![]() My first claim was actually denied, effectively saying it was unclear whether I had a valid reason to file a counter notification. To contest a copyright strike, YouTube allows users to submit a counter-claim, giving the claimant 10 days to respond. “If there is no material, that's impossible.” “Legally, you have to sign something that says you looked at the content and that there was material found that is yours.” “The law requires them to have a good faith belief,” Trendacosta said, referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In her role with the EFF, she has worked on cases involving YouTube issues ranging from bad faith copyright claims on static noise to a creator’s own voice. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.” “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. ![]() Entertainment, was claiming ownership over content I never even had a chance to create.īecause of the copyright strike, I was unable to stream my post-debate show on YouTube that night. Everyone knows by now that if you post content you don't own on YouTube, there's a chance you'll receive a copyright strike for posting it. To reiterate here, the content did not yet exist. An actual person manually submitted a legal claim saying they owned my nonexistent content. That’s right, this wasn’t an algorithm or automated system run amok. Entertainment, which owns CNN, the hosts of the last Democratic debate. An actual person submitted a legal claim saying they owned my nonexistent content.Īccording to the YouTube notice, a person by the name of Michael Bentkover issued the copyright strike on behalf of Warner Bros. If I were to accumulate three strikes, YouTube would just shut down my channel completely, removing all of my content. That one copyright strike was enough to disable livestreaming on my channel for the strike's three-month duration. The notice informed me that I had received a copyright strike for my scheduled stream. “ Your video has been taken down from YouTube.” Shortly after setting up the stream, which wasn't scheduled to start for hours, I received an email from YouTube: These post-debate shows consist entirely of webcam feeds of my guest and myself, split-screen style, breaking down the night's events. I'd even labeled it as a “post-Democratic debate” show featuring Uhl's name directly in the scheduled stream title. 14, the night of the CNN Democratic primary debate in Iowa.Įarlier in the evening, I'd scheduled a YouTube livestream, as I always do the night of a debate, in order to discuss the event with progressive activist Jordan Uhl after CNN's broadcast wrapped up. ![]() The left-leaning show covers everything from the far right to tech policy, from internet conspiracy theories to the Democratic primary race. You see, I host a political podcast, DOOMED with Matt Binder, which I also stream live on YouTube. You can and I would know because it happened to me. "I fully intended to retract my takedowns and stop issuing them after Bungie acknowledge the issue and begun restoring people's videos/channels," the email wrote.Can you receive a copyright strike on YouTube for content that doesn't even exist? The emailer allegedly admitted to issuing the most recent wave of fraudulent copyright strikes, while David's older copyright strikes have also remained unaddressed. "If you're looking to place blame, I'd place it on YouTube for its sloppy copyright takedown system and Bungie for ignoring this issue for so long." The emailer admitted they're not affiliated with either CSC or Bungie in any way, and only issued the takedowns to bring attention to YouTube's "incredibly flawed" copyright system.Īlthough YouTube seems to take the lion's share of the emailer's ire, they also seemed to take aim at Bungie for allowing David to get away with issuing false takedowns. The email received by Hoeg alleges there are actually two people issuing these takedowns: the emailer and another person referred to only as "David" and linked to the email account.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |