
Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA - juanito
https://torrentfreak.com/fox-stole-a-game-clip-used-it-in-family-guy-dmcad-the-original-160520/
======
ascagnel_
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not
been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would
drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor
protections under the DMCA.

ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much
less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for
any reason (see Scripps taking down a public-domain NASA video[0]), and the
content is removed immediately without giving the initial uploader a right to
contest it (it can be restored laterº. A YouTube user has way fewer rights
under ContentID than they do under the DMCA. If you are found in violation of
ContentID, you must fight both YouTube and the claimant to have your case
heard under the DMCA.

[0] [http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-
crashed-i...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-into-
a-dmca-takedown)

~~~
illumin8
Dear Google: This is about as evil as you can get.

~~~
Klathmon
IMO it's not that black and white.

If google didn't agree to the ContentID system, Viacom would have most likely
been able to strip them of their safe harbor status.

And that means the end of Youtube.

Yeah, something needs to be done, but having humans review takedowns just
doesn't work at this scale, and if they aren't extremely over zealous about
taking things down, they will be shut down.

Google is under the thumb of Viacom and other big media companies, and there
really isn't anything they can do about it except agree or close up shop.

(Mind you, I think that there are definitely ways that Google can improve the
situation, and that they should be pressured to do so, but it's not as simple
as saying they are "evil")

~~~
illumin8
Even if it's true that they are under the thumb of the evil media companies,
Google has billions in their war chest to fight legal battles like these. Why
aren't they?

Apple seems willing to fight legal battles on moral grounds; why won't Google?

~~~
paulgb
They do: [http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.nl/2015/11/a-step-
toward-...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.nl/2015/11/a-step-toward-
protecting-fair-use-on.html?m=1)

~~~
Klathmon
I'm not trying to call you or them out or anything, i'm just curious...

Are there any public examples of them doing this for someone?

Because that is a really awesome thing to pledge, but without public actions
backing it up it's an empty promise.

~~~
arkem
Here's an article with an example (a video game review by Jim Sterling that
was DMCA'd by the game developer):
[http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/19/9761654/youtube-fair-
use-p...](http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/19/9761654/youtube-fair-use-
protection-program-jim-sterling)

------
Ralfp
SmarterEveryDay told a story in one of his videos about slow-mo clip of tatoo
machine in action being ripped from one of his movies by the large press
publisher, Bauer, and reuploaded on Bauer's Facebook page. Then Bauer moved on
to claim DMCA on his original uploaded by him on his Facebook page:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA)

~~~
nkrisc
That sort of thing happens all the time too, as he mentions. Only he has the
reach and audience to rightly raise a stink about it. Most who have their
content stolen in this manner really have no recourse.

The damage is done, the money is made, and the perpetrators can just say,
"whoops" and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing while they take their ill-
gotten gains to the bank.

------
just_observing
Until there is a financial penalty for wrongful use of the DMCA this type of
thing will continue.

They use robots to create reports (maybe not in this case) because for them
there is simply zero downside.

That downside needs to exist.

~~~
Esau
The real solution would be to require a human to certify the infringement
complaint - no more automated requests.

~~~
jobigoud
But that can't be left to the claimant. So Google should charge a fee for each
complaint to cover the cost of the verification. But then you could make the
company pay more simply by uploading thousands of infringing videos…

In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this
particular case.

~~~
codys
By "certify", GP might mean "certify under penalty of perjury", where the
specific wording (which would probably need some notes about certifying they
had verified their ownership) is strict enough to give one a bit of legal
ammunition against false complaints.

~~~
Esau
Exactly. Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough.

------
swang
On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated
that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies,
companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't
like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially
force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These
large companies didn't care because it's free money for them.

So he figured out how to get around stupid contentID flags. He put in clips of
videos from different companies and spliced them into his videos. This caused
a couple of companies to claim copyright over his video, but when there are
multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any
ad money. So in effect he gets to continue to use clips while not having any
companies monetize his viewers.

~~~
t0mbstone
"when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give
any of them any ad money"

If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a
single company's claim?

~~~
swang
Maybe? I'm not really sure. How hard is it to get into the contentID system?

I'm guessing part of the reason he did this was more for the humor of screwing
with larger media companies.

------
Orangeair
There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should
be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that
Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later
than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.

~~~
pflats
I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable.

Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of
Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to
take you down.

~~~
jkot
Original clip was uploaded 8 years before Fox published their version.

~~~
delecti
Many TV shows are not on Youtube at all except as unauthorized uploads. Should
Fox be unable to issue a takedown on an episode of the Simpsons that's been
uploaded since before they uploaded a copy into ContentID?

------
nomercy400
The currently implemented ContentID system isn't really at fault here. It is
being effective in protecting Family Guy content appearing on Youtube. It
looks at the reference video, analyzes it, and flags every video that matches
the reference video by a certain percentage, and deals with it.

The real problem here is that FOX copied the exact contents of an existing
7-year old youtube video in their Family Guy episode (maybe the creators tried
to give a tribute). The ContentID rules state that you should have exclusive
rights to the content in a specific region, which they don't.

Thinking about this again, the ContentID system is also at fault here: it is
blatantly ignoring the upload date for video's on youtube. I don't know how
the ContentID system works, but you should at least give the date on which the
copyright of the reference content (=Family Guy episode) starts. If FOX would
try to upload the Family Guy episode, the ContentID system should give a
warning that it uses already existing, older content. Now Youtube/Google, that
can't be so hard to implement, now can it?

Also, Youtube should handle complaints from incorrect takedowns a bit better.
Like keep a reputation on parties using the ContentID system. Say you start at
100. If you do incorrect takedowns, your reputation decreases. If you do
correct takedowns, it rises (come up with some statistical efficient tool)_.
If it falls below 50, you are excluded from the ContentID system for breaking
the rules, or somebody could sue the party or something. Make it transparent
(yearly report) to the public, so they can judge.

------
Flashuk100
This is eerily similar to the infamous "You made this?...I made this" comic.

~~~
akerro
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx8cG7SrNc)

~~~
taneq
Apparently historically accurate.

Also the irony of responding with an uploaded video of a copyrighted show
owned by a major studio is delicious. :)

------
cordite
The same kind of thing happened to NASA back in 2012 with some news group.
Both little and big names can screw people over with this.

------
wtfishackernews
Youtube really needs to find a proper solution to this problem. But at least
they acknowledge it and and are taking steps to improve.

[http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-
conte...](http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-content-id-
for-creators.html)

------
jokoon
I know that my argument would not stand in court, but when I read this, it
makes it harder for me to be against illegal downloading.

Although I prefer buying content directly from the artist, like Louis CK does.
As long as it seems "fair", I buy.

That where piracy comes from: a rational argument about a skewed market.

~~~
joesmo
I agree. An argument doesn't have to stand up in court to be right or moral
and I believe yours is both. If FOX can abuse Youtube policies and the DMCA, I
see no reason why people shouldn't abuse FOX and pirate.

------
ramy_d
Wow, I never considered the combination of a large broadcasting company that
produces original content using sampled material from the internet and then
automatically sending ContentID takedowns for said sampled content. It's like
a takedown feedback loop.

------
Kiro
So how often are these bogus takedowns rectified? Will this be? Seems
blatantly easy to fix if someone at YouTube just gives it a 5 minute look.

------
ivanstame
This is ridiculous...

------
blazespin
Maybe fox contacted NES and aquired the rights to double dribble and the clip.

~~~
xigency
Konami in this case owns copyright to the game, and ironically the original
YouTube poster might have a (weak) case against the original aired Family Guy
episode and Fox.

