this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
451 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3143 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the content creator isn't following the proper system then. You don't need YouTube to do a copyright/IP violation claim. Google is actually opening themselves up to significantly hot water if they are indeed refusing to allow a process for DMCA on creators that are deleted off the platform, as there are severe penalties for not reacting to a DMCA claim when you are a content provider.
If they actually owned the rights to the videos, that creators first step when learning that Youtube is not going to do anything about the violation, is to manually file it themselves, and honestly they should state that Youtube at that point is intentionally allowing it which would perhaps pull Youtube into it as well
just because YouTube decides that they aren't going to do anything, doesn't invalidate your claim to copyright. I'm surprised that the channel hasn't seeked legal action against anyone regarding it.
My two cents on the matter is that it's likely the channel is worried that their videos aren't transformative enough fair use wise and that they themselves may get into legal troubles if they attempted to. A lot of commentary artists stay borderline on fair-use and not fair use, however if this was not the case, they have a pretty decent chance of winning that suit.
Oh, if you follow the channel, it's CLEAR someone, probably just the one person, has a clear vendetta against Henry And Jeannie (MXRPlays). They used to know one person at youtube. So when they'd get their channel strike, they'd email him, and he'd review what the strike was for.
It was stuff like "Advocating child harm".
The guy would look at the video in question, and see no evidence of that. No children in the video. No discussions of child harm. Any human without a grudge could see it was a false autobot ID. So he would remove the strike. Then the next day, the strike would be back. He'd email the guy, and the guy would look through the logs, and find it was done by a human working for youtube. He'd remove the strike again, but he'd tell them "I can't remove it again. If he puts the strike back, it goes above me. Then the strike would be put back.....and it would have to be waited out. The strike stays on your account I think they said 30 days. And if you get 3 strikes at the same time, the channel gets suspended.
So they wouldn't upload any more videos, and then 3 days later they'd get another strike on a video that was 4 years old. Clearly not a bot, since bots generally don't seek out old content with no activity.
And the same situation would ensue. They hung on, and kept doing this cat and mouse game for 8 years. Until the guy they knew at youtube left the company. And then they had no one to delete strikes. Any calls to anyone at youtube were ignored. And the channel wasn't even suspended, it was terminated.
And when this other guy is reuploading their old stuff on his own personal channel, youtube says they have no way to DMCA it because the original source file, the proof that he has to say it's his content, was deleted. Because his channel was terminated.