Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamtedd | Hacker News Reader

In this case it was an actual DMCA notice, not ContentID. Real people were involved in this incomprehensible decision.

Which is why it’s all the more important to point out. While this was a DMCA, almost all the normal litany of egregious YouTube copyright stories are from the ContentID program and are beyond any real ability to appeal or legally reconcile. There is no fair use or other affirmative defence… you will bend the knee to YouTube at behest of the so named copyright holder or face the wrath of Google…. All of Google for you never know what else your YouTube account might be connect too… do you dare risk it serf?…

They are quite luck to have the full DMCA process, as unpleasant and costly as it all is for them, at all! Most are not so lucky.

> almost all the normal litany of egregious YouTube copyright stories are from the ContentID program and are beyond any real ability to appeal or legally reconcile

That is factually incorrect.

Content ID claims can be appealed to the claimant. If that appeal is rejected, the person who posted the content can contest the claim. Doing so forces the rights holder to either drop the claim, or file a DMCA takedown.

I am a full-time YouTuber. I have recently done what I just wrote. It's nothing new.

Perhaps slightly hyperbolic… but the perception I had garnered from the content producers I’d seen talk about it, is that the 10 day counter notice period is long enough that the majority of content producers cannot take the risk with time relevant content or live streamed content.

In addition the percentage of people unwilling to risk the legal complications of defending a full fair use court fight, as it is an affirmative defence relying on courts with the USA as the jurisdiction is a widely chilling effect on overseas content producers. If they don’t back down you need to be prepared to deal with American courts and lawyers. Sure they back down some of the time but a lot of people don’t even want to risk it or aren’t even sure how firmly they are in fair use territory and that’s not even brining into the equation how many people misunderstand fair use exemptions and just how might right to reuse content under fair use they actually have and who may be inadvertently risking significant legal exposure should they try to press invalid fair use claims.

I did misspeak, but ContentID is still the bigger evil than the DMCA.

There is some truth to what you wrote, but instead of getting into the weeds on the details, I'd like to take a step back and remind you of something that you might have already considered: creators have a strong incentive to mislead you about this kind of thing. When people think the little guy is getting financially shafted by The Man, they are more likely to do things like sign up for that channel's Patreon page, or join their membership program.

I see a lot of this, including by very large channels who know what they are doing and should know better. And it seems to be an increasing trend. I don't like it.

The first time I became aware of YouTube tightening the screws on Content ID by YouTubers complaining about it was already in 2013 though, Patreon had barely been created by then (though some of its competitors like Flattr, were older).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com