Youtube is shit

[Robben_DuMarsch]

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.

You read it wrong
It is sufficient that you merely recklessly create a risk of public annoyance or alarm by performing one of the enumerated acts.

In 2003, an appellate court upheld a conviction under the disorderly conduct statute when someone mailed garbage.
Their reasoning? It recklessly created the risk of public annoyance or alarm (at the public postal office), by exposure to a physically offensive condition (it was stinky), which served no legitimate purpose.

I can't make this shit up, lol

To be fair though, the penalties for such an act are minor.
I take issue primarily with statutes that criminalize extremely serious criminal conduct, but are written so broadly as to also criminalize only minor criminal conduct to the same degree.

I once had a drunk guy that asked a passerby for change.
When the passerby refused, the guy grabbed him by the arm, and asked him again.
The "victim" did not claim to be forcefully grabbed, or that any effort was made to remove the change, or that any threatening action was taken on the part of the drunk perpetrator beyond the mere grabbing of his arm.
He was charged with felony attempted robbery.

You can imagine how the risk of being branded a felon for the rest of your life and sitting in jail for a few months makes you inclined to accept a plea deal to a lesser charge and be on probation for a few years, and be branded merely a criminal without a serious felony conviction.

Cases like that rarely reach a jury that gets to decide whether or not you had the requisite "intent."

[VDZ]

You read it wrong
It is sufficient that you merely recklessly create a risk of public annoyance or alarm by performing one of the enumerated acts.

True assuming all party is playing fair (police, judge, jury, etc.).

In that case, it is the enforcement of the legislation that causes the problem, not the legislation itself. If it was enforced properly, it would require some kind of evidence that the intent was to cause public inconvenience.

And yes, harm can be done legally through a sheer accusation even if no laws are broken whatsoever. Again, this is a problem with enforcement, not the legislation itself.

Of course, I think policing some thing unobservable like ''intent'' is always available for abusing.

In the US legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty or suspected of terrorism.

[MagicManICT]

In the US legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty or suspected of terrorism.

If only we practiced what we preach... Nope, as Robben says you get something heinous thrown at you and promises of spending X years in prison unless you plead to a lesser offense, and then you still get smacked with a felony, that, in some places, denies you the right to even vote (Florida) and forget about owning "weapons," let alone firearms, which we have a Constitutional right to the same as a vote.

I think there are reasonable systems that can be implemented if rights and patent managing companies were willing to work with content hosts such as Google (YouTube), Facebook, etc. As I posted earlier, though, too many are just flat trolls looking to profit off others' works.

@shubla: if a letter of complaint to the offending company and to Google (YouTube) doesn't do it, there's always legal recourse. Just make sure you have a solid case. File the same copyright claim against them, too. Just make sure to file some sort of proof with it. It then makes the host liable for fines and court actions if they don't act.

Bigger question is why are they flagging the files? Checksums? labels? Anything you can do so those get changed up and can't be recognized? I don't want to encourage anyone to do anything illegal here, but there's hacks you should be able to legally pull to avoid this.

[jordancoles]

Led Zeppelin is the worst I've come across as far as copyright claims and the affects that they have.

If you play 20 seconds of a Led Zeppelin song in a 30 minute Youtube video, the entire video's audio will be muted and the video will be banned in several countries (including Canada sometimes).
It's fucking intense dude.

Germany has some weird laws too. Most everything is blocked in Germany, to the point where I don't even care if they can watch or not anymore
You cough on mic and get flagged in Germany for copyright

[shubla]

I agree that its dumb when copyrights still exist for song, even though the songmaker and writer have died like 50+ years ago. Who gets the money? Their grandchildrens children and some big corporation, eh?
At least in Finland copyrights will be void after 70 years the death of singer. I'm not sure how long its in America.
I think that copyrights at least for music should be duration of the singers life, and after death a few years (like 5). Why? Because if his/her relatives were all just living off the artists money, they have few years to sort their shit together.
Also if company uses lot of money to... advertise some artist and grow his ego so everyone listens to his music, and then he dies. It might be major loss for the company. So they get 5 years time to rip all the money off customers.

[MagicManICT]

Maybe Robben knows since he's legal trained and all that... I'd have to look on music, but doesn't seem like it's that long.... (quick Google search "copyright on music duration" later)

The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection.

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

Not sure on prior works to 1978. Doesn't seem that long, but as a lot of music copyrights end up "owned" by corporate interests, it gets funny.

Then of course, there's always the whole "fair use" "parody" and other exceptions, many of which these bots don't catch.