Copyright Continues To Be Abused To Censor Critics By Entities Both Big And Small

from the tools-of-abuse dept

We’ve talked far too many times about how the DMCA takedown processes across internet industries as they stand are wide, wide open for abuse. From churches wielding copyright to attempt to silence critics engaging in protected speech, to lawyers using copyright to try to silence critics engaging in protected speech, to freaking political candidates abusing YouTube’s DMCA notice process to silence critics engaging in protected speech… well, you get the idea. The point is that we’ve known for a long, long time that the current method by which the country and companies currently enforce copyright law tilts so heavily towards the accuser that it’s an obvious avenue for misuse.

And this is an issue created by bad actors big and small. Hell, apparently you cannot even criticique a sophomoric prank joke troop on YouTube without being targeted using copyright law.

Last week, Tripping, a smallish YouTube creator with about 88,000 subscribers, faced an uphill battle to keep one of his videos up. It was pretty standard as far as social commentary videos go on YouTube: an 11-minute presentation about “The Rise and Fall of NELK,” a prank channel that has nearly 7 million subscribers.

But since Tripping posted it in May, it’s been flagged for “copyright” infringement several times. Last week, it was successfully taken down by YouTube before being reinstated over the weekend, when 21-year-old Quentin, who owns the account, disputed it. But Quentin is now concerned that his video criticizing the pranksters was successfully censored by the Nelk Boys themselves through a loophole he says YouTube isn’t vetting carefully enough.

That appears to be precisely what happened. The back and forth over this 11 minute video is fairly amazing. The whole video called out the Nelk Boys for doing a bunch of dumb stuff, most specifically with regards to ignoring COVID and encouraging others to do the same. Other behavior was questioned as well. A week after posting it, Quentin’s video got flagged for a copyright claim and was blocked. He fought that claim and the video was put back online. Then, months later, Quentin was assessed his first copyright strike by YouTube, meaning his account was now in jeapordy of being shut down if future strikes occurred.

And the email from YouTube listed Kyle Forgeard of the Nelk Boys as the copyright owner issuing the claim resulting in the copyright strike.

“They’re using copyright … and YouTube’s system as a way to avoid the criticism; it’s a very common thing on YouTube,” he said. “There’s no way for YouTube to determine what’s this or that. If Nelk [claims copyright], they’re going to have to accept it out of respect for Nelk and YouTube not getting sued. But with fair use and for commentary, you’re allowed to use clips in that manner.”

When I reached out, a spokesperson at YouTube said users can file a dispute if they think their account was flagged erroneously, and, in this case, it was. I then asked them how YouTube is going to improve this system — especially when algorithmic moderation has become a widespread issue time and time again — but I did not hear back.

And that’s why nothing ever changes. The onus for getting protected speech back online, in the vaunted opinion of YouTube, falls squarely on the victim of the censorship-by-copyright tactic. Any time you try to kickstart a conversation about how to improve this system to make it balanced instead of tilted towards the claimaint, you get crickets. And the end result is the YouTube creator community being completely rudderless as to what exactly they’re supposed to do.

Quentin said he feels somewhat powerless when something like this comes up: “[Nelk] are so much larger than me. They have millions of subscribers and fans, and I only have a minimal fraction of what they have. All I’m betting on is YouTube is finally reviewing it and coming to terms with what’s right.”

He added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they still want that video down.”

He just hopes YouTube “implement[s] a system that prevents larger channels from filing claims like this and have it go directly through because copyright is a serious thing.”

As is fraud and censorship, I might add. But for far too long YouTube has been reluctant to do anything about that side of this equation, preferring instead to molify the copyright industries and leave some segment of its user base hung out to dry.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Copyright Continues To Be Abused To Censor Critics By Entities Both Big And Small”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
13 Comments
That Anonymous Cowardsays:

But no one would ever use it in this way.
rolls his eyes

I wonder what would happen if we could still have unfettered access to the Lumin database & compile how many bogus complaints are submitted, then assign a dollar value to what it takes to handle them.

For all of the screaming about trillions of dollars lost, because a baby danced for a few seconds in which a song was hardly heard, showing the actual costs being inflicted by the industry using the shittist cheapest tactics would be a nice change of pace.

The system is abused, the system is not fair, the system is not balanced, and the rights we actually have, on paper, never seem to apply. Fair Use is a thing, parody is a thing, but to appease and industry who claims to lose trillions while their biggest films STILL are not profitable (Looking at you Empire Strikes Back) perhaps its time we demand better treatment.

sabronisays:

easy answer

Stop paying them until them put your video back up!
What’s that you say, it’s a free service? Well, you’re getting exactly what you pay for then.
Presumably your business plan included the fact that your single source of income is the platform you create on and it’s users, which can ban you at any time for any reason it likes.
I’m out.

Anonymoussays:

The onus for getting protected speech back online, in the vaunted opinion of YouTube, falls squarely on the victim of the censorship-by-copyright tactic.

That’s not really Youtube’s opinion but more how the DMCA works.

The DMCA doesn’t include a Good Faith exception so if Youtube reject a takedown notice they now become liable, it also doesn’t help that the courts have made it nigh on impossible to prove a takedown notice was false or sent in bad faith.

Anonymoussays:

Any time you try to kickstart a conversation about how to improve this system to make it balanced instead of tilted towards the claimaint, you get crickets.

The conversation:
"Oh please Youtube, won’t you spend billions in legal fees/fines every year to protect my channel. I’ll give you a soda. It won’t be any different than the soda I already give you, but it’s totes worth it."

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...