Fox uses someone else's YouTube video, then orders YouTube to remove original video

[Read the post]


I’m pretty sure this is an example of the system working the way it’s supposed to, which is to say that it screws the little guy.


A three-strikes-ever rule could end up being too broad, but maybe a temporary ban?

At any rate, some consequences of any kind for abusing the system would be welcome.


I’d like to think that showing a whole minute of someone else’s old video game footage might be a surprising new low for Family Guy – but who am I kidding, they’re probably done so very much worse since I stopped watching.


Exponentially increasing periods of being ignored might work. First bogus claim, you’re not allowed to make a DMCA claim for 2 weeks - no problem, a rap on the knuckles. By the eighth offence, 2^8 = 256 weeks = almost 5 years.

A useful counter reset interval might be one exponent above the offence count - so after being ignored for 2 weeks, you can’t file bogus claims for 4 weeks; if you screw that up you get 4 weeks to get your house in order enough that you won’t file bogus claims for at least 8, etc.


I think I’d prefer that for every false claim, the government seizes half the company’s (remaining) assets.


What surprises me is that the video was up for 7 years without Nintendo taking it down.


I’m pretty sure that this isn’t how ‘rights clearance’ is supposed to work…

In that vein, does issuing a takedown demand amount to an overt admission by Fox that their use of the clip was outside the bounds of fair use(since if it were licit, the youtube video would have been fine as well); or is that only in a just an consistent universe?


How open is the youtube DCMA complaint system to abuse? If, say, a bunch of users went around and flagged all of Fox’s youtube videos (I am assuming they post promos for tv shows, etc), just to harass them, what would be the result?


Dammit, people. Stop looking for the Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Every time someone finds it, the universe is destroyed and replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Six thousand, four hundred and thirty-seven times is enough, people! Our universe is inexplicable enough already!


Also, is there a chance that this was done by some sort of algorithm, that scours youtube videos and compares them to videos that Fox (or any other company) owns, and automatically spits out an email to Youtube if there is a match? Could be a genuine mistake…

EDIT: Not saying that this would/should excuse Fox…


Nothing would be the result. Random users have no power.

The way I’ve heard it explained, for two identical cases, if you’re powerful you just challenge the C&D on youtube and you win. If your content is flagged and you’re not powerful, then youtube just ignores you and you lose your rights to monetize at best, and at worst, your channel is deleted.


The genuine mistake is automating copyright complaints and handling. Because it can’t take into account fair use.


So there must be some human on the other end of the DCMA takedown request who evaluates the number of lawyers that the issuer could afford to hire, and if n>(some arbitrary number) then they comply; I was kind of hoping it was automatic… :smiling_imp:

1 Like

It’s automatic. There’s just different service-levels for different users. You get setup nice if you’re a media company like Fox. You get no service, consideration, or rights if you’re a pleb-level scrub.


I see; thanks for the (somewhat disheartening) clarification. They should change their name to something like “You(if you are a corporate person)Tube”.

Are services like vimeo genuinely more friendly/geared towards individual human creators?


Oh hey I know. Fuck YouTube.

Literally anyone can stream a video these days. From site.

Facebook is 9/10ths stolen ideas anyway, and it’s worse… it’s locked down. It’s shitty internet 2.0.

And you cocks thought 2.0 was better. But you were wrong.

So look back a few years, find the not dumbed down free tools. Spend an hour learning about how to use them, rather than watching ‘the biggest celebrity butt’ videos on YouTube. Just an hour away from looking at cats and taking pictures of your dinner, or offering congratulations for birthdays to strangers who you are friends with.

Then you’ll have the option to do whatever you want!


I wouldn’t know, wrt Vimeo.

I know that Twitch mutes any music in VODs (archived streams) that triggers its copyright drone. But it doesn’t take down video, and it doesn’t mute people’s streams in realtime. There’s now a bunch of “streaming/youtube friendly” music libraries people use for music on stream. Other people just don’t care that their highlights and VODs might be muted and play whatever music they want anyway.

Twitch does however have problems with sexist censorship. Guys can wear pretty much as little as they like, as long as the wang isn’t showing. Women are on thinner ice. Twitch likes to couch it in terms of “we’re a streaming service for gaming, not porn.” but it’s still unfair.


Owww! Oww… Oww… Oww… Owwww… ::inhale:: …Owwww… Oww… Oww… ::inhale:: Ohhh… Oww… Owww…


And five minutes of Conway Twitty. Which they did several times.

1 Like