YouTube copyright strike

Last updated
A copyright strike on YouTube YoutubeCopyrightStrike.png
A copyright strike on YouTube

YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). [1] The DMCA is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. [1] For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. [1] YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1] When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. [2] A copyright strike will expire after 90 days. However, if a YouTube user accumulates three copyright strikes within those 90 days, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, including any associated channels that the user have, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel. [1] [3]

Contents

YouTube assigns strikes based on reports of copyright violations from bots. [4]

Some users have expressed concern that the strike process is unfair to users. [5] The complaint is that the system assumes the guilt of YouTube users and takes the side of copyright holders even when no infringement has occurred. [5]

YouTube and Nintendo were criticised by Cory Doctorow, a writer for the blog Boing Boing , due to them reportedly treating video game reviewers unfairly by threatening them with strikes. [6]

Reasons for strikes

Disagreements about what constitutes fair use

Fair use is a legal rationale for reusing copyrighted content in a limited way, such as to discuss or criticize other media. Various YouTube creators have reported receiving copyright strikes for using media in the context of fair use. [7]

Suppression of criticism

YouTube creators have reported receiving copyright strikes on videos critical of corporate products. They assert that copyright violation, in this context, has been used as a strategy to suppress criticism. [8]

Strikes for posting own work

Copyright strikes have also been issued against creators themselves. [9] Miracle of Sound's channel was hit with multiple copyright strikes as a result of automated strikes by the distributor of their own music. [10] [11]

Strikes for works in the public domain

In a similar incident to such strikes, though in another forum, Sony issued an automated copyright strike against James Rhodes for a video on Facebook of him playing part of a piece by Bach, on the grounds that they owned the copyright on a similar recording, and when the strike was challenged, asserted that they owned the rights to the work, before finally admitting that Bach's compositions are in the public domain. [12]

Strikes for unknown reasons

Some publishers on YouTube report not understanding why they have received strikes. [13]

This may relate to the fact that 99.95 percent of DMCA takedown notices are actually sent at random URLs that could have existed (valid format) but are not actually used at all at the time the takedown notice is sent. This is the work of bots having no valid claims to any copyright, trying to carpet bomb DMCA notices for various illegal reasons such as trying to ruin a competitor. [14]

Related Research Articles

A cease and desist letter is a document sent by one party, often a business, to warn another party that they believe the other party is committing an unlawful act, such as copyright infringement, and that they will take legal action if the other party continues the alleged unlawful activity. The letter may warn that, if the recipient does not discontinue specified conduct, or take certain actions, by deadlines set in the letter, the letter's recipient may be sued. The phrase "cease and desist" is a legal doublet, made up of two near-synonyms. A cease and desist letter issued by a government entity, called a cease and desist order, is "a warning of impending judicial enforcement".

Lumen, formerly Chilling Effects, is an American collaborative archive created by Wendy Seltzer and operated by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. It allows recipients of cease-and-desist notices to submit them to the site and receive information about their legal rights and responsibilities.

Boing Boing is a website, first established as a zine in 1988, later becoming a group blog. Common topics and themes include technology, futurism, science fiction, gadgets, intellectual property, Disney, and left-wing politics. It twice won the Bloggies for Weblog of the Year, in 2004 and 2005. The editors are Mark Frauenfelder, David Pescovitz, Carla Sinclair, and Rob Beschizza, and the publisher is Jason Weisberger.

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong–based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyfraud</span> False copyright claims to public-domain content

A copyfraud is a false copyright claim by an individual or institution with respect to content that is in the public domain. Such claims are unlawful, at least under US and Australian copyright law, because material that is not copyrighted is free for all to use, modify and reproduce. Copyfraud also includes overreaching claims by publishers, museums and others, as where a legitimate copyright owner knowingly, or with constructive knowledge, claims rights beyond what the law allows.

Stream ripping is the process of saving data streams to a file. The process is sometimes referred to as destreaming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i> U.S. District Court copyright case

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Let's Play</span> Playthrough of a video game with commentary

A Let's Play (LP) is a video documenting the playthrough of a video game, often including commentary and/or a camera view of the gamer's face. A Let's Play differs from a video game walkthrough or strategy guide by focusing on an individual's subjective experience with the game, often with humorous, irreverent, or critical commentary from the player, rather than being an objective source of information on how to progress through the game. While Let's Plays and live streaming of game playthroughs are related, Let's Plays tend to be curated experiences that include editing and narration, and can be scripted, while streaming is often an unedited experience performed on the fly.

Rumblefish Inc. is a music licensing company specializing in all forms of synchronization licensing with a focus on 'micro-licensing' and online network monetization such as with YouTube's Content ID. It covers over 1.8 million pieces of music and it licenses over 20,000 soundtracks on more than nine million social videos.

Copyright law of South Korea is regulated by the Copyright Act of 1957. It has been amended several times, with a recent 2009 revision introducing a three strikes policy for online copyright infringement.

YouTube copyright issues relate to how the Google-owned site implements its protection methods. The systems are designed to protect the exclusivity of a given creator and owner and the rights to reproduce their work. YouTube uses automated measures such as copyright strikes, Content ID and Copyright Verification Program. These methods have been criticized for favoring corporations and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

Content ID is a digital fingerprinting system developed by Google which is used to easily identify and manage copyrighted content on YouTube. Videos uploaded to YouTube are compared against audio and video files registered with Content ID by content owners, looking for any matches. Content owners have the choice to have matching content blocked or to monetize it. The system began to be implemented around 2007. By 2016, it had cost $60 million to develop and led to around $2 billion in payments to copyright holders. By 2018, Google had invested at least $100 million into the system.

youtube-dl is a free and open source download manager for video and audio from YouTube and over 1,000 other video hosting websites. It is released under the Unlicense software license.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Electronic Frontier Foundation (6 February 2009). "A Guide to YouTube Removals". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  2. Roe, Mike (April 14, 2011). "Google hires Happy Tree Friends to explain copyright to YouTube uploaders". KPCC .
  3. "Copyright strike basics". YouTube . Retrieved 16 July 2018.
  4. Douglas, Nick (24 January 2018). "You Can't Fool YouTube's Copyright Bots". Lifehacker.
  5. 1 2 staff (21 May 2010). "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?". BBC News . Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  6. Cory Doctorow (Mar 27, 2015). "Youtube and Nintendo conspire to steal from game superfans". Boing Boing . Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  7. Alexander, Julia (3 April 2018). "YouTubers voice concerns over hefty Universal Pictures copyright strikes". Polygon.
  8. Eordogh, Fruzsina (1 September 2018). "TikTok's Owners Falsely Copyright Strike Criticism Of App". Forbes.
  9. Weiss, Geoff (6 July 2018). "YouTube Guitarist Claims He Got A Copyright Strike For Infringing Upon His Own Song - Tubefilter". Tubefilter.
  10. Edward, Jason. "YouTube Marketing". laweekly.com. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
  11. Doctorow, Cory (5 September 2018). "The future is here today: you can't play Bach on Facebook because Sony says they own his compositions". BoingBoing.
  12. Klepek, Patrick (27 October 2015). "Atlus Keeps Hitting Tiny YouTube Channels With Copyright Strikes". Kotaku Australia.
  13. Techdirt article on bogus DMCA takedown on invalid URLs being the bulk | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170223/06160336772/google-report-9995-percent-dmca-takedown-notices-are-bot-generated-bullshit-buckshot.shtml