3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copyright violation
twitter.com
twitter.com
" Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction. "
Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation; the latter calls for being stamped out.
I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube themselves don't give a shit.
3Blue1Brown's logo is (probably) copyrightable, but the TED or Veritasium channel logos are (probably) not. If it could be claimed to be derivative of some other work, public domain or not, you may not fully own the copyright either. In general, it can be a big fuzzy grey area that needs a court to decide fully. Meanwhile, a trademark infringement would be easy to show.
Youtube implemented this system as part of a lawsuit with Viacom who was going to take them to the cleaners. Putting all the power in the hands of the people making the claim was intentional.
If someone's video gets taken down incorrectly and then later put back up, Google does not care, someone else's video got the ad slots anyway. There's more content on Youtube uploaded every second than can be watched.
And in the process of playing ‘police’ they end up taking down one of the best videos explaining how Bitcoin works.
Start a rumor amongst a couple hundred crypto bros that no one else pays attention to.
So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?
This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.
so toothless also.
That effectively means nothing if every copyright lawyer eventually gets one.
In fact, I personally bet that it would be treated as a dividing mark between a newbie copyright lawyer & a professional copyright lawyer.
Probably not. Youtube has their own system which is not DMCA claim based.
That is my understanding too. We do not have a disagreement on that.
> he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown
Here is where we disagree. A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.
The DMCA takedown process as described in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Title II. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act provides more rights for the content owner whose work got maliciously or mistakenly taken down. They have access to a counter notification process and §512(f) makes those who knowingly materially misrepresent content as infringing liable for damages. You don't have the same rights and affordances with the youtube copyright notification system.
It is similar. If you squint it looks the same. But it is not the same.
Yes it is. YouTube doesn’t magically get to ignore the DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with layering Content ID on top to allow for a middle ground where videos can stay up but redirect some or all monetization to the copyright holder).
If you click through the link I posted above, you’ll get to this page which shows the complete process, including the counter-notification step: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830 Do you have reason to believe 3blue1brown can’t file a counter-notification in this case?
(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer [...]
IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own or aren't authorized to protect.
See: Sports gambling, prediction markets, pay-later apps. Gamified finance in general encourages risky behavior.
We periodically become very aware of this. See financial news in 1893, 1901, 1907, 1910, 1914, 1920, 1937, 1949, 1953, 1961, 1970, 1973, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2011, and so on and so on.
It's almost as if a zero-sum, value neutral industry controlling the bulk of world finance is inherently a very very bad idea.
If they go to infinite or to zero, they still produce zero.
Also you don't seem to see that something that stores your economic value better than anything else (the "infinite" outcome) would be of great value to your life.
If you think about it, the "economic" value is just the market trying to discover what everyone value in life.
> Also you don't seem to see that something that stores your economic value better than anything else (the "infinite" outcome) would be of great value to your life.
Finding a cure for cancer will be infinite value and most people will give anything for it - including all Bitcoins in the world. This - finding the cure of cancer - is the way better store of value than anything. The reverse is not true.
Economic value = supply / demand.
Do you value air?
It's worthless. I wouldn't buy a litre of air for even a penny. But put me at the bottom of the sea, out of oxygen (i.e. no supply), and I'd give you everything I have for it.
The fiction is that the market is an infinitely rational representation of value, denominated in the same units humans buy food and shelter with, and generally correlated with their ability to do so. But it seems "the economy" has less and less to do with life on the ground.
Its equal to demand (in £) divided by supply (kg/gallon/BTC etc).
Market oscillations are all based in practical reality, but if they don't make sense, you're just not aware of their cause. For example, multiple traders around the world simultaneously buying /selling with high leverage according to obscure technical analysis of the price chart.
What distorts everything is that the value of what we measure economic value in is itself devalued by 50% every decade through supply inflation. Economic value over time != price over time.
Everyone's been told to trust the system, the market knows best. At this rate, I don't think they will continue to do indefinitely.
Trust what system exactly?
If there was no poverty, there would be no motivation to work and build a roof over your head or grow crops to make bread. Unfortunately, the funny money that I show in the graph means that it's not a fair playing field.
If you want to fix the world, fix the money. The world is desperately in need of a digital money that can't be created with no effort, and by just a few select people (i.e. banks). The money we're using is toxic.
>If there was no poverty, there would be no motivation to work and build a roof over your head or grow crops to make bread.
The motivation would be to maintain one’s station, whether that station were impoverished or rich. Most of America isn’t in poverty, yet still works hard to try and achieve higher status, greater luxury, etc.
>the money we’re using is toxic
Is this the root cause behind productivity gains not going to workers for the last five decades? Genuine question, cause that’s the main issue I see.
Poverty is relative, but I do recognise the distinction between needs (survival) and wants.
> Is this the root cause behind productivity gains not going to workers for the last five decades? Genuine question, cause that’s the main issue I see.
Yes! Absolutely. I believe it's the primary mechanism that's behind the enormous gains in efficiency going to the rich rather than the general population.
It's a deep subject, but to try and summarise as best I can: Every decade in the USA the banking system and government combined creates double the currency out of thin air (in the form of loans) and charge interest on it [https://imgur.com/a/1ljSLgA]. The deal is that they must destroy the money when it's repaid. By keeping interest rates below the natural free market rate, they both monopolise lending and incentivise borrowing and so the total borrowed just keeps increasing over time. They can still profit enormously because the money they lend is not really theirs and was created out of nothing as the "loan" was made.
This has been going on for decades and sped up in 1971 (wtfhappenedin1971.com) when the dollar was "temporarily" non-redeemable for gold (because of all the money printing they had already done)
Each time the money supply doubles, the value of the monetary unit halves. It works out at about 7% a year over the last 100 years.
It's no coincidence that that's the approximate rate of increase in real-estate prices over the decades. It's not real-estate going up in value - it's that the dollar is falling in value.
Consummables are falling in value at around 5% a year (due to the productivity gains), giving a net price increase of 7-5 = 2%. So if you are getting an annual nominal pay rise of say 2%, you're actually getting a pay cut of 7-2=5%, but "luckily" consumables are falling in value at the same rate, so you can still afford food, a car etc. What you can no longer afford are the things that haven't gone down in value - hard assets like real estate, gold etc. - things that have a relatively constant supply/demand and therefore, value. These are the things that the bankers and their friends buy with all the interest they are collecting.
By giving the entire world a stealth 5% pay cut each year, the banks and those closest to the money printers are stealing away all the productivity gains. Look up the Cantillon Effect. It's a kind of pyramid scheme where the bankers take the main gains, but then reward those who support the system by taking out loans with a cut. Once you realise that the money is devalued at a faster rate than the interest, you can see that you're paying back less economic value than you borrowed, even with interest. The people who really suffer are the savers who have their savings stolen essentially at a rate of 7% minus whatever interest rate they are getting. Obviously pensions are affected too. Anything that's denominated in dollars, pounds, euros etc.
It all started with banks lending out the gold you'd given them to look after, behind your back. A fraud that has grown to monumental proportions. They are now collecting interest on all the money in the world, and they printed it all out of thin air.
Compounding even 3% annual cut in real value adds up to an 80% pay cut over 50 years.
On top of that, the fundamental competition inherent to a free market says that a company with employees that only worked 1 hour per week would be out competed by a company full of employees that worked more than that. (Up to a point, obviously.), so the company can't let it's employees take advantage of increased productivity with a shorter work weeks in order to stay competitive.
Getting rid of fractional reserve banking and inflation isn't going to change those underlying facts of capitalism.
If someone is using your name or your company's name to scam people, it is in your interest to save your name and provide people assurance that they can do business with your name.
Key point being, that you have IP to use in the first place. But the parents' contention is that ChainPatrol and/or their clients don't have such IP, and are merely weaponizing the copyright/trademark takedown process to take down scams, which isn't the same thing.
What you are saying is that these claims never relate to IP and it was only a false positive of malicious intent?
I'm not sure how you got that impression. If you read my previous comment it's pretty clear I only objected on the basis they don't have relevant IP, not on the principle of being able to use IP to issue take down scams.
Most people’s post wouldn’t get looked at at all, 3blue1brown is fortunate to have such a large audience so that his complaint gets looked at by a human.
But according to many replies to that tweet, they were actually working on behalf of actual copyright infringers.
Not sure what to believe.
This will continue happening to smaller channels and creators, and they will continue to have their content stolen.
If you are unsatisfied with our services, please email us at [EMAIL ADDRESS] and we will address your concerns in a prompt and timely manner. [0]
0. https://chainpatrol.io/legal/terms
See also "Fake AI law firms are sending fake DMCA threats to generate fake SEO gains"
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/fake-ai-law-firms-ar...
(I first thought that you redacted in your post)
Pure evil.
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
This is a license to rip off the copyrights of anyone without a million dollars in cash.
The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can be ignored when you are rich and powerful.
Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.
It would be accessible to the common person, but for a mega company making bulk fraudulent claims, it becomes expensive.
I like that system.
I've always wondered about this loophole in that system.
How would you word this clause without people saying "I just hired him, I didn't tell him to speed"?
If you're rich enough you don't need to hurry... And if you do, you take the private jet.
https://xcancel.com/3blue1brown/status/1876291319955398799
This links to independent Nitter to provide a full thread.
(Disclosure: I published this Add-on)
Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.
So maybe it's a ToS violation?
(This isn't defending the person issuing copyright strikes. Their behavior, right or wrong, just isn't perjury. I think. Good thing I'm not anyone's lawyer.)
A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation date, which would have to be manually added in their DB (e.g. Hollywood produced movies).
You can also have leaks of videos before their official release. Admittedly a rare scenario that should can be accounted for in other ways (i.e. skip this check if before upload).
Correct, but in this case we know there was no earlier video anywhere, so the only conclusion to draw is that they simply weren't checking the date at all. If the only "source" video being compared with the "offending" video had a newer upload date, the claim never should have been allowed to happen. If there's truly some external video with an earlier upload date, compare to that.
https://bsky.app/profile/3blue1brown.bsky.social
...but he only posted this to Twitter. Not his own blog, nor bsky, not to his Patreon, or to Reddit - only Twitter. Nitter is always just going to be an echo of Twitter. Discord and Reddit and HN and a personal blog serve different purposes. Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
I think just not engaging with content on Twitter is far more likely to produce that outcome than consuming the content on Nitter.
Nitter is not going to be an echo of twitter, it was a proxy for twitter, and it's already dead.
> Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
Why should anyone be concerned about that? None of the above have shown themselves to be any better stewards of anything than twitter has. They're all objectively mediocre options, (including twitter) and personally identifying with any of them is silly.
It's not dead, xcancel runs on Nitter.
Don't kill what's left of nitter in order to make a pointless statement about twitter being "toxic."
Just don't use any social media. You'll be more healthy and secure.
If you're in a position of influence in an organization that's losing its marbles over AI, please, at the very least encourage others to pump the brakes and think.
If there was ever a time to speak up when you know implementing something will lead to a likely disaster, it's now.
According to this article, it's been happening for a while now: https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans...
Sugggest search query: Youtube copyright fake claim revenue scam.
And the incentives for rectifying this are skewed: video platforms simply need to address individual cases with influential creators just reactively enough so that collective action isn't incentivized; that's far cheaper, and far easier to not need to coordinate with traditional rightsholders, than addressing the problem systematically.
If we believe that the vision of being an independent content creator is important to humanity - and I think it's becoming vital as "a way to distinguish myself" that folks are able to dream about from an early age - then we need to seriously work to protect it. Not everybody will get their "big break" but we can at the very least start having conversations about protecting creators from an AI-driven DMCA bot arbitrarily destroying their career through automated channel-disabling rules.
In concrete terms, a content-creators union might act as a middleman who is able to make all the contents from all its members simultaneously and immediately unavailable on the targeted platforms until some agreement is met or either side gives up.
The explicit goal of copyright is to promote art work. Copyright intends to accomplish this by promising each artist a profitable monopoly over the result of their work. The thinking is that even though an artist isn't paid directly for their labor, they can compel society to pretend their art is a singular object and sell it over and over again as a good. This is why pretentious gallery people refer to paintings and sculptures as individual "works", as if labor itself can be counted with integers. It isn't the instance of art (the copy) they are referring to as "a work": it is the abstract unit of labor and the copyright monopoly (the exclusive right to make another copy) that defines its domain.
Because copyright redefines art as a good, each artist must invest their labor to create "a work". Only then can they leverage copyright to (hopefully) profit from their investment. This is already counterproductive, because the only prospective artists who are free to work are those who can afford the upfront investment of their own labor. Profit from this investment is nowhere near guaranteed, particularly today when the overwhelming majority of publishing goes through a tiny number of corporations.
The most significant problem, though, is the monopoly itself. For copyright to function, an artist must be able to monopolize their "work": not the original copy they made, but the labor itself. In order to do so, the copyright holder must be able to prevent any work that intersects with their own. What this means is that copyright is made of incompatibility. Anyone who wants to collaborate with a work must have explicit permission; otherwise their own labor is illegal by virtue of the presence of someone else's existing work. Copyright demands that the labor of one individual be incompatible with the other.
This incompatibility is what copyright is truly used for. We use copyright to destroy fraudulent copy. We use copyright to fill moats of incompatibility; and drown competition from those who seek to collaborate competitively.
Copyright has been a bad idea from its very inception, but in today's world - where copy itself is practically free, and collaboration requires nearly zero coordination - copyright has become the foundation of the most significant and damaging parts of our society. It's time to start over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
> has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are *repeat infringers*
https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
The differences between these two systems are explained here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including, again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc. with only their internal dispute process mattering.
"Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations
(...)
Sometimes, this may mean the Content ID appeals and counter notification processes won't be available."
In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care: making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be unsustainable.
The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them: most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p YouTube.
I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube management might take seriously.
We can speculate to if the current situation is the natural conclusion of those agreements with major IP holders, or if they simply got religion and now embrace those practices... but at least historically, it wasn't simply management discretion which started them on this path.
I don't dispute there are things they can, and should do, nor do I dispute that their current management of the problem sucks.... but it's not quite as simple as just taking a decision to abide by the DMCA as-is.
There's a `report abuse` button on the right of that page. I used it. (Category: Bullying and Harassment)
Taking down their github isn't even impactful, and forcing github to be a court is playing games instead of using real courts.
Imagine the furor and outrage of that. One of the most popular, meaningful, and impactful channels done in by YouTube's (and the DMCA's) ridiculous policy [1].
The public outcry from this might motivate real policy changes both within Google and other FANNG companies as well as with lawmakers.
Until a big channel gets stricken, this will continue to plague smaller creators with no recourse. We need a symbolic gesture of this magnitude to effectuate real change.
[1] And it's not like YouTube would actually delete their data or we wouldn't have a way to restore it. This is such an important channel that there's no way it wouldn't be restored by Google or archivists.
Does the "3 strikes" policy apply to large channels that bring in a lot of views and ad revenue?
I would not be surprised if Youtube has a team dedicated to keep Mr. Beast happy.
Well, there is a thought which is not helping keep the January blues at bay.
But I think you're vastly overestimate how popular he is compared to other channels that have gotten copyright strikes, or how much YouTube/Google care.
I also don't love YouTube's policy, but are you so confident there's a better policy out there?
I agree it's not enough to directly push policy, but the impact is certainly larger than what the subscriber count might otherwise suggest.
Nothing will happen. Nobody cares about relatively small groups of geeks. People will write angry posts at Youtube, but there's nothing anybody can do.
For example, RZX Archive channel (that hosted replays of ZX Spectrum games) was taken down by fake copyright strikes. Its author died several years ago, so nobody could fix that.
We should create a community-driven abusive botnet that slaps projects like this back, and slaps hard. Because there’s no laws here. No one cares. No order, everything by the word of someone large enough. People should not be afraid of taking law in their hands when there is no law for all practical purposes. And using methods that are available and effective.
If you're a creator it's essential to have your own place on the web were you can host and publish anything without fear that it will be taken down for any reason — even accidentally.
As it becomes cheap to automate both creating takedown requests and processing requests, the volume of spam requests is going to skyrocket and it seems likely there will be more false positives.
Whether creators should depend on YouTube as a practical matter is different from whether they should be able to. As a practical matter, yes, diversifying is safer. But creators and YouTube probably agree that diversifying shouldn’t be necessary.
Of course creators do not know how much money any particular video will make, but the implied social contract has always been that good videos will do well, for some definition of “good”. And no part of that definition of good has anything to do with bots abusing copyright systems.
There is no difference. Google's overt decision to continue operating automated systems that enable this abuse is the cause, and that is unlikely to change because Google does not care. It is cheaper to allow abuse than to change their system (more human intervention and effort). "The purpose of the system is what it does."
If you as a creator decide to operate on a platform where the owner has no intention of changing their automated systems, and therefore this is a potential outcome, you are playing Russian roulette with your income stream (if any). That is a choice. Your income could disappear at any time with no recourse. There is no social contract at play between creators and Google, only Google optimizing for its shareholders.
So the source of truth is just some guy’s long tail GoDaddy-hosted blog?
You built a house on someone else's land, and then they tore it down. Build a house on your own land, as small as that land may be. From there you can create roads, bridges, tunnels to other people's land. On the web land is infinite. You can make your own land.
Also I think the analogy is pretty solid because it clearly illustrates the emergent benefits of being on a large centralized platform rather than a random URL. Land might be infinite but attention and clicks are not.
Farmers don't typically rely on a single farmer's market to sell their product, they participate in many markets, sell wholesale, sell from their farm, and might also have a direct-to-consumer option where they can ship beyond their locality.
Create once, publish everywhere — your land is the canonical source. Markets are for distribution.
Also, many creators already are publishing “everywhere”. YouTube is simply the most profitable. If YouTube income goes away, that ends the business, whether or not it can technically be found elsewhere.
In this analogy, there is only one farmer's market that anyone shows up to. In the real world many farmers may have alternatives, but that is a product of an entire industry spending centuries collectively cultivating those multiple distribution channels.
Replace publisher with newspaper, encyclopedias, etc...
They clearly have responsibility for the content they distribute.
I don't know the last time I actually went to someone's website for video content. Maybe a business, for instructional videos? But those are either inset Youtube videos or are actually annoying to watch.
If the advice is for people to not depend on revenue from their content creation, that might be a fair point. But I feel like the effort of saying that might be better aimed at telling the hosting platforms to not be asses.
(Then again, I don't believe that large social media platforms can be effectively moderated -- so I'm not much help here either. I have no clue how the content creation industry would fit into that world.)
if the content creator can get their channel removed, same thing must apply to the opposite side as well
Tech built on copyright abuse used for copyright trolling? Too early for peak irony of 2025!
Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on?
It is a known con... one often not worth the $50k to extradite and haul them in front of a judge to recover your losses. =3
In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3
>In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not.
I make my living from YouTube and I have never heard of this. Can you point me to evidence of what you are referring to?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s...
https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-settles-lawsuit-with-allege...
https://videogamelaw.allard.ubc.ca/2019/10/18/settlement-bet...
Content ID is just as bad... if not worse... given no one checks for fair-use cases. A lot of old public-domain stock-footage was re-uploaded under dubious conditions, and will get your content auto flagged.
Best of luck =3
> In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
The three links you provided are all about the same, single, extreme case - from seven years ago - that ended with YouTube suing the person who was extorting money.
I still don’t think there is any evidence that extortion of money through abuse of notice-and-takedown is an ongoing pervasive issue.
What made the case exceptional, was the fact they caught the guy and there were legal consequences. Usually, this does not occur... at best it wastes everyone's time, at worse it costs you like any other SLAPP lawsuit.
Best of luck, and check if your commercial insurance covers legal expenses. =3
Note, this is often used for political purposes as well:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-...
https://ifex.org/a-dark-year-for-media-in-belarus-and-slapp-...
YT gives zero Fs about anything not making them money =3
It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a copyright claim, and taken the video down as a consequence. They're just stating facts, they're not making any assertions regarding the accuracy or correctness of the copyright claim, simply stating that it exists.
> Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on?
You seem to misunderstand what free speech means. Free speech means protection from the government from having your speech prevented, or compelled. That same protection extends to companies. To have the government punish YouTube for failing to distribute a video, would itself be violating YouTube's own free speech, and in the US, and clear and obvious violation of the 1st ammendment.
Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean, unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility.
It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230 will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced.
The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is common across the law -- since they function much like states in the provision of universal services, or public spaces.
Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.
There have been plenty of threats by various politicians already, to enforce “neutrality” on entities like YouTube. But a couple of persistent issues keep rearing their ugly heads.
1. How do you determine “political neutrality”? The only way to be truly neutral is to do zero moderation of any content, and nobody is seriously suggesting that’s a good idea.
2. On what basis could YouTube be ruled a utility? If even ISPs aren’t considered utilities, then how on earth can YouTube be a utility? Utilities are services that generally considered as a basic requirement for participating in civil society. It not clear how anyone could consider YouTube such an essential service.
> Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.
In the U.S. such a reading of the first amendment, and the principle of free speech, has been consistently and repeatedly upheld by U.S. courts. Law makers can’t legislate their way around that, they would need to literally change the U.S. constitution. Something that requires a 2/3 majority in both congress and the senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures need to ratify it as well. For better or worse, the U.S. constitution provides no flexibility for the “evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.”
An environment where the U.S. government (and specifically the U.S. government) starts engaging in such aggressive regulation of entities like YouTube, is so distant from current state of free speech in the US, that’s it’s a practically useless argument to consider. So much of the political, legal and social framework of the U.S. will have changed, that it would effectively be an entirely different country and culture to what exists today.
If the org hadn't issued the false claim, the channel wouldn't've had the video taken down. If a channel hits three strikes for it and is nuked in entirety, the lost revenue is even larger.
We need something that frees us from this prison. I still remember when it was normal for youtube videos to play mainstream music in the background. Now draconian enforcement has created this artificial power that people beyond music labels can abuse, and it affects our art adversely. Feels clear to me we need something new that operates in 2024, not from the era where individual movie pirates faced 6-7 figure fines and jail time.
Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant remaining.
Although to be fair,some of that happened before Idiocracy came out.
With the public money used for sports stadiums, that element of the movie to have government sports teams is slowly coming true also.
Further, colleges receive public money but are not free to attend for most students. And I am not talking about "free" from the students perspective, I mean most would not be permitted to enroll if significant tuition dollars were not deposited (unlike public schools, for instance). Also, plenty of colleges are private but have NCAA teams.
I agree that it does wrongly depict poverty as a major indicator of intelligence.
When I watched the movie I laughed and thought it all ridiculous. I've since been shown that having well-intentioned, self-aware, cooperative people in government is probably more important than their intelligence.
Also, Joe seemed genuinely interested in helping everyone, and didn't seem to neglect the needs of significant portions of the population to achieve some ideological goal or another.
Maybe there's such a thing as being too smart to have power.
That being said, it is a society who elected the smartest guy in the world president, and then when a smarter guy came along elected him as the successor.
IMO that is a depiction of some kind of meritocratic utopia - exactly the opposite of what we have, on all accounts mentioned above.
Now honestly it is just a goofy movie premise, and we should not look too far into it, but sometimes it is fun to go full nerd.
When I saw that movie when I was small, I thought that was literally Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Burger King, et al fighting with tanks, etc. Taco Bell emerged victorious after a bloody struggle.
In SnowCrash, I think there were some subplots talking about the fighting was somewhat real between franchises.
And you could become a citizen of a franchise state.
Life imitates art, but it sucks at it.
[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-were-watching...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_2040
> It is the year 2040, all environmental disasters and the economic Resource Wars from the early 21st century have decimated the fragile ecosystem balance of an Earth once teeming with life.
The first part of this episode is near identical to my mental picture of the "franchise wars:"
https://youtu.be/Kg8bPDGmhnU?si=MhzsBy83h8yTi6Ux&t=59
I'm surprised how easy it was for me to figure this out and find confirmation.
From the movie Demolition Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY
Foe those who don't know - which included myself until about 30 seconds ago - this is a reference to the 1993 film Demolition Man.
Crazy times we live in.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/02/04/pizza-war-leaves-mor...
With YouTube video being used as a proxy for credible content on search results..
3 relatively anonymous complaints, in bad faithc can end so much learning and work… without evidence or reply kind of is deterring from having great content on YouTube.
The deterrent to creating good content on YouTube lets the bad content win, except it might not keep the eyeballs for advertising as well or broadly.
I’m not sure if the complainant must be required to contact the channel prior to accepting a dmca complaint? EBay has a built in messaging system, maybe YouTube can too.
Further if there’s ways creators can be protecting their creations before posting they should be built into the workflow, whether it’s registering custom music, etc.
Otherwise the price of success is targetable in an automated fashion to take down a channel if they don’t comply or pay out.
A channel inbox might force behaviour into first creator to creator before escalating straight to too easily triggering things.
Maybe new complainants found to have too many complaints in short order or some other pattern could possibly have to pass much higher kyc requirements to help each other communicate more effectively.
Take a look at Aaron Swartz's case for example, people may be sympathetic to his motives but he still got pursued for a 50 year federal sentence and ended up killing himself.
3b1b is basically a causality in this war of greed.
That would put real consequences on users misusing platforms. Even a small fee for misbehavior would likely curtail vast swathes of bad actors. It would also make companies be less trigger-happy with their bots if such are allowed to operate in that ID framework (i.e. an identifiable bot being punished would be a fee subtracted from the company that uses it).
I pretty much expect that kind of system in the future, otherwise we will just return back to private networks and private communities.
I don't know though, maybe that will prove to be too hard and the bot filled platforms will win. In which case maybe the only way to be safe from the bot armies is to hire a bigger bot army yourself. Fun!
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1yJ41117we/?spm_id_from=333...
Why don't we build a video hosting service served from there, if such a place exists?
The best argument in your favor is that Gmail captured 80% market share. Or that hosting your own mail server is a full-time job. However, this doesn't mean email isn't decentralized.
Many others have said so in the past, but I think it's worth saying again: this isn't true. With a good foundation in system administration, hosting an email server is not a full-time job; it's barely part-time.
I self-host an email server for myself; it has reasonable spam protection plus calendar and contacts synchronization. Gmail, Fastmail, GMX etc. accepts my outgoing emails. It took me around three days full-time to learn everything and set it up (from starting the virtual machine to fully working) and then an hour or two each month after that to keep it maintained. Please feel welcome to say hello with it :)
contact@seabass.systems
At the application layer, email clients (like the Gmail or iOS email app) are typically bundled with a reliance on centralized email hosting (running the mail server) and relying on their centrally-controlled name (@gmail.com, @icloud.com, etc.). This in turn gives the app developers significant leverage against the protocol layer, since they completely control how their users (through their app) interact with the protocol layer.
At the protocol layer, email relies heavily on a de facto reputation system, since any valuable and truly decentralized and permissionless system will have an abundance of spam. The reputation system is used to filter spam and isolate bad actors. This is why running a home email server is not really what this is about: it's about who you need to rely on to have your emails delivered.
The challenge isn't designing a protocol without reliance on any single actor. What's difficult is designing a protocol that can avoid becoming de facto centralized when critical features (like spam prevention, registration, etc.) need to be filled in by agents outside of the protocol.
The crypto people recognize this and that's why they want to build the economics explicitly into their protocols (a critically important part of any protocol; all protocols without exception have economic components whether one recognizes this or not). This is also why they emphasize global consensus and more.
Hacker News and others hate blockchains because they see the scams (which happen in all permissionless systems, and they are even more obvious when the financial components nakedly visible). Yet HN laments when the properties of decentralization that they love and value are lost for seemingly mysterious reasons ("dead internet theory", "enshittification"). The truth is that the reasons are right in front of us.
Surely there's precedent is it not illegal to operate an unmonitored industrial factory
It is not illegal to operate an unmonitored (nonetheless an under-monitored) factory.
This is just a mistaken corporate interest. What about when the state wants very much to hide something?
Best of luck suing the IP racketeers =3
<https://den.dev/blog/be-a-property-owner-not-a-renter-on-the...>
HN discussion: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY>
If you keep working on Maggie's Farm, you'll keep encountering Maggie's rules.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie%27s_Farm>
Rely on YouTube for distribution, for now, but build a home base (or bases) elsewhere which you can fall back on.