Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 15 2015, @10:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the discontentID dept.

A YouTube user has had enough with the service's flawed ContentID system for removing copyright-infringing material. Benjamin Ligeri has filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island against Google, Viacom, Lionsgate and another YouTube user:

Ligeri says that he has uploaded content to YouTube under the name BetterStream for purposes including "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research," but never in breach of copyright. Nevertheless, he claims to have fallen foul of YouTube's automated anti-piracy systems.

One complaint details a video uploaded by Ligeri which he says was a parody of the film The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It was present on YouTube for a year before a complaint was filed against it by a YouTube user called Egeda Pirateria. "Defendant Pirateria is not the rightful owner of the rights to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, nor did the Plaintiff's critique of it amount to copying or distribution of the movie," Ligeri writes. However, much to his disappointment, YouTube issued a copyright "strike" against Ligeri's account and refused to remove the warning, even on appeal. "YouTube, although Defendants Pirateria or Lion's Gate lacked any legal claim to any copyright to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, denied the Plaintiff's appeal pertaining to his account's copyright strike," the complaint reads. Ligeri says Viacom also got in on the action, filing a complaint against his "critique" of the 2014 remake of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

"Content ID is an opaque and proprietary system where the accuser can serve as the judge, jury and executioner," Ligeri continues. "Content ID allows individuals, including Defendants other than Google, to steal ad revenue from YouTube video creators en masse, with some companies claiming content they don't own deliberately or not. The inability to understand context and parody regularly leads to fair use videos getting blocked, muted or monetized."

Noting that YouTube exercises absolute power through its take-it-or-leave-it user agreement, Ligeri says the agreement and Content ID combined result in non-compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Ligeri says that rather than acting as a neutral party, YouTube favors larger copyright holders using Content ID over smaller creators who do not. "This software and YouTube's terms of use circumvent DMCA by creating a private arbitration mechanism. Further, a party claiming copyright infringement has no burden of proof under this private arbitration mechanism," he notes.

Is this a pie-in-the-sky attempt to win over $1 million in damages while standing up for the rights of disgruntled YouTube uploaders, or a publicity stunt to promote channels with less than a thousand subscribers and a million views? This is not Ligeri's first legal action against YouTube.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @12:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @12:03PM (#183305)

    He was using someone elses webserver/website to host his stuff because...?

    He could just setup a LAMP on a raspberry pi for about 40 bucks and get the same thing. Why would he have more rights to sue google than he would to sue his next door neighbor hosting his silly video's for free if the neighbor deleted them off their web server.

    Totally ignorant that he could solve his own problem by himself, wouldn't cost him a thing, wouldn't even take him more than a day to setup the server/site and get upload working.

    I wonder if he suspects just how ashamed we all are of him for being so weak? I can't say I get my hackles up about copyright, because it's not about copyright its about how much he wants to use googles website/web server because he won't setup his own. It's about his inability to even conceive of the idea that he as an individual has the power to correct the reality around him that he does not like. He is a consumer, pathetic.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Informative=1, Overrated=1, Disagree=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Friday May 15 2015, @12:57PM

    by LaminatorX (14) <laminatorxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 15 2015, @12:57PM (#183311)

    Insisting on fair and equal treatment is not contingent on the availability of LAMP on a Raspberry Pi as an alternative. Google lets the media cartels walk all over their users via ContentID. The fact that there are other options doesn't make that OK, or mean that he should just take it or leave it.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Friday May 15 2015, @12:57PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 15 2015, @12:57PM (#183314) Journal

    Because Google has market dominance, brand recognition, money to provide content cache servers providing economy of scales, cached re-coding, traffic averaging over many customers etc. So if anyone person tries to compete they will be stuck with a static cost for the connection and a dynamic income. In addition due to the small business they won't have the money for an international content caching infrastructure. And won't be big enough to induce a rational choice to put ads on the server. Subscription fees from payment processors may also chew up any subscription fees. Distributing video is another ballgame than web pages or even images.

    It's the same as always, big players play under different rules.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Friday May 15 2015, @01:05PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Friday May 15 2015, @01:05PM (#183320)
    Google now maintains a defacto monopoly on Internet video, and therefore must be held to a higher standard. They also partner with people in a business relationship to share advertising revenue. A contract that says "I will pay you X from Y revenues from your work", which also includes a mechanism for shifting payables from one partner to another arbitrarily (and using a set of contracts that Google wrote that are not negotiable by the other party) is unconscionable, unenforceable and possibly illegal. It is certainly subject to civil action.
    --
    I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Friday May 15 2015, @01:18PM

      by stormwyrm (717) on Friday May 15 2015, @01:18PM (#183324) Journal

      As A.J. Liebling once famously said: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." I wonder what the response of governments should be to a de facto media monopoly. This article:

      http://www.rense.com/general10/FREEDOM.HTM [rense.com]

      gives a lot of food for thought. Governments really ought to have regulation in place to preserve a diverse media market. To do otherwise will be to endanger freedoms of speech and the press.

      --
      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 15 2015, @02:01PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 15 2015, @02:01PM (#183334)

    I'm going to take what is clearly the minority position and agree with AC. Here's why, in a nutshell: There is no legal right to post anything on Youtube (or any other third-party site). Google chooses to allow people to post stuff on there, but can disallow that at any time for any reason they like. They are not a common carrier, or anything remotely like that.

    If you have something to say, and Youtube won't host it, your options are:
    1. Put it up on a competitor of Youtube (Dailymotion, Vimeo, etc)
    2. Host it yourself.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:41PM (#183396)

      They cannot use false copyright claims to deprive the content creator of revenue. By choosing to side with the fraudulent claim they are essentially stealing revenue they are contractually obligated to pay otherwise, when they deprive the youtuber of money with no recompense for failed application of the DMCA and outright fraud by those falsely claiming to be rightsholders there is definitely impetus to sue.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:48PM (#183400)

      I bet yours is the opinion of silent majority. The entitlement mentality of the loud minority is ... amusing (not really).

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @10:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @10:35PM (#183520)

        "entitlement" is now a buzzword and nothing more. Someone criticizes X? Wow, you're so entitled! You're holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to do your bidding! You believe you are entitled to make them do as you want them to!

        As for this, some people don't believe companies with de facto monopolies in some area should be able to do whatever they want.