Stanley Milgram writes well about how chains of command allow people to pass responsibility to others within networks or hierarchies who then pass responsibility along to others. Responsibility is lost in this process: someone else is always to blame and the buck never stops. Those who see themselves as too low in the pecking order to accept responsibility -- will often pass responsibility to any number of people above them in the hierarchy.
You remind me of Adolf Eichmann. During the second world war Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler telling him that global domination was a bad idea, it might of worked I guess.
I live in the care-home/group home system and I know exacly what You're takling about. I wish I could give you a big kittyhug, Meow. I have a few theories about that DMCA BS. Talk to you soon, Dearest Loreleila, AKA, The Rhinemaiden
I'm glad you understand. Thanks for the virtual hug, and any theories you have would be of interest. I will be replying to your mail very soon dear Serge, it's been a bit chaotic since I got back. So yes, speak to you soon.
It makes me want to put my hair in braids round my head and run around singing the Ride of the Valkyries, but it's as close a nickname to my name here as you can get, so yes, I like it. :)
Hmmm... it seems these corporate yahoos only move after the fact when a law suit is thrust upon them. I wonder if this phenomenon is not a legally proscribed way of doing things, or is it solely a YouTube enacted flaw. I have scant knowledge of DMCA related issues myself.
You know I'm not sure. I wonder if anyone knows if the way this is done is a YT thing or an online practice in general, and a legal system set up without due consideration.
...I myself have experienced the type of crazies you speak of intruding into my zone... without any help from outside forces such as Y.T. giving them my personal info.... To know that such can and wiil be just GIVEN OUT TO WHO OR WHAT... is exactly as you predict ... a ticking time bomb for some poor innocent... on a brighter side...You Glow as always ... Peace be with you and yours... :)
I've emailed them 3 times about the DMCA thing, being the devil's advocate and suggesting that DMCA complaints have a strike system just like offensive videos... such as strikes lasting only 6 months. it's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be the only one they'd take on board. having said that i've emailed them about it 3 times, and the only response i've had is an email telling me which videos of mine have been DMCA'd off youtube. The machine trundles on.
Thank you for opening my eyes to the scariness of the DMCA process, I just thought it was a mechanism for petty nerds in small towns in the US to get their enemies' videos taken down.
As for handing out personal info to nutty folks:
Youtube is in the throes of proceedings for a lawsuit, and they've been ordered to give out ALL of our private information to not just one unbalanced individual, but an entire collective of such crazies... the US Federal Government and the Viacom Corporation.
As for the privacy of our personal information, of course, as far as government agencies are concerned, there is none. We've gone way beyond 1984, sadly.
Yes, if someone has complained about a video and you consider you haven't broken any copyright and want it reinstated they will hand your details out to the complainant. So either you just accept it or protest and have your information given out to whichever unknown it might be.
The problem is that if someone files a DMCA notice they are effectively stating their intent to lake legal action against YouTube is the content is not removed. The person who posted the content has to counter the DMCA claim if they want to prevent it from being removed, which is impossible without giving personal information to the person who made the DMCA complaint.
How else can you prevent malicious use of your material? If someone was to repost my work I would not be bothered, but if they were to credit someone else for it or use it for commercial purposes then I would expect to be able to hold them accountable. For this to happen there has to be some sort of system in place and whatever that is will of course be wide open to abuse.
Maybe the answer is that YouTube should expect the DMCA complainant to prove their identity in some way before they take action, so malicious DMCA complaints filed by Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck would be ignored. Accountability on both sides.
Of course, there should be accountability and responsibility for all, but as it stands malicious and substanceless DCMAs can be sent out without YT even checking they break any copyright and personal details shared without checking the original complainant in any way. I can't think of any other legal procedure which has no requirement or burden of proof, and private information is just that, private. Maybe if they were required to have s solicitor where this info was stored but not handed out?
How can YouTube hand over personal details without consent? You are not required to give any information about yourself to open an account with YouTube. Basically the position of YouTube is to cover themselves. They are not going to make case-by-case judgement calls that will potentially leave themselves open to litigation. The DMCA is probably draughted in a way that is very punative to host sites.
The problem is how to deny anonymity to people who file DMCA complaints. Anyone can lie about their identity in order to file a malicious DMCA complaint.
You'll probably find though that the DMCA law itself would have to be re-draughted to do this (requiring some sort of proof of identity from the complainant before the host site is required to take any action). It was writen with huge media corporations like Disney or EMI in mind.
'You'll probably find though that the DMCA law itself would have to be re-draughted to do this'
Probably, but as you say it wasn't set up for these type of situations at all, which is why it isn't working (or one of the reasons). This loophole needs to be closed, an appropriate law put in place that actually stands some small chance of achieving the protection it was originally intended to.
If you are a vlogger being targeted by this sort of malicious DMCA claim there is no need to give your real name and address to YouTube, seeing as the person who filed the complaint has no intention of taking you to court anyway. The only reason why it would be a good idea to give bona fide personal information to YouTube would be if the copyright dispute was genuine.
Giving a pseudonym would only backfire if the DMCA complainant intended to follow through their complaint. Of course a stalker or a troll is not likely to front up the money to actually file a lawsuit that they no has no legal merit. People targeted by this sort of tactic should counter-claim with a pseudonym if they are worried about their details getting into the hands of trolls.
YouTube won't accept such counter-claims. That's the problem. Mickey Mouse can file a DMCA. But if you want to contest it, you HAVE to give them real personal information, and YouTube WILL pass it on to whomever is behind the "Mickey Mouse" pseudonym. And if you DON'T contest it, MM can file a few DMCAs and that's all it takes to get you removed from YouTube. Either way, MM wins. That can't be right.
The point of giving real information is so that the person making the complaint can serve legal papers on you. If that is not the real intention of the person making the complaint then there is no reason to give them any genuine information. Why wouldn't YouTube take your details on face value the same as they take the details provided by the person making the complaint?
Even if a troll was batshit crazy enough to initiate legal proceedings, you could get the case thrown out under a pseudonym. This might only be a problem for someone who needs to have their genuine name credited to their material. Considering that most YouTube vloggers are not making commercial material it would not be a problem for them to contest a DMCA under a pseudonym.
You're not getting it. The kind of person I am talking about won't care that they have to "initiate legal proceedings" or that the case would be "thrown out". ALL they are interested in is getting their hands on your personal information so that they can then go and visit you. Now imagine someone who is bat shit crazy and who owns a gun and who hates your guts finding out your address. Now are you getting it?
All I'm saying is that there is no reason to give your real details to counter a false DMCA claim. If the troll is not going to follow through then YouTube should reject their DMCA complaint and restore the material. Even if the troll has money to burn filing lawsuits that will never see a courtroom, you can still counter them under a pseudonym. People should not feel intimidated into handing over their personal details to YouTube.
Now you're getting it. YouTube SHOULD reject the DMCA complaint and restore the material. But they don't. You SHOULD be able to counter under a pseudonym, but YouTube will not accept such a counter claim. You SHOULD not feel intimidated, but if you don't respond, YouTube automatically suspend your account.
And don't think for a moment I am exaggerating. That there are some people on YouTube who are genuinely crazy AND dangerous is a fact. Two names for you: Pekka-Eric and Cho
The thing is they don't in fact ask for the complainant's details at all. If someone initiates a DMCA against another YouTuber, all YouTube does is pass the bad news on. But when you counter-claim, suddenly they insist it must be accompanied by verifiable personal data. That is why this is a real problem.
Perhaps there we have the solution. Apply the same requirements to the complainant, that they must provide their verifiable personal details, and I think this whole farce would end.
This was a solid video.
F00dTube 3 years ago
Thanks.
Loreleila 3 years ago
very wise words! thanks for sharing this!
PhilosopherFresh 3 years ago
You're most welcome, and thank you. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
Stanley Milgram writes well about how chains of command allow people to pass responsibility to others within networks or hierarchies who then pass responsibility along to others. Responsibility is lost in this process: someone else is always to blame and the buck never stops. Those who see themselves as too low in the pecking order to accept responsibility -- will often pass responsibility to any number of people above them in the hierarchy.
cloudmonkeys 3 years ago
Just send a stern letter to the line manager and hey presto: concience absolved.
cloudmonkeys 3 years ago
You remind me of Adolf Eichmann. During the second world war Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler telling him that global domination was a bad idea, it might of worked I guess.
cloudmonkeys 3 years ago
Nicely presented. There are so many problem areas in our world and so few people like yourself who are willing to speak for change.
Featureman 3 years ago
Thanks. I just hope it achieves something.
Loreleila 3 years ago
I live in the care-home/group home system and I know exacly what You're takling about. I wish I could give you a big kittyhug, Meow. I have a few theories about that DMCA BS. Talk to you soon, Dearest Loreleila, AKA, The Rhinemaiden
Serge165 3 years ago
I'm glad you understand. Thanks for the virtual hug, and any theories you have would be of interest. I will be replying to your mail very soon dear Serge, it's been a bit chaotic since I got back. So yes, speak to you soon.
Loreleila 3 years ago
off topic, what do you think if your nickname from me?
Serge165 3 years ago
It makes me want to put my hair in braids round my head and run around singing the Ride of the Valkyries, but it's as close a nickname to my name here as you can get, so yes, I like it. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
Well said!
t4ac3y1 3 years ago
Thanks. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
Excellent, excellent video.
Thank you Cathy
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You're welcome Rozey. I don't want either of us to ever be in the position of being able to say 'I told you so'. I hope they listen.
Loreleila 3 years ago
Common sense doesn't seem to work with business??!! I hope they'll get the message!
It's important! Merci!
Boucrate 3 years ago
I hope they do as well. It someimes feels like shouting into the wind with YT. But yes, it IS important.
Loreleila 3 years ago
Terrifying! I had no idea about this. Thanks for sharing. I'm off to read more on the subject. What a sad story.
Take care.
smartbluecat 3 years ago
You're welcome, and yes it is a sad story. You take care too. Do report back if you find anything of interest, please. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
Hmmm... it seems these corporate yahoos only move after the fact when a law suit is thrust upon them. I wonder if this phenomenon is not a legally proscribed way of doing things, or is it solely a YouTube enacted flaw. I have scant knowledge of DMCA related issues myself.
BodineSpeaks 3 years ago
You know I'm not sure. I wonder if anyone knows if the way this is done is a YT thing or an online practice in general, and a legal system set up without due consideration.
Loreleila 3 years ago
...I myself have experienced the type of crazies you speak of intruding into my zone... without any help from outside forces such as Y.T. giving them my personal info.... To know that such can and wiil be just GIVEN OUT TO WHO OR WHAT... is exactly as you predict ... a ticking time bomb for some poor innocent... on a brighter side...You Glow as always ... Peace be with you and yours... :)
747dog 3 years ago
I'm sorry you've had to handle such things, and yes, a time bomb. Thank you, peace to you also. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
I've emailed them 3 times about the DMCA thing, being the devil's advocate and suggesting that DMCA complaints have a strike system just like offensive videos... such as strikes lasting only 6 months. it's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be the only one they'd take on board. having said that i've emailed them about it 3 times, and the only response i've had is an email telling me which videos of mine have been DMCA'd off youtube. The machine trundles on.
gratex 3 years ago
If they actually paid the slightest attention to those who wrote to them their system might work a whole lot better.
Loreleila 3 years ago
they donts giv 2 flying fuckhoots
-craken
MetaCraken 3 years ago
Fucking brilliant video. YouTube needs to start giving a shit about the proletariat that make their system run.
MetaCraken 3 years ago
Thanks, and yes they do. Accountability.
Loreleila 3 years ago
they wurks 4 us
MetaCraken 3 years ago
Well actually, they work to make money for themselves, but they must act with responsibility or it will eventually blow up in their faces.
Loreleila 3 years ago
lol their faces r bloateds
MetaCraken 3 years ago
Thank you for opening my eyes to the scariness of the DMCA process, I just thought it was a mechanism for petty nerds in small towns in the US to get their enemies' videos taken down.
As for handing out personal info to nutty folks:
Youtube is in the throes of proceedings for a lawsuit, and they've been ordered to give out ALL of our private information to not just one unbalanced individual, but an entire collective of such crazies... the US Federal Government and the Viacom Corporation.
oneofthefew82 3 years ago
You're welcome.
As for the privacy of our personal information, of course, as far as government agencies are concerned, there is none. We've gone way beyond 1984, sadly.
Loreleila 3 years ago
Who do you have in mind when making this video, could you PM on this?
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
No one in particular, as I mentioned in my pm. :)
Loreleila 3 years ago
How do you know if youve been DMCA'ed?
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
As far as I'm aware they tell you. Maybe someone who has had it happen could offer the facts?
Loreleila 3 years ago
Youtube hands out private info?
LimpLoser 3 years ago
Yes, if someone has complained about a video and you consider you haven't broken any copyright and want it reinstated they will hand your details out to the complainant. So either you just accept it or protest and have your information given out to whichever unknown it might be.
Loreleila 3 years ago
The problem is that if someone files a DMCA notice they are effectively stating their intent to lake legal action against YouTube is the content is not removed. The person who posted the content has to counter the DMCA claim if they want to prevent it from being removed, which is impossible without giving personal information to the person who made the DMCA complaint.
petermaquire 3 years ago
How else can you prevent malicious use of your material? If someone was to repost my work I would not be bothered, but if they were to credit someone else for it or use it for commercial purposes then I would expect to be able to hold them accountable. For this to happen there has to be some sort of system in place and whatever that is will of course be wide open to abuse.
petermaquire 3 years ago
Maybe the answer is that YouTube should expect the DMCA complainant to prove their identity in some way before they take action, so malicious DMCA complaints filed by Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck would be ignored. Accountability on both sides.
petermaquire 3 years ago
Of course, there should be accountability and responsibility for all, but as it stands malicious and substanceless DCMAs can be sent out without YT even checking they break any copyright and personal details shared without checking the original complainant in any way. I can't think of any other legal procedure which has no requirement or burden of proof, and private information is just that, private. Maybe if they were required to have s solicitor where this info was stored but not handed out?
Loreleila 3 years ago
How can YouTube hand over personal details without consent? You are not required to give any information about yourself to open an account with YouTube. Basically the position of YouTube is to cover themselves. They are not going to make case-by-case judgement calls that will potentially leave themselves open to litigation. The DMCA is probably draughted in a way that is very punative to host sites.
petermaquire 3 years ago
The problem is how to deny anonymity to people who file DMCA complaints. Anyone can lie about their identity in order to file a malicious DMCA complaint.
petermaquire 3 years ago
You'll probably find though that the DMCA law itself would have to be re-draughted to do this (requiring some sort of proof of identity from the complainant before the host site is required to take any action). It was writen with huge media corporations like Disney or EMI in mind.
petermaquire 3 years ago
'You'll probably find though that the DMCA law itself would have to be re-draughted to do this'
Probably, but as you say it wasn't set up for these type of situations at all, which is why it isn't working (or one of the reasons). This loophole needs to be closed, an appropriate law put in place that actually stands some small chance of achieving the protection it was originally intended to.
Loreleila 3 years ago
If someone makes a DCMA claim against you and you wish to object, at that point you must hand your details to YT in order to proceed.
Loreleila 3 years ago
If you are a vlogger being targeted by this sort of malicious DMCA claim there is no need to give your real name and address to YouTube, seeing as the person who filed the complaint has no intention of taking you to court anyway. The only reason why it would be a good idea to give bona fide personal information to YouTube would be if the copyright dispute was genuine.
petermaquire 3 years ago
Giving a pseudonym would only backfire if the DMCA complainant intended to follow through their complaint. Of course a stalker or a troll is not likely to front up the money to actually file a lawsuit that they no has no legal merit. People targeted by this sort of tactic should counter-claim with a pseudonym if they are worried about their details getting into the hands of trolls.
petermaquire 3 years ago
YouTube won't accept such counter-claims. That's the problem. Mickey Mouse can file a DMCA. But if you want to contest it, you HAVE to give them real personal information, and YouTube WILL pass it on to whomever is behind the "Mickey Mouse" pseudonym. And if you DON'T contest it, MM can file a few DMCAs and that's all it takes to get you removed from YouTube. Either way, MM wins. That can't be right.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
The point of giving real information is so that the person making the complaint can serve legal papers on you. If that is not the real intention of the person making the complaint then there is no reason to give them any genuine information. Why wouldn't YouTube take your details on face value the same as they take the details provided by the person making the complaint?
petermaquire 3 years ago
Even if a troll was batshit crazy enough to initiate legal proceedings, you could get the case thrown out under a pseudonym. This might only be a problem for someone who needs to have their genuine name credited to their material. Considering that most YouTube vloggers are not making commercial material it would not be a problem for them to contest a DMCA under a pseudonym.
petermaquire 3 years ago
Peter,
You're not getting it. The kind of person I am talking about won't care that they have to "initiate legal proceedings" or that the case would be "thrown out". ALL they are interested in is getting their hands on your personal information so that they can then go and visit you. Now imagine someone who is bat shit crazy and who owns a gun and who hates your guts finding out your address. Now are you getting it?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
All I'm saying is that there is no reason to give your real details to counter a false DMCA claim. If the troll is not going to follow through then YouTube should reject their DMCA complaint and restore the material. Even if the troll has money to burn filing lawsuits that will never see a courtroom, you can still counter them under a pseudonym. People should not feel intimidated into handing over their personal details to YouTube.
petermaquire 3 years ago
Now you're getting it. YouTube SHOULD reject the DMCA complaint and restore the material. But they don't. You SHOULD be able to counter under a pseudonym, but YouTube will not accept such a counter claim. You SHOULD not feel intimidated, but if you don't respond, YouTube automatically suspend your account.
Do you see what the problem is now?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
And don't think for a moment I am exaggerating. That there are some people on YouTube who are genuinely crazy AND dangerous is a fact. Two names for you: Pekka-Eric and Cho
rozeboosje 3 years ago
The thing is they don't in fact ask for the complainant's details at all. If someone initiates a DMCA against another YouTuber, all YouTube does is pass the bad news on. But when you counter-claim, suddenly they insist it must be accompanied by verifiable personal data. That is why this is a real problem.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Perhaps there we have the solution. Apply the same requirements to the complainant, that they must provide their verifiable personal details, and I think this whole farce would end.
Loreleila 3 years ago