
My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video] - Michie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw
======
topynate
I do admire just how perverse YouTube's solution for copyright law is. If they
were accepting DMCA notices, they'd have the obligation to take note of
counter-notices. If they were giving _control_ of claimed videos to the
claimants, then if someone filed a false claim against you, taking control of
your video, _you_ could then file a DMCA notice against the claimaint. But
YouTube does neither of these things. Instead, they leave the video in your
ostensible control, and just decide to give advertising revenue to someone who
isn't you – which, as far as I can tell, doesn't mean that either YouTube or
the claimant is technically infringing your copyright. It's brilliant
bastardy.

~~~
infinitesoup
But YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law. Their
Content ID system provides an automated way to detect potential infringement
by large copyright holders and redirect ad revenue to them, but if uploaders
dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright
holder is required to send a full DMCA claim to take down the video, and the
uploader can respond with a counter notice to put the video back up. Of
course, the copyright holder can choose to jump ahead to filing a DMCA notice
at any point, bypassing some or all of the Content ID process. I'm guessing
that most wouldn't do that, though, because the DMCA process is not automated,
has strict timelines built in, and only allows for takedown (whereas Content
ID allows for videos to stay up but make ad revenue for them). Without Content
ID system, I'm guessing we'd be back in the days where the big copyright
holders would just spam DMCA notices and end up with a lot more videos taken
down.

 _(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I 'm familiar with the
process)._

~~~
jjoonathan
> if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then
> the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA

I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders
for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your
dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."

Is this true?

~~~
infinitesoup
Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music
claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my
original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the
case you're describing.

~~~
slavik81
That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in
which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to
it either.

~~~
jjoonathan
Yes, and if there is official lawyerly language about certifying the truth of
your choices, the distinction is important. Sounds like a dark pattern.

~~~
infinitesoup
There's a different option for if the video is public domain or otherwise not
copyrightable to handle this case. I assume that that "lawyerly language" is
to dissuade users from abusing the process and choosing an option when it's
not really true.

~~~
jjoonathan
Nearly every video is going to be an amalgamation of original content,
licensed work, and public domain work, yet the listed alternatives you've
presented both clearly apply to entire videos, forcing the content creator to
lie if they want to go forward with a dispute.

It seems quite bonkers that you disagree with the "disputes are discouraged by
forced lying" narrative yet keep posting evidence to support it.

Ah well. It's not my fight. I should be grateful for that.

------
Andre607
YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just
referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of
false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of
takedowns.

My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking
about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in
someone's garden as being copyright infringing [1]. So far, par the course for
a mistaken automatic identification. But the outrage comes after that: the
copyright claimant (the notorious Rumblefish) reviewed the claim and confirmed
that it was valid! In other words an actual human being looked at the video of
someone in their garden, and confirmed the claim that the sound of the birds
in the background was copyrighted. Actions like this are indefensible and
highlight the outrageous monstrosity of YouTube's takedown system - -beyond
Kafkaesque in its total disenfranchisement of users.

[1]
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-g...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-
gets-bogus-youtube-copyright-claim-birds-singing-background.shtml)

~~~
sireat
Similarly, a friend of mine recorded waves crashing at a sea and it got
flagged by Content ID.

Some music video (by Sony subsidiary) contained a small sample of waves
crashing from a completely different sea.

I told him to appeal and appeal he did and yes the claim was upheld.

I told him to fight on because this first level upheld is what throws people
off and what the Content ID abusers are hoping for.

On the 2nd appeal they have to have someone with legal authority to really
pursue the claim.

That is no "real" human will look at the case on its merits until 2nd
instance.

~~~
Andre607
Wow! How did this story end?

------
org3432
I filed a likeness claim where Youtube created a profile with a picture of me
somehow and there was no way to delete it. The takedown request was rejected
because they said the video was invalid, despite it not being a video and it
being explained that it was a profile and Youtube itself had taken property
that wasn't theirs. Eventually I found some email address I could file a
complaint against with a picture of my DL and they took it down.

It seems like companies have their 99% cases that their systems are optimized
for, but within the remaining 1% where they themselves are causing the problem
or have a bug etc. the humans they hire can't understand simple things if they
deviate an iota from what they're used to.

------
jchw
I absolutely love the level-headedness and honesty of this person. If I were
in his shoes, I can only imagine how furious I would be at YouTube.

I hope this system can be fixed... At least, we need a more balanced playing
field. Making it so easy and yet having practically no consequences to abuse
the system is absurd. But, what can really be done? This is the system that
various industries have been pushing super hard to get. I think DMCA also
doesn't do nearly enough to dissuade abuse. Can we try to fix DMCA, too? Where
do we begin?

------
dylan604
It's great that YT did the right thing by giving him ownership back on their
platform. The next thing would be to give him any money earned during the time
it was wrongfully taken away and in dispute. That should not be dependent on
having the asshats paying it back first. YT messed up, so they need to make it
right all the way.

~~~
larkeith
Where did you find that YouTube has returned ownership to him? As far as I've
been able to find with a quick search, the false claimant continues to receive
monetization from the video.

~~~
sniuff
The comment on the video by the author of the video

> UPDATE: It's official! I got my video back and Ramjets channel was deleted
> for false copyright claim. Huge thanks to everybody who helped. Every share,
> like comment, everybody who spread the word about what happened. You made
> the difference. Now let's make sure we protect EVERY content creator from
> false claims. Please sign the petition, we can make a difference.﻿

~~~
alecco
> Please sign the petition

[https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_petitions/YouTube_fix_...](https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_petitions/YouTube_fix_the_copyright_protection_system)

~~~
colejohnson66
Not trying to be cynical, but do petitions really do anything?

~~~
skilled
[https://www.change.org/p/mike-morhaime-legacy-server-
among-w...](https://www.change.org/p/mike-morhaime-legacy-server-among-world-
of-warcraft-community)

There's also a story behind how the signatures were delivered. [1] However,
I'm not sure that this video explains the 'psychology' behind it.

In a wow-related podcast a few months back [sorry no link], Mark said that he
wanted to deliver all the signatures in physical form on paper since that's a
tactic that Blizzard itself had employed when selling their game packages back
in the day. In a nutshell, _the weight_ of something makes it feel more
valuable. And in the case of 260,000 signatures, it doesn't just sound big in
your head, but actually has a substantial weight in physical form.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4g2rkZwLI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4g2rkZwLI)

------
Kaveren
Moderation is really the ultimate scalability problem. I have some level of
sympathy for the predicament YouTube is in, but I really hope the system can
be redesigned.

I've never seen (keyword: seen) a press release or article about how an
individual / group of DMCA abusers of this sort was arrested. Why can't this
be taken more seriously as a form of fraud, and why can't these people be gone
after? Sure, you can obfuscate your real IP when making a takedown request,
but they have to receive the money somewhere.

~~~
dylan604
The easiest thing to do would require the claimant and defendant to produce
proof of ownership. In this case, it really seems like the claimant's case
would have been over as soon as the defendant produced his proof.

If there is conflicting claims of ownership that seems valid from both sides,
then send to a 3rd party to decide. Whether that is arbitration or courts. Why
should YouTube be responsible at all? During the term of dispute, the ability
to earn money is suspended. If the defendant wins, then the claimant should be
required to reimburse lost earnings. At this point, YT would have acted in a
reasonable manner such that they should not have any liability in it.

How naive am I being for making it seem like a really simple thing to handle?

~~~
icebraining
Proof of ownership seems complicated to produce if you're a regular person
uploading your own videos. What would you produce?

~~~
jnbiche
There are plenty of timestamping services out there, both blockchain-based and
otherwise. If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create,
and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of
fraudulent claims.

Also, these services are usually reasonably priced, and sometimes even free,
so it would be reasonable to use even if you're making several videos a day.

~~~
jackvalentine
> If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before
> they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent
> claims.

The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who
produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old
didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.

~~~
jnbiche
If you're goal is only to prove that you invented something before some random
patent troll did, then that issue doesn't matter so much.

At the least, it's very, very strong evidence for a trial. Along with also
emailing your lawyer or notary public a copy of the timestamp as soon as you
create it, these factors would be virtually unassailable in a court of law.

~~~
jackvalentine
What’s stopping me timestamping a tonne of other people’s content before they
do, and then claiming that they stole it from me?

Then we’re literally back where we started - proving ownership by other means.

------
sheeshkebab
It’s unfortunate but that’s the reality of centralized content and product
platforms (YouTube, Amazon, AppStore etc) - they are often used to squiz out
competition using bogus claims, as much as allow for distribution channels.

Better strategy is to continue supporting open web and host content or
products you care about on your own.

------
bryanrasmussen
Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright
infringement slander him? The damage can be shown in the money he lost out on,
but I mean I guess his reputation is also damaged with Google by the
accusation. It was definitely a realistic accusation that someone might
believe as Google evidently believed it.

~~~
darkpuma
> _" Just asking, but didn't the company falsely accusing him of copyright
> infringement slander him?"_

Probably, but who is he supposed to sue over it? It's far from clear who the
'company' is. He could sue John Doe and then get youtube to reveal what they
know, but he may very likely discover that the 'company' is just some guy with
hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a shit about him or his
plight.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Maybe, but I guess the guy has some assets now.

I mean if it is a guy with hardly any assets in a country that doesn't give a
shit I don't think that suit will drag on that long and probably wouldn't be
too expensive to litigate. It's only if the guy has assets in a country that
does give a shit that will want to fight, and if that's the case they're
probably screwed.

------
fouc
Does anyone think ramjets is going around doing this with multiple videos and
making thousands of dollars as a result?

Could be the new scam. I bet people out there are going to be doing this to
make tons of money until youtube smartens up.

~~~
astonex
This is already happening a lot. So far Youtube hasnt changed anything

------
olliej
Seems like you should be able to leverage standard copyright law - per-
violation 10-100k seems like the industry demanded fine...

~~~
larkeith
Does YouTube have the necessary information to prosecute false claimants? They
certainly are unwilling to pass such info on to content creators; I'm unsure
what, if any, verification of identity is required to submit a claim.

~~~
olliej
Why would it be YouTube’s job? Someone has claimed ownership and is now making
profit on it - that (to me a non lawyer expect same behavior from the legal
system ;) ) seems like it would be a standard copyright violation :D

~~~
jtbayly
If YouTube is unwilling to pass along the information, as the parent says,
then who are you going to file suit against? You’ll have to sue an unknown
person and get a court order to get YouTube to turn over the person’s name.
That’s an expensive start to aprocess with an unknown end. Isn’t it even
possible the person isn’t in the US? Then you’ve thrown away your money.

~~~
CPLX
It’s really not that hard to do. People do sometimes overestimate how hard it
is to do basic legal tasks.

Filing a simple John Doe summons in your home jurisdiction and then sending a
subpoena to YouTube for the offending contact information is pretty trivial.
You could probably find someone to do it for you for a thousand bucks or less.

Admittedly that’s not free but in a context like this with real money at stake
it’s not a huge obstacle.

~~~
Andre607
And what do you do when you go through all of that time and effort (and
potential expense) and get the very likely outcome that the claimant is not in
your home jurisdiction?

~~~
CPLX
Jurisdiction isn’t simply determined by where the opponent is. There’s nuance
to this but you can typically sue and gain jurisdiction in any venue that has
a nexus to the business activity in question. Given that YouTube is global
there’s probably a lot of places you could find a valid venue. California
almost certainly being one of them.

You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate
goal is to get YouTube to do something then that could work just fine.

Again, clearly legal action isn’t _easy_ but people seem too inclined to throw
up their hands instantly.

Learning how to take basic legal action is just a core part of running a
business, and someone earning from YouTube at this level is indeed doing just
that.

~~~
Andre607
I'm not sure why you're singling out California, is that where the claimant is
in this case? Or are you referring to YouTube?

My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the
requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the
contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The
claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?

------
jayd16
So what's stopping this guy from making a new account and claiming the video
back? Should creators claim their own videos so they can't be claimed by
others?

~~~
kkarakk
i think that's grounds for an instant strike against your new channel.since
you only get 3 strikes before you're kaput it's not worth it

------
brailsafe
I had actually listened to this song recently on his channel. Hot tip: It's
fun, check it out.

------
trumped
You could shorten #FixYoutubeCopyright to #FixCopyright... because it is
probably the source of the problem....

~~~
duskwuff
Nah. This situation is specific to Youtube -- copyright law doesn't deal in
terms of monetization.

~~~
trumped
"yah." lookup dmca takedowns... they probaby just don't want to have to deal
with the consequences of that.

