Youtube is shit

[Onep]

Do you really think nothing works in America? They're just the largest super power in the world in terms of economy, military and political influence for no real reason?

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Nothing working is clearly hyperbole.
But we miss the mark, objectively, with many societal goals.

We spend a larger percent of our GDP on healthcare vis a vis any other developed nation.
In return, we have extremely modest healthcare outcomes.

We have high rates of poverty, social inequality, lagging education, etc.

Regardless of our high GDP, impressive military, and great political influence, we have done a very poor job at translating that into meaningful benefits for the vast majority of Americans.
There are many european countries that have higher GDP per capita than the US, as well as significantly better education, healthcare, social equality, etc.

[VDZ]

Im pretty sure that no one even reads my disputes. Its just a bot that claims my video, it will refuse the first time. But it will accept the second dispute.
Of course it will wait most of that "up to 30 days" just so they can get their hands on my video for as long as possible.

In my case its some random music copyright holding company called HorusMusic. Some artist "Dartland" claims that songs used in my video are made by him. The funny thing is, that you can find 100% the same songs from youtube uploaded BEFORE that artist even released the songs. Its really weird, isnt it? Go ahead and try to find information about Dartland, you can not find any. I think that some random guy or that music company just ripped bunch of songs from youtube and started to call them their own to strike people and grab those 2 months of ad revenue.

I doubt it's the artist himself. Most likely it's just the company that owns the rights to his music running a bot that automatically scans YouTube videos for easy profit. From what I hear, at least it's reasonably possible to dispute such claims nowadays; back when I still uploaded videos to YouTube I've had this happen plenty of times, except there was no way to contact YouTube about how incorrect the claims are.

Do you have enemies? Reporting for copyright may be the most common way of putting competitors out of business on youtube. Videos get flagged by the site faster than they review your complaint and during that process you've lost a lot of money. I've seen people abandon the video business because of this.

Nope, it's just bots. My MediaFire account got blocked ages ago (rendering all files inaccessible) for three 'strikes': Once for an illegal file the reporting company didn't have the rights to, once for a file that wasn't mine but I had permission to host (and of course the company didn't have rights to) and once for a file that was mine and to which I owned all rights. The description of the claims were just long list of URLs and stuff like movie titles and other stuff they were scanning for. I disputed the first two, but MediaFire never took action. I was unable to dispute the third one because my account was blocked and you can't dispute if you're blocked.

It's just how the DMCA works. Copyright holders can just automatically file countless claims in no time at all, and the company receiving the claim has to comply or risk being sued.

Note, there is a provision there providing recovery of attorneys fees (in addition the usual damages) to bring suit against someone who knowingly misepresents that you are infringing.

Key word being 'knowingly'. Easily avoidable by just choosing not to know. Hire a company to automatically scan content and send in DMCA complaints, that company can set their detection algorithms to be trigger-happy enough to get tons of false positives (because the company that hired them is happier if they do that), and then the rights owner can claim they're innocent as all those false positives were of course 'totally unintended' side effects. Easy money from a broken system.

It's pretty widely accepted in the US IP Law community that the DMCA is broken. However, there's no clear consensus on how to properly balance the rights of copyright holders and the public at large, in face of the reality of how difficult it would be to litigate even a miniscule fraction of the copyright violations that occur online.

Solution: Abandon copyright law. Trademarks only. Copyright law has entirely failed its intended purpose, as demonstrated for example by how clones of existing games can become commercially big on Facebook and mobile platforms, or how sufficiently big content portals can straight up steal content to host. It takes a lot of money to enforce your copyright, particularly against larger companies, meaning those who actually need the protection copyright law is supposed to provide cannot get it, while on the other hand large companies can wield it as a weapon against small companies and individuals.

Most of you commit prima facie violations of copyrights a dozen times a day, but don't even realize it.

When every single person breaks a law countless times a day, is that not a big red flag that there might be something wrong with that law? By posting this I am once again violating copyright law as I am posting a post next to which an avatar will appear that I do not have the rights to. I am not allowed to use this 90x90 crop of a screenshot from a game to represent myself on an internet forum, and I will not be allowed to do so until January 25th 2063, assuming the duration does not get extended before that. Arguably I am even in violation of copyright law by including your post in my own post without explicit permission, as you own the copyright to the things you wrote. Copyright law is utterly ridiculous.

This post (including the quoted parts, it's a "remix") is (c) 2017 VDZ. All rights reserved. Redistribution in part or as a whole is prohibited. Permission is hereby granted to HB Seatribe to use this post for purposes of communication in products associated with the 'Haven & Hearth' video game.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, for the *most* part, so I won't break down the errors you've made point by point.

I must ask, though, when you say "clones" of games on facebook, do you mean actual copies? Or just other games that look and feel astoundingly similar, but are not actually the same?
If the latter, you are no longer in the realm of a copyright, and would need to have an actual patent (so long as the game is not a derivative work.)

I'd also like to toss in that the bar for proving that someone "knowingly" misrepresented isn't as high as you seem to believe.
Having knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that your bot will flag material you do not hold the copyright to would be enough. You would be able to "prove" their knowledge by introducing circumstantial evidence that would allow the jury to infer that, more likely than not, they knew their bot was casting too wide a net.

If you wanted to seal the "knowingly" deal, telling them that their bot is fucking with your videos would probably suffice. If the bot continues to flag your content, they would be hard pressed to claim they had no knowledge.

In simpler terms, walking into a crowded movie theater, covering your eyes in blindfold, and opening fire with an automatic SMG into a crowd isn't going to allow you to claim that you did not knowingly attempt to shoot people

[shubla]

So you think its good if your country has a few rich guys and lots of stuff to kill people with, but your own people arent doing that well?
If you think thats a good thing, then your country is just the right for you.

[GenghisKhan44]

Like every country, in every time, America has strengths and weaknesses in its government's capacity to do good, or enable others to do good. So does the EU and the European nations outside of it.

But we're getting off-topic.

If you don't like YouTube, what about Dailymotion or Vimeo? Dailymotion is much more lax about copyright - and allows nudity! (Being located in France, who couldn't see that coming? )

[Ysh]

When every single person breaks a law countless times a day, is that not a big red flag that there might be something wrong with that law?

Lawyer design the system of laws. This feature is by design. When every man is a criminal, it is easy to lawyer to remove his enemy.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

When every single person breaks a law countless times a day, is that not a big red flag that there might be something wrong with that law?

Lawyer design the system of laws. This feature is by design. When every man is a criminal, it is easy to lawyer to remove his enemy.

I blame the legislature

They really wanted to empower police to criminalize absolutely everything, and keep throwing out vague ass statutes until they finally found something that stuck after judicial review.
For example, the following is the crime of Disorderly Conduct in my jurisdiction:

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

You don't need to be a lawyer to imagine how this statute could be broadly construed to include otherwise mundane acts

[VDZ]

with intent to cause public inconvenience

I don't know, I think this qualification makes it hard enough to properly abuse this legislature. It sounds more like the kind of rule that's broadly defined to make sure it can handle anyone being an asshat, without there being some loophole legally allowing you to clearly be an asshat without cops being able to fine you for it.

[Ysh]

with intent to cause public inconvenience

I don't know, I think this qualification makes it hard enough to properly abuse this legislature. It sounds more like the kind of rule that's broadly defined to make sure it can handle anyone being an asshat, without there being some loophole legally allowing you to clearly be an asshat without cops being able to fine you for it.

True assuming all party is playing fair (police, judge, jury, etc.). Of course, I think policing some thing unobservable like ''intent'' is always available for abusing.