Joe Vargas, who makes the fantastic The Angry Joe Show on YouTube, isn't a complete stranger to Techdirt's pages. You may recall that this angry reviewer of all things pop culture swore off doing reviews of Nintendo products a while back after Nintendo prevented Vargas from monetizing a review of a a game. The whole episode highlighted just how out of touch companies like Nintendo can be with this sort of thing, given how many younger folks rely on reviews like Vargas' to determine where they spend their gaming dollars. Coupled with the argument that these commentary and review videos ought to constitute use of footage as fair use and it's hard to see why any of this was worth it to Nintendo.
Or CBS, apparently. CBS recently got Angry Joe's YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down, claiming copyright on the 2 thirteen-second videos of the show's publicly available trailer that Vargas used in the review.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:00PM (7 children)
We don't have enough public backlash when big companies shut down these sorts of hobby uses. It's not like Joe dropping all reviews of Nintendo products had a big impact on sales of Nintendo products. Nor is it likely that there will be a significant drop in viewership of the show. Yet, these mega corporations can abuse copyright and shut down the little guy.
I acknowledge there is a grey area and plenty that go well beyond it. But 26 seconds of video taken from a free video put out by CBS is a free commercial even if Joe was insulting the show.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:29PM
I have no interest in Nintendo or CBS All Access. Moves like this do nothing to change my opinion of them.
I do like Angry Joe, and several other movie, TV and game reviewers. I may not agree with every review they do, but they can help me be more informed on things before I buy. Seeing actual footage can help with that decision. If a company wants to hide these review, I simply think they are trying to hide something because of bad quality, and I will not buy.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:34PM (4 children)
I mean that falls into a broader trend of Americans not violently destroying corporations that deserve it.
Say what you want about the French, they know how to riot effectively.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:59PM (2 children)
That might be true, but the tradeoff is that you have to be French, and most people have too much modesty and self respect to aspire to be that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:19PM (1 child)
Can I just get away with using a cheap Maurice Chevalier or Inspector Clouseau accent?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:25PM
If a nightingale could sing like you... [dailymotion.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:20AM
When's the last time a French riot took down a corporation that deserved it?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:43PM
I came here to say something like that.
The FANS of sci fi shows need to hit them in the wallet by boycotting behavior such as this. EVEN IF CBS has an actual legal argument, this behavior is ridiculous. CBS also was quite unkind, as I recall, to a large virtual reality (unreal game engine) walk through model of the USS Enterprise D (ST:TNG).
This is pure CBS. I'm not CBSing your either. People need to call CBS on this.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:30PM
Without this he’d just be angry joe blow
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:33PM (13 children)
YouTube takedowns are absolutely arbitrary, their "appeals process" is a joke - the e-mails state that "your case has been reviewed by a human" but there is zero evidence that this is true - and even if the provided "conversational evidence that they are considering your case" that could be easily manufactured by a bot.
It is a monolithic structure making its own decisions, only large entities like CBS, PBS, Fox, Sony, etc. have the clout to get some attention from YouTube - the masses they "serve" (as in: serve up on a plate for the lion's share of advertising revenue) are really in a take it or leave it situation.
I pity people who depend on YouTube for income - a rare few make millions, but the lottery may be a more dependable source of income.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:02PM (6 children)
err.... that should be:
large entities like CBS, PBS, Fox, Sony, etc., have a direct API into YouTube that allows them to file a copyright claim against any uploaded video they chose to target.
There, fixed that for you.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:51PM (5 children)
Certain things get flagged instantly before even going live. You can't find the video for Mint Car by The Cure anywhere. I tried uploading an old mpeg copy and it immediately got a notice.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:00PM
That would be the content-id system in action.
It recognized an match of your upload with a content-id uploaded by one of the media companies and immediately flagged it.
That is the second part of the 'system' youtube has.
But part one is the direct API for the majors where they can flag whatever they want for any reason they like.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday February 04 2020, @05:16PM
Interestingly having the word "Linux" in the title of a video is enough to get the video demonetized instantly. Byan Lunduke spoke about that not too long ago. So there are several political games going on there at Youtube, not all of which are based on copyright abuse.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:13PM (2 children)
Umm...
Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7F9LhuMsrQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:24AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @04:27PM
https://trustedproxies.com/international-geo-surfing/ [trustedproxies.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:24PM (3 children)
The thing is, YouTube is just following legal advice here. Which do you think would be more likely to get Google sued? Refusing to take down infringing content, or taking down non-infringing content? Even if it's a relatively established Youtuber like Angry Joe, they probably have no more than $100,000 to pay for lawyers, versus any member of the MPAA or RIAA who has an army of lawyers on staff worth millions ready to attack at the snap of an executive's fingers.
That's one of the many problems with the US civil law system: Victory often goes to the party with the deepest pockets whether or not they were legally correct, because the cost of a lawyer isn't cheap and most of the time you're paying for it up front. If a case is really frivolous, you *might* be able to recover attorney's fees and have the losing party pay your legal costs. Or if you're a plaintiff, your lawyer *might* take your case on contingency and end up with a really big payoff while leaving you with not much. But even winning a lawsuit can put you into bankruptcy if you didn't start out rich.
I doubt even the professional YouTubers make millions, and those that do make money tend to make it from Patreon supporters, not YouTube ad revenue. And the basic point is that no matter what third party you depend on for your revenue, that third party can screw you over at any time for any reason, and you should plan ahead for how you're going to handle it when they do.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:38PM
Yes, not blaming YouTube exclusively, it is more of a structural problem with the legal system. YouTube is just one of many clear symptoms of the disease.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:45PM (1 child)
Their are a huge number of internet celebrities who do it as their only job. Most of these do not even put in all that much effort and put in like a couple 30 minute videos a week and maybe 8 hours of live streams. Thousands upon thousands, and even more over at twitch and other camwhore websites. Most are not making millions, but with almost 0 cost to participate, even minimum wage, under 2K a month, will replace having a job. Many of the content creators seem to be from programming jobs so I assume the pay must be quite a lot over minimum wage to get most of them to quite whatever job they had before. The thing is, A humongous number of people are migrating from film and tv consuming over to youtube. A tremendous amount of content is consumed every second of every day. It is not hard to get millions in views, every hobby in existence has as least a dozen channels pumping out content, and their is room for more. Meanwhile the cost to create this content has gone down to practically no skill at all and maybe 1.5 times the length of the video in time investment. It takes very little to make a profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:13PM
If it's really that easy then everyone would do it and the whole system would collapse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:25PM (1 child)
I'd feel more sorry for those who depend on YouTube for income if they realized that YouTube never promised them that they could or should be able to make a living posting stuff to YouTube or that creators should depend on it as a revenue source. Nothing will earn an "unsubscribe" faster than a "personality" taking time on their channel to bitch about their problems with YouTube.
It's almost like their forefathers in the entertainment industry who did things like form SAG, AFTRA, Equity, IATSE, DGA, WGA, and others might have had some legitimate interest in organizing to protect their futures, eh? But wait! This is the get-rich-quick Internet we're talking about here, so of course it should be different!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:07PM
I feel more sorry for those who depend on YouTube for reviews of movies, games and such (or anything, actually). Don't they have friends or family?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:04PM (5 children)
Since this is specifically commentary about the show, with de minimis short clips of the show it's squarely within the fair use for commentary provision of copyright law.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:29PM (3 children)
True, it does lie perfectly within the bounds of fair use. But fair use is a defense against infringement, not a preemptive right granting copy. The real question is what did YouTube do when Angry Joe protested it? And yes, this was another dick move from CBS - not arguing that they shouldn't have known better before launching the complaint. I'd expect within a day we'll see an apology from CBS... at least I hope so.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:52PM (2 children)
CBS have absolutely no respect for copyright law, as this is clear fair use. The most fitting response is surely to perform an immitation of their actions - have absolutely no respect for copyright law.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:45PM (1 child)
And release a modified linux kernel without the source? They'll be so burned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @01:51PM
wrong side.
(Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:37PM
Sorry, but having a defense usable in court doesn't protect you against damage during the period between the take-down and the court decision. And by the time the court case come up, this will be totally irrelevant.
This is an example of the "system" being gamed by powerful players for their own benefit. YouTube is one of the powerful players that helped design the system, so they don't get a pass under "we're just obeying our lawyers". Neither does CBS. And neither do the lawyers. This is one of those cases that justify "Let's kill all the lawyers". [ A line from William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The full quote is "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". (credit Wikipedia)]
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:43PM (2 children)
So the show, Picard, is kinda bad then or?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:10PM (1 child)
actually it was quite good - certainly better than "try too hard" discovery.
I think the free taster of the pilot was a good move, as it'll up the numbers.
Myself, I'll wait for it to hit...y'know...
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday February 05 2020, @05:00AM
The pilot is not for everyone. I live in another country and... well, you get the picture (even if I don't).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @11:33PM (1 child)
Well, I'd been wanting to see this. I was looking at my options for streaming, but thankfully CBS has saved me the effort. Torrent it is!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @02:14AM
I tried and all i got was dead data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @01:47AM
I hope that other compaines will do the same. AJ show is not a critique, it is just an entertainment show. The show that is using copyrighted matherial, and never bothered to license it. I hope that such shows will be blocked, and their authors sued for copyright infringement.