2018-12-25 - Jonathan Yaniv: DMCA Complaint -

[wabbits]

By attacking KF, Yaniv hopes to raise his Brave And Stunning Martyr profile to generate asspats and pitycoin.

 

[Abortions4All]

By attacking KF, Yaniv hopes to raise his Brave And Stunning Martyr profile to generate asspats and pitycoin.

He probably should have scrubbed the obvious racial bigotry from his record when he scrubbed all that stuff about his deadname, if he wanted financial support from the usual suspects.

 

[BeanBidan]

I've been waiting for this.

Didja see that kiwis?

 

[AnOminous]

He probably should have scrubbed the obvious racial bigotry from his record when he scrubbed all that stuff about his deadname, if he wanted financial support from the usual suspects.

He's so fucking dumb he doesn't even realize that's an issue.

 

[AbraCadaver]

I love when dear leader gets fiesty.

 

[James Smith]

He said his lawyer would be contacting Null. Null must have gotten the official demands and barricaded himself in a bunker in fear because we haven't heard anything about it since.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

He said his lawyer would be contacting Null. Null must have gotten the official demands and barricaded himself in a bunker in fear because we haven't heard anything about it since.

It's the right move when lawyers get involved.

 

[Xenu Warrior Princess]

He said his lawyer would be contacting Null. Null must have gotten the official demands and barricaded himself in a bunker in fear because we haven't heard anything about it since.

Wasn't that the guy in Israel with a similar name, but definitely a different dude?

 

[Second Missing Primarch]

Wasn't that the guy in Israel with a similar name, but definitely a different dude?

Jonathan said his lawyer would be in touch when Null called him during the stream. But yeah, that other Yaniv guy had his lawyer send some takedown message as well, not that either attempt is going to accomplish anything.

 

[Clive]

So did Null counter DMCA and get YouTube streaming privileges restored ? I seem to recall something about having to wait 10 days though I may be mistaken ?

 

[James Smith]

So did Null counter DMCA and get YouTube streaming privileges restored ? I seem to recall something about having to wait 10 days though I may be mistaken ?

Two days ago on YouTube:
"This is an update on the Yaniv / DMCA situation. I'll be streaming on stream.me/kiwifarms today, at Noon EST, and again at Noon EST on Wednesday.

"I've been emailing the YouTube Creator Support and I'm getting bullshit canned responses. My appeal is still in the REVIEW phase, which means that in the last week no one has even gotten around to looking at the thing and pressing the forward button. That means the 10 day timer hasn't even started counting down and at the very least I'm looking at another two weeks of not streaming on YouTube.

"I'll keep you guys up to date and probably upload the streams to YouTube after they're completed, but if you want to see them live and interact with the stream you'll have to look there.

"This is an unbelievably frustrating experience because for the last 5 years I've been in an environment where I can tell everyone sending me frivolous litigation to eat garbage and now I'm at the whims of various mentally ill people and an utterly incompetent corporate bureaucracy."

 

[gREEEEEEEEEr]

"I've been emailing the YouTube Creator Support and I'm getting bullshit canned responses. My appeal is still in the REVIEW phase, which means that in the last week no one has even gotten around to looking at the thing and pressing the forward button. That means the 10 day timer hasn't even started counting down and at the very least I'm looking at another two weeks of not streaming on YouTube.

That's not quite correct. Their deadline is "not less than 10, nor more than 14" business days following their receipt (not "completing review") of a valid counter notice. Unless the complainant (JY) files an action seeking a court order to restrain the alleged copyright infringement, YouTube must restore the content within 14 business days... if they do not, they can be held liable under the DMCA for removing the content.

 

[AnOminous]

That's not quite correct. Their deadline is "not less than 10, nor more than 14" business days following their receipt (not "completing review") of a valid counter notice. Unless the complainant (JY) files an action seeking a court order to restrain the alleged copyright infringement, YouTube must restore the content within 14 business days... if they do not, they can be held liable under the DMCA for removing the content.

It doesn't quite say that. It says they're not liable if they're in the safe harbor. It doesn't mean there's any liability, just that if there otherwise would be liability, they're immune to it.

Generally, all ISPs have terms of service that allow them to take any content they want down, for any reason or for no reason. If you're on a free service, you have no real rights.

The DMCA also doesn't create any liability if you just ignore it and don't take anything down. It just immunizes you if there is any. If there's no copyright infringement, it doesn't create any if you just ignore frivolous takedowns.

 

[gREEEEEEEEEr]

It doesn't quite say that. It says they're not liable if they're in the safe harbor. It doesn't mean there's any liability, just that if there otherwise would be liability, they're immune to it.

Right, but "you can sue anyone for anything", so it's not a question of whether you can sue them but one of how far your lawsuit will get (and how much money it will probably cost YouTube to fight it).

The point is that any lawsuit you wanted to bring could be immediately smacked down if YouTube followed the DMCA's requirements by restoring your content within 10-14 business days; as you said, they're immune to liability. YouTube can simply file a response saying "look, we followed the DMCA's requirements, so we're immune"; the judge says yes, and your suit is DOA. But if they didn't follow its requirements, then the DMCA doesn't protect them... they don't have an easy automatic win, and in order to be decided, your lawsuit would need to proceed to other matters, such as whether or not you were harmed by YouTube's actions and whether YouTube's TOS allows them to do that.

The simple fact that it would be a more involved lawsuit if they don't meet the "no liability generally" section gives a pretty strong impetus for YouTube to try to meet those requirements so that they can claim the immunity that it gives.

 

[AnOminous]

The simple fact that it would be a more involved lawsuit if they don't meet the "no liability generally" section gives a pretty strong impetus for YouTube to try to meet those requirements so that they can claim the immunity that it gives.

YouTube has been really shitty about actually adhering to the counter notification protocols in the past, and often they ban you and kick you off even if you meet all the requirements. They don't care because they know they have no liability.

 

[AriGiga]

YouTube has been really shitty about actually adhering to the counter notification protocols in the past, and often they ban you and kick you off even if you meet all the requirements. They don't care because they know they have no liability.

It's not that they have no liability, it's that the people they do it to have insufficient money to hold them liable.

 

[RodgerDodger]

It doesn't quite say that. It says they're not liable if they're in the safe harbor. It doesn't mean there's any liability, just that if there otherwise would be liability, they're immune to it.

Generally, all ISPs have terms of service that allow them to take any content they want down, for any reason or for no reason. If you're on a free service, you have no real rights.

The DMCA also doesn't create any liability if you just ignore it and don't take anything down. It just immunizes you if there is any. If there's no copyright infringement, it doesn't create any if you just ignore frivolous takedowns.

I can't help but wonder when one of the more enterprising creators will take a run at Youtube via something other than the DMCA? Because in many of these cases Youtube is not actually a free service. They aren't a free and clear pass through data host. They are paying the content creators via adsense or the Super Chat mechanisms, and as such have a contractual business relationship with them. It's no longer simply a "You Have no real rights on a free service they can take down what they wish" situation now is it? It would be a long expensive slog, but there could be some interesting angles of attack there. The Fact that Google is playing two sides of the coin, both paying for content in much the same way as a tv Network, "Partnering" with many content creators to form a business relationship all while claiming to be a Safe Harbor Pass Through Data Host creates a rather interesting and conflicting dicotomy, does it not? And I suspect we are seeing a lot of similar ones growing as the tech industry spreads past the thresholds of its legal advice. Amazon is a great example where they are both the Marketplace, and a Manufacturer competing against all others within that Marketplace. That is going to burn them badly very soon. Google or Alphabet is in some very similar circumstances.

 

[AnOminous]

I can't help but wonder when one of the more enterprising creators will take a run at Youtube via something other than the DMCA? Because in many of these cases Youtube is not actually a free service. They aren't a free and clear pass through data host. They are paying the content creators via adsense or the Super Chat mechanisms, and as such have a contractual business relationship with them.

A "contract" that disclaims virtually any rights you have, can be cancelled at any time for any reason or no reason, and where you agree to waive any rights to a court trial in favor of some rigged arbitration you automatically lose.

 

[AnOminous]

It will be interesting to see how this new body of law is paved into constructing common law in the coming year(s). I'm not a lawyer, but it should be interesting as we see case law developing predominately in Canada and the US.

The very difficult part of this is such arbitration provisions give courts, which are often massively overworked with backlogs years long, an easy way to slough off a lot of lawsuits all at once. It's pretty hard to convince them to increase their own workload, especially when laws in many places increasingly favor arbitration anyway.