• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Uri Geller Sued

To be frank, YouTube's policy of remove-now-ask-questions-later is grossly unfair. It should be up to the claimant to prove copyright ownership before YouTube pull the clip, not the original poster to prove it afterwards.

They just pulled a video with over million views because some kid decided to file a hoax infringement report. Then it was up to the owner to prove copyright before they'd reinstate it! How is that even sensible?
 
Last edited:
If it was to Youtube, they would not be limiting the videos to 10 minutes and ask people to prove copyright ownership.

They were forced to do these things awhile ago to prevent legal issues.. I'm sure thy are not happy about that either.
 
tkingdoll said:
How is that even sensible?
Click to expand...

YouTube is simply erring on the side of caution because there is absolutely no benefit to them in even caring about the legitimacy of copyright claims just as long as they don't get sued for it.
 
tkingdoll said:
To be frank, YouTube's policy of remove-now-ask-questions-later is grossly unfair. It should be up to the claimant to prove copyright ownership before YouTube pull the clip, not the original poster to prove it afterwards.

They just pulled a video with over million views because some kid decided to file a hoax infringement report. Then it was up to the owner to prove copyright before they'd reinstate it! How is that even sensible?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this Geller hubbub will give them pause to think it over.
 
cyborg said:
YouTube is simply erring on the side of caution because there is absolutely no benefit to them in even caring about the legitimacy of copyright claims just as long as they don't get sued for it.
Click to expand...

For sure, but it won't be too long before someone sues them for removing a video which should have remained.

Example: the video to which I refer drove many hundreds of thousands of viewers to YouTube. It is in their interest for it to be there. And during the 'removed' period, we lost who knows how many views. That's no good for us and no good for them.

I do understand why they do it, but guilty-until-proven innocent is a peverse way to supply a service. I'm only ranting because it's affected me personally, of course :D
 
tkingdoll said:
To be frank, YouTube's policy of remove-now-ask-questions-later is grossly unfair. It should be up to the claimant to prove copyright ownership before YouTube pull the clip, not the original poster to prove it afterwards.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, a stipulation of the DMCA is that potentially infringing content must be removed immediately upon notification to avoid severe penalties.

They just pulled a video with over million views because some kid decided to file a hoax infringement report. Then it was up to the owner to prove copyright before they'd reinstate it! How is that even sensible?
Click to expand...

It's not. But it's the law so far as I know.
 
DJM said:
It's their own website and their own rules.. how can anyone sue them for that?
Click to expand...

Reputation, I'd hazard.

tsg, I think you're right about the DMCA. What's stupid about the whole thing is that you don't need to provide any proof that a video infringes your copyright in order to have it removed, but they're a bit shaky on how you get it reinstated.

In the example I gave above, it was a case of replying to them saying "er, actually the copyright is fine and the person is lying to you". They reinstated the video very soon after. So what happens if the original hoaxer protests? It's just my-word-against-yours, back and forth.

It strikes me as much fairer to leave the content where it is until the complainant proves his/her copyright has been breached.

Wishful thinking, I daresay, but it will be interesting to see what effect the Geller suit has.
 
tkingdoll said:
tsg, I think you're right about the DMCA. What's stupid about the whole thing is that you don't need to provide any proof that a video infringes your copyright in order to have it removed, but they're a bit shaky on how you get it reinstated.

In the example I gave above, it was a case of replying to them saying "er, actually the copyright is fine and the person is lying to you". They reinstated the video very soon after. So what happens if the original hoaxer protests? It's just my-word-against-yours, back and forth.
Click to expand...

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act is the pertinent part of the DMCA. See the example in the wiki article, but it goes roughly like this:

Someone notifies YouTube some of their content is infringing.
YouTube removes the content and notifies the original poster.
The original poster files a counter-notice with YouTube.
YouTube waits 10-14 days for "Someone" to file a lawsuit.
If they don't YouTube can put the content back.

It strikes me as much fairer to leave the content where it is until the complainant proves his/her copyright has been breached.
Click to expand...

ETA: There is a requirement for a "claim in good faith" that there has been an infringement, and perjury penalties for misrepresenting that you are a representative of the person making the claim, but other than that no proof that an infringement has taken place is required or, as far as I know, any penalty if there is no infringement.

Wishful thinking, I daresay, but it will be interesting to see what effect the Geller suit has.
Click to expand...

If history is any indication (and my recollection of it accurate), the courts will find for the EFF stating that this is clearly not what the DMCA was designed to do, the supporters of the DMCA will say "see, the system works" ignoring that this is a particularly egregious violation of the intent and that the damage is already done, the DMCA won't change, and copyright holders will still be able to stifle criticism using the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Just a guess from a non-lawyer.
 
Last edited:
tsg said:
Someone notifies YouTube some of their content is infringing.
YouTube removes the content and notifies the original poster.
The original poster files a counter-notice with YouTube.
YouTube waits 10-14 days for "Someone" to file a lawsuit.
If they don't YouTube can put the content back.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting, because in the example I'm talking about, they reinstated the video within a few hours of receipt of the 'put the effing video back' email. I wonder if they make a judgement call when it's very obvious they've been duped?
 
tkingdoll said:
That's very interesting, because in the example I'm talking about, they reinstated the video within a few hours of receipt of the 'put the effing video back' email. I wonder if they make a judgement call when it's very obvious they've been duped?
Click to expand...

They are allowed to ignore the request to take it down, but not removing the content endangers their "safe harbor" provisions and can make them legally liable for any infringement. If they are certain there isn't any, they can choose to leave it up or restore it.

My guess is the actual copyright holder came forward and showed them it was a bogus request.
 
tsg said:
They are allowed to ignore the request to take it down, but not removing the content endangers their "safe harbor" provisions and can make them legally liable for any infringement. If they are certain there isn't any, they can choose to leave it up or restore it.

My guess is the actual copyright holder came forward and showed them it was a bogus request.
Click to expand...

I'm talking from first-hand knowledge of the position of the copyright holder. And there was no evidence given to YouTube other than 'no, that's my video, really it is'. In fact I had filed notices to YouTube for violations of copyright of that very video! (basically people copying it then reposting it with the titles removed and their own in place).

So I wonder what made them choose one person's word over another? The person who filed the original complaint was from Japan, perhaps they get a lot of them from the same person and have some sort of 'hoaxer' list. But then again, Geller would have been on it.
 
tkingdoll said:
I'm talking from first-hand knowledge of the position of the copyright holder. And there was no evidence given to YouTube other than 'no, that's my video, really it is'. In fact I had filed notices to YouTube for violations of copyright of that very video! (basically people copying it then reposting it with the titles removed and their own in place).

So I wonder what made them choose one person's word over another? The person who filed the original complaint was from Japan, perhaps they get a lot of them from the same person and have some sort of 'hoaxer' list. But then again, Geller would have been on it.
Click to expand...

You are in the UK, right? I'm wondering whether the DMCA would even apply. I know they have something similar over there, but I have no idea about the specifics.

But either way, I would have to speculate that YouTube convinced themselves that there was no infringement before putting the video back up. I'm willing to bet your previous notices helped.
 
cyborg said:
YouTube is simply erring on the side of caution because there is absolutely no benefit to them in even caring about the legitimacy of copyright claims just as long as they don't get sued for it.
Click to expand...
Right.

It was like when Sylvia Browne's attorneys told CafePress that the articles I was selling violated Browne's tademark because they had "www.StopSylviaBrowne.com" on them.

There is just not enough benefit to YouTube or CafePress for them to get in the middle of something like that. They would spend their time doing little else.
 
tsg said:
You are in the UK, right? I'm wondering whether the DMCA would even apply. I know they have something similar over there, but I have no idea about the specifics.

But either way, I would have to speculate that YouTube convinced themselves that there was no infringement before putting the video back up. I'm willing to bet your previous notices helped.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's about the size of it. I'd love a behind the scenes look at their setup though. For example, how many people they have just to deal with copyright notices, that sort of thing. It's extremely interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom