Activists monitoring right-wing hate ask YouTube to change takedown policies


#1

[Permalink]


#2

His website is currently experiencing the Streisand Effect


#3

Youtube is not the problem. The problem is systematic. There needs to be laws punishing people who consistently abuse the copyright system like this. This problem is rampant everywhere not just with Youtube. Youtube gets the heat but really they are stuck in the middle trying to police thousands of these petty abusive claims.


#4

I am super interested in this. I wonder what the solution would be. I really feel like youtube should start to rate the quality of it’s members. The system can work, it just needs to know that (blank) is a person who can’t be trusted with takedowns and that (blank) can be. After all if a guy like this who is always doing it incorrectly gets to be a “zero” on a trust index, but then actually stumbles on a horrible youtube page full of, idk, copyrighted child porn, that he would be able to get someone else to do the takedown.


#5

An alternative would be to stop using these crappy services with their squeamish takedown policies and host the videos themselves - possibly on an overseas server so US law wouldn’t apply to the ISP.

“Crappy”, of course, not regarding their technical quality, but wrt their TOS. And YouTube is really crappy in that regard. I hate how they keep nagging me to reveal my name and phone number and create a GMail account whenever I log in to my anonymouus YouTube account. In fact, they’re making me dislike all of Google these days with their nagging.


#6

Without the average joe having any real power to push back against illegal claims (and they are illegal, the DMCA makes it pretty clear), it will never change.

It’s easy to say “oh just hire a lawyer and take them to court!” but who the fuck is going to risk financial ruin to try it? Keeping a video online versus keeping a roof over their head? It’s a no-brainer.


#7

They aren’t illegal if there are no consequences.

And there are no consequences. They are defacto legal for most of those who use these claims.


#8

Damn you for pointing me to the Right Wing Watch website. That’s crazy-making stuff right there.

Better to live in blissful ignorance of the right-wing crazies?


#9

Google is going to ignore this like they ignore every other single attempt to get them to do anything by their “users”. Google isn’t any more interested in the opinions of their products than ranchers are in the opinions of their cattle.


#10

Ever notice how cockroaches scatter when you shine a light on 'em? I’m not saying you personally have to do it, but let’s be thankful someone’s willing to look under the refrigerator.


#11

The trick is that … according to the DMCA, if they decide not to remove a video that has been claimed to be infringing, Youtube is legally liable. So, your troll can do a bunch of frivolous claims, then a single real claim and cause harm to Youtube. There’s no way they’d risk that.


#12

I wish I had a better alternative, but Youtube makes it fast and easy to get my stuff up and out. Using another site, or hosting my own, does not bring in the same traffic.


#13

What we need is a conglomorant of people, Google, a co-opt made for the express purpose, or something to call legal shennanagins on some of the automated false claims then take it to court and fight it as far as it’ll go if only to set a precedent and to further highlight the problem that false takedowns have no punishment but because of how safe harbor works outright ignoring a claim leaves you potentially liable.


#14

gay sex in the chapel is old hat, but WHY DIDN’T WE EVER THINK TO FUCK ON THE ALTAR


#15

I once had a video sceencast of a free software tool I develop taken down via DMCA by a commercial competitor. They claimed copyright infringement. Even if the screencast had been their software, I don’t think they would have been justified. I appealed and it took several weeks for the video to be reinstated, but I had to sign a statement saying that if I were lying or misrepresenting things, I might be liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. Even though I knew I was in the right, I nearly didn’t bother fighting it reposting would have been easy, and there was a small potential for a large litagation. Supposedly, you need to sign a similar statement when you request a takedown, and I obtained that request from from Google/Youtube. In theory I could have sued them for this, but I just wanted my screencast back on youtube, so I didn’t bother. All they would have needed to say is ‘we didn’t intentionally do this’ and they could probably squirm out of it. I think Lessig is trying to fight this fight now too. Good for him.


#16

While I’m in favor of fairly lenient fair use policies the reality is if you are totally reposting copyrighted material whether you call yourself a watchdog org or not you place yourself at risk. I believe the rule should be straightforward. If someone asks you to remove their content you should. I once had a video of clip that showed the US military using pictures of Arafat for target practice. I was asked to remove it and I did. It wasn’t my content. It isn’t a matter of whether you are a right wing or left wing org its about respect for content owners. Freerepublic a popular conservative site ran afoul of fair use policies too and they have had to comply. I might also point out that by targeting individual youtubers you are just helping to make them money by directing traffic their way. We may not always like the rules but when you are playing in someone else’s house you play by their rules and that is Youtube/Google and you should also realize that they are only trying to comply with laws such as the DMCA which was the brainchild of the left wing.


#18

The reverend wossisname is clearly a fine and upstanding representative of the christer cultists, and deserves to go very, very far. I quite like these guys, actually. They allow the harsh light of reason to be so clearly shone upon the whole religious nonsense in ways that are not quite so easy with their more cuddly fellows. Viva Westboro, too! All lovely, lovely people (allegedly).


#19

No means no. Stop asking, amiright?


#20

Has anyone ever actually been charged with perjury for a knowingly false DMCA claim? I know that they’re made with a fair amount of frequency (just look at Torrentfreak for some RIAA/MPAA examples) but I’ve never actually heard of any consequences for them.

Of course, if someone filed a false claim against any of the Powers That Be, I’m sure we’d soon get an example…


#21

Issue is with Youtube closing your account if 3 claims are made against your account in a 6 month period. That’s entirely under their control.