
“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made” - MagicPropmaker
https://twitter.com/ThatMumboJumbo/status/1130009515766755328
======
makecheck
Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all?

If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review
manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive
sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount
of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to
review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices.
(We certainly need more jobs for people.)

~~~
ErikAugust
Google borders on insane with lacking any sort of manual support.

For example, when you are a paid G Suite customer - you'll need to dig hard to
find their support number. Then you'll need to click several buttons making it
clear you still need support. You also need to then generate a PIN used to
access the phone support.

~~~
GordonS
Similar story with Adwords - if you want support with that, you ain't gonna
get it. It's a maze of FAQs and automated email responses with useless
information.

If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're
some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so
much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up.

Truely, incredible that they get away with it. Also incredible that they're OK
with this given how much profit they make from ads.

By comparison, I've had excellent support from Bing Ads in the past -
unfortunately they represent a much smaller number of impressions than
Adwords.

~~~
DougN7
Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human
account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not
saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.

~~~
michaelmrose
Someone literally stealing from creators needs to start generating expensive
lawsuits for some percentage of cases not managed appropriately.

This will inspire more concern on their part.

~~~
icebraining
Except legally, Youtube has no obligation to host these videos, and can take
them down on a whim. So a lawsuit has no leg to stand on. While, on the other
hand, they do have an obligation to take copyright infringement complaints
very seriously - in fact, ContentID came from one of those "expensive
lawsuits".

You need to change the law first.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections. Since they
choose to provide monetary compensation based on accusations instead of
evidence with a system they created, they would also be responsible for the
system that they created facilitating said copyfraud that is knowingly taking
money from legitimate copyright holders and giving it to false claimants. If
any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator, say a book creator,
this would be obvious fraud, as it is in this case. I think the case is
stronger against YouTube than it will would initially appear.

~~~
icebraining
> Facilitating copyfraud could invalidate their DMCA protections.

[citation needed]

> If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator

YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos,
put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to
incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their
discretion.

~~~
michaelmrose
The creators uploaded their videos under the premise that they would receive a
share of ad revenue. Given that creators retain copyright to the materials
keeping all the money and continuing to distribute would seem problematic.

Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have
zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't
think a lawyer would accept.

------
Animats
False claim of copyright is a criminal offense in the US. While prosecutions
are extremely rare, they have happened. It is worth getting a lawyer to help
you file a formal complaint with the US Department of Justice. While the odds
of criminal prosecution are low, there's a good chance paperwork from a US
Attorney's office asking some questions will be sent to the offender. That
will reach their legal people, and something useful will probably happen.

See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp).

~~~
bo1024
By my understanding, you are mistaken or out of date. What you wrote is true
for takedown notices issued under the DMCA, but YouTube is allowing companies
to order takedowns or monetize other's videos without going through the legal
DMCA process. That's what ContentID is about.

~~~
Animats
YouTube seems to claim that the DMCA counter-notice procedure applies.[1]

[1]
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684)

~~~
jml7c5
That link is for actual DMCA notices. With the Content ID take-downs, Google
never actually receives a DMCA request. The music company (etc.) politely asks
YouTube to take down the video, and YouTube complies out of the goodness of
its heart. (Well, and a bunch of contracts that give some sort of quid pro quo
for the arrangement between YouTube and these companies.)

It looks like these are all Content ID takedowns (well, actually not
takedowns; whoever is making the requests is taking the ad revenue from the
videos, but leaving them up). In these cases, YouTube has their own dispute
system, but it doesn't touch the DMCA.

I think this is the relevant page:
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en&ref_...](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en&ref_topic=2778545)

~~~
cannonedhamster
All of which makes Google liable for theft. They created the system, they run
the system, they transfer the money. It's all facilitating copyfraud. Just
because Google agrees to host the content doesn't mean that they are incapable
of being able to be sued for their intentional actions.

~~~
teraflop
It's not legally theft if Google makes a decision to start paying party B
instead of party A.

You're choosing to let YouTube publicly host the video until further notice,
and in exchange they agree to pay you whatever cut of ad revenue they deem
appropriate. There's no question that under the terms you agree to, they can
demonetize your videos at will. And if they also see fit to start paying
somebody else when your videos get played, that's not something you have legal
standing to complain about.

What it probably is, is fraud on the part of whoever's falsely claiming to
Google that they have a copyright interest.

------
mdorazio
The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why
would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue
has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities.
Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system
exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities
happy.

I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight
face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post
whatever videos they want to.

~~~
sirn
FWIW, the author of the tweet, Mumbo Jumbo is a high-profile Minecraft videos
content creator on YouTube (3M subscribers) and he's doing this as his full-
time job. By your description, I would say he's in the top personalities
group.

What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue
sharing of his video with no recourse.

Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1]

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4)

~~~
inlined
MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the
company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means
they can never be part of the VIP category.

~~~
cameronbrown
I don't understand why popularity, not the type of content, isn't what makes
you VIP?

~~~
kd5bjo
Any VIP program works on the (perceived) social standing that comes from
(perceived) exclusivity. YouTube doesn’t want to alienate the traditional
celebrities with ties to big media companies; part of that means stocking the
VIP pool with only people that those celebrities consider to be their peers.

~~~
londons_explore
It's not that. YouTube is very worried about the copyright position of video
game streams (ie. The stream clearly shows the copyrighted artwork of the
games, unlicensed).

If they don't review the video, they can use the safe harbor provisions. If
they look at the content and decide to promote or reward those creators,
Google themselves could become liable for that IP infringement on aassive
scale that so far is mostly going unprosecuted.

------
sam0x17
I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the
copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants
that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue
the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they
abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have
their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use
detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the
work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period,
can't submit a claim on that.

It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.

~~~
nwallin
> I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the
> copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants
> that abuse the system.

Money.

If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims
instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual
lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested
copyright claim.

The DMCA isn't designed in a way to make an easy path forward for a service
like Youtube to operate fairly in a profitable manner. Article 13 prohibits it
by law.

Copyright law reminds me of going to my parent's house and being asked to fix
something on their computer. It's not this one thing that's broken, it's
_everything_ that's broken. I could fix all the little individual things, but
it would be a lot easier to wipe it clean and start from scratch.

~~~
icebraining
> they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar
> to review each contested copyright claim.

No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon
notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the
material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even
allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.

~~~
nwallin
The keyword is "contested".

If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the
background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video
without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far.

Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the
dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either
needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides
with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly.

Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need"
applies here.

~~~
juped
You are factually incorrect about the well-known DMCA notice and counter-
notice provisions. Please read 17 USC §512, subsections (c) and (g). The
comment to which you are replying quotes what I presume from context to be
subsection (c) (the language is repeated across multiple subsections).

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)

The law provides that service providers can avoid liability by following these
procedures, which afford them no discretion or opportunity to review claimed
infringement.

You claim that "DMCA claims [...] [impose] a significant legal burden on YT;
they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar
to review each contested copyright claim." From the statute, it appears
instead that reviewing section (c) notices or section (g) counter-notices and
acting based on their own purported determination of infringement or non-
infringement would cause the loss of their safe harbor, a safe harbor
available only when the provider follows the nondiscretionary procedure laid
out in (c)(1) and (g)(2).

------
DanBC
He's had a response from Head of gaming at YT:
[https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417](https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417)

~~~
bdz
Now imagine if you don't have 3m subs, no 150k followers on Twitter, no one is
posting your stuff on Reddit and even on HN. Good luck getting any help from
Google

~~~
Frost1x
Now imagine it isn't YouTube but some other more significant privatized
service near monopoly status, say a local grocery chain or car rental company,
and they enforce a "policy" (say banning you) that is now difficult to
separate from a law other than you have no voice and little recourse for
action, especially as an individual.

Privatized monopolies are in general small totalitarian government regimes
that reign over specific functions (markets) of life. Real competition is what
breaks those regimes into a democracy where you can somewhat vote with your
purchase decisions. We still have to watch out for cartels though where
multiple near monopolies agree to stay out of each others territories or
collude to set market practices.

~~~
luckylion
Let's go a step further: imagine living in a new company town that Google
bought/built. Three DMCA-claims and you're in violation of TOS, all your
content (including what's in your apartment) is deleted and you're kicked out
of town and driven to the town limits.

I'm sure there will still be people here who are quite happy with that because
"it's not the government doing it" and they reckon they're not next in line
for the same treatment.

~~~
greenyoda
If Google builds a town in the U.S., they're still subject to state and
federal laws, which have protections for tenants and requirements for due
process. (If it's really a company town, then the company would be the
municipal government.)

~~~
Spooky23
Not really. See West Virginia.

------
panpanna
The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees.

As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators,
monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a
friend at Google who can escalate the issue).

~~~
ratsmack
Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it
seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are
more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large
corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.

~~~
guntars
Then maybe someone needs to sell DMCA insurance to small creators that could
never afford to retain a lawyer individually. The majority of the invalid
claims would get reversed the second a suit is filed and they wouldn’t go
further than that.

~~~
inetknght
That's a step in the wrong direction: preventing abuse will always be better
than legitimizing it.

------
jccalhoun
Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea
if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on
Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange
that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious.

I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South
American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I
know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here
to tell if this is a good example of this.

Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with
permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway:
[https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153](https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153)

~~~
djmips
It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another
song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the
public domain... [https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-
Show...](https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Showers-
Teddy-Joyce-and-His-Orchestra-March-Winds-and-April-Showers/)

~~~
lysp
Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the
year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?

~~~
dijksterhuis
Pretty sure it’s just 70 years after death.

~~~
DanBC
Ruth Etting died in 1978.

------
gotland_
This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician
friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the
company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check
of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be
similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k)

~~~
colordrops
It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that
superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in
existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the
rhythm nor the melody is the same.

------
dijksterhuis
FYI - this looks like it may be a valid claim before you all go grab your
pitchforks and torches.

[https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...](https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/1130180911352487936?s=20)

------
Iv
Hollywood started on the west coast because it was reasonably out of reach
from the copyright and patent claims of the east coast. That's what allowed to
a creative industry to start and strive.

Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's
clutches.

The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have
complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure
that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up
in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)"

Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a
specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that
or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.

------
duxup
How is it just as spam / disruptive behavior type protection do they not have
a catch for if 1800+ claims ... maybe have a human with a brain take a look at
what is up?

Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.

------
throwaway55554
How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid
DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!

~~~
tzs
The problem here has nothing to do with the DMCA. The problem is that Google
has implemented its own system that has little to do with the DMCA.

If it were handled the DMCA way, here is how it would go.

1\. Someone complains to the hosting service alleging that you are violating
their copyright.

2\. The hosting provider takes down the material and notifies you. If you do
not want to dispute this, that is the end of it.

3\. If you want to dispute their claims, you notify the hosting provider. It
doesn't really matter, as far as I recall, if you dispute the claims because
you say the claimant does not hold copyright, or you say that they do but your
use is covered by fair use, or any other mean.

4\. The hosting provider puts your material back up, and tells the complainant
that if they want to take it down, they need to take you to court, and
provides your legal contact information for filing said suit.

If the claimant takes you to court, and wins, following the above procedure
absolves the hosting provider of any liability for the infringement.

~~~
luckylion
If the claimant takes you to court and loses, there is no penalty, I assume?
There's punitive damages in the US - any chance that would be applied to such
a case?

~~~
tzs
As far as the court case goes, it's basically just like it would be if the
complainant had simply sued you directly for copyright infringement. If you
win, the court can award you costs and attorney fees. I'm not sure how they
decide whether or not to do so.

A claimant trying to use DMCA where it is not justifiable faces a couple other
deterrents.

First, unless the claimant is representing themselves in the case, they are
going to have an attorney, and that attorney is going to take into account
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1]. If the claimant
doesn't have a fairly reasonable case, he is going to have trouble finding an
attorney.

Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is
perjury. The claimant can face criminal charges for that (although it would
probably have to involve someone doing this on a large scale to get Federal
prosecutors to prosecute).

Knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown also makes you liable for civil
damages, including costs and attorney fees, incurred by the target of the
takedown notice, the hosting provider, and in the case where neither the
complainant or the target are the copyright owner, the actual copyright owner.

If the complainant who knowingly files a false takedown notice actually
follows through and sue you for infringement, I'd guess that the damages due
to you for the false notice would be handled there.

If the complainant isn't that stupid, and drops the matter after the notice
and counter-notice, you could sue them over the false notice.

[1]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11)

~~~
ryani
> Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is
> perjury

I've reviewed the DMCA a few times and I am pretty sure this isn't true. It's
supposed to be the "teeth" of the DMCA to prevent false claims, but the actual
teeth are very blunted.

The requirements a DMCA takedown notice are[1]

1\. you have to sign it as someone authorized to act on behalf of the
copyright owner.

2\. you have to identify the work you claim is being infringed.

3\. you have to identify the work you want them to take down.

4\. you have to give them your contact information.

5\. you have to state that you have a "good faith belief" that the content is
infringing.

6\. Direct quote, and the only use of the word "perjury" in the notification
requirements: "A statement that the information in the notification is
accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is
authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is
allegedly in-fringed."

The only thing you must declare under penalty of perjury is that you are
authorized to act for the copyright owner. The only other claim you make is
that you are acting in "good faith", which is super fuzzy. An actor sending
out notices on content detected by content-id bots is almost certainly acting
in "good faith" if they haven't been made aware of potential errors by those
bots.

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/other/text-digital-millennium-
copyright...](https://www.aclu.org/other/text-digital-millennium-copyright-
act-dmca) (search for "ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION")

------
jancsika
Why not just have a captcha for copyright claims:

"Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming"

If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.

------
fenwick67
Very sad that "please retweet" is their best recourse.

------
gatewaynode
It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally
copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these
monetization attacks and maximize compensation.

~~~
Jolter
Works are copyrighted automatically under modern law. I'm not aware of any
procedure to "formally copyright" a work.

~~~
detaro
In some countries (including the US) you can additionally "register
copyright", and it makes enforcement easier or allows higher compensation,
maybe that's what they're referring to.

That advice wouldn't help the british creator in this case though.

~~~
gatewaynode
Correct, in the US there is implicit copyright by default if you include a
copyright mark and date and formal copyright through registration. Implicit US
copyright doesn't offer much protection, just an ability to tell people to
stop using your works. Formal US copyright gives you rapid retort and default
judement compensation that's just insane (something like up to $150,000 per
infringement). You don't have to be a US citizen to register for a US
copyright.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Nothing can possibly go wrong with Article 17.

------
sam0x17
Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have
been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way.

Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the
claimant.

~~~
icebraining
Why wouldn't the claimant just switch to plain-old DMCA takedowns in that
case?

~~~
sam0x17
Because it would be more financially beneficial to just not submit fake
reports.

------
faissaloo
When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the
entire concept of copyright is.

~~~
IAmGraydon
Copyright is necessary and isn’t the problem here. What is the problem is
Youtube’s refusal to require any verification when a copyright claim is made.
YouTube has essentially created a society that doesn’t abide by due process
because it’s a virtual society and therefore isn’t required to follow the same
laws that physical societies are held to. This is a symptom of a much more
dangerous problem - as we exist more and more in the online world, we are
subject to whatever contrived laws the owners of that world decide to create.
Those laws have serious fallout in the real world, like complete loss of
income due to bogus copyright claims.

~~~
faissaloo
I reject the notion that copyright is necessary, what's necessary is my
personal ability to use my devices without random companies being able to use
the state to punish me for using an abstract concept that may or may not
resemble one that they at some point also used. If you would like to make
money from your art there are options such as commisions, but the onus is on
you to find a business model that works, it is not for the government to be
creating artificial monopolies to facilitate a business model that is
incompatible with reality.

~~~
dijksterhuis
Copyright is enshrined in law. You don’t get the choice of picking and
choosing to abide by it or not. The artificial monopolies (they’re not
artificial btw) are guaranteed by those laws.

Should an artist want to not register copyright for their works, they are 100%
free to do so.

They won’t make any money, but that’s their choice.

You may not agree with the system, but it’s the law.

In this single case, this is actually the system working as it should.

[https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...](https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/1130180911352487936?s=20)

------
pfarnsworth
How is this still possible in 2019? These are well-known tactics and yet
Youtube still allows this?

------
iforgotpassword
I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by
exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform
will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean
sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never
managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start.
Then there's the occasional startup that promises to fill exactly that gap,
announced with fanfares and everything, but nobody came up with a killer
feature yet. But that's just the gist of how I feel about that situation from
when topics like that pop up every now and then.

Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on
YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what
the winning replacement platform will be?

~~~
fenwick67
Twitch is poised to threaten YouTube. They have Amazon behind them
financially, and their live streaming is beating YouTube's.

~~~
aitchnyu
Is Twitch becoming a general purpose video site? At a glance, it seems all
screengrabs and tabletop cameras of games.

~~~
fenwick67
Right now you are right. Twitch only lets you stream live content and keep
recordings of it.

But they certainly compete with YouTube for eyeballs, and I can't imagine
they're not working on a regular video ecosystem.

------
dandare
And what if this happened to someone who is not famous with a large following?

~~~
Fuzzwah
I agree with the sentiment, but only popular channels are going to be targeted
like this.

------
aphextron
You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now.
YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to
change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another
meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the
web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep
humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of
fairness will never hurt it in any way.

~~~
Zephyreks
What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?

~~~
singron
How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for
monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all
monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization.

Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they
get to keep the difference.

Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is
incentivized to find inaccurate claims.

~~~
asveikau
That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The
copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and
under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and
act like that's the law.

The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not
to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.

~~~
DuskStar
The 'content owner' can always choose to opt out and file DMCA requests
instead of using ContentID, though. If they don't like Google's system... They
don't have to use it.

But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes
to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling,
really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.

~~~
burfog
The DMCA may be rough on active content creators, but it is far worse on
inactive ones and on the public interest in having that material available.
ContentID has the same trouble. Consider:

* creator is in the hospital

* creator is dead, and the heirs know nothing about dealing with copyright claims

* creator is hiking the Appalachian Trail for the next year

* creator is in jail for something unrelated

* creator got deployed on a submarine

* creator now has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember the internet

ContentID becomes a trivial way to steal money, and the DMCA becomes a trivial
way to suppress the creator's work.

------
Taniwha
Seems like nothing that 1800 small claims suits wont fix ... start with one to
make sure it will go through, then file the rest

------
Fjolsvith
Why not have a separate company you own that copyright claims your own videos
first?

------
hedora
In fairness, the franchise or manager (not McDonalds) was at fault there.

They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature,
and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety
violation.

The burn led to hospitalization.

~~~
apocalypstyx
>The burn led to hospitalization.

3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body.
(Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat.
While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially
disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant
scarring.

>They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temperature

It was within normal operating parameters as per the McDonald's manual. There
had been 700 prior instances of warning about issues from hot coffee.

(And while I'm at it)

She was not driving, she was a passenger in a parked car when the incident
occurred. She originally only sued for medical costs; McDonald's offered $800.
The jury awarded $200,000 and the judge reduced that to $160,000. $2.7 million
was awarded by the jury in punitive damages and reduced to $480,000 by the
judge, however, there was later a settlement for an unknown amount after
McDonald's appealed.

Why does everyone remember different? Because McDonald's spent more than a few
million dollars on a PR campaign against her, after which she received
lifelong massive amounts of hate mail and death threats and was reduced to
gags on everything from Seinfeld to Jay Leno to Futurama.

~~~
nate_meurer
What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more
than her own.

Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still
is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As
of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185
deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was
burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by
coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day.

Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and _squeezed_ it between her legs in
order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected.
If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect
third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled
to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly.

Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly
boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on
yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted.

Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she
didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really
stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff _all the time_ , and I have
the scars to remind me.

We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use
properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's
useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds.
There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for
people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their
proper use.

1 - [https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-
Coffee](https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee)

~~~
stordoff
> Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly
> boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee.

Depends on the tea. Most of the recommendations I see are below boiling:

> white and green teas are best at 70°c. For black and oolong teas use water
> around 85°c. For herbal infusions use 100°c water, and 90°c for Chamomile.

[https://www.rareteacompany.com/perfect-cup/how-to-make-
the-p...](https://www.rareteacompany.com/perfect-cup/how-to-make-the-perfect-
cup-of-tea)

> Once your kettle is boiled with fresh water you need to leave it for a few
> minutes to cool down.

[https://www.twinings.co.uk/about-twinings/latest-news-and-
ar...](https://www.twinings.co.uk/about-twinings/latest-news-and-articles/how-
to-make-tea-perfectly)

~~~
nate_meurer
"Depends on the tea" is absolutely right, but that website makes some odd
claims. It reads like a content mill. Their claim that black tea should be
steeped at 85 deg C is simply wrong. I don't know where they got that. Black
teas are universally recognized to require the highest steeping temperatures,
to the point that high-altitude brewing is a problem for many folks. The claim
that green tea is best steeped at 70 deg C is similarly useless, simply
because there are so many kinds of green tea. Really sweet, amino-heavy teas
like a good gyokuro are definitely better done at lower temperatures. But most
green teas are quite forgiving, and are commonly brewed at near boiling
temperatures. Freshly boiled hot water is also often necessary for herbals,
especially short-steeping acidic herbals like hibiscus and fruit.

Mate is uniformly prepared and served at around 180 deg F in my experience.
Don't spill that shit either.

I've noticed a trend in recent years for tea retailers to lace their marketing
with fancy instructions that treat their teas like autistic children,
demanding gentle temperatures and strict timing rules. This started as a
uniquely American bit of marketing wank, but it seems to be spreading
recently. For a rebuttal with the credibility of an old-fashioned Englishman,
here's Ginger Baker in an interview in Forbes a few years back:

> _One thing that really bothers me in America is the inability of restaurants
> to make a good cup of tea. The instructions printed on the bag say, "Pour
> boiling water over the tea." How simple is that? No, they bring you an empty
> cup with an unopened tea bag beside it – how nice - and a pot of water that
> may be hot, but boiling it isn’t. So tea you have not. It’s boiling water
> that brings out tea’s flavor, and perhaps a dash of milk. But the brown
> liquid you end up with here looks like gnat’s pee, and has nothing to do
> with a really good cup of tea._

Even notwithstanding individual preferences, if you go to any _good_ tea shop
you're highly likely to be served a pot of freshly boiled water, which may
still be well over 200 deg F by the time you pour it. A hazardous substance to
be sure.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Agreed. Black tea will _never_ brew properly at 85° - personally I'd throw
that gnat's pee away and try and get it right the second time.

As near to 100 as you can manage, which means warm the pot or mug first -
though most don't. Pot with loose leaf is much preferable. Let it brew to
taste.

~~~
nate_meurer
Yeah, it's kind of hit or miss at restaurants. The Chart House that I frequent
is good at bringing boiling hot water, but they have only one tea-drinking
waitress who always makes sure the cups she brings out are hot. The little tea
shop near my house always brings everything hot, of course.

How do you feel about steeping times? There are some green teas that get nasty
if I steep too long, but otherwise, for me, stronger is almost always better,
so I've rarely paid attention to steeping times. Sometimes I make a big french
press of tea and let it steep until drunk. Do you keep track of the time?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
No, I don't time it - and I also prefer it good and strong. I suppose it
roughly works out at 5 mins in a pot with loose leaf, and I'd guess around 3
mins with a teabag. Shorter as tea bag tea is so much nearer dust. Just not so
long as to let it get stewed.

Green tea and some of the lighter black teas - like Darjeeling - definitely
prefer a bit less time. Lapsang souchong seems to magically avoid stewing no
matter how long you leave it. :)

~~~
nate_meurer
Good to know. "Stewing" does sort of describe the way I make tea sometimes.

Where do you like to buy? I used to get great stuff like single-estate
Darjeelings and Assams from a mail-order company that was later sold to (and
destroyed by) Teavana. I mostly use Davidson's Organics now, but the selection
is smaller.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Ooh, I avoid that change of flavour when it gets the stewed bitter edge and
after taste. Wouldn't surprise me if that's British English separating us by
common language though. :)

Can't help you too much on where - I'm in the UK, even most supermarkets take
tea slightly seriously. Then we're spoiled rotten with a great tea shop nearby
with loads of loose coffees and teas, including their own blends.
[https://www.johnwatt.co.uk](https://www.johnwatt.co.uk)

------
IloveHN84
Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?

~~~
Flammy
That isn't how YouTube's Content ID system works.

The vast majority of users don't have access to the system.

When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal
process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately.

Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views

------
peterwwillis
I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form
of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the
internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it
another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee
of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to
generate attention for a platform that mines that attention for ad dollars, of
which he gets a few pennies for his trouble. Even if this is his dream job,
the risk he's taking is high.

Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these
creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an _equitable_
relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will
treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway
to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and
series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget
content.

~~~
Zarath
> " Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when
> his videos go away, he's outraged."

Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos _he_
makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.

~~~
peterwwillis
That's how shitty parts of society work. An organization creates a monopoly
platform to generate revenue, and then exploits content producers. Yes, our
society has multiple examples of exploitative marketplaces. That doesn't make
it okay.

But also, complaining has never helped! As multiple people have commented
here, they have no incentive to change! The one thing that _does_ force change
is competition, and there is basically no competition.

