@HappyCabbie Thanks man. If you hear anybody complaining of this happening to them, can you point them in my direction? Still gathering them nuts, man.
@rozeboosje actually I grabbed a YouTube employee and sat them down in front of this video. Now before I can post what I was told, I have to clear NDA Non Disclosure. However, I can tell you that a YouTube staff member has seen this video. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do a video about this as it would just flood my Inbox. I need to find out more of what I can disclose of what I was told.
@HappyCabbie That would be great, because I don't care if this takes me one year, or two, or three, or even four. But I will keep on gathering the evidence. Because I'm not willing to let this stand.
@HappyCabbie And no, I won't be making any videos about this, even if only because it's prudent to keep one's cards close to one's chest. Not that this is necessarily a card *yet* ...
@HappyCabbie Let me put it this way, though. If there were a good and valid explanation as to why they feel justified in ignoring a DMCA counter notification there is no reason why this could not be discussed in public. If they feel the need to hide behind a "non-disclosure" agreement with you after explaining to you why they are doing it it only bolsters my suspicion that they are breaking the law. Maybe because they feel it opens the floodgate to *other* litigation, but that's not MY problem.
My case my interest you. Its been over a month and a few days and Youtube haven't processed of forward three counter-notices to the claimants who file DMCA's against my RINGO4LIFE account.
Due to false DMCA my RINGO4LIFE account was suspended and now Youtube is ignoring my counter-claims.
@gulbirk Agreed. I think that in their zeal to protect the latter they got so fanatical that they ended up creating laws that could be abused in 1000 different ways. It's depressing.
I've been trying to file a counter-notice against an old DMCA strike for the past two weeks. I've gotten absolutely no response apart from the one time when my browser's auto-fill function inserted the wrong e-mail address. That one got an immediate response telling me to retry with the correct details.
RRRRAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWRRR!!!!!
Claims and counter claims is none of YT's business, that's the point of the safe harbour clause.
@Danceofmasks Yeah, the content ID matching system is different, and it usually doesn't lead to a strike against your account. I've disputed one or two of those as well in the past, with some success. In one case I contacted the party that laid claim to the video as the video had nothing to do with them, and the claim promptly got removed, only to be recognised by the system *again* [rolleyes]. After that I just shrugged it off. But like I said, the content ID matches don't lead to strikes...
so wait somone flagged my video where there was clearly no copyright material i sent a counter notification to them to get it put back up and no act was taken at all is this what you are refering to
@bowdude21 Yup. That is it, exactly. No response, or this canned response that I got. Anything like that. I need as many occurrences of this BS as I can find, so I can show that this abuse of users is systematic.
It's a matter of grammatical error and symantics. But yes, as far as the law is concerned, it MATTERS, because one word can change the entire meaning of a sentence or case.
So do you actually HAVE a copyright to the content posted? Granted they are supposed to process it as if there is the possibility you do, but if you don't then you're just being petty. This could just be another excuse to sue a large profitable company for some stupid reason that you most likely didn't even have the rights to in the first place. If you DO have the copyright, you are well within your rights to take legal action. I know this may just be a "principle", but thats how the world works
@MAJICB0B While this isn't relevant to the case in hand I would address your question by answering a slightly different one. Imagine you had asked the question "Do you either OWN the copyright for all material used or, where you do not, are you using any 3rd party materials you do use with permission or conform Fair Use provisions as set out in law?" And I would answer that, Yes, I believe my videos are legally sound. Cheers. BTW, "petty" would be the wrong word to use.[more]
@MAJICB0B "Stupid" would be more appropriate. If I believed that claimant had an actual valid claim to make I would be well advised to let the matter lie. But I believe my defense is sound.
@MAJICB0B So you're saying you do have the copyright for everything used to post the video. In that case, Give em hell. And the reason I used the word petty is because it looks like you're just out to get them just because you can, not because you were violated. However, if you do have the right to all materials and resources used, and then they did something like this, then yes your reason is completely justified. But if you have an email, then why not just use it and take action yourself?
@MAJICB0B This is not about the video and my rights to it. This is about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, its Safe Harbor provisions, and YouTube's failure to correctly adhere to the procedures set out in Section 512 of that Act. Because YouTube are not processing my counter notification this process cannot proceed to the next stage. And I'm not suing them on my own because a) I don't have the financial clout and b) I think this affects 1000s of people.
OT: WARNING GERMAN USERS: German law does not recognize the DMCA, specifically the "fair use" clauses. There is no fair use under German law, so even if you're just reposting a single picture to comment on, or allow one in your facebook account or insert one for a second in a video, you're culpable to demands of potentially hundreds of Euros. You need to be ready to provide explicit and detailed written consent by the copyright holder. I am not a lawyer.
@blackwolf1200 on the other hand, if you are a German (or any other foreign) ser and you DO get DMCAed you can happily counter notify exactly because the DMCA actually doesn't apply to you. That should get your video restored in a jiffy. But don't come crying if you then do get presented with a lawsuit in your own jurisdiction. That is, if claimant has the wherewithal to pursue that line of attack. Use your common sense to judge the chances of that happening.
@rozeboosje I'm just saying. For business point-of-view. Who would you think you stand a chance against. A big business, who can afford a great lawyer, or a customer. Yes, it is wrong they are doing this but understandable why they are. I mean you can gather evidence against them and file a lawsuit, but you will A. need a good lawyer, or B. Be your own lawyer, but you need to be a good arguer and need to bring up other cases like the one you will be arranging. That is if i understand correctly.
@lazyperfectionist1 Nope. It's very provincial, this DMCA. It's actually a U.S. Law and I'm in no way bound by it. Check, for example, the case of Shropshire v. Canning where defendant was Canadian. Claimant got laughed out of court.
@lazyperfectionist1 No. What the Canadian *can* do, of course, is use the Safe Harbor provisions that YouTube, being a USA company, is bound by in order to get their hands on the Englishman's personal information. If the Englishman then Counter Notifies, the Canadian has already committed perjury in the USA, but meh. After getting the Englishman's personal details, the Canadian *could* decide to invoke international copyright law in order to get his or her pound of flesh. But [more]
@lazyperfectionist1 they can't sue the Englishman on the basis of the DMCA. They'll have to look for other avenues. Now international copyright is no joke. But it isn't the DMCA either.
@lazyperfectionist1 So the Canadian can file a DMCA claim and *youtube* must still go through the motions of claim and counterclaim, and so on. So in that sense they can still play that nasty little game. But if the Englishman then Counter Notifies, after *that* the Canadian would be laughed out of court if they then tried to nail the Englishman on the basis of the DMCA, a U.S. Law by which neither the Canadian nor the Englishman are bound.
But what avenues as an Irish citizen can you enforce American laws, even if that company is held in America? Who do you call at that point? It sure as hell isn't the Ghost busters.
my beef is this: if you own a site, you can do what you want. But if you own a site AND LAY OUT A TOS AGREEMENT WITH DOS AND DON'TS AND SUCH, you are (GOOGLE) OBLIGATED to abide by your OWN FUCKING TOS! End of story.
@TruthSurge That's true but in this situation that isn't even relevant. TOS and Community Guidelines are things that YouTube can interpret completely at its own discretion (though they shouldn't be surprised to be called hypocritical if their behaviour warrants it), but the interpretation of the LAW is NOT something that YouTube can unilaterally arrogate to itself, no matter how big and powerful Google gets.
@rozeboosje If you have to click the TOS "i agree" button, then Google/YT should be also held accountable for THEIR dos and don'ts that are spelled out in the TOS. But as for copyright law, ultimately, a judge would decide, not google or me or you. Scary thought actually. WM3 - FREE AT LAST! hahahha
@TruthSurge Yes, people tend to forget in this consumer driven contract based world. That all contracts/TOS agreements are binding both ways. Meaning the corporation involved is also legally bound to that contract. They also have to follow it's stipulations. They may try and wriggle out, with expensive lawyers, but contract law is pretty solid. As most of the shady dealings are done in contracts, if the they screw with that they screw with themselves. Maybe remind them of that?
@TruthSurge hello mr. surge, the problem with your theory is they have THE GOD CLAUSE on their side, section 4j of the TOS, to be exact. eg when it comes to the TOS there is no justice, don't even think it; they can do whatever they want.
@floydstinkyboy that's why you never, NEVER represent yourself in a court. Lawyers spend years studying how to lie and bend facts and do unethical things to earn a living. But none of them would admit that, I bet. You can't just argue reasonably. They'll jump up and say OBJECTION, your honor! and spout some technical jargon and now you can't even say what you need in order to make your case. It's why there are millions of laws. So if you get arrested they can really hurt you.
@floydstinkyboy so, I do not really appreciate or look up to the legal system. IMO, it doesn't work very well. Even WITH a contract, one or both parties are going to do stuff against it. Luckily, YT isn't paying my bills so I really couldn't care less if they imploded tomorrow and vanished. I enjoy watching vids and make vids but the fact that they allow abuse of good users who have been on YT for 3 or 4 years... sickens me.
hello there pino. i am curious as to whether the counter notice was a standard counter notice, or was it customized in some fashion? if the latter, then perhaps this message from yourtubes was their standard/robotic response to a nonstandard/(possibly)noncompliant notice?
@floydstinkyboy my bad; it's an expression from this side of the pond. Completely standard. Nothing out of the ordinary. I have seen rejections before, e.g. once they thought an Irish address was "incomplete", but it did say that in the rejection notice and an explanation of how Irish addresses work resolved the misunderstanding.
@panthera50 that's no use to me. Do you at least still have the strike against the account, so you can find out the video IDs and some recollection as to when exactly you filed your counter notification and YouTube point blank refused to process them?
I once had this happen too me. When i was new too YouTube in 2006 i uploaded a mashup of a cartoon from cartoon network. I made sure it wasn't intact ass the original, but they DMCAd me anyway and I've still yet to get it appealed. I've got this very same letter once. This strike now penalizes my ability to use some of YouTube's features, but thee way around that is to make a new account because YouTube is dumb like that.
@rozeboosje I agree mine does too. I do have a second account to take advantage of those features i can't use here though. But i would much rather fix the problem then do that.
@wolfeedarkfang Yup. If it wasn't for YouTube's idiotic system of life-long punishment and refusal to take circumstances into account I wouldn't even have investigated this. Now I found that not only have I a good chance of using "fair use" as a defence but, as this video points out, that YT/Google is actually breaking the law. Go figure.
@luigiferguson you missed a few commas there, however, you are right.
Youtubes popularity was due to the common people jumping on board, not the company existing in the first place. And when business becomes successful it becomes saleable, and when that happens, THE COMMON PEOPLE GET FUCKED!
@rozeboosje instant voice/video chat is more enjoyable than youtube. You'd find if that became really popular MOST of the "personalities" on youtube couldn't cope with the immediacy of communication, and would have to get real jobs.
No one would ever pay attention or even try to bring a lawsuit against such a megacorporation in the fascist states of amerika unless you have ~1000 (three zeros) or MORE people in a class action lawsuit. Its a corporation. Corporations in the US literally get away with murder.
@bamboo4tameshigiri I'm not going to give up until I get chopped down and I'm actually right at that brick wall with my forehead bleeding. Until then, onward.
@smartarse001 I have some time, as for cash.... that's why I am in conversation with a silent party who will not be posting any commentary here - nor are they a YouTube user for that matter ;-)
@rozeboosje "I don't want to talk to these cocksuckers, but you have to. In life you have to do a lot of things you don't fucking want to do. Many times, that's what the fuck life is... one vile fucking task after another. But don't get aggravated, then the enemy has you by the short hair." - Al Swearengen
@rozeboosje "That's right, you asked for it. Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." - Frank Zappa, Heavenly Bank Account.
Here is the catch, under Australian law Youtube/Google can do what they like in regards to this :) So be careful gathering your 'intel' from every Youtuber not under US law.
@fp470 This is not subject to Australian law, but I will keep this in mind for cases when Australians DMCA other Australians, or rather, I'll restrict myself to those cases where the laws of San Bruno, California apply. Thanks for the heads up.
Ok, so Google will refuse to process possibly legitimate counter-notifications but won't refuse to honor blatantly bogus DMCA take-down notices? Could this site fail any harder???
@smartarse001 As they say, the proof is in the pudding. We could *talk* about it until the cows come home, but in the end the decision will be made in a court of law or by other legal means.
@rozeboosje I look forward to seeing this occur. There's certainly an avenue of approach apropos freedom of speech, human rights and fair use argumentation.
@smartarse001 That would only come into play once YT have decided to honour the counter notification and I would finally be in a position to directly deal with claimant. That is the problem here. By their refusal to process the counter notification YT are denying me this course of action. That is why this video focuses on google and its failure to comply with the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA.
@rozeboosje the problems inherent in providing one to one jurisprudence for each and every uploaded then rejected video (as of February 2011, YouTube has 490 million unique users worldwide per month, who rack up an estimated 92 billion page views each month) would require some VERY large call centres with LOTS of people knowledgeable in the relevant laws.
@smartarse001 It's not YouTube's problem. A posts a video. B DMCAs A. A counternotifies B. YouTube reinstates A's video and now it becomes a problem for A and B to fight out between them. YouTube, in the mean time, happily retreats to its "safe harbor", washing its hands off the whole situation. They are no longer involved. YouTube would in fact make its life a helluvalot easier by simply complying here.
@rozeboosje I agree with your sentiment here, but what you are suggesting is that users of this site begin legal wars against each other. Trolls would have a field day! It would become a new industry!
Can you imagine the flux created within the law system to deal with all this? Lawyers would love it, of course, but it would cause chaos.
Above all it ultimately shows the absolute stupidity of the DMCA law to begin with. And you can see why youtube prefers their "safe harbour".
@smartarse001 Every time a person files a DMCA they state, under penalty of perjury, that if push comes to shove they WILL take the issue to a court of law. That train was set in motion when the DMCA was originally filed. How YouTube responds to the DMCA or its counter notification do not change that one little bit. All that YouTube are doing by refusing to process counter notifications is opening *themselves* up to litigation when instead they could leave the whole sorry mess to the disputants.
@rozeboosje ...so your point is valid. But only so because youtube/google is the conduit that the potential legal issue was channelled through. The old phrase "don't shoot the messenger" comes into play...
Perhaps google needs to set up a third party liaison, or crisis management system, to allow conversation between the affected persons. Or maybe they should just take NO action and stick with the current system.
@smartarse001 Ah, but now we're getting to the crux of the matter here. YouTube *should* be that conduit, but right now they are only being that conduit in one of the two prescribed directions. As soon as they stop closing the channel from recipient to claimant I will very gladly drop this issue completely.
@rozeboosje so you are all for mediation. Indeed youtube should have a VERY GOOD REASON for allowing DMCA action, and to disallow spurious DMCA action.
But how this can be done...? I don't have an answer for that. Neither do you.
Do you know what would be really nice (but it'll never happen)...
If all youtubers (or the major ones at least) simply made NO videos for a month, or made a 10 seconds video with a simple text slide that said "FUCK YOU GOOGLE!".
Doing so might send a message so Google that WE ARE THE CONTENT PROVIDERS AND THEY SERVE US.
It is amazing how dictatorial a corporation can be when they have a monopoly on a market. It's as if they are saying, "Yes, we're breaking the law..Don't like it? OK sue the multibillion behemoth that is Google. Money is the only thing that matters, so STFU and do it our way or leave."
The implementation used by YouTube actually favors the claimant to a greater extent than required.
A claim causes the video to be automatically removed within minutes, but a counter-claim is referred to the claimant and then given 10-14 days to await their due diligence as required by law.
If they fail to do so the content has to be returned and can be taken down again later if the claimant responds after that time.
@rozeboosje ...also I agree that they should not act as judge, jury & executioner (or deleter of a video due to supposed copyright issues), but youtube is theirs and consequentially we are all their bitch. Terms of service, my man.
The realisation that you are just some big companies bitch may not be comforting, but as least you know where you stand.
@smartarse001 compliance with section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is NOT contingent upon a site's "TOS". A site's TOS will *always* remain subordinate to the actual law. That's all I can tell you right now.
@rozeboosje the net is not the place it once was. Corporate interests will destroy the fun and it will end up like TV, radio, print, sex, drugs, rock n roll.
I thumbed up this video
HappyCabbie 5 months ago
@HappyCabbie Thanks man. If you hear anybody complaining of this happening to them, can you point them in my direction? Still gathering them nuts, man.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@rozeboosje actually I grabbed a YouTube employee and sat them down in front of this video. Now before I can post what I was told, I have to clear NDA Non Disclosure. However, I can tell you that a YouTube staff member has seen this video. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do a video about this as it would just flood my Inbox. I need to find out more of what I can disclose of what I was told.
HappyCabbie 5 months ago
@HappyCabbie That would be great, because I don't care if this takes me one year, or two, or three, or even four. But I will keep on gathering the evidence. Because I'm not willing to let this stand.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@HappyCabbie And no, I won't be making any videos about this, even if only because it's prudent to keep one's cards close to one's chest. Not that this is necessarily a card *yet* ...
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@HappyCabbie Let me put it this way, though. If there were a good and valid explanation as to why they feel justified in ignoring a DMCA counter notification there is no reason why this could not be discussed in public. If they feel the need to hide behind a "non-disclosure" agreement with you after explaining to you why they are doing it it only bolsters my suspicion that they are breaking the law. Maybe because they feel it opens the floodgate to *other* litigation, but that's not MY problem.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
My case my interest you. Its been over a month and a few days and Youtube haven't processed of forward three counter-notices to the claimants who file DMCA's against my RINGO4LIFE account.
Due to false DMCA my RINGO4LIFE account was suspended and now Youtube is ignoring my counter-claims.
Check your PM.
RINGOTVHD 5 months ago
This question came to my mind.
Is it not fascism when someone decides what you can or cant say?
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Of course, though in fairness copyright disputes normally aren't about stopping something from saying something. False DMCAs excepted.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@rozeboosje Yeah well ok.
But I still think that Copy right laws are to some extent bullshit.
If I make something, I dont give a shit if someone show that to others are responds to it, or whatever.
The only thing I would object to is someone else presenting it as their material.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Agreed. I think that in their zeal to protect the latter they got so fanatical that they ended up creating laws that could be abused in 1000 different ways. It's depressing.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
I've been trying to file a counter-notice against an old DMCA strike for the past two weeks. I've gotten absolutely no response apart from the one time when my browser's auto-fill function inserted the wrong e-mail address. That one got an immediate response telling me to retry with the correct details.
RRRRAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWRRR!!!!!
Claims and counter claims is none of YT's business, that's the point of the safe harbour clause.
notinmyname2050 6 months ago
@notinmyname2050 cheers. Please send me a PM detailing the video URL(s) and when you counter notified.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
The only copyright issues I've had were due to the automated system (not people flagging, but youtube's programs figuring out stuff).
The counterclaims I lodged (vs clearly incorrect results) got looked at eventually, but it took a long time.
Almost three months for one video.
Danceofmasks 6 months ago
@Danceofmasks Yeah, the content ID matching system is different, and it usually doesn't lead to a strike against your account. I've disputed one or two of those as well in the past, with some success. In one case I contacted the party that laid claim to the video as the video had nothing to do with them, and the claim promptly got removed, only to be recognised by the system *again* [rolleyes]. After that I just shrugged it off. But like I said, the content ID matches don't lead to strikes...
rozeboosje 6 months ago
so wait somone flagged my video where there was clearly no copyright material i sent a counter notification to them to get it put back up and no act was taken at all is this what you are refering to
bowdude21 6 months ago
@bowdude21 Yup. That is it, exactly. No response, or this canned response that I got. Anything like that. I need as many occurrences of this BS as I can find, so I can show that this abuse of users is systematic.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@bowdude21 As long as it is based on you filing a Counter Notification to a DMCA, and YouTube NOT honouring it.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
It's a matter of grammatical error and symantics. But yes, as far as the law is concerned, it MATTERS, because one word can change the entire meaning of a sentence or case.
TempleOfInanna2 6 months ago
@TempleOfInanna2 Absolutely.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
So do you actually HAVE a copyright to the content posted? Granted they are supposed to process it as if there is the possibility you do, but if you don't then you're just being petty. This could just be another excuse to sue a large profitable company for some stupid reason that you most likely didn't even have the rights to in the first place. If you DO have the copyright, you are well within your rights to take legal action. I know this may just be a "principle", but thats how the world works
MAJICB0B 6 months ago
@MAJICB0B While this isn't relevant to the case in hand I would address your question by answering a slightly different one. Imagine you had asked the question "Do you either OWN the copyright for all material used or, where you do not, are you using any 3rd party materials you do use with permission or conform Fair Use provisions as set out in law?" And I would answer that, Yes, I believe my videos are legally sound. Cheers. BTW, "petty" would be the wrong word to use.[more]
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@MAJICB0B "Stupid" would be more appropriate. If I believed that claimant had an actual valid claim to make I would be well advised to let the matter lie. But I believe my defense is sound.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@MAJICB0B So you're saying you do have the copyright for everything used to post the video. In that case, Give em hell. And the reason I used the word petty is because it looks like you're just out to get them just because you can, not because you were violated. However, if you do have the right to all materials and resources used, and then they did something like this, then yes your reason is completely justified. But if you have an email, then why not just use it and take action yourself?
MAJICB0B 6 months ago
@MAJICB0B This is not about the video and my rights to it. This is about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, its Safe Harbor provisions, and YouTube's failure to correctly adhere to the procedures set out in Section 512 of that Act. Because YouTube are not processing my counter notification this process cannot proceed to the next stage. And I'm not suing them on my own because a) I don't have the financial clout and b) I think this affects 1000s of people.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
OT: WARNING GERMAN USERS: German law does not recognize the DMCA, specifically the "fair use" clauses. There is no fair use under German law, so even if you're just reposting a single picture to comment on, or allow one in your facebook account or insert one for a second in a video, you're culpable to demands of potentially hundreds of Euros. You need to be ready to provide explicit and detailed written consent by the copyright holder. I am not a lawyer.
blackwolf1200 6 months ago
@blackwolf1200 on the other hand, if you are a German (or any other foreign) ser and you DO get DMCAed you can happily counter notify exactly because the DMCA actually doesn't apply to you. That should get your video restored in a jiffy. But don't come crying if you then do get presented with a lawsuit in your own jurisdiction. That is, if claimant has the wherewithal to pursue that line of attack. Use your common sense to judge the chances of that happening.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
I take it that's what you rcently recieved forthe vid youve been workig on getting back?
tyrongkojy 6 months ago
@tyrongkojy Yes, for the 20th time or so.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje Yeah,this is clearly breaking the law.
tyrongkojy 6 months ago
Yea but they have better chances of getting sewed by big businesses then us.
runeflame16 6 months ago
@runeflame16 Not if I can gather evidence that 100s if not 1000s of people have been receiving these rejections.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I'm just saying. For business point-of-view. Who would you think you stand a chance against. A big business, who can afford a great lawyer, or a customer. Yes, it is wrong they are doing this but understandable why they are. I mean you can gather evidence against them and file a lawsuit, but you will A. need a good lawyer, or B. Be your own lawyer, but you need to be a good arguer and need to bring up other cases like the one you will be arranging. That is if i understand correctly.
runeflame16 6 months ago
@runeflame16 Let me worry about that.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Which authorities are responsible for enforcing the laws this violates?
lazyperfectionist1 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 I think all these are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in San Bruno, California.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I would think it must, surely, be a matter of international law, which requires an international authority of some sort.
lazyperfectionist1 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Nope. It's very provincial, this DMCA. It's actually a U.S. Law and I'm in no way bound by it. Check, for example, the case of Shropshire v. Canning where defendant was Canadian. Claimant got laughed out of court.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje So then there is no way for a Canadian to file a DMCA against an Englishman?
lazyperfectionist1 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 No. What the Canadian *can* do, of course, is use the Safe Harbor provisions that YouTube, being a USA company, is bound by in order to get their hands on the Englishman's personal information. If the Englishman then Counter Notifies, the Canadian has already committed perjury in the USA, but meh. After getting the Englishman's personal details, the Canadian *could* decide to invoke international copyright law in order to get his or her pound of flesh. But [more]
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 they can't sue the Englishman on the basis of the DMCA. They'll have to look for other avenues. Now international copyright is no joke. But it isn't the DMCA either.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 So the Canadian can file a DMCA claim and *youtube* must still go through the motions of claim and counterclaim, and so on. So in that sense they can still play that nasty little game. But if the Englishman then Counter Notifies, after *that* the Canadian would be laughed out of court if they then tried to nail the Englishman on the basis of the DMCA, a U.S. Law by which neither the Canadian nor the Englishman are bound.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje So this is all because of where YouTube's headquarters happens to be?
lazyperfectionist1 6 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 or the judiciary they defer to.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
But what avenues as an Irish citizen can you enforce American laws, even if that company is held in America? Who do you call at that point? It sure as hell isn't the Ghost busters.
TheAtheistPaladin 6 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin There are a few organisations that can be helpful there ;-)
rozeboosje 6 months ago
my beef is this: if you own a site, you can do what you want. But if you own a site AND LAY OUT A TOS AGREEMENT WITH DOS AND DON'TS AND SUCH, you are (GOOGLE) OBLIGATED to abide by your OWN FUCKING TOS! End of story.
TruthSurge 6 months ago
@TruthSurge That's true but in this situation that isn't even relevant. TOS and Community Guidelines are things that YouTube can interpret completely at its own discretion (though they shouldn't be surprised to be called hypocritical if their behaviour warrants it), but the interpretation of the LAW is NOT something that YouTube can unilaterally arrogate to itself, no matter how big and powerful Google gets.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje If you have to click the TOS "i agree" button, then Google/YT should be also held accountable for THEIR dos and don'ts that are spelled out in the TOS. But as for copyright law, ultimately, a judge would decide, not google or me or you. Scary thought actually. WM3 - FREE AT LAST! hahahha
TruthSurge 6 months ago
@TruthSurge Yes, people tend to forget in this consumer driven contract based world. That all contracts/TOS agreements are binding both ways. Meaning the corporation involved is also legally bound to that contract. They also have to follow it's stipulations. They may try and wriggle out, with expensive lawyers, but contract law is pretty solid. As most of the shady dealings are done in contracts, if the they screw with that they screw with themselves. Maybe remind them of that?
Christopholaes 6 months ago
@TruthSurge hello mr. surge, the problem with your theory is they have THE GOD CLAUSE on their side, section 4j of the TOS, to be exact. eg when it comes to the TOS there is no justice, don't even think it; they can do whatever they want.
floydstinkyboy 6 months ago
@floydstinkyboy that's why you never, NEVER represent yourself in a court. Lawyers spend years studying how to lie and bend facts and do unethical things to earn a living. But none of them would admit that, I bet. You can't just argue reasonably. They'll jump up and say OBJECTION, your honor! and spout some technical jargon and now you can't even say what you need in order to make your case. It's why there are millions of laws. So if you get arrested they can really hurt you.
TruthSurge 6 months ago
@floydstinkyboy so, I do not really appreciate or look up to the legal system. IMO, it doesn't work very well. Even WITH a contract, one or both parties are going to do stuff against it. Luckily, YT isn't paying my bills so I really couldn't care less if they imploded tomorrow and vanished. I enjoy watching vids and make vids but the fact that they allow abuse of good users who have been on YT for 3 or 4 years... sickens me.
TruthSurge 6 months ago
hello there pino. i am curious as to whether the counter notice was a standard counter notice, or was it customized in some fashion? if the latter, then perhaps this message from yourtubes was their standard/robotic response to a nonstandard/(possibly)noncompliant notice?
floydstinkyboy 6 months ago
@floydstinkyboy it was bog standard.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje sorry pino, i know not what that means. "bog" ??
floydstinkyboy 6 months ago
@floydstinkyboy my bad; it's an expression from this side of the pond. Completely standard. Nothing out of the ordinary. I have seen rejections before, e.g. once they thought an Irish address was "incomplete", but it did say that in the rejection notice and an explanation of how Irish addresses work resolved the misunderstanding.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
I find it funny how in this video you're using gmail :P
snaredrums123 6 months ago
@snaredrums123 I also uploaded this video on YouTube. If I didn't give a fuck I would just walk away. But I do.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Great. ;-)
Got a few, threw them in the junkbox. LOL
panthera50 6 months ago
@panthera50 that's no use to me. Do you at least still have the strike against the account, so you can find out the video IDs and some recollection as to when exactly you filed your counter notification and YouTube point blank refused to process them?
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje No strikes, just a few copyright warnings, but I just let them be.
Er gebeurd blijkbaar niets mee.
panthera50 6 months ago
@panthera50 Oh *those*. They are "Content ID Matches", and they are an entirely different kettle of fish.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje oki zoute haring dus. ;-)
panthera50 6 months ago
I once had this happen too me. When i was new too YouTube in 2006 i uploaded a mashup of a cartoon from cartoon network. I made sure it wasn't intact ass the original, but they DMCAd me anyway and I've still yet to get it appealed. I've got this very same letter once. This strike now penalizes my ability to use some of YouTube's features, but thee way around that is to make a new account because YouTube is dumb like that.
wolfeedarkfang 6 months ago
@wolfeedarkfang As* typo :P
wolfeedarkfang 6 months ago
@wolfeedarkfang this account dates back to 2006. I don't want to throw it all away.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I agree mine does too. I do have a second account to take advantage of those features i can't use here though. But i would much rather fix the problem then do that.
wolfeedarkfang 6 months ago
@wolfeedarkfang Yup. If it wasn't for YouTube's idiotic system of life-long punishment and refusal to take circumstances into account I wouldn't even have investigated this. Now I found that not only have I a good chance of using "fair use" as a defence but, as this video points out, that YT/Google is actually breaking the law. Go figure.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Git em! :)
ravenslaves 6 months ago
@ravenslaves [shakes fist at sky]
rozeboosje 6 months ago
read the accept letter next time you join something. (in this case, youtube acc agreement, 3rd page).
afghanrebel1 6 months ago
@afghanrebel1 you can't sign your rights away, nor can anybody wriggle oneself out of a legal obligation by contractual jiggery pokery. Next moron.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
5 google legal dept. employees did not like this video
Paxmax 6 months ago
@Paxmax ROFL
rozeboosje 6 months ago
GOOGLE IS THE LAW!
m4kk393 6 months ago
@m4kk393 not yet.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I AM ABOVE THE LAW! *south park reference*
xenariz 6 months ago
@xenariz hehe
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@xenariz Judge Dredd comes too mind as well lol.
"I am... the lawh!!!"
wolfeedarkfang 6 months ago
@wolfeedarkfang judas priest - breaking the law :DD
xenariz 6 months ago
And with that acid topicality, I shall bid you adieu.
smartarse001 6 months ago
If Google owns the site, they can do what they damn well please with your content. In reality Google owns it.
kikook222 6 months ago
@kikook222 Off topic. Goodbye.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
I believe in world peace.
Halk433 6 months ago
@Halk433 Thank you, Miss Congeniality.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje MOAR LIEK MISS CONGENITAL HERPES, AMIRITE!!!!1ONE1!
smartarse001 6 months ago
@Halk433 I believe in world war.
smartarse001 6 months ago
... because its happened, at least twice, so far.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 hippie!
Halk433 6 months ago
@Halk433 the word you were looking for was "realist".
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Maybe i was looking for Hippie, thats why i typed it. Protip of the day: Sarcasm
Halk433 6 months ago
@Halk433 yer alright by me little fella. Keep it up, one day, just one day, you'll be awesome.
;>)
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Don't need your aproval 'Old Man'.
Halk433 6 months ago
@Halk433 oh yes you do.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@luigiferguson you missed a few commas there, however, you are right.
Youtubes popularity was due to the common people jumping on board, not the company existing in the first place. And when business becomes successful it becomes saleable, and when that happens, THE COMMON PEOPLE GET FUCKED!
Myspace was replaced with Facebook.
Eventually youtube will be replaced too.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Can't wait for that to happen.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje instant voice/video chat is more enjoyable than youtube. You'd find if that became really popular MOST of the "personalities" on youtube couldn't cope with the immediacy of communication, and would have to get real jobs.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 LOL - no comment
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@luigiferguson A long time ago.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
No one would ever pay attention or even try to bring a lawsuit against such a megacorporation in the fascist states of amerika unless you have ~1000 (three zeros) or MORE people in a class action lawsuit. Its a corporation. Corporations in the US literally get away with murder.
bamboo4tameshigiri 6 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri I'm not going to give up until I get chopped down and I'm actually right at that brick wall with my forehead bleeding. Until then, onward.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje you must have a lot of time on your hands, and/or a lot of cash in the bank.
Lend me a tenner!
:)
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 I have some time, as for cash.... that's why I am in conversation with a silent party who will not be posting any commentary here - nor are they a YouTube user for that matter ;-)
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje watch my videos. I'm better than you.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 I'm happy for you.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje happiness is an aberrant state of mind.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Story of my life.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje "I don't want to talk to these cocksuckers, but you have to. In life you have to do a lot of things you don't fucking want to do. Many times, that's what the fuck life is... one vile fucking task after another. But don't get aggravated, then the enemy has you by the short hair." - Al Swearengen
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 True. But don't bend over unnecessarily either ;-)
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje "That's right, you asked for it. Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." - Frank Zappa, Heavenly Bank Account.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 The great Zappa. May he rest in peace. Observe with me a moment's silence in remembrance of Him.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I'd rather remember the man by listening to his music, which was what brought it up in the first place. One wise monkey.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 I only asked for a moment. Now put on Apostrophe'
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje noooooooo, Hot Rats... Peaches En Regalia... I can listen to that track on a loop for about 8 hours. Musical genius at work.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 it's all good...
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje More linear than some of his more abstract jazz work.
smartarse001 6 months ago
i doubt its google
RGwhelan15 6 months ago
@RGwhelan15 It is. Next.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje intriguing.
RGwhelan15 6 months ago
@RGwhelan15 Very.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
If the content is against YouTube's rules, Google has the right. You was breaking the law in that case, not Google.
TheCapdevillaTV 6 months ago
@TheCapdevillaTV It isn't. Next.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje Stop saying ''Next'' fucktard.
007super6 6 months ago
@007super6 I have a different word for you, sweetheart: Blocked.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Here is the catch, under Australian law Youtube/Google can do what they like in regards to this :) So be careful gathering your 'intel' from every Youtuber not under US law.
fp470 6 months ago
@fp470 This is not subject to Australian law, but I will keep this in mind for cases when Australians DMCA other Australians, or rather, I'll restrict myself to those cases where the laws of San Bruno, California apply. Thanks for the heads up.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Ok, so Google will refuse to process possibly legitimate counter-notifications but won't refuse to honor blatantly bogus DMCA take-down notices? Could this site fail any harder???
stefzula 6 months ago
@stefzula The mind boggles
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Who the fuck cares.
DJLarZ 6 months ago
@DJLarZ People who wish not to be the victims of felons.
TheDoctorMouse 6 months ago
@TheDoctorMouse Quite. And that troll is blocked. I'm not here to discuss this issue with morons.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje sadly you don't have a viable case.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 I'm not discussing that with YOU
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje that maybe the case, but you still don't have a viable case.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 You will not decide that either. And if you like getting your ass blocked, repeat yourself one more time.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje well you're angry, and I respect that. Good luck.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 As they say, the proof is in the pudding. We could *talk* about it until the cows come home, but in the end the decision will be made in a court of law or by other legal means.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I look forward to seeing this occur. There's certainly an avenue of approach apropos freedom of speech, human rights and fair use argumentation.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 That would only come into play once YT have decided to honour the counter notification and I would finally be in a position to directly deal with claimant. That is the problem here. By their refusal to process the counter notification YT are denying me this course of action. That is why this video focuses on google and its failure to comply with the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje the problems inherent in providing one to one jurisprudence for each and every uploaded then rejected video (as of February 2011, YouTube has 490 million unique users worldwide per month, who rack up an estimated 92 billion page views each month) would require some VERY large call centres with LOTS of people knowledgeable in the relevant laws.
The logistics are staggering.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 It's not YouTube's problem. A posts a video. B DMCAs A. A counternotifies B. YouTube reinstates A's video and now it becomes a problem for A and B to fight out between them. YouTube, in the mean time, happily retreats to its "safe harbor", washing its hands off the whole situation. They are no longer involved. YouTube would in fact make its life a helluvalot easier by simply complying here.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje I agree with your sentiment here, but what you are suggesting is that users of this site begin legal wars against each other. Trolls would have a field day! It would become a new industry!
Can you imagine the flux created within the law system to deal with all this? Lawyers would love it, of course, but it would cause chaos.
Above all it ultimately shows the absolute stupidity of the DMCA law to begin with. And you can see why youtube prefers their "safe harbour".
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Every time a person files a DMCA they state, under penalty of perjury, that if push comes to shove they WILL take the issue to a court of law. That train was set in motion when the DMCA was originally filed. How YouTube responds to the DMCA or its counter notification do not change that one little bit. All that YouTube are doing by refusing to process counter notifications is opening *themselves* up to litigation when instead they could leave the whole sorry mess to the disputants.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje ...so your point is valid. But only so because youtube/google is the conduit that the potential legal issue was channelled through. The old phrase "don't shoot the messenger" comes into play...
Perhaps google needs to set up a third party liaison, or crisis management system, to allow conversation between the affected persons. Or maybe they should just take NO action and stick with the current system.
I'd go with the latter.
Some people take the net too seriously.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Ah, but now we're getting to the crux of the matter here. YouTube *should* be that conduit, but right now they are only being that conduit in one of the two prescribed directions. As soon as they stop closing the channel from recipient to claimant I will very gladly drop this issue completely.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje so you are all for mediation. Indeed youtube should have a VERY GOOD REASON for allowing DMCA action, and to disallow spurious DMCA action.
But how this can be done...? I don't have an answer for that. Neither do you.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Thus I won the argument. Special Olympics internet style. HEEEEEEEERP DEEEEEEEERP!
smartarse001 6 months ago
Lets all wear hoodies and go around smashing up channels and stealing videos!
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 ROFL
rozeboosje 6 months ago
... whos with me, we'll arrange our raids on Facefuck and burn the innernets down!
smartarse001 6 months ago
Do you know what would be really nice (but it'll never happen)...
If all youtubers (or the major ones at least) simply made NO videos for a month, or made a 10 seconds video with a simple text slide that said "FUCK YOU GOOGLE!".
Doing so might send a message so Google that WE ARE THE CONTENT PROVIDERS AND THEY SERVE US.
But that's not going to happen, so fuck it.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Oh, that's been tried and dutifully ignored.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje ... jep, like herding cats... you just waste your time and annoy the cats.
smartarse001 6 months ago
It is amazing how dictatorial a corporation can be when they have a monopoly on a market. It's as if they are saying, "Yes, we're breaking the law..Don't like it? OK sue the multibillion behemoth that is Google. Money is the only thing that matters, so STFU and do it our way or leave."
2bsirius 6 months ago
@2bsirius That would be one cynical interpretation of what is going on alright. Cynics sometimes turn out to be right, though :(
rozeboosje 6 months ago
YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!! * starts punching my computer*
chaoskings35 6 months ago
@chaoskings35 I don't think your computer is in any way to blame for this.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje i had a google page up lol
chaoskings35 6 months ago
@danielcomments
...cont
The implementation used by YouTube actually favors the claimant to a greater extent than required.
A claim causes the video to be automatically removed within minutes, but a counter-claim is referred to the claimant and then given 10-14 days to await their due diligence as required by law.
If they fail to do so the content has to be returned and can be taken down again later if the claimant responds after that time.
The wording of the law is available online.
DeathofSpeech 6 months ago
Fucking criminals -.-
V0r4xiz 6 months ago
@V0r4xiz [shakes fist like a grumpy old man] [stops] [realisation dawning] whatyamean"like"?
rozeboosje 6 months ago
Google can suck my dick.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think it's going to help me at this juncture XD
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje well I thought it would have helped.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 Well, it *did* cheer me up a little bit :-)
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje ...also I agree that they should not act as judge, jury & executioner (or deleter of a video due to supposed copyright issues), but youtube is theirs and consequentially we are all their bitch. Terms of service, my man.
The realisation that you are just some big companies bitch may not be comforting, but as least you know where you stand.
smartarse001 6 months ago
@smartarse001 compliance with section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is NOT contingent upon a site's "TOS". A site's TOS will *always* remain subordinate to the actual law. That's all I can tell you right now.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje the net is not the place it once was. Corporate interests will destroy the fun and it will end up like TV, radio, print, sex, drugs, rock n roll.
Regulated to death!
smartarse001 6 months ago