Lionsgate accused of abusing YouTube's contentID system to remove criticism of its movies


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/09/lionsgate-accused-of-abusing-y.html


#2

Hellboy lite, is not good, it’s actually very bad. Bring back the original.

giphy


#3

In addition to the concept of SLAPP we need the concept of Strategic Copyright Claim Against Public Participation, SCCAPP and anti-SCCAPP laws that allows recovering of legal fees and penalties against such lawsuits.


#4

Well, perhaps Lionsgate can be counted on for some great MST3k material.


#5

These (generally) aren’t true copyright claims. They’re ContentID claims within YouTube’s private internal platform. YouTube makes claimants say they are the copyright owner but it’s not a process subject to court review. It’s not even arbitration. It’s just dressing around its own management of content.

Why issue a DMCA takedown, which already has penalties for misuse, when you can just use ContentID?


#6

This is the shit I think of (both the behavior of copyright-owning corporations and YouTube’s Content ID system) when libertarians tell me the government is terrible and inefficient but we should trust companies to run privatized versions of all public services.


#7

Popular games YouTuber Jim Sterling includes numerous short clips in every video which he knows will generate competing contentID claims for the whole upload. This prevents YouTube contentID bots and sharks from monetizing his work or taking it down.

I don’t understand this at all. How can this be?


#8

Sounds like that X-Files arctic worm episode where you cure the parasite by introducing another one to set them against each other like betta fish.


#9

They themselves are only starting to notice because of deplatforming. But they still don’t quite get that they are being bitten in the ass by private property rights.


#10

Say you do a review of a Nintendo videogame. Nintendo contentIDs the video and takes control of its revenue and has the option of removing it.

Say you do a review of a Nintendo videogame and add a few seconds of Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music to it. Nintendo contentIDs the video but so does RCA. Given the multiple claimants, no-one gets any revenue and no-one has the option of removing it.

So intentionally setting out to generate multiple contentID claims is an effective way to throw a spanner in the works of ContentID – if you don’t depend on YouTube revenue.


#11

And what else does Youtube take down? That’s right, nudity. And therefore, if Lou Reed plays Nintendo in the nude…

Wait a minute, I’m not sure if Metal Machine Music was even available on Nintendo platforms?


#12

Can I see the actual movie first though?


#13

I’m at work but im sure someone else can post the video where he explains why.


#14

He explains it in this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM


#15

Here’s a video where Jim talks about it a bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM

and here’s a writeup from Kotaku https://kotaku.com/game-critic-uses-brilliant-workaround-for-youtubes-copy-1773452452


#16

How in the bleep do you monetize a review of something? Are there people out there who will pay to watch someone rant about what he didn’t like in a video game?


#17

80 million subscribers


#18

There are, as @beschizza pointed out, quite a few people that want to watch it and Youtube puts ads around it (before the video, pop-ups, whatever). Part of the ad revenue (a tiny part) goes to the video maker.


#19

It’s your money.


#20

I know. I just am saying that I like to watch a whole movie before I decide if I like it or not VS judging it on a trailer or someone’s YouTube rant.

Maybe I am old fashioned.