A Fake Nintendo Lawyer is Scaring YouTubers (theverge.com) 29
A wave of fraudulent copyright takedowns on YouTube has exposed vulnerabilities in the platform's content moderation system, enabling anonymous users to threaten creators' channels through false legal claims, The Verge is reporting. Several gaming content creators, including a channel with 1.5 million subscribers, received takedown notices from someone impersonating Nintendo's legal team. Though YouTube acknowledged the false claims, the company declined to explain how it verifies takedown requests or detail measures to prevent abuse of its copyright system.
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
the company declined to explain how it verifies takedown requests or detail measures to prevent abuse of its copyright system
Current evidence suggests there isn't much to say.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer is probably: Youtube doesn't.
The DMCA process does not even have "you think the sender is fake" as grounds for ignoring a notice and retaining a safe harbor. If it turned out to be real but they failed to process it or decided they wanted to "verify it", then Youtube would potentially be subjected to liability and lose their safe harbor protection.
Long answer is: Claims of alleged infringement are made under penalty of perjury. And it's the the legitimate rightsholder whose rights are be
Committing Perjury (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law only requires that content hosters have a system in place that is good enough that large copyright owners are satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is DMCA takedowns are extrajudicial. Since they are handled outside the legal system by private parties, perjury does not apply. The law only requires that content hosters have a system in place that is good enough that large copyright owners are satisfied.
The law also legal action against someone making a false claim, beyond what the content hoster must do; which is civil, not criminal. IANAL, but as I understand it committing perjury in a civil case could lead to a criminal prosecution, but I doubt that would happen in a DMCA case.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is DMCA takedowns are extrajudicial. Since they are handled outside the legal system by private parties, perjury does not apply.
That is literally exactly the opposite of what a valid takedown notice must say. Chapter 17 US Code section 512(C)(3)(a)(vi):
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 infringed.
Emphasis added. So someone pretending to represent the rights holder can be prosecuted for perjury.
A takedown notice that is knowingly wrong in other ways makes the agent liable for damages also. See Section 512(C)(3)(f).
DMCA take downs need to be court order only with a (Score:2)
DMCA take downs need to be court order only with an real judge reviewing each one.
Re:DMCA take downs need to be court order only wit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the safest time in history to be alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe just don't; and treat the RIAA/MPAA/Metallica and their various wannabes, minions, supplicants, and apologists like the bread-and-circuses trivialities they are at best or the utterly corrupt in every way abusive scum they are day-to-day, and allot them exactly as much court time as they deserve versus real criminals who do real harm. I think about five minutes per day of one judge per US circuit would be about right.
Re: (Score:2)
yes lets clog up our courts with millions of useless youtube claims while murderers and pedophiles run rampant
On the bright side it might bring attention to the fact that most of them are indeed useless.
Not a big deal (Score:3)
YoutTube is running itself into the ground with its unusability efforts. Each month it becomes less and less usable without having to jump through hoops.
About the only thing it's good for at this point is listening to a single song. Trying to watch any video is an act of futiliy.
Re: (Score:3)
YoutTube is running itself into the ground with its unusability efforts. Each month it becomes less and less usable without having to jump through hoops.
https://mybrowseraddon.com/adb... [mybrowseraddon.com]
https://www.mrfdev.com/enhance... [mrfdev.com]
https://noscript.net/ [noscript.net]
https://sponsor.ajay.app/ [ajay.app]
https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... [github.com]
Ridiculous (Score:2)
1. Require rights holders to register
2. Validate corporate registrations via postal mail to the physical corporate address.
3. Issue a digital certificate for signing DMCA take-downs that rights holders can give to their law firms
-- Charge $300 for these certificates
4. Only accept DCMA take-down requests signed by certificates registered t
The main thing was to protect them. (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, the main thing was to protect them. Collateral damage to legit legal people using the system is outside the scope.
This will never be fixed. It may slow down a single corporation trying to remove something they don't like.
Injustice for us makes sure the corps have their swift justice.
DMCA reform is desperately needed. (Score:3)
This is just yet another example of how desperately needed DMCA reform is, and how ridiculously easily it could be reformed to put an end to its abuses:
1). Forbid all automated and/or mass takedowns. Just close those endpoints and delete the APIs entirely. Want to make a DMCA claim? Put it in writing, on paper, signed by the responsible and individually identified as a specific person claimant, sent via registered mail, with ONE file, URL, or whatever per claim.
2). To reiterate, do not allow DMCA claimants to hide under the corporate veil to dodge accountability when they abuse the law. Any and every DMCA takedown needs to be asserted and signed, under the penalty of perjury that is supposed to apply, by a single, specific, identifiable, and accountable individual; or no takedown shall occur.
3). Put some teeth into that "under penalty of perjury" clause. Lie in your sworn affadavit and claim a takedown on content that is fair use, incidental in the background, satire, news, not actually owned by you or someone who has granted you power of attorney to handle such matters, or is in any other way non-infringing? Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Off to federal prison you go!
Three simple steps, and the DMCA is fixed such that it still allows legitimate takedowns, but would no longer allow the rampant and routine abuse it allows now.
Re: (Score:3)
The penalty of perjury in the law is specifically for the assertion that the person filing is a copyright holder or is the agent of a copyright holder. It does not include the assertion that the held copyright has anything to do with the work being complained about. And since everyone who's ever written a post or letter technically holds a copyright to that post/letter, the perjury clause never applies. It's pure window dressing to make the law seem more stringent than it is.
Take down verification and "Safe Harbor" (Score:2)
While I sympathize deeply with Domtendo and others targeted by this fake DMCA troll, I cannot help but see this as a symptom of a much larger problem. The current anti-piracy system, exemplified by YouTube’s broken DMCA processes, creates a minefield for creators. Or take Italy's so-called “Piracy Shield”: If Domtendo happened to be based in Milan, Italian law would have mandated the removal of all infringing content on his channel—within thirty minutes!—and would have required
As if this is new... (Score:2)
And surprise! Youtube is completely opaque on how it handles takedown notices, despite facilitating and allowing fake DMCA takedown extortion rackets to fleece it's creators.
yep (Score:2)
So, stop using Youtube. There are other places content creators can go. Once you do that, you can just ignore DMCA requests since 99% of the are either fraudulent or just straight up not valid to begin with - especially the music industry's.
Shoot me some alternatives to YouTube (Score:2)
Where instead of YouTube? Odysee uses LBRY cryptocurrency. BitChute and Rumble front pages are full of hard conservatives, cryptocurrency traders, and conspiracy theorists. Do these platforms get cleaner when a viewer is logged in with watch history that the platform's recommendation algorithm can use?
Or should each video producer consider setting up a MediaGoblin or PeerTube instance? And if so, how would one go about selling ad time?
And the "justice department" cares less. (Score:2)
"But it's only money" then give me yours.
"We don't have the resources" then you cannot do your job... quit. Stop pretending. Stop lying.
What happens (Score:2)
The DMCA law protects the wealthy from the poor. What happens to the poor, their rights, or their income derived from IP, is not relevant.