob2000 wrote:
| Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too.
| My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on
| violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim
| from some random company in the states.
|
| Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a
| company set themselves up an automated tool to search for
| people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots,
| or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| What a ridiculous absurdity. More light should be shed on
| this case.
| cormullion wrote:
| I used a track from the Open Goldberg Variations
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Goldberg_Variations)
| recorded by pianist Kimiko Douglass-Ishizaka. Some company
| sent me a copyright claim presumably for a different
| recording... Perhaps the automated technology can't easily
| distinguish different performances...
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue
| from YouTubers.
|
| Third option: some record label set up an automated system
| and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced.
| They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of
| public domain songs."
| penagwin wrote:
| In some cases the company making the claim doesn't even own
| the IP. I remember a case where the youtuber NerdCubed had
| his Portal videos copyright claimed, even though Valve
| themselves explicitly states that making videos of their
| games (and cutscenes) is perfectly okay.
|
| When he contacted Valve they responded - "We didn't make
| the youtube claim". So SOMEBODY did, but not the actual
| owners.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > some record label set up an automated system and
| indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced.
|
| So, both idiots _and_ greedy, then.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| There needs to be stiff civil penalties for companies
| acting in bad faith and/or not doing due diligence.
| MereInterest wrote:
| That sounds like it could fall under either of the
| categories listed, but definitely falls under either
| foolishness or greed.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| It's _nonchalance_. They put in the minimum amount of
| effort because they aren 't the ones who'll be hurt by
| the side effects.
|
| You could certainly describe that behavior as greedy, but
| it isn't an active attempt to steal revenue.
| Vysero wrote:
| If it really is that simple then that's scary. What's to stop
| someone from writing some basic scraper code in python that
| would claim peoples videos and hold them hostage for a fee less
| they get a strike on their account?
| ikeboy wrote:
| 1. It's illegal, and YouTube has sued at least one person
| who's done this (YouTube vs Brady)
|
| 2. It's easy to counterclaim, which removes the strike
| completely after 14 days.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal
| pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the
| safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general
| (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control
| via legal remedy).
|
| YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to
| avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.
| mnm1 wrote:
| The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like
| this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate.
| Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it
| boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by
| law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its
| platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other
| words, it really doesn't exist anymore for people who are not
| willing to host their own content.
| wostusername wrote:
| Google does not have the power to determine if something is
| fair use or not, that is up to the courts. You might think
| something is fair use, and I might disagree. We are supposed to
| go to court and have a trial to determine which one of us is
| right. Google is not judge and jury, they can't make that
| determination.
| riffic wrote:
| _edit_ obviously I didn 't catch a detail in my comment. Please
| stop downvoting this.
|
| Automation fails to discern fair use. The YouTuber should file a
| DMCA counterclaim, but many youtubers are unsophisticated enough
| in copyright law to do so.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| YouTube does not make the DMCA counterclaim process available.
| Youtube give the copyright holder (or claimed copyright holder)
| who filed the original takedown the ultimate authority to
| process appeals themselves. (Which is horribly broken.)
| mfer wrote:
| According to the article it was manual rather than automation.
| That this was an intentional act to take this down.
| ru552 wrote:
| This specifically has nothing to do with automation. The
| article clearly states that it was a manual take down initiated
| by a person.
| riffic wrote:
| Content ID plus an unsophisticated overworked "manual review"
| step may as well just be considered automated from a high
| level view.
|
| Who's to say the "person" doing the manual review isn't just
| a Mechanical Turker?
| [deleted]
| munk-a wrote:
| The way YouTube does copyright claims is actually an extra-
| legal process that's strictly harsher than the DMCA - so
| usually there is no DMCA claim to counterclaim on.
|
| Additionally, strikes on accounts appear to be immutable and
| can seriously threaten a creator's revenue source so, while it
| sounds nice to encourage people to stand up for their rights,
| it's almost never in their interests to oppose the claim. Yes
| this absolutely is an issue where copyright owners can file
| baseless claims and assume they'll be obeyed anyways but trying
| to resist it as an individual is futile... honestly YouTubers
| need to unionize at some point and let their collective power
| force better enforcement rules for copyright violations.
| anewguy9000 wrote:
| apologies in antecessum for this post not exploring specifics or
| explicating a rigorous knock-down philosophical argument for its
| conclusion, but f cbs and f youtube.
| gkfasdfasdf wrote:
| Ironically, CBS literally posted the entire first episode for
| free on YouTube:
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard...
| jsilence wrote:
| Please start using YT alternatives like for example lbry.tv.
| pedrocx486 wrote:
| Sure, but first the content creators I watch need to go there.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| How about everyone takes 90 days off watching youtube videos
| while people figure out what platforms, hopefully p2p, work
| best for different groups.
| IronWolve wrote:
| People are broadcasting to multiple platforms at the same
| time. People broadcast to facebook/periscope/youtube at the
| same time via 3rd party apps.
|
| There needs to be a way for these new content startups to
| allow broadcasting on multiple platforms. If a creator has to
| "upload" to each site, that going to turn them away from many
| alternatives.
|
| I toyed with the idea of a portal for crowdfunding clone,
| with a threaded feed, and other technologies that already
| exist. Then there are dozen(s) of funding ideas for the
| Creators and the site.
|
| The technology is there, the knowledge is there. But little
| interest from investors.
|
| All Reddit would need to do is create creators subs with
| crowdfunding and paywalled content, subscriptions, etc, and
| they could easily own the market.
|
| Linus is doing floatplane, so creators do see this big giant
| hole that is just waiting for someone to drive a truck and
| smash youtube.
|
| I just can't understand why the biggest problem and the
| simplest solutions, and nobody has done it yet. Its like
| fedex\amazon, after its launches, people go, duh, that was a
| good idea.
| alias_neo wrote:
| Then they need to make an LG WebOS (TV) app where my family
| does 90% of our YouTube viewing.
|
| Edit: Really, a downvote? How do you expect wide spread
| adoption 9f an alternative service if the apps for normal-
| user devices (TVs) don't exist?
| hungaropithecus wrote:
| Most content creators have little incentive to go there
| because there's no money to be made, youtube is monetized by
| google. Maybe that's for the better and content creators who
| don't care for the money (or don't need it or can afford to
| share videos for the sake of sharing with the world) will
| share their videos outside youtube, and maybe maybe that'll
| naturally separate the wheat from the chaff..
| warent wrote:
| I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks
| 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a
| product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser
| trailer.
| monadic2 wrote:
| It's clearly fair use.
| jandrese wrote:
| 26 seconds of a 50 minute show? 0.87% of the show is too much
| for fair use? I suspect you will in fact be one of the very few
| who thinks that is too much.
| outworlder wrote:
| Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer
| itself.
| jandrese wrote:
| So it's footage spread out across the entire season then?
| More like 0.07% of the show? If that can't qualify for fair
| use then it seems the entire concept of fair use is moot.
| mlyle wrote:
| Fair use has basically nothing to do with whether Google
| decides to keep distributing your video.
|
| (And, the portion of the work used is only one part of a
| multi-pronged test of fair use...)
| squarefoot wrote:
| Even if it had been the whole trailer looped 100 times it
| is utter stupid to take it down. The purpose of a trailer
| is advertising plain and simple: the more it is seen around
| the more audience it attracts to the real show. CBS shot
| their own foot on this one.
| mlyle wrote:
| If it's a review, and you'd rather people see _different_
| reviews of your show, and you can get youtube to remove
| it based on using a few seconds of your footage,
| though...
| legitster wrote:
| It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not
| that it should matter for the purposes of fair use.
|
| > especially for a product of this caliber
|
| Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the
| implication that this property transcends normal importance?
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| I read this as larger entities have quicker response times
| for DMCAing their own IP. Not that larger entities have more
| rights, although I would expect in practice they do as they
| have more money for lawyers to get the law interpreted in
| their favor.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually]
| need to transform the work or add value in some way. A
| reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say
| "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is
| almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the
| more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is
| probably going to be set.
|
| You also have to use as little of the underlying work as
| possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it,
| that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that
| probably warrants it.
| smacktoward wrote:
| _> To use copyright material as fair-use you need to
| transform the work or add value in some way._
|
| This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four
| factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is
| fair or not (see
| https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-
| factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors
| apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are
| _more likely_ to be judged as fair than non-transformative
| ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses
| are fair.
|
| (And even putting that aside, using a portion of a
| copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work
| commenting on it could be considered transformative of the
| original.)
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Yes, thank you for clarifying.
|
| I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos
| because of some song playing in the background while they
| film in a public space (think the radio playing in a
| store while someone films themselves shopping), so that
| might be one case you could argue fair-use without
| transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever
| want to be in that position though.
| Keverw wrote:
| There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber
| Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some
| guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too
| since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube
| or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very
| likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for
| advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still
| updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a
| bit worried something might have had happened to him.
|
| I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he
| mentioned something about incidental use. So a short
| amount of music picked up in the background could be ok,
| but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in
| via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in
| the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently
| than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl
| while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly
| though for people who do vlogging about their life
| though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably
| depends on how loud the music is too... Think say
| vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably
| music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music
| isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something
| to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at
| another spot if possible.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWo
| SXw/vid...
| [deleted]
| iso1631 wrote:
| I understand it's a review of the 45 minute episode, not
| the 30 second trailer. Having seen the episode, the "heart"
| of the episode is certainly not in any of the trailers.
|
| I haven't seen this review, but 1% of the total runlength
| for a review seems quite reasonable.
|
| Apparently it's quite common on youtube for people to take
| entire pieces of someone elses work (like 30 seconds of a
| 30 second piece), say "hmm, that was interesting", and post
| it online. MxR Plays v. Jukin [1] was a recent case, where
| they refused to pay the really reasonable license fee for
| the video, posted the video in full, said "no, not funny"
| or something, and then sold it for profit. The original
| video is something like 10% of the entire piece rather than
| 99%.
|
| The couple of question then posted videos admitting they
| were breaking the law. My knowledge of this case mainly
| comes from LegalEagle reviewing it [2]. To me they haven't
| got a case (unlike this angry joe guy), but apparently they
| might have.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 [2]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q
| Teever wrote:
| > There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or
| "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be
| set.
|
| Why? Isn't that like saying that law enforcement should
| prioritize the return of stolen diamond to a wealth person
| over the return of a a stolen car to a middle class person?
|
| Where's the utility in that?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| It was literally 26 seconds from the teaser trailer in 2 13
| second chunks.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It should be noted, this was two 13 second clips of the
| publicly available trailer. So the content isn't even paywalled
| normally. What is the point of copyright if it's being used to
| prevent discussion of a freely available work?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > That represents basically a full teaser trailer.
|
| The footage he took was literally taken from the publicly
| available trailer. Reactions to trailers are quite common on
| youtube and generally don't appear to be taken down.
|
| I question what the value of this for CBS is anyway because I
| doubt the few hundred bucks they theoretically lose from the
| youtube ad-revenue for the trailer aren't more than compensated
| by the attention that Angry Joe draws to the show. Not to
| mention that anyone who watches 40 minutes of star trek
| analysis has likely clicked on the trailer a while ago.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| He was also in the foreground talking about it while it
| played.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| What ratio of length-to-caliber is appropriate?
| krustyburger wrote:
| It's all about how you use it.
| monadic2 wrote:
| At what point can you file a suit for bad faith DMCA claims?
| freeone3000 wrote:
| These aren't DMCA claims. They're a side system set up by
| YouTube so it wouldn't have to handle DMCA.
| blackearl wrote:
| I thought youtube had their own internal DMCA-lite process so
| you can't make use of DMCA abuse countermeasures
| caconym_ wrote:
| Ultimately I think the YT process leaves the door open for
| legal action by the creator against the claimant.
|
| Presumably most don't bother, because these are big big
| companies. They can feel secure in their bad faith claims,
| auto-rejection of appeals, and general abuse of the system to
| garnish monetization proceeds.
| veonik wrote:
| At any point. You just gotta pay the retainer
| j-c-hewitt wrote:
| You can file a counter claim through Youtube:
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
|
| Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney,
| because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten
| business days during which the copyright holder must either sue
| the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will
| be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are
| counter claimable. There is a tendency among people to misjudge
| their actual risk and whether or not they infringed, so it is
| unwise to file these counter claims without advice from an
| attorney.
|
| You can also file in your local jurisdiction for declaratory
| judgment if you receive a formal cease and desist notice, and
| if that C&D contains false claims then the plaintiff may be in
| trouble. A truly false and malicious DMCA claim can be
| countered with a defamation lawsuit as well.
|
| You can also sue someone for any reason ("It's Tuesday! I hate
| you! I'm suing you!") at any time, but that doesn't mean that
| you will win.
|
| Using short clips of the trailer for review purposes is clearly
| fair use. Often times, however, Youtubers think fair use
| protects them more than it actually does and do go overboard
| such as taking entire TV episodes and commenting over them.
| However different judges have seen the issue differently in
| different situations. So, if you really did infringe, but think
| you didn't, and file the counter claim, you are doomed, and
| copyright law is very generous to victorious plaintiffs.
| falcolas wrote:
| A quick note - the 10 day period is for a manual claim, if
| you get a Content ID claim, it can be up to 30 days for the
| appeal to move to the DMCA process.
|
| Why the two are different is beyond me.
| j-c-hewitt wrote:
| Content ID is essentially just Youtube moderation, whereas
| the other process is governed by the DMCA. Is that fair or
| proper...? IMO no but I don't think I know enough about it
| to say definitively.
| monadic2 wrote:
| > because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten
| business days during which the copyright holder must either
| sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint
| will be cancelled.
|
| What about damages to the target of the claim? It doesn't
| seem like there's a penalty for bad-faith claims that
| wouldn't ever lead to a suit.
| j-c-hewitt wrote:
| Perjury, defamation, maybe tortuous interference, depends
| on the nature of the situation.
|
| Not sure what you mean exactly in your last sentence
| because of the double negative. They would sue the target
| of the claim for copyright infringement if they believe
| that they will win.
| Keverw wrote:
| Wonder if your claim fell under fair use and it harmed your
| channel if you could sue for tortious interference? There's
| some theme park in New Hampshire threatening to go after
| drone operators even though they don't own the private
| airspace, however, if it's a business day and full of
| crowds that a general no no anyways to fly over people.
|
| Be funny if that guy sued CBS in some small town court, I
| doubt they'd even show up though or argue they don't have
| jurisdiction over them if no offices there, and I doubt an
| affiliate would count but maybe. Oh looks like Joe is from
| Austin, Texas so a pretty big city then, so not sure if CBS
| has anything other than an affiliate owned by third party
| company, but I know states in the past said having
| affiliates create Nexus for sales tax purposes. I was part
| of a fitness related affiliate program but never made any
| money with it years ago, and my state created one of those
| click-through nexuses so the company decided just to kick
| me out of the program based on the state in my profile.
|
| Then if your tortious interference claim could be valid,
| and since YouTube has some processes (including automated
| ones) that side steps and goes well beyond what the DMCA
| requires, I wonder if YouTube along with CBS also would be
| opening themself up to additional legal liabilities then.
|
| Be nice if people would stand up to legal bullies more, but
| sadly the justice and the legal system are not blind as
| they say and costs to access so it seems like unbalanced
| powers that favor both the government and corporations over
| individual citizens.
| j-c-hewitt wrote:
| Youtube in general is not liable for copyright
| infringement on content posted by users.
|
| People love to talk about standing up to legal bullies,
| but lawyers are expensive. Copyright law is extremely
| friendly to plaintiffs and generous in terms of damages:
| https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
|
| CBS would totally show up in a small town if they knew
| that they had a good chance of winning. Their lawyers are
| already on salary. It doesn't cost them anything and they
| will get a lot of money. They may also just try to get
| the venue changed. In fact, it is their duty to enforce
| their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to
| protect their IP in the future. So, it's unwise to do the
| equivalent of coating yourself in butter and serving
| yourself up to be devoured by Viacom IP attorneys.
|
| In the 2019 case of Epic Games, Inc. v. Lucas in which a
| 14 year old boy counter-claimed a copyright claim filed
| by Epic over the defendant's posting of Youtube footage
| involving cheats in Fortnite. While the case did not go
| all the way, Epic did successfully extract a punitive
| settlement from the defendant. If he had not counter
| claimed, the lawsuit might have never happened, or they
| could have settled it before it was filed.
| darkarmani wrote:
| > In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright
| claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in
| the future.
|
| That's true of trademark, but why do you think that is
| true of copyright?
| j-c-hewitt wrote:
| Unlike trademark, you do not lose your copyright
| registration for failure to enforce it. However, it makes
| it a lot easier for prospective defendants if you have a
| track record of ignoring infringements. Your registration
| is not in danger, but your ability to win as much as
| possible might be. Even works with no identifiable
| copyright owner are not necessarily considered
| 'abandoned,' which creates a lot of interesting issues,
| such as in the case of Google Books: https://scholarship.
| law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
|
| The main thing with copyright is not like the risk of
| trademark dilution: it's just that not enforcing it makes
| it easier for defendants to bargain and argue for lighter
| penalties.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-03 23:01 UTC)