Where's The Fair Use? #wtfu

Discussion in 'Mostly Harmless (Serious Discussion)' started by Captain Falcon, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. Captain Falcon

    Captain Falcon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    55,138
    Location:
    Empire Of The Clouds
    So, as some of you might have heard, the battle between content creators on Youtube and "copyright holders" (in quotes for a reason), while having been a contentious issue for a long time, is starting to come to a serious head. Because of Youtube's frankly archaic system, copyright holders, or even people purporting to be copyright holders, can hit videos with takedowns with no fear of repercussion regardless if the takedown has any merit to it whatsoever. The onus is completely on the content creator to fight the strike, which requires them to disclose several pieces of personal information. This video explains more than I can:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqFAMOtwaI

    This was posted by Doug Walker, the Nostalgia Critic. In it, he makes a number of comments that indicate, certainly to me, how f'ed up Youtube's system is. Not that I didn't have somewhat of an understanding about it; I don't follow Walker or Channel Awesome, but I do follow Jim Sterling, who has made it crystal clear in the past how bad the situation is, which culminated in his latest video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9mTOq6mP2I


    Just yesterday, Team Four Star, whose YT channel has over two million subscribers, was terminated due to alleged copyright infringement. And from what I was reading, it was from a video that was indisputably under fair use. The channel has since been restored, but that requires time and effort that quite simply shouldn't be necessary.

    And for those who don't want to look at the aforementioned videos, here's the gist of the problem: there are certain circumstances that one can use copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder. These exceptions to copyright include such things as criticism and parody. Now, legitimate copyright infringement is obviously bad and should be stopped. But in the cases I'm referencing, that's not what's happening. Companies can take down or content ID (which allows that company to take the ad revenue for the video) videos for almost any reason, with no effort, and the video creator has to then jump through hoops to fight it.

    Quite frankly, it's a load of BS. It's been clear for a while that IP law in the US needs a serious overhaul, because there's too many trouser stain companies who will throw infringement at anything they can get it to stick to. And of course Youtube won't do anything about it because they're too buddy-buddy with the aforementioned companies.

    Regardless of what you generally think of the two personalities whose videos I've posted, I don't really think you can dispute their points here. And there's plenty of other internet personalizes joining the cause. So, to do my part, Where's The Fair Use?
     
  2. Chaosblade77

    Chaosblade77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,622
    Youtube's system is awful, but it doesn't matter because they are so entrenched that neither viewers or content creators are going to go anywhere else. So nothing is going to change.
     
  3. Captain Falcon

    Captain Falcon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    55,138
    Location:
    Empire Of The Clouds
    That's what I don't understand: is it really that hard for somebody to make a new hosting ground? Like, obviously Youtube has incredible financial backing (Google), but they didn't always. What did they do back then that somebody can't adjust for today and do now? Like, this is legitimate inquiry. Is it really just that Youtube is such a behemoth that nobody else can compete?
     
  4. Wyrdwad

    Wyrdwad Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,158
    Location:
    Celceta
    Some content creators have actually started using other video sharing services, though, and if things continue as they have been, I think it's only a matter of time before one of them catches on and becomes the "new YouTube." It seems almost inevitable, in my mind -- when one company creates a poorly managed monopoly on something, others always step in and take them down a peg... eventually.

    -Tom
     
  5. Chaosblade77

    Chaosblade77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,622
    I'd imagine Youtube probably controls somewhere north of 95% of the total traffic from general "user created" video content sharing sites. There are other sites like Vimeo, Dailymotion, and some others that are slipping my mind, but it's going to take a huge, concentrated, organized effort to turn one of those sites into the next Youtube.
     
  6. Ammy175

    Ammy175 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Location:
    My room
    Porn Hub has a Sonic Adventure LP.

    Should totally move everything over there.
     
  7. Ammy175

    Ammy175 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Location:
    My room
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoIL5qUI1p8
     
  8. tilinelson2

    tilinelson2 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,497
    Location:
    Ban me plz
    This issue is easy to understand when you put yourself in the other side's shoes.

    Let's say copyright protected content was posted in these forums (maybe videos, pictures or even parts of the text of a game) and the copyright owner sued XSEED for holding such content, and forced XSEED to take it to the court in order to prove the content does not infringe the copyright, but was hosted in accordance with the Fair Use terms. What would XSEED do, disobey takedown orders and face the charges itself because of content posted by users?

    One thing is to discuss the current copyright laws. Another thing is someone who has nothing or very little to lose wanting that those who have a lot to lose to do something for them.
     
  9. Chaosblade77

    Chaosblade77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,622
    I think the entire issue here is that people want to be innocent until proven guilty, and have some kind of consequences for false/inaccurate allegations. Since right now companies are using automated monitoring systems that flag things falsely left and right without consequence, plus trolls that report/claim content just to get it removed.


    Fair use in general is difficult just because of the quantity of content though. So many cases to review.
     
  10. tilinelson2

    tilinelson2 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,497
    Location:
    Ban me plz
    People want to be innocent until proven guilty, and that is what the western legal systems are based on. However, the presumption of innocence doesn't mean something like not being affected in any way until the guilty or innocence is proven. Not only the cases to review are too much for the company, but if they have to face the consequences of refusing to takedown the correctly reported copyright infringement every time it happens, it might make the whole business model impossible to maintain, even if the number of correct reports are a small percentage of all the reports.
     
  11. DustyStarr

    DustyStarr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,766
    Location:
    California
    I am pretty sure that is what innocent until proven guilty means, at least in this context. Because in this the context, the accusation is the video being taken down regardless of whether the claim is right or not, as well as often punishing the person by limiting their account in various ways, if not outright closing it. You should not be punished for something when there is no proof that you did it, save for a flawed algorithm's say.
     
  12. tilinelson2

    tilinelson2 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,497
    Location:
    Ban me plz
    If you are accused of a crime, even if there is the presumption of innocence, it doesn't mean nothing will happen to you until they prove you are guilty. You are obliged to follow the legal procedures and may even be put under some kind of restraint like not being allowed to leave the country until the case is solved, although you are still considered innocent by the justice.

    Maybe some actions are a bit strict, like closing accounts, but presumption of innocence in real life doesn't work like internet debates where neener neener neener prove it is enough until the person is found guilty or permanently acquited with the charges.
     
  13. Chaosblade77

    Chaosblade77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,622
    A scorched earth policy is a terrible policy regardless. If copyright holders (and trolls) want to flag everything under the sun they should have repercussions when they miss.

    Criminal action that would result in being held until you are dismissed isn't a good comparison anyway. This would be more akin to taking an entire neighborhood into custody because one person might have robbed somebody, and slowly letting people go as they are interrogated.
     
  14. Captain Falcon

    Captain Falcon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    55,138
    Location:
    Empire Of The Clouds
    Exactly. Youtube in particular allows anybody to file these claims. You don't have to actually provide any sensitive information. To file a counter claim, on the other hand, the person who has their video taken down has to provide several pieces of personal information, which is shared with the entity that filed the claim.

    Intellectual property law needs a complete and total overhaul as it is. It's supposed to be there to protect content creators, when what it actually does is protect rights holders, who often times didn't create shite. But your corporate overlords don't want that; they want to keep going to the bank.
     
  15. tilinelson2

    tilinelson2 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,497
    Location:
    Ban me plz
    Your analogy means that if one video is flagged, they will suspend a hundred of similar accounts and oblige each one to provide evidence that none of their videos have any copyright violation.

    The situation you mentioned is like someone accused each person of the neighborhood of commiting a different robbery. We knowvthat if it happens, something serious happen with the person who did all the false accusations. I don't know the specifics of how Google handles the issue, but if they do nothing to users who falsely flag videos, someone would already created a bot to flag every video and something would have already changed in the policies.

    Besides, what the debate ignores is that the law in this case is a if someone was the landlord of one neighborhood, and if justice demanded him to immediately turn in a person living in his property who is accused of a crime and he failed to do so, he would become an accomplice. We know that despite the terms of use putting all the responsability on the user, it is not what happens. And the issue goes beyond people who put the footage of a whole game online, earns money from that and thinks it unjust to be accused of violating copyright and have his videos taken down.
     
  16. Dancougar

    Dancougar New Member

    Messages:
    75
    lol reminds me Bioware just removed an edit of a mass effect video for Trump by DMCA off twitter no less
     
  17. Chaosblade77

    Chaosblade77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,622
    The point of my analogy was that both were cases of "we don't know who did it so we will accuse everyone." Because often companies don't know whose videos are being taken down, since they use an algorithm to flag infringing videos.

    It's a complicated issue, but something needs to change. The status quo won't cut it.
     

Share This Page