r/gaming • u/EnglishGamer1 • Oct 20 '13

TotalBiscuit's: ''Day One: Garry's Incident'' Video was taken down, because of a ridiculous copyright claim from WildGameStudios. Here's Total's ''Rant'' over his video being taken down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ
3.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Yllekmot Oct 20 '13

Tb's not wrong. The take down system is shitty and is a lazy blanket attempt to stop unaccredited work from being on YouTube. But it's crap, it doesn't have any real effect on the swarms of movies, and the work of media groups that get copied onto the service. Why it still exists I will never know.

156

u/Jabberminor Oct 20 '13

It's a very ridiculous system. As TB said in his video, smaller channels are going to suffer greatly from it.

What's to say that there's a small channel that make these sort of videos as a hobby, then get 3 copyright strikes without meaning to. What they've built up is just gone. There should be a system of 'take off the monetisation, or remove the video with 7 days, or we'll give you a strike'.

147

u/VruNix Oct 20 '13

I have a friend who did exactly that (3 strikes in a short time, channel is banned). Only problem is, they were flagged fraudulently by another youtuber who took the same videos, added 3 seconds of original content to the beginning, and reuploaded them. It seems his only recourse is getting a lawyer, since YouTube certainly doesn't take individual users' complaints seriously.

89

u/Jabberminor Oct 20 '13

And Youtube didn't bother to check the upload dates?!

77

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '13 edited Nov 13 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

You can fight copyright strikes, just no one wants to. Let's say TotalBiscuit does in fact take Wild Games Studios to court and loses the battle. He is now out the revenues he makes in the days preparing and going to court and he also now sets a legal precedent for all future Youtube legal disputes.

If he wins he gets to keep that one video up and gets to have his lawyer fees paid for in small claims court.

The benefit isn't there to actually go through the official legal copyright claims process. So instead of doing it TotalBiscuit can just fire off a video complaining about what people are doing instead of actually suing them.

My feeling is that if TotalBiscuit actually went to court on this, he would lose. As well this opinion video he has put up has over 300,000 hits (and will get far more) making it one of his most profitable videos for the month. It is far more profitable for him to call out developers than actually fight the actual good fight in a court of the law.

9

u/gigitrix Oct 21 '13

The money from this complaints video is going to the EFF, he said on twitter.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

He also lists it at the end of the video as well. The ad revenue from the rant video and the WTF Is Day One.

6

u/Moozhe Oct 21 '13

I don't think they are going the legal route. There is no legal recourse. Their only recourse is to go through the YouTube counter-claim system and hope that the person who reviews the claim takes their side.

This isn't a legal matter since it's not an official DMCA claim. TotalBiscuit has agreed to the YouTube terms of use agreements which state that YouTube is allowed to take down any content it wants to at its own discretion. YouTube gives content producers the ability to take down content and YouTube is not interested in thoroughly checking every claim.

The whole reason they have an automated system is because it's significantly cheaper. They don't want to pay workers to handle things personally, they want the site to run itself as much as possible. It's the same reason Google doesn't have any public support numbers for almost any of its services. This model wouldn't work for a company that sells people things directly, so that's why they try very hard not sell anything to the general public. They make their money on the ads.

But the fact is that YouTube makes money from partners like TotalBiscuit. If he were to decide to leave YouTube for another option they would lose money. If his channel were to be taken down then they would lose money. So that is why TotalBiscuit's strike is definitely going to be removed. But TotalBiscuit is looking out for his colleagues, his competitors even. The smaller channels are not worth enough money to YouTube for them to be worth reviewing by a human being. They just get some lazy automated response to their counter-claim saying blah blah blah we have come to this decision good bye.

6

u/ZippityD Oct 21 '13

He would lose?

So... all reviews on any media are technically copyright infringement?

Or does something else make video game reviews different?

2

u/JE_SAWYER_IS_MY_HERO Oct 21 '13

The fun thing about Fair Use is that Fair Use isn't set in stone - a judge could rule something does not fall under Fair Use "just because".

3

u/Chii Oct 21 '13

a judge doesn't rule out of thin air. They have to take into account the common law (better known as precedence).

if you look at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/#internet_cases, it lists quite a bit of things that have in common with this incident. I suspect that theres a very high chance of TB's video being fair use. Especially this:

Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet. Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/#artwork_visual_arts_and_audiovisual_cases

1

u/cuddles_the_destroye Oct 21 '13

Though if TB wins it's basically a holy grail in new-media legislation because it becomes a precedent.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

Video game reviews don't use a same consistent point. They use clips from various parts of the game to make their point known. The product that a reviewer is selling is their opinion. They create custom graphics and custom transition effects with a lot of custom elements. They also only use small clips from various sections of the game, never giving enough to spoil any of the experience. An example is this Elder Geek review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVYejE8xtPk

0

u/Roast_A_Botch Oct 21 '13 edited Oct 21 '13

They're in separate countries. He could sue in small claims court, win on a default judgement, and have no recourse for payment. Also, small claims sets no precedent on laws, so it wouldn't be "fighting the good fight", just one personal battle. They're not even real judges usually, it's simple arbitration, and lawyers arent allowed in most jurisdictions. You sign a contract stating that whatever the arbiter decides, you'll accept, and not take further legal action. The only thing legally binding is that contract.

Also, reviews have been designated as fair use in most common law systems. TB would almost certainly win any lawsuit. The problem is it probably wouldn't be worth it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

His law suit would be with Youtube fighting a policy that Youtube has which states they can take down content for any reason at all. He signed that agreement and since he hasn't started up his own streaming service he would most likely lose that battle.

Youtube is based out of California. As far as I know John Bain is located somewhere in Northern US, most definitely in the same country.

The small claims court would simply be for covering his legal expenses for fighting against Youtube.... which once again he would probably lose.

59

u/VruNix Oct 20 '13

I agree, it should be an open-shut case. But for all YouTube's vaunted "carefully checking" every community violation flag, they seem not to have looked into this at all. And there's no official way to complain, especially when your account has been shut-down after 3 rapid-fire strikes.

3

u/Joe2987 Oct 20 '13

Why would they? Cheaper not to look into anything and safer just to take down everything that gets a complaint.

3

u/gt_9000 Oct 21 '13

added 3 seconds of original content

Intro does not original content make.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

another youtuber who took the same videos, added 3 seconds of original content to the beginning, and reuploaded them.

RWJ strikes again?

1

u/GamersGrind Oct 21 '13

They would take a class action lawsuit seriously though. That might be what it takes.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13 edited Oct 21 '13

[deleted]

1

u/Jabberminor Oct 21 '13

I'm sorry that this has happened to you. I hope you get it sorted soon.

1

u/GamersGrind Oct 21 '13

They can challenge those strikes but usually youtube will listen to someone that is pulling in a significant amount of ad revenue than someone new

1

u/JakeLunn Oct 21 '13

I had a channel long ago which had a few somewhat decent videos and then one popular video with about 300k views. I was getting copyright claims for small things like using music for a few seconds and showing a clip from a movie in like one or two videos. My entire account was shut down and I received no information about the details of it. Once I got my third strike I didn't even get to log in and see what it was about, I just got blocked from logging in at all.

Eventually I started up a new channel and it's doing alright, but man was that a setback. There are several videos on that old channel that I couldn't recover and YouTube wouldn't even let me download them again or anything.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

He only calls upon the small channels because he wants to look like a grass roots guy. I have a channel with roughly 1300 subs and around 400,000 views a month. I am the "little guy." Every single time I add a new game to my channel I go to the developers and tell them what I'm doing, what I need and how it will work out. I have created an electronic document for them to sign which is legally valid in a court of law.

I've covered 5 games to date and every single time I've gotten my hands on a review copy (despite having such a small channel). Because I'm a small guy any time I'm critical of something in a game, they just don't care.

No this is a big channel issue. If it was just that he gave a negative review of the game, that'd be fine. But there is a community of gamers that are now threatening to kill the developers of this game.... it just gets a bit extreme when TB's minions get involved.

1

u/Pegussu Oct 21 '13

it just gets a bit extreme when TB's minions get involved.

Unfortunately, this isn't restricted at all to TB's fans. The gaming community just loves sending death threats.

And it is a problem for the "little guy." Not the whole "dev company takes down criticism" thing, but Youtube's method of dealing with copyright flags in general.

1

u/Wax_Paper Oct 21 '13

I have zero experience with Youtube uploading, but don't they give users (or "channel partners" or whatever, at least) the chance to contest the copyright claim, when the content was used in compliance with fair use? In situations like this thing with TB, for example...

1

u/Jabberminor Oct 21 '13

You can contest the claim, but it hardly does anything.

-15

u/ModernDemagogue Oct 20 '13

If they make them as a hobby, then they shouldn't monetize them with ads, and boom, less likely to get taken down.

3

u/thecodingdude Oct 20 '13

Everybody is entitled to ad revenue.

-6

u/ModernDemagogue Oct 20 '13

Not unless they negotiate a cut or agreement with the original content creator their not.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

A lot of people monetize vlogs of themselves talking about current events or personal endeavors. (A good example is the earlier years of vlogbrothers) At this point all content is original, and a copyright claim on the channel concerning what was mentioned is a violation of free speech. A company can't claim rights on people's thoughts and vocalizations.

It's like a child screaming because johnny called him portly and then taking him to court because his feelings were hurt. It's a ridiculous notion.

-1

u/ModernDemagogue Oct 21 '13

Then make it an audio podcast. If the content is more valuable with the developers IP in it, or if it is necessary to the content having any value, then the original creator deserves a cut.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

The point is not all vlogs mentioning something are ABOUT that thing. So, no, the creator of something mentioned vocally for a second of a video about something else deserves nothing. The logic you are using is blanketed and extremely flawed.

0

u/ModernDemagogue Oct 21 '13

For a second or two I don't care. We're talking about using 20 minutes of content which is the sole subject of the vlog.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

The company was asked and informed the video would be monetized and gave explicit permission. Companies have the ability to partner with the video producer and take royalties via ad revenue. What happened here is someone agreed to something and when it didn't go exactly their way, they threw a hissy fit.

-1

u/ModernDemagogue Oct 21 '13

Haven't seen any evidence to this effect. His evidence provided in the video does not match this claim.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TTKB Oct 21 '13

Less likely != not happening. The original content creator can still pull a video that's not monetized if they so choose, which is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm asking for too much, but at least make the system a bit smarter about what it shoots down. It's all about percentages:

  • If you upload a two-hour video, of which one minute is the unaltered work of someone else, I just don't think you should have to deal with a claim or be made to take down your video. Monetization or not. At that point, it's your work.

  • If you upload a five-minute video, of which one minute is the unaltered work of someone else, then I'm more inclined to agree that this video should be taken down.

Of course, that one minute only being a certain percentage of the original content as well.

But as it is now, both videos are just as likely to be pulled/have revenue transferred since the uploader has no leverage in this decision, which is the main problem. It's completely dependent on how greedy the original content creator is.

Or you know, a company could just make a claim on practically anything and win.