Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by icebraining 3888 days ago
Why do you say they are using the DMCA? My point is exactly that: if you own the platform, you don't need the DMCA to take down videos from it!

they do not have the right to monetize on behalf of a third party (Sony, et. al.) content you create and own the copyright to

Why not? YouTube can put ads on any video, why couldn't they distribute that income with whoever they want to?
1 comments
morganvachon 3888 days ago
> Why do you say they are using the DMCA?

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:

https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-deal-with-universal-blocks-...

> YouTube can put ads on any video, why couldn't they distribute that income with whoever they want to?

It's a matter of trust. YouTube implemented a monetization policy to encourage regular folks to create viral content, and reward that effort with monetization for original works. However, YouTube is gaming their own system and stacking it in favor of Big Content. They are breaking the trust they asked their users to place in them, and breaking their own policies to support their biggest customers.

link
icebraining 3888 days ago
> Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:

While the email mentions a DMCA notice, I doubt there was one. Content-ID probably detected it, and UMG blocked it without needing to send any DMCA notice, just using YouTube's backend tools. If you search on the DMCA database that Google/Youtube uses, ChillingEffects, there's no match for a notice sent by UMG: https://chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&te...

Essentially, my point is that the DMCA is a legal mechanism to force hosting services to comply, but it isn't needed in this case, since YouTube complies voluntarily.

> It's a matter of trust.

Oh, absolutely, I never meant to say that YouTube aren't being assholes by behaving like this, but we were talking about legal rights, and I don't see them violating those.

And playing Devil's advocate, I'm not sure YouTube is all that interested in implementing these mechanisms - their customers are the advertisers, not Big Content. I'd say it's more like paying protection money after getting the proverbial horse head in the bed - or in this case, the barrage of lawsuits they got between 2008-2012.

link
serge2k 3887 days ago
There is no law that says you have to treat your customers well.
link