Youtube Recent Copyright Strikes Controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter FoRiZon
  • 147 comments
  • 10,402 views
F

FoRiZon

(Banned)
Messages
8,645
Singapore
Singapore
So recently, i got alot of buzz from Youtube that recently, Youtube gives a multiple case of Copyright strikes to channels. Said strike are what considered by majority a broken system (especially with mostly automation instead of a real people) and a violation of fair use.

First it was gaining more attention when the "I Hate Everything" (IHE) Channel got a strike (among 2 other channels) for posting a Review of a Cool Cat Film (Its a 'so bad its good' movie. But we are not talking about the film at the moment). Previously, the "Your Movie Sucks" got a strike for posting a review (I forgot which) video, but not really gaining momentum until the IHE got a spotlight. Weeks later, Channel Awesome got a strike while at the almost same time, IHE got shut down for less than a day.

Its not just those channels. Multiple others has reported the increasing activity on striking channels in recent months, like, lots of channels complaining the same thing. You can search their breakdown videos on Youtube.

Some of their breakdown videos has an heavy language. So i just provide you the SFW version of whats happened recently since honestly, i cant explain it better:


What do you think? Is it very unfair or if its considerable? Let me know.

To add a related note, Fine Brothers are Copyrighting the "React" name and its affiliates to make a way for React World, which happens on such a unfortunate time in the midst of the controversy. They got quite a huge backslash as a result. To be fair, im not going to beat a dead horse at this moment since they already apologized. But i think this could be an example for future big Youtubers what not to do in the midst of this controversy.
 
Given that it is a private firm able to treat its customers as it so pleases, what exactly is YouTube's definition of fair use?

Theirs might differ from the legal standard interpretation and it might differ from yours too.
 
Not just copyright strikes but violations in general. Eli the Computer guy got one, and he's basically just given up on youtube. He has over 600k subscribers, and the strike was wholly unwarranted, but youtube won't remove it. It is sad though, because as a youtuber I want to do well but every single video I upload I have to check for anything that may be deemed in violation. And that isn't easy considering how simple it is for someone to claim copyright. For example, when I made my GT6 opening video (before I was a youtuber), I put the whole fair use stuff in the description box. Anyway, I got hit by a copyright violation. Not by Polyphony, no. Not by The Cardigans either. No, not even by Sony. I got hit by one from CHANNEL 4 TV, claiming the video I made was theirs. I told youtube that I made the video, and I had proof of the files too, and if C4 were claiming copyright then I'd like to file one against them because it was Polyphony who owned the rights to the clips, not C4. Suffice to say the strike was removed but still. It's just stupidity.
 
#MakeYoutubeGreatAgain has been trending on twitter after GradeAUnderA made a couple videos explaining why Youtube's guidelines are completely meaningless if they aren't enforced--and they're not.


LANGUAGE WARNING:

 
I stopped watching after the first minute. Copyright is illegitimate. Complaining about people violating your copyright is making the wrong argument.
 
TeamFourStar's channel, of Dragon Ball Z Abridged fame, got taken down today. Lots of outcry about it even from the producers/voice actors of the American DBZ dub but I reiterate:

Liquid
Given that it is a private firm able to treat its customers as it so pleases, what exactly is YouTube's definition of fair use?

Theirs might differ from the legal standard interpretation and it might differ from yours too.
Click to expand...
 
Omnis
I stopped watching after the first minute. Copyright is illegitimate. Complaining about people violating your copyright is making the wrong argument.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with you there, but I will say that it sounds like Youtube is over-enforcing copyright which is already massively over-protected by government.
 
TenEightyOne
Recently I read that you'd like some places to show more respect for property. Why doesn't that apply in this case?
Click to expand...
Is that debate about whether having stuff is more valuable than having ideas?
I do think that people who create something of worth should be able to make a living our of it.
 
Danoff
Can't agree with you there, but I will say that it sounds like Youtube is over-enforcing copyright which is already massively over-protected by government.
Click to expand...
My impression is that Youtube's system allows videos to be claimed by others without proof, and the lost income is never returned to the content creator.

So if a company claims your video, and it takes a week to sort it out, even if you manage to fix it (which is very difficult), that week of income is not only taken from you, the company who wrongly (and as I understand, illegally) claimed it gets to keep the money.

And if someone uploads your video, earning monetization and probably taking views away from your content, when you file a claim, you can get monetization from their upload from that point on, but they get to keep everything they earned from it, and you have to deal with the lost revenue. And then the re-uploader can just delete the video immediately and you lose that revenue too.

So not only does Youtube allow people to steal or claim people's content, it incentivises it by allowing them to keep every cent they got even in the rare cases when Youtube manages to fix an incorrectly claimed video.

Omnis
I stopped watching after the first minute. Copyright is illegitimate. Complaining about people violating your copyright is making the wrong argument.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure which video you are referring to but here's my thing:

People make a living on Youtube. Not just for stupid stuff like reaction videos, but for real content which requires a lot of investment and time.

Do you think it's fair that someone can reupload another person's content and make money from it, while the content creator now has to compete for views and is bound to make less?

Or that a company can throw out copyright claims like confetti, not worrying if they're actually legitimate because there's no punishment for getting it wrong, and they get to keep the money anyway?
 
I don't know much about YouTube but regarding copyright law in general:

What if somebody duplicated this site & all of the members' posts throughout its history? Would it be an infringement against @Jordan's intellectual property?

I would say yes it is & that nobody should be allowed to steal an income from somebody else's work.

It's the same as how the Performance Rights Society secures an income for career songwriters even though there are business premises that don't necessarily see why they should be charged for playing the radio to their customers.
 
Last edited:
I'll just say this, some copyright troll music company flagged my school project video because I used YouTube royalty free music in the video. It was a choice of take the video down or let the troll company make 2 cents off the video, so I took it down. Same thing with YouTube Gaming too. Streaming with music on in the background(As all games have BGM)? Yep you get hit with an infringement and/or your stream gets killed off, but if a guy with 5 million subs does it, YouTube doesn't give a crap. They could upload Deadpool up on their channel in full length and they wouldn't even get hit with a ban. YouTube is flawed very badly.
 
I'd say it is not fair if somebody steals an income from your creation unless the reactors ask for permissions to use the creator videos (like the Reel Rejects guys) but the way that GradeA guy handle things is sometimes just uncalled for.
He just stirred up things and created dramas which sounds a bit immature imo. He could have just settled it up privately and be more civil to the other reactor guy instead of attacking them and insulting them on Twitter with NSFW words. When that Tyrone guy ask what's wrong, he said to wait next week when he upload his rant videos lol. Not to mention, his followers were really annoying back then. Good thing the issue died down and everyone's back to their business with the reactors seem to fix their videos to be more appropiate. Youtube dramas are the worst.

That said, I just think Youtube should handle this matter more seriously.
 
TenEightyOne
Recently I read that you'd like some places to show more respect for property. Why doesn't that apply in this case?
Click to expand...

Because videos on the internet are not property. Despite its unfortunate name, "intellectual property" is not actually property.
 
Just watching Watchmojo on the facts about Youtube because im bored and have an interest on YT cases. Can say i felt slightly insulted they didnt cover this at all. They literally whitewashing Youtube because they are YT partner.

Then again, they're soulless company runs by traffic, not passion or atleast people. They kept painting themselves as righteous and pure.
 
YouTube is over-enforcing it, to an extent, and from experience, I think they match sound-for-sound, and figure out where your uploaded creation matches another. At that point, they ask you to submit your reason why. If it's not challenged again within a specified amount of time, it's free to stay. And while I guess it's to protect wholly derivative works from profiting from the original creator, it's a bit flawed in that it doesn't take much burden of proof to posit the initial claim. Here's a claim I had for work I created:

YouTubeCopyrightRelease1.png


I had stated that the permissions granted by contract of the instruments in question.

Launchpad Website
As a summary, all of the Loopmasters samples included with the app are royalty free. In terms of the license, you can use them in your tracks and don't owe money to Loopmasters or Novation.
Click to expand...

A hollow victory. For once, I wanted a fight, only because Google/YouTube were insistent in revoking my Google account (which I use for a whole lot more than YT...without Google Maps, I would be literally lost).

Omnis
Because videos on the internet are not property. Despite its unfortunate name, "intellectual property" is not actually property.
Click to expand...

You dodged copyright completely by asking another question.

So photographs, film, videos, music, scores, lyrics, recordings, writings, and artworks are not property? I suppose what you're implying is that only something that involves a financial transaction is property, or that property cannot create additional or even radically different property. So what is your description of "intellectual property", and what value does it have?

Danoff
Can't agree with you there, but I will say that it sounds like Youtube is over-enforcing copyright which is already massively over-protected by government.
Click to expand...

Although, you say government is over-protective of copyright, somebody has to enforce it. If thirty people used a song I created and copyrighted in their video, it's not plausible to expect me to physically hand a cease-and-desist letter to each, and follow up with a summons, as needed. And I can't just poke a copycat with a sharpened stick in retaliation for a crime committed some distance away.

I don't have a lot of respect for those who profit by duplicating the "video of the moment" into their own revenue stream because they've bypassed the original work. The same goes for an entirely derivative work; copying significant amounts of others' work for your own profit isn't cool, it's theft, no matter whether the average Joe clumsily made it or a well-known film studio. The point was to actually protect each equally under the law.

In that gray area is "Fair Use", which means you can use a portion of another's work for the purposes of commentary about the same work. Usually, that's just promotion materials re-used. It doesn't mean re-uploading the entire song or half a movie or other's photographs without permission. And reasons have to be explicitly stated.

I will admit that US copyright probably shouldn't be 99-years plus life of author (or a corporate authorship of a maximum 120 years), while a product patent is a mere 17 years. At some point, there should be ways to derive the work as it falls out of fashion, popularity, recognition, and/or becomes technologically obsolete. Also, to reduce excess court claims. I propose 20-25 years for both and then it falls into the public domain.
 
Last edited:
Anything not rivalrous cannot be property. It's not a difficult concept.



Your mistake is in taking the Lockean proviso for granted. We could have this argument, but it's been had before:

https://mises.org/blog/thoughts-int...-ownership-metaphors-and-lockean-homesteading

Anyway, how youtube handles these moronic channels has nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property. Youtube actually owns the property by which these "creators" operate. They can choose to do whatever they want. The better argument to make is over what would maximize everyone's benefit. Whining about your illegitimate intellectual property has no value and solves nothing.
 
Omnis
Anything not rivalrous cannot be property. It's not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

https://mises.org/blog/thoughts-int...-ownership-metaphors-and-lockean-homesteading

Aren't all laborers, paid or unpaid, in some sort of competition for those scarce resources?

aforementioned link
"This is why I point out, for example, that assigning IP rights is a way of stealing property: if A owns a car and all of a sudden B gets exclusive right of a way-to-tune-car-engines because he thought of it first, then B becomes a partial co-owner of the car with A, since A's right to control over it is shared with B (in a particular way). The transfer of rights in the car from A to B is commonly called wealth redistribution, or, by principled libertarians who do not mince words, outright theft, or socialism. This is but one example of how recognizing rights in IP reduces rights in real things."
Click to expand...

(My underlining and quotes, by the way.)

"Exclusive rights" would imply a contract, and wouldn't a contract be part of libertarian principles? He kind of slippery-sloped into socialism by way of contract, from how I read it.

Anyway, how youtube handles these moronic channels has nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property. Youtube actually owns the property by which these "creators" operate. They can choose to do whatever they want. The better argument to make is over what would maximize everyone's benefit.
Click to expand...

Problem is that nobody's tried to have that discussion. In one way, I'm not sure how anyone can get paid on such a system which has no basis of proof on whether you've created the work form the sweat of your brow or not.

The alternate is that you could remove copyright altogether from your work, which essentially places it into the public domain and undermines YouTube, such that competitors and other sources could also have the video, but alas, that isn't really profitable.

Whining about your illegitimate intellectual property has no value and solves nothing.
Click to expand...

You could have replaced "whining" with "discuss", but hey.
 
Last edited:
Youtube relies on Content to thrive, if all its main content Channels get taken down by unproven claims it's not just an attack on the channel but Youtube itself.

Some logic needs to be applied here on YouTubes part there should be atleast the option of giving the video uploaded the chance to defend them selves before taking down a video, and certainly shouldn't be directly pocketing the money from the uploaded if proven innocent.

Considering most of the people that get taken down seem to be reviewers it's a pretty sad state of affairs that the movie company's have the power to take down bad reviews, without even proving anything was violated.
 
@Pupik, the whining was in reference to the original video.

Pupik
"Exclusive rights" would imply a contract, and wouldn't a contract be part of libertarian principles? He kind of slippery-sloped into socialism by way of contract, from how I read it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've got the right idea but you've twisted the example.

Contracts are only transfers of title to alienable resources. See Rothbard's theory on this (TTToC). But even still, contracts do not create property rights. Property rights are in rem, whereas contracts are in personam. That is, contracts are only between the contracting parties. What IP law does is to make that in rem. So all of a sudden B's "exclusive rights" contract can be used against A's property rights, and that injustice is allowed to happen only because of the state's decree. That is not the natural, civilized way. It's immoral and unjust law. In fact, it is aggression.

What if a community contracted with local law enforcement to shoot any trespasser on sight? But this community was so rich and so concerned by the possibility of outsiders trespassing that they made the contracted agreement binding for everyone everywhere? The legal system is in the community, after all. Now law enforcement can patrol anywhere and shoot people anywhere if they suspect they may threaten to trespass on the community. That's the same way IP law is used. It's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Grayfox
Do companies that lodge false take down requests get punished by youtube?
Click to expand...
Should have been. If the claim for that channel not proven or not taken further actions after several weeks, they cannot punish that channel anymore. Not sure what in practice aka reality.

Of course, monetization they grab from that channel when claim disputed is still theirs. Average Youtube channels has no justice, of course.
 
I remember that several Abridge channels suffered this problem awhile back and I think some still suffer but it is sad to see that this has brached out further.

I really wish Youtube would just hire capable Mods that could determine whether or not stuff does violate Youtube's policy as well as get rid of channels that to violate the policy, I know that there would need to be a lot of mods but I reckon a lot people would do it without pay and volunteer to make Youtube great again. Though another issue is that Youtube can be greedy, they'll never want to see channels taken down if they get them lots of money despite multipe legit claims.
 
So many "Youtube Drama" Videos recently. Its now come from every big channels on Youtube. I cant show it mostly because it potentially have a NSFW languages. So search for yourself. They seems to point out the mob mentality that has gone wilder as time goes.

I can guess the "Drama Bait" Channels like H3H3 and Leafy takes major part of this "trend". Just to see how much downfall Youtube has been.
 
Last edited:
YouTube doesn't give a crap about you if you copyright something and you have a million subs, yet they'll autoflag your butt if you have 10 subs and use YouTube's own royalty free music. It's hilariously idiotic
 
chengman
YouTube doesn't give a crap about you if you copyright something and you have a million subs, yet they'll autoflag your butt if you have 10 subs and use YouTube's own royalty free music. It's hilariously idiotic
Click to expand...
Or a tool for censor any critic they dont like. Example: Daddy Derek's Cool Cat and Sam Pepper.
 

Latest Posts

Back