Dr. Wolf's account terminated? SPREAD THE WORD!

[Colorful Respawn 399]

Damn, I liked Dr. Wolf. He was a good analysis-er. Buckin' copyright, why you gotta be a pain in the ass? 

[Thrashy 2,799]

Images are copyrighted, whether they be from Hasbro or from fan works.

 

Static pictures containing copyrighted imagery are NOT illegal for use in instances covered by Fair Use, including matters of critique (which is what a reviewer bases his/her entire videos around, in case that wasn't clear). The only images with heavy restrictions placed upon them, even in Fair Use situations, are moving images; footage. Which Dr. Wolf apparently used none of, ergo nobody would have any legal ground to remove his videos simply for the imagery contained within.

 

For example, if I drew a picture, and you shared that picture on your website without my permission, you're infringing upon my copyright. However, if you shared it without my permission and wrote a critique of it - crediting me as its original source - that is technically legal, whether or not I liked what you had to say about my picture.

[nami438 90]

Static pictures containing copyrighted imagery are NOT illegal for use in instances covered by Fair Use, including matters of critique (which is what a reviewer bases his/her entire videos around, in case that wasn't clear). The only images with heavy restrictions placed upon them, even in Fair Use situations, are moving images; footage. Which Dr. Wolf apparently used none of, ergo nobody would have any legal ground to remove his videos simply for the imagery contained within.

 

For example, if I drew a picture, and you shared that picture on your website without my permission, you're infringing upon my copyright. However, if you shared it without my permission and wrote a critique of it - crediting me as its original source - that is technically legal, whether or not I liked what you had to say about my picture.

This didn't go down in the United States of America, where American law applies. This happened on Youtube.com, where Google™ is the King and they think they can run the joint however they want while sitting on their golden thrones.

 

King Google™ decided to let a company claim any little detail as copyright infringement and take videos down on Youtube.com, illegal under fair use or not, so King Google™ made it so. Long live the King!

Edited May 7, 2014 by nami438

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

This didn't go down in the United States of America, where American law applies. This happened on Youtube.com, where Google™ is the King and they think they can run the joint however they want while sitting on their golden thrones.

YouTube is not going to just pull videos without a good reason, because it's not in their best interest. Their whole business model is based around providing a free place to host videos of just about anything. They basically only go after copyright infringements if their hand is forced because someone's legal team contacted them.

 

If that wasn't the case, more than half the videos on YouTube wouldn't even be up.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Andaasonsan

[nami438 90]

YouTube is not going to just pull videos without a good reason, because it's not in their best interest. Their whole business model is based around providing a free place to host videos of just about anything. They basically only go after copyright infringements if their hand is forced because someone's legal team contacted.

 

If that wasn't the case, more than half the videos on YouTube wouldn't even be up.

Google's best interest is to not be sued silly by conglomerates like Warner and Disney, which happened in the late 00's and is why there are such dumb/illegal rules on Youtube today. They don't care about the video makers, they are literally a dime a dozen and if Google bans one, 10 more will come to take her place and make more money for King Google.

 

Such is the problem with monopolies.

 

More than half the videos on Youtube have ContentID working on them, which makes all profit from advertising go to the companies that would otherwise take the videos down. The companies won't take down videos that are making them (and only them) money. If it weren't for ContentID, trust me, Youtube would probably have disappeared years ago, or at least be only full of completely original content (read: tiny as heck).

Edited May 7, 2014 by nami438

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Dude sounds like a level 4 numpty for falling for a phishing scheme. And an even larger one for not just making a new account, and continuing business as usual. Just like the new account to your pateron, get word out about your new channel on a couple big name reviewers and boom, back in action.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Google's best interest is to not be sued silly by conglomerates like Warner and Disney, which happened in the late 00's and is why there are such dumb/illegal rules on Youtube today. They don't care about the video makers, they are literally a dime a dozen and if Google bans one, 10 more will come to take her place and make more money for King Google.

 

Such is the problem with monopolies.

Well they're a private company providing a service, so they're not under any moral or legal obligation to host people's videos at all on their servers. They can pull your video for whatever damn reason they want, and that is their right. My point is that it would be really bad for business if they were pulling things without a good reason.

[SasQ 1,355]

YouTube is not going to just pull videos without a good reason, because it's not in their best interest.

 

With the pretty much a monopoly they've created, one video or channel this or that way won't make much difference to them. They're already at the level where they can simply don't care. Just see how many users they've lost by forcing the whole G+ shit down their throats. And how many people still stayed with YouTube and meekly created their G+ accounts to continue their fun.

Edited May 7, 2014 by SasQ

[nami438 90]

Well they're a private company providing a service, so they're not under any moral or legal obligation to host people's videos at all on their servers. They can pull your video for whatever damn reason they want, and that is their right. My point is that it would be really bad for business if they were pulling things without a good reason.

It should be, and it is bad for their business, you are completely right. But it's way worse for Google to go the other way and get multibillion dollar corporations revving up their lawyers for big lawsuits.

 

Which is worse to get mad, Youtubers or conglomerates?

Youtubers: they all leave, Youtube dies (which wouldn't actually happen, many Youtubers aren't affected by these copyright claims, but just assuming).

Conglomerates: Google gets their pants sued off by the world's most powerful entities, Google dies.

[Thrashy 2,799]

Well they're a private company providing a service, so they're not under any moral or legal obligation to host people's videos at all on their servers. They can pull your video for whatever damn reason they want, and that is their right. My point is that it would be really bad for business if they were pulling things without a good reason.

 

Are you saying that because they are the host, they should be able to pull your videos for whatever reason they see fit, regardless of whether or not they actually violate copyright law? That seems like an open invitation for censorship, if you ask me.

[Jeric 46,836]

I ran across one of his videos in a suggested YouTube search. Reviews are not my thing, but the video I saw had more thoughtful analysis on MLP than some I've seen covering Emerson. Any fan community benefits from reviewers like this.

 

Hasbro typically works through a standard DMCA C&D process. Send a letter, copy the host, wait for compliance, if no compliance then request action from the host. Actually, it's a bit more fair and lenient than some others.What happened here sounds like Google/YouTube Automated ID system caught something it didn't like. It could be related to a hack. There is also a phishing scam that is similar to Dr. Wolf's story, so YouTube may have nothing to do with this.  

 

Also, his videos are almost perfect text book examples of Fair Use in the US and Canada. It just takes and ungodly amount of time, energy, and money to fight this sort of thing legally.

 

And Google, if this is you, please re-read your slogan.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Are you saying that because they are the host, they should be able to pull your videos for whatever reason they see fit, regardless of whether or not they actually violate copyright law? That seems like an open invitation for censorship, if you ask me.

Uhhh, yes. Why wouldn't they be able to?

 

It's their servers and their equipment that they own that they host these videos on.

[SasQ 1,355]

@@Andaasonsan, exactly. And I guess they even have it stated in their Terms of Service.

 

@, yeah, as if Google has never participated in any censorship before ;P (irony off)

 

Not to mention that the whole idea of copyright law is a form of censorship from its very beginning (see the history of copyright law and Statute of Anne).

Edited May 7, 2014 by SasQ

[Thrashy 2,799]

Uhhh, yes. Why wouldn't they be able to?

 

It's their servers and their equipment that they own that they host these videos on.

 

Just because they have the power to silence a viewpoint doesn't mean it isn't reprehensible to do so. As a community that claims to be for free speech and expression - within the constraints of copyright law, mind you - they have an obligation to uphold that claim. To remove whatever video they please, for whatever wishy-washy reason they please ("I own this site, therefore you can't talk about X if I don't want you to") would be nothing more than an act of censorship and an abuse of power.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Uhhh, yes. Why wouldn't they be able to?

 

It's their servers and their equipment that they own that they host these videos on.

Just because they have the legal standpoint to do, does not mean they have the moral standpoint. You can do something perfectly legal, and still be in the moral wrong.

[Guest90210 3,567]

This is becoming absolutely ridiculous.

 

The exact same thing was happening with Viacom & YouTube back in 2007. Remember people getting their accounts banned and Viacom threatening to sue people over 10 second Spongebob clips that didn't even have the original audio?

 

Sadly, it looks like Hasbro might be taking a similar approach. And that is not good whatsoever for the community, or even YouTube.

[FoxyCryptid 4,328]

As I've said before, the current copyright laws are broken and in no way work in the Digital Age. Being so Draconian with them actually stifles creativity because it makes creating derivative works(such as all the re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes or Classic Fairy Tales) very hard to legally produce.

 

It also allows companies to pull shit like this and silence people that criticize their work(and at least one small time developer that managed to get a broken mess on Steam did just that) 

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

As I've said before, the current copyright laws are broken and in no way work in the Digital Age. Being so Draconian with them actually stifles creativity because it makes creating derivative works(such as all the re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes or Classic Fairy Tales) very hard to legally produce.

 

It also allows companies to pull shit like this and silence people that criticize their work(and at least one small time developer that managed to get a broken mess on Steam did just that)

 

There are several developers on steam who are doing so. Both the makers of "gary's incident" and the "earth 2066" are or have been found using the current copywrite system to silence those who review their broken works. The law in its current form is far to easy for companies to abuse.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Just because they have the power to silence a viewpoint doesn't mean it isn't reprehensible to do so. As a community that claims to be for free speech and expression - within the constraints of copyright law, mind you - they have an obligation to uphold that claim. To remove whatever video they please, for whatever wishy-washy reason they please ("I own this site, therefore you can't talk about X if I don't want you to") would be nothing more than an act of censorship and an abuse of power.

 

 

Just because they have the legal standpoint to do, does not mean they have the moral standpoint. You can do something perfectly legal, and still be in the moral wrong.

Ultimately whether it is moral or not doesn't really matter, because if they annoy their users enough they'll start losing business to sites like Dailymotion.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Ultimately whether it is moral or not doesn't really matter, because if they annoy their users enough they'll start losing business to sites like Dailymotion.

But then comes into play googles monopoly. Should a service ever get large enough to compete with youtube, and the way it handles its services, Google has shown it has a penchant for either buying out, or shutting down the competition via legalities, or economic black mail.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

But then comes into play googles monopoly. Should a service ever get large enough to compete with youtube, and the way it handles its services, Google has shown it has a penchant for either buying out, or shutting down the competition via legalities, or economic black mail.

Then they really ought to get sued for violating antitrust laws.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Then they really ought to get sued for violating antitrust laws.

But they wont thanks to our current corporate lobbying friendly government. As long as the people on capital hill keep getting that money, they care not how many monopolies form.

[FoxyCryptid 4,328]

There are several developers on steam who are doing so. Both the makers of "gary's incident" and the "earth 2066" are or have been found using the current copywrite system to silence those who review their broken works. The law in its current form is far to easy for companies to abuse.

 

Gary's Incident was the one I knew about(via Total Biscuit's rant about the dude pulling a C&D on his video AFTER he had asked him to review it in the first place)  

Edited May 7, 2014 by Shoboni

[Thrashy 2,799]

Ultimately whether it is moral or not doesn't really matter, because if they annoy their users enough they'll start losing business to sites like Dailymotion.

 

How does that relate to anything I said? Keeping a site like YT an open forum for discussion, no matter the topic, isn't going to have the slightest impact on their business. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The tighter a leash they try to put on what YouTubers are/are not allowed to say, the more people are going to get fed up with the site and go elsewhere. Last I checked, censorship is still kind of unpopular among people in general, YT's userbase included.

Edited May 7, 2014 by The Thrashy One

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

But they wont thanks to our current corporate lobbying friendly government. As long as the people on capital hill keep getting that money, they care not how many monopolies form.

So then we have problems that extend far beyond people getting their videos pulled for specious reasons.