YouTube's ContentID Trolls: Claim Copyright On Lots Of Gameplay Videos, Hope No One Complains, Collect Free Money [Updated]

from the a-system-that-protects-rights-holders,-even-if-they-don't-hold-the-rights dept

Thu, Feb 28th 2013 10:56am — Tim Cushing

UPDATE: Direct from Abbi Tatton at Google:

From his post: "An entity going the vague but all-encompassing name of "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" has made a number of claims on various uploads."

That's not an entity. If YouTube generated that message it's because Content ID identified compositions in the upload to which a portion of the rights may be administered by any one of a number of collecting societies. Our message in these cases now reads "one or more music publishing rights collecting societies" to make this clearer -- that Facebook parody page doesn't help though. Help Center Page is here with the details.

Odd things have been happening over at Youtube this month, affecting gamers uploading "Let's Play" videos. Well, not so much "odd" as "annoying" and "clearly abusive of Youtube's copyright notification system."

Early in February, the name "Agora Aggregator" began popping at various internet locations, like Reddit's r/LetsPlay and Google's product forums. This entity is apparently casting a porous copyright dragnet over a wide selection of gameplay videos, ranging from Super Meat Boy to F.E.A.R. 3, with several stops in between (Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3, I Am Alive, The Walking Dead).

Now, trying to track down Agora Aggregator is an exercise in futility. It very likely doesn't exist outside of Youtube. It's a name that sounds vague enough to be credible but not specific enough to step on any existing company's toes. Here's the general M.O.:

Agora files a claim on a gameplay video, but not the entire video or even a large portion of it. Instead, it files for certain "visual content" located at random points in the upload. The uploader is then notified of Agora's claim. If the uploader challenges the claim, Agora immediately drops it. If it goes ignored, Agora is then given this credit in the About section:

Now that Agora has a "hook" in the video, all it has to do is choose the "monetize" option that Youtube provides, sit back and wait for the video to get views, with a big chunk of the money going to Agora. The reality of the situation is one of annoyance, rather than actual harm, in most cases. The other unfortunate reality is that this sort of low-level trolling on gameplay videos is nothing new. "Companies" using the names IMG Media UK, INgroove, and Netcom have also filed bogus claims in the past.

The bad news is this sort of thing will probably always exist, especially in the case of gameplay videos. Gameplay videos exist in a legal gray area. For the most part, game companies are more than happy to let these serve as free advertising, knowing that watching a video can hardly replace the experience of actually playing the game. (One exception that proves the rule: Sega's massive takedown of anything "Shining Force"-related in "preparation" for the release of a new game in the series.) Some companies even allow uploaders to monetize gameplay videos, provided a portion of the earnings flows back to the developer.

Because of this gray area, many gamers will feel they can't challenge Agora's claim since they themselves do not "own" what they've uploaded. Even if it seems dubious and faintly scammy, the slim possibility that Agora actually exists and has a legitimate claim is enough to deter them from disputing it.

This isn't limited solely to video game footage. An entity going the vague but all-encompassing name of "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" has made a number of claims on various uploads. Here's its bio (in full) from its "official" website, which is a Facebook page. (The URL listed on its Facebook page sends you to... MPRCS's Facebook page.)

"Our mission is to file copyright claims so that ads will be placed onto certain videos, and we will be able to make money off of them. We do not seek to have anyone's videos blocked in certain countries or disabled altogether, all we are trying to do is make a bit of money. That's not so bad, is it?"

Sure, it's better than getting videos blocked or disabled, but take a close look at the wording it uses. It pretty much states exactly what it's going to do (make money off the uploads of others), all without feeling the need to demonstrate that it actually has a right to file these claims. There is no other URL for this "company," no list of artists/labels it represents and it has in the past claimed content it clearly has no right to.

They identified my (completely original) song as infringing the copyright of a completely different song that I had never heard of, that I had to search google for, which turned out to be some kind of trance remix of a completely unrelated song…Wtf?

I immediately disputed the claim and received an email from Youtube saying:

“Dear tibetanpunk,

Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, “Sonic Sunset No.2“.” (shameless plug)

Much like Agora Aggregator, MPRCS immediately backs down if challenged. Despite the fact that there's clearly something shady going on, MPRCS sounds ambiguously "official" enough that even Youtube itself makes statements in its defense.

So how do collecting societies affect you as a YouTube user? If you’ve ever received a notice indicating that one of your videos may include copyrighted content administered by "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society," or “one or more music publishing rights collecting societies,” it means that YouTube's Content ID system identified one or more musical compositions within your video to which a portion of the rights may be administered by a collecting society.

While this information may be true (as Youtube states it), it is highly unlikely that the "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" is truly representing anyone but the person who lucked into this low-level abuse of Youtube's copyright claim system. One more strike against this so-called "Collecting Society?" Its profile photo is a watermarked Shutterstock picture.

As for Agora Aggregator, it already appears its trolling days are numbered. In a few short weeks, its system has been exposed, leaving it with precious few successful claims. But whoever's behind this remains undeterred. A new "company," Digital Minds Entertainment, has begun making the same sort of copyright claims against random points in gameplay videos. It may be Agora or it may be someone else with the same bad idea. Some unlucky bastard working his way through Far Cry 3 has hit the bogus copyright claim trifecta.

Even if Agora Aggregator goes down, and Digital Minds Entertainment follows, more will pop up to take their place. The system (such as it is) seems to have the success rate of an untargeted mass mailing -- low enough to be almost negligible, but still high enough to make it a worthwhile venture.

Youtube can't do much to prevent this abuse. It has to err on the side of the rights holders, even if the rights holders don't actually hold the rights. This is a necessity. It allows it to show it takes proactive steps against infringement, a requirement in order to benefit from the Safe Harbor protections. The other issue is the massive volume it deals with -- 72 hours uploaded every minute -- which makes it impossible to police uploads with any level of detail. The system is exploitable, and the people behind these "companies" know it.

Since it can't be stopped, the only method left to battle these trolling "companies" is to expose them as quickly (and loudly) as possible. This is only a stopgap, rather than a solution. What's happening now is mostly an annoyance. The real problems will develop later when uploaders being challenging legitimate claims, assuming them to be invalid, and have their accounts closed down. In essence, Agora (and others) are the boy who cried wolf. Only this time, when the real wolf arrives, it will be the townspeople that suffer.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: contentid, copyright, gameplay videos
Companies: agora aggregator, digital minds entertainment, google, music publishing rights collecting society, youtube

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 10:59am

The real problem is all that happens if you challenge is they withdraw. If you mess up is goodbye account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:08am

Block their ads...
Here's a simple solution, use Adblock, then Agora Aggregator ads don't get loaded and no money for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am

It once again shows how poorly thought out the DMCA process is. Why am I not amazed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:18am

The solution.
Since it can't be stopped, the only method left to battle these trolling "companies" is to expose them as quickly (and loudly) as possible. This is only a stopgap, rather than a solution.

(emphasis mine)

The solution is to abolish copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:34am

This is another example of why copyfraud needs to be a crime. There should be treble damages if the person did not take reasonable steps to insure that they had a valid copyright on the work before filing a claim of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

zfggh, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:34am

fftuuy
cghju
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:35am

This should fall under the category of fraud, since they're making money off of this.

That would be like some random individual making claims to every single video they could find on youtube, and then dropping claims when contested. You may lose 90% of your claims, but you can make some good money from the other 10% for doing absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:36am

solution is the same as always
the answer is the same as it has always been:

if youtube isn't going to fix the problem, find another video site to use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:37am

Re: The solution.
I don't know about this. I'm of the firm belief that all of our current intellectual property/copyright law is well and truly screwed, but I think "abolishing" copyright law isn't the answer at all. There is a lot of usefulness inherent in a short-term government granted monopoly and it DOES serve to incentivize content creators, however it needs to be much, much more narrow in scope, and set to a maximum of maybe two decades at the ABSOLUTE most.

Also, creating public domain works needs to be incentivized somehow, but I can't think of a way to do that that wouldn't have secondary consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:43am

Play open source free games, like Open Arena.

Sure politicians will probably try to find a way to ban these or make them legally impossible through anti - 'violent' legislation or some other expensive registration process intended to keep incumbents from competing, but that's another issue that we need to take up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:44am

Re:
You now don't have to comply with DMCA takedown requests to avoid your site from being blocked by UK ISP's now. The UK High Court has now ruled and ordered the biggest UK ISP's to block a few torrent sites even though these torrent sites complied with DMCA takedown requests from copyright holders.

The judge in his ruling stated along the lines that *even if* the DMCA-style takedown policies followed by these sites had been effective, it wouldn't have been enough. Those policies are "overly burdensome" and he says any kind of submit-a-url-and-we-will-remove-it procedure is impractical for rightsholders. Therefore the sites should be blocked.

So now you don't have to have submit DMCA requests to get a site blocked by the UK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:49am

Re: Re:
Link please?

If true, then the judge has essentially said that if someone who wants to make an accusation of law-breaking is too lazy to...you know...make the accusation, then that's fine! We'll just do the work for them and skip straight to fucking execution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:57am

Why isn't TechDirt supporting this?
While I decry people leeching off the hard work of others, I'm wondering why that isn't being celebrated as it usually is around these parts.

Let's go down a list. Person profiting isn't the artist? Check. Profiteer didn't ask permission? Check. Profiteer might call it a remix or claim some kind of metagenius? Check.

Face it. These guys are just glomming on to others hard work and making a buck, just like your heroes at MegaUpload and Big Search. Why aren't you rushing to defend their remixes? Why aren't you coming up with sophistic arguments to claim that it isn't plagiarism or infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 28 Feb 2013 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: The solution.
Also, creating public domain works needs to be incentivized somehow, but I can't think of a way to do that that wouldn't have secondary consequences.

How about at least failing to disincentivize it?

By creating a set of strict formalities for copyright, including registration, notice, and deposit, we can avoid needlessly granting copyrights to works where the author hasn't sought one, which is probably the best indication that can be had that the availability of copyright was not an incentive.

We also can enact a law that the publication of a work, by a copyright holder or a person acting under the authority of the copyright holder (eg a licensee, sublicensee, etc) with DRM causes the work to be in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:02pm

Re: fftuuy
I find your post far more informative and amusing than our resident troll posts. Marked insightful and funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kitsune361, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:04pm

Re:
Won't matter. Bottom feeders like these will file bogus claims on your gameplay videos and make free money. Since there is no disincentive to making bogus claims it's free money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
Newzbin, TPB, just to name two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:07pm

I told everyone about this crap.
Content ID is misused and abused. :\

Google needs to separate YouTube from itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coward (anon), 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:08pm

Verifiy filer
Is the solution as simple as YouTube requiring that any entity filing a claim needs to prove their existance first? Verified email, phone number, street address and business license for entities claiming to be a business. Certainly it adds a small bit of work for YouTube to verify but it would probably be enough of a hurdle that these scumbags wouldn't bother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:09pm

DMCA and content screening
"Youtube can't do much to prevent this abuse. It has to err on the side of the rights holders, even if the rights holders don't actually hold the rights. This is a necessity. It allows it to show it takes proactive steps against infringement, a requirement in order to benefit from the Safe Harbor protections."

I've often wondered whether or not the DMCA requires service providers to pre-screen content that was previously removed in response to an unchallenged DMCA takedown notice. There exists no statutory requirement that content be screened for infringement, but the courts seem perfectly willing to invent such a requirement out of common law.

It's rather disturbing to think that, unlike content removed due to a DMCA takedown notice listing a specific URL for content posted by a particular user, there is no prescribed method by which to challenge an automated takedown of future content. After all, if the original DMCA takedown notice goes unchallenged, how does the next person to upload the content contest an illegitimate takedown?

It shouldn't be Google's burden to run a Content ID system, especially given how easily the system can be abused. Service providers who wish to avoid secondary liability should not be required to take down allegedly infringing content before it's been determined it's indeed infringing, nor should they be required to pre-screen infringing content in any way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kitsune361, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:09pm

So, what happens when a claim is found to be bogus? Since they IMMEDIATELY start monetizing the video as soon as a "proper" claim is filed, once it's declared bogus, who gets the money? Do the fraudsters get back charged if one of their claims is later found to be bogus?

Hell, if a bogus company can get away with this, I just thought of an awful way to break the system: Get together a bunch of people to make up fake copyright organizations and hammer every popular video or shamelessly promoted video with claims. Basically accelerate what they're already doing and ruin it for the fraudsters. Publicize it, turn it into a public protest to show how the system is broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:15pm

Re: Why isn't TechDirt supporting this?
Delusional as always, bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: The solution.
Also, creating public domain works needs to be incentivized somehow, but I can't think of a way to do that that wouldn't have secondary consequences.

Given the Supreme Court's stance on ever-increasing copyright terms, it would seem the incentive for content creators to add to the public domain no longer exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IronM@sk, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:21pm

Bogus Copyright Claim on Gameplay Video
I had one of these bogus claims on one of my gameplay videos a few months back but it didn't occur to me to attribute it to one of these ContentID trolls. I thought that it might have been an automatic match based on the music in the video being owned by someone who had uploaded it to ContentID.

The reason I filed a dispute was the nature of the upload. The game in question was a Playstation 3 title called Hustle Kings, a pool/billiards game. Now this game actually has a YouTube upload feature built right into the game. After you finish a game you can choose to upload your footage to YouTube and depending on your game settings, the background music inside the game, if you have it turned on, is included in the replay.

So in my claim I noted that the game itself included this feature and that I believed it came with an implied right to upload the content to YouTube and that whoever owned the copyright to the music had, by way of contract with the creators of Hustle Kings, allowed it's users the right to upload.

The copyright claim was immediately dropped and I never thought to note the name of the ContentID "holder" at the time, however I watch quite a lot of gameplay/let's play/tutorial type videos as well as journalistic gamer "review" videos and I've noticed a disticnt increase in these videos having attribution underneath them, even when they video is an obviously original creation of the "reviewer" that happens to use a few minutes of gameplay footage and game music in them.

The problem I see is when there is a possibility of multiple "claimants" where a regular review show might feature multiple titles from different publishers/developers, but one particular ContentID "troll" has gotten in first and made a claim.

But this problem was in fact created by Google/YouTube by allowing these trolls to gain a foothold into their system by creating ContentID in the first place. It's ripe for abuse and stacked in the trolls favour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, had forgotten that both of those were ordered blocked in the UK. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: The solution.
So long as any general copyright term exists the traditional publishers, labels and studios will use piracy as an excuse to gain control of or destroy the current Internet. As it stands, it is the first system that has actually granted people the ability to exercise their free speech rights with a chance of finding a large audience. Without the current Internet, free speech is a largely mute right because of the problem of communicating with a large number of people without the approval of a publisher.
I believe that copyright will have to be abolished to preserve the Internet, as otherwise publishers will by one means or another gain the right to control what works are published.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:37pm

Re: Block their ads...
Problem with this is then channels I do want to watch get no ad-revenue and the uploader can't make a living uploading whatever I want to watch. What uploaders need to do is challenge these false claims whenever they show up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:48pm

It's not the uploading...
The other issue is the massive volume it deals with -- 72 hours uploaded every minute -- which makes it impossible to police uploads with any level of detail.

But it isn't the UPLOAD of videos that is at issue. It is the challenge to them by third parties; YouTube needs to implement some mechanism to detect these types of challenges. I presume they require them to register -- especially if they are getting to monetize the video, so their contact information should be available.
At the least it should be a red flag when companies are constantly challenging content but drop those challenges when it is contested -- at least to the extent of having a human (or whatever YouTube employs :-) ) looking at the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:53pm

Re: Why isn't TechDirt supporting this?
These guys are just glomming on to others hard work and making a buck, just like your heroes at MegaUpload and Big Search.

Actually, they're more like the leeches known as the big legacy record labels. Don't do anything useful, but use lawyers and accountant to take money from the hard work of the artists.

Why aren't you coming up with sophistic arguments to claim that it isn't plagiarism or infringement?

Because what it clearly is, is fraud. And TD doesn't support fraud, nor would most of the regularly commenters... well, except you, maybe. You're the one that likes to spin falsehoods as facts, with monetary gain for you or your pals as a result.

The bigger question is why the copyright cartels aren't going apeship over this. This is an organized group claiming copyright over someone else's stuff and directly taking money out of the cartel's pockets from Youtube's monetization system (which was built for them!).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 12:58pm

I have had 3 videos that "Matched Third Party Content". One by a 90'ss era Belgium singer just says "collecting rights societies" whatever the hell that is. The two others are of a great Ukrainian singer I found, one says the song is administered by just "Believe". Perhaps that is some Ukrainian label but I doubt it. The other is an hour long concert by her and it does not identify any of the songs she performed in the video. It identified "Marcus Miller-The Blues" as the song it was claiming. Doesn't sound Ukrainian to me. Also this video is blocked in Germany. None of these have been taken down. I have several others by both these singers and there has been no claim on on any of them. Both also have dozens of other videos on You Tube. I would dispute the claim but I don't have the rights to them either. That is what these trolls are counting on. Neither do a majority of the uploads on You Tube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:05pm

Re: Block their ads...
i have no knowledge on this one way or the other, but wouldn't they just assume that each youtube view was an ad view, whether it was adblocked or not ? ? ?

in other words, doesn't using adblock NOT work to prevent them from monetizing the views ? ? ?
(don't know, am honestly asking)

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: The solution.
yes, but...

i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it appears the baby was drowned a long time ago, and is a floating stinking corpse...

so, throwing out the bathwater would have less deleterious effects than keeping the stinking mess...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jameshogg (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:38pm

Unlikely Alliances.
I always try to say that the best way to take down the pirates of China and the Kim Dotcoms - the modern day Al Capones of the world - is to get rid of Copyright law. That way pirates won't profit because the black market won't exist, in the same way that stopping the drug war will stop drug cartels running away with untaxed profits, and make things in general a whole lot simpler. Occam's Razor is always underrated.

Why should these profiteering pirates be able to take advantage of a bad law, while the rest of us are left with censorship, market destruction, SOPA, etc?

You know who'd be the sort of person likely to lobby for prolonging the war on drugs? The drug cartels. If it were not for that war, they would not profit in the way they can: no tax, no accountability for the dangerous doses they give nor the children they fail to ID-check, just nothing but money. And I would not be surprised if pirates also have a secret sympathy for wanting Copyright law to go on just so they can profit in the same way.

So there may indeed be a reason to hate profiteering pirates... but not for the reasons people might think. They profit out of an unjust law, nothing more and nothing less. Crowdfunding should make these pirates very fearful, as they must know that they will never profiteer from an economic system in the same way. It solves the free rider problem without the need for Copyright because equity is preserved between the creators and funders. A pirate has nowhere to turn when the money is geared towards the "servicing" of creativity, and not the pseudo concept of intellectual property "goods".

I personally cannot wait to stop China from leeching off of our bad laws. Their government's imperialist empire has bullied many neighbouring countries, their censorship laws have put many in misery, their Great Firewall deprived a lot of communication, their restrictions of free trade, their abusing of human rights in general - trust me when I say that these guys want Copyright law to go on back here, so they can continue to profit from the gullible.

I can't wait when we put an end to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: The solution.
I don't know about this. I'm of the firm belief that all of our current intellectual property/copyright law is well and truly screwed, but I think "abolishing" copyright law isn't the answer at all. There is a lot of usefulness inherent in a short-term government granted monopoly and it DOES serve to incentivize content creators, however it needs to be much, much more narrow in scope, and set to a maximum of maybe two decades at the ABSOLUTE most.

The problem is that this is how copyright law started. So, if you succeed in reverting to that state, how do you stop a repeat of the extensions and expansions?

You can't. Abolition is the only solution since that is the only way to get rid of the people who leech on the system and have plenty of time and money to lobby for more.

Copyright is like cancer, you can't compromise with it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: Block their ads...
"but wouldn't they just assume that each youtube view was an ad view, whether it was adblocked or not ? ? ?"

Youtube knows when your computer contacts the ad server. Adblock blocks all contact to known ad servers. So, no. If you don't actually watch the ad, it doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:58pm

Youtube 3 strikes should apply to rights holders
Maybe Youtube should have a 3 or 6 strike policy for rights holders, after which they have their account suspended. If its acceptable for a user to have their account suspended after 3 breaches, why shouldn't a similar penalty apply when rights holders make an incorrect claim against someone elses video or music. The rights holders have the advantage of "knowing" their content so there should be no excuse for getting it wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Block their ads...
"What uploaders need to do is challenge these false claims whenever they show up."

Assuming they can separate the false claims from the legit claims. Filing false claims has far less severe repercussions then fighting legit claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:16pm

Re: DMCA and content screening
It shouldn't be Google's burden to run a Content ID system

It isn't. Google does this as a favor to the big content companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: Block their ads...
I believe that you can customize adblock plus to only block specific ads, i'm uncertain if you can specifically target these companies or if you can only block the entire ad server.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re:
I wonder if the the whole shebang would be more palatable if the penalties system was completely flipped, as in it will cost you hellaciously more to file false or vexatious claims than committing actual infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheLoot (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:49pm

"Youtube can't do much to prevent this abuse. It has to err on the side of the rights holders, even if the rights holders don't actually hold the rights."

That's an excuse. All it has to do is allow rightsholders to file a DMCA claim, you know, the one that has legal ramifications for falsifying. If Google wasn't such a fucking loser when it comes to standing up to ContentID and DMCA abuse, that's the only way things would be handled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:52pm

It seems they registered a black screen in the content ID system and a sound effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:14pm

For the most part, game companies are more than happy to let these serve as free advertising, knowing that watching a video can hardly replace the experience of actually playing the game.
Have you played any FPS released in the last three to five years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re:
It does have a lot of merit. The person claiming copyright should always have to prove that they have a valid copyright. The person suing should also have to prove the actual amount of damage being done.

This would tend to make suing for copyright much more expensive and less likely to succeed. It would still be worthwhile to sue if someone else was actually harming your profits by copying your work. On the other hand it would make it unprofitable to sue when it is true fair-use issue that isn't actually causing harm to the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) (28 February 2013) Part 68.

More fundamentally, for the reasons set out in the evidence of the Claimants' witness Kiaron Whitehead, the Websites' purported policies of removing infringing content only upon the provision of individual takedown notices would, even if rigorously implemented, be wholly inadequate to prevent the type of large scale, widespread copyright infringement which the Websites are engaged in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21601609
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 5:54pm

Agora Aggregator may be the Scottish equivalent of Machinma.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 6:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
Anybody wanting to claim copyright should own a license so they can be identified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 6:03pm

Thank you congress for opening the flood gates for scammers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 6:57pm

Re:
Well, they had to do something!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 7:04pm

I would think that this would piss off the actual copyright holders, so why aren't they doing anything about it? Are they not aware of it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re: The solution.
So, if you succeed in reverting to that state, how do you stop a repeat of the extensions and expansions?

You can't. Abolition is the only solution

That is no more of a solution. What's to stop Congress from re-enacting copyright law after it's repealed? If trimming it back won't work*, then the only legal solution is a constitutional amendment.

* I'm not convinced that's true
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexandra, 28 Feb 2013 @ 9:22pm

Come on now
Are you citing the Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Facebook page as an official source? That's laughable.

http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2620262
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Mar 2013 @ 2:00am

Re: Why isn't TechDirt supporting this?
"While I decry people leeching off the hard work of others, I'm wondering why that isn't being celebrated as it usually is around these parts."

Because you accidentally stepped out of your paranoid fantasy world and entered reality for a moment.

"These guys are just glomming on to others hard work and making a buck"

Bullshit. If I can't see real gameplay of a videogame, I don't buy it. Games are far too expensive to risk full price on some non-gameplay footage or screenshots, and many games don't have demos any more. If I can't see that a game is worth my money, you don't get it - or I wait for a cheap copy at 1/5 of the price, usually second hand so you get nothing anyway. Not to mention the fact that such videos usually make games more valuable after purchase (I've definitely needed them to get out of some tricky spots when going for hard achievements).

Yet again, you're so stupid, you actually shut down people helping you sell. Even more stupidly, unless it's the very concept of someone making money you're against, this is something that will NEVER result in lost sales (unless your game is crap, of course). Nobody is going to watch a YouTube video of Far Cry 3 and go "well, now I've seen it, no need to buy the game".

"Why aren't you coming up with sophistic arguments to claim that it isn't plagiarism or infringement?"

Because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who doesn't currently have an **AA board member's cock in their mouth? Or maybe because the article admits it's in a legal grey area - but more harm than good is achieved by actually taking them down. But, you probably missed that bit in your rush to launch another example of how stupid you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 1 Mar 2013 @ 2:39am

Re:
The real problem is that there is no penalty for filing bogus claims. Six strikes for filing dmca and other similar requests!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2013 @ 2:56am

Re: Unlikely Alliances.
Kim Dotcom did not rely on piracy, he simply provided a servce that people liked, that of providing a distribution server for files. He was sharing profits with up loaders, which is a simple way for artists to monetise their works. The pirates were those who used this service to make money off other peoples works. Dotcom was making money by offering a useful service that others abused.
The charges against him are that he did not control what other people were using his service for, which is like charging the councils for enabling robbers to travel by maintaining roads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 1 Mar 2013 @ 3:01am

Re: Re: Why isn't TechDirt supporting this?
Going after single moms, printers and retired firefighters is much more evil. Going after these trolls would be a good thing. I mean, it's the MAFIAA we are talking about, they'd rather destroy the lives of innocents ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 1 Mar 2013 @ 6:40am

Re:
Yeah, I complained to Techdirt last year about copyfraud abuse on Youtube. It makes me wonder, why aren't the copyright holders going after any of these companies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 1 Mar 2013 @ 8:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution.
Exactly. I suggest either removing the Progress Clause (whereupon the First Amendment will clearly prohibit re-enacting a copyright law) or else changing it to something like this:

To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, Congress shall have no Power to grant Monopolies, whether exclusive publication Privileges for specific works of Authorship or exclusive construction and practice Privileges for works of Invention.

That has the added benefit of also getting rid of the patent system.

(Baby? What baby? I've seen plenty of empirical evidence of copious quantities of bathwater in both the copyright and patent tubs, but none whatsoever of any babies in either.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blong206b (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 7:34am

Believe Digital False Copyright Claims on YouTube
Got false claims release by Believe Digital, by contacting the Royalty Free music companies who I bought the royalty free rights from. I use Royalty Free music in my dance instruction videos.

anyone having royalty free music problems on youtube (i.e. you are legally right) network with me.

http://www.youtube.com/blong206b
https://www.facebook.com/blong206b
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lee Winston, 27 Sep 2015 @ 7:35pm

Even legitimate companies file fraudulent complaints
I have run into a many situations with real companies in Hollywood filing complaints that have no legal merit.

My Youtube is part of my news organizations and we are sent videos to post for various entities for news reporting and promotions. We run into a situation to where we were given a 30 sec promo for a TV show, posted it and one of the companies involved took it down on a copyright complaint.

Suffice it to say I was ticked off because we were promoting the show for this entity at no charge to them and just using what little we got off the monetization of the video to pay us for that promotion.

I contacted their copyright attorney directly and found out that they outsourced the trolling for their material to a 3rd party who was apparently not trained to know the difference between infringing material and promotional material. The attorney assured me that they would advise the third party not to take down promo material and the situation would not happen again.

This situation cost us doing business with another entity that was involved with distributing the promo material because they dropped us after we presented them with the copyright complaint in hopes that they would help us take care of it since they distributed the material to us with complete permissions to use it on our accounts.

So this bullshit costs more than just monetary damage on just a single video. It can hurt business relationships and cost a lot more than just a one time hit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Max, 18 Apr 2016 @ 11:34pm

I'm the victim
within the past 2 weeks I have been massively attacked by a computer POPS Worldwide (CHSA). I have about 900 videos on my channel and they are nearly being claimed by this company.
Though, in my videos I did not use any music or any type of copyright contents.
In my videos we just use recordings that we recorded using our own cameras and the audio are of our own voices talking and teaching. These are educational videos. Yet, this company claiming copyright ID to nearly all of them.
I disputed them only to get rejected a week later. I appealed the rejection but only allowed to appeal THREE VIDEOS at a time. Each time I appeal they take 30 days to reply back to release it, during which time each day I continue to receive copyright ID contents claims from them up to 10-30 videos each day.
During the period I am waiting for them to release my videos, it could take up to 2-3 months they are getting paid for all the ads played on my videos. Since I have hundreds of videos and each time I appealed I only allowed to appeal 3 at a time this could take decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]