[RobertDeNiro]

from https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876300596182983151

" Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.

We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.

We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction. "

[hamandcheese]

This seems like a huge abuse of the copyright system to me. It sounds to me like ChainPatrol doesn't actually have any IP to protect, but they are instead deputizing YouTube's copyright system to fight what they deem to be crypto scams. Absolutely wild if true.

[wruza]

There are lots of “companies” like this. Don’t think about buying this apologetic do-gooder tone, it’s an id claim troll trying to cover his ass after touching something they can get face punched for by the whole internet. Which the internet should do anyway. Imagine what it did and continues to do to channels no one cares about that much. These parasites don’t deserve to exist, regardless of the official stance.

[p0w3n3d]

Big tech companies are not complaint with copyright, only with its interpretation made up by themselves.

[dandanua]

Anything bitcoin related is wild today. Big and free money make people lose their damn minds.

[staplers]

This is not just a bitcoin issue.

See: Sports gambling, prediction markets, pay-later apps. Gamified finance in general encourages risky behavior.

[pksebben]

I'll offer a slight adjustment; "Finance in general encourages risky behavior". It is an industry explicitly dealing in moving and dealing in risk.

We periodically become very aware of this. See financial news in 1893, 1901, 1907, 1910, 1914, 1920, 1937, 1949, 1953, 1961, 1970, 1973, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2011, and so on and so on.

It's almost as if a zero-sum, value neutral industry controlling the bulk of world finance is inherently a very very bad idea.

[nox101]

What part is zero-sum?

[immibis]

The part of the world economy that moves value from one person to another, without creating any value, is zero-sum.

[hartator]

Speculative assets are by definition are zero-sum.

If they go to infinite or to zero, they still produce zero.

[TZubiri]

You can definitely use your IP to take down scams.

If someone is using your name or your company's name to scam people, it is in your interest to save your name and provide people assurance that they can do business with your name.

[gruez]

>You can definitely use your IP to take down scams.

Key point being, that you have IP to use in the first place. But the parents' contention is that ChainPatrol and/or their clients don't have such IP, and are merely weaponizing the copyright/trademark takedown process to take down scams, which isn't the same thing.

[TZubiri]

My understanding is that arbitrum has an IP, but this video was not using their IP, that it was a false positive in terms of identifying the IP, in addition to a false positive of malicious intent.

What you are saying is that these claims never relate to IP and it was only a false positive of malicious intent?

[gruez]

>What you are saying is that these claims never relate to IP and it was only a false positive of malicious intent?

I'm not sure how you got that impression. If you read my previous comment it's pretty clear I only objected on the basis they don't have relevant IP, not on the principle of being able to use IP to issue take down scams.

[HWR_14]

That's a use of a trademark claim, not a copyright claim. And a good example of why trademark protection is valuable.

[TZubiri]

It's true that trademarks are the best tool for that kind of protection, and that it is distinct from copyright. Note that I used the term IP though, which is a yet third distinct term.

[tzs]

Scammers often use more than just your name. They often take content from your site too to try to make theirs look like yours.

[pests]

The claim was they have no IP.

[blendergeek]

> We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.

So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?

[sneak]

DMCA’s perjury provision is completely toothless; it might as well not be there. It doesn’t even require you affirm a copyright violation, just that you act on behalf of the rightsholder.

This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Barratry law does cover this. I eagerly wait for the day a lawyer is censured for violating their oath with this BS.

[1oooqooq]

misdemeanor. up to 1k fine. if even exists in your state.

so toothless also.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The point is to besmirch their record with the bar association.

[x-complexity]

> The point is to besmirch their record with the bar association.

That effectively means nothing if every copyright lawyer eventually gets one.

In fact, I personally bet that it would be treated as a dividing mark between a newbie copyright lawyer & a professional copyright lawyer.

[krisoft]

> Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video?

Probably not. Youtube has their own system which is not DMCA claim based.

[infinitesoup]

Sounds like he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown, not a Content ID claim.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106

[krisoft]

> not a Content ID claim.

That is my understanding too. We do not have a disagreement on that.

> he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown

Here is where we disagree. A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.

The DMCA takedown process as described in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Title II. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act provides more rights for the content owner whose work got maliciously or mistakenly taken down. They have access to a counter notification process and §512(f) makes those who knowingly materially misrepresent content as infringing liable for damages. You don't have the same rights and affordances with the youtube copyright notification system.

It is similar. If you squint it looks the same. But it is not the same.

[infinitesoup]

> A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown.

Yes it is. YouTube doesn’t magically get to ignore the DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with layering Content ID on top to allow for a middle ground where videos can stay up but redirect some or all monetization to the copyright holder).

If you click through the link I posted above, you’ll get to this page which shows the complete process, including the counter-notification step: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830 Do you have reason to believe 3blue1brown can’t file a counter-notification in this case?

[filoeleven]

Does YouTube's system also make a malicious complainer liable for damages? The DMCA does. Here's the relevant section of the law mentioned by krisoft:

(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer [...]

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

[krisoft]

Hmmm. I see what you say. You convinced me! Thank you.

[Terr_]

> If so, would this not be perjury?

IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own or aren't authorized to protect.

[dowakin]

Haha, they see themselves as ‘good cops,’ deciding what content is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s not even about copyright—it’s about what they think is good for users and what isn’t.

And in the process of playing ‘police’ they end up taking down one of the best videos explaining how Bitcoin works.

[techjamie]

They probably should've consulted with a lawyer before making that statement. It sounds like a footgun that would help any prospective litigant build a case against you.

[wruza]

I’m sure that “corrupt cop looking away” is their core business model.

[Analemma_]

This is par for the course in crypto communities. There are multiple competing Bitcoin subreddits, mainly because each one decides which info to censor because they don't like a particular coin/fork/tech.

[Hilift]

It took three people on Reddit to start a rumor that Anne Hathaway was a bad person. Probably due to they thought her as Catwoman was going to be like Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern. And they were still seething over Katie Holmes.

[chgs]

Shakespeare’s wife?

[throwaway314155]

> It took three people on Reddit to start a rumor that Anne Hathaway was a bad person

Start a rumor amongst a couple hundred crypto bros that no one else pays attention to.

[Zpalmtree]

Phishing scam videos are not good for anyone, why would you want people impersonating your brand stealing your users funds?

[Miraste]

There aren't that many channels with over 5M subscribers. 3Blue1Brown is 706th in the world. It's insane to me that YouTube still doesn't have a manual sanity check for claims against their top ~1000 channels or so. That couldn't possibly cost much, and it would fix a PR problem that hits so often you can use it as a calendar.

[rtkwe]

The reason they don't is because they've made their own version of the DMCA takedown system but my understanding is that that system/law gives the strongest liability safe harbor if the platform just takes things down in response to takedown requests without taking any steps to validate them. The weaselly lawyer approved version is to just let the claimant and the poster duke it out with counter responses etc and just be passive.

[L3viathan]

At the very least they could trigger a real qualified human review of it immediately.

[Piskvorrr]

Costs money. (Probably not a lot, but you know the drill: to a large company, any expense is treated as a threat, no matter how small.)

[buildsjets]

So the big-name channel gets a personal response. What about the many non-famous channels that ChainPatrol must have made false claims against? How many strikes or false claims does ChainPatrol get before they are permanently booted off YouTube and all their revenue streams get taken from them?

[adolph]

I think https://chainpatrol.io/ is fake. Look at things like the "legal terms." To make a DCMA (US Law) counterclaim, they want "a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario." [0]

If you are unsatisfied with our services, please email us at [EMAIL ADDRESS] and we will address your concerns in a prompt and timely manner. [0]

0. https://chainpatrol.io/legal/terms

See also "Fake AI law firms are sending fake DMCA threats to generate fake SEO gains"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/fake-ai-law-firms-ar...

[ninju]

They did not even update the "legal terms" page to include a real email address :-(

(I first thought that you redacted in your post)

[userbinator]

Ontario is not part of the US.

[seanhunter]

I think that is the point that the poster was making.

[JoshTko]

This seems to be a new shakedown racket of a business. "Subscribe for our services, or be victim to our shoddy automated takedown notices". Not too dissimilar to online ID protection services, that simultaneously sell your information

[gruez]

That doesn't make much sense, at least in this particular case. ChainPartrol's website describes themselves as "Real-time Brand Protection for Leading Web3 Companies", so it's unlikely that youtube creators would subscribe to such a service. Maybe if they were issuing takedown request for other "Web3 Companies" this allegation would have some merit, but that's not what happened here.

[bhk]

Taken at face value, this implies their copyright infringement claim was fraudulent, but in pursuit of a higher good.

But according to many replies to that tweet, they were actually working on behalf of actual copyright infringers.

Not sure what to believe.

[mjburgess]

It's common for one set of scammers to target another, to take their competitors out. So it's quite possible for them to be abusing the copyright system to take-out scamming competitors.

[milesvp]

Heh, PirateSoftware, he talks about this, being both sec ops and having worked at blizzard. Apparently it's really common for the big coin farmers (which blizzard doesn't like, and would ban if they could identify all the players) to tell blizzard about zero day exploits to prevent their competitors from using them and crashing the market for gold.

[Suppafly]

Either way, someone needs to sue them.

[jimbob45]

They're only doing this because 3blue1brown named and shamed. Remember, kids, always name and shame malevolent actions.

[j7ake]

You need to name and shame… and also have enough influence to have your post rise against the sea of garbage out there.

Most people’s post wouldn’t get looked at at all, 3blue1brown is fortunate to have such a large audience so that his complaint gets looked at by a human.

[Shorel]

As always, this is only possible when a post like this appears in a site like HN and the community outrage forces YouTube/Google to take action.

This will continue happening to smaller channels and creators, and they will continue to have their content stolen.

[maeil]

Unless they're compensating the entirety of the Youtuber's lost revenue, this is worth as much as a granny tech support scammer claiming they were really planning to help out granny fix her computer.

Pure evil.

[Mistletoe]

This company is basically an extreme nobody and has like 1-3 likes on their posts. It is absurd how imbalanced the power is with regard to automation and copyright strikes.

[vkou]

There's nothing absurd about it, our society is not built about making people with a lot of likes comfortable, it's built around making people who own stuff comfortable.

[robertlagrant]

You don't really need to own much to initiate a bogus copyright strike, so I don't know how that's relevant.

[olliej]

Filing a take down requires a sworn statement of good faith belief the claim is false, so this would appear to be perjury.

[mtnGoat]

And hopefully is punished as such. Too many false claims and YouTube should just block them.

[8note]

i don't understand how this connects to copyright claims. who is the user whos funds is being stolen?

[tzs]

A common thing scammers do is copy material from other sites that the scammer's victims are familiar with and trust. The scammers put that material in their own sites to try to trick the victims into thinking that are on the site they trust.

[seanhunter]

Yeah so I imagine how this would work to steal people’s funds in this case is to take copyrightable brand assets from someweb3company.xyz. Use them to make a youtube video saying something like “someweb3company.xyz is doing a limited time offer of a free thing. Log in with your wallet details at someweb3company.totallylegitoffer.xyz to claim!” Or some variant on that. Logging in with your wallet gives them permission to steal all your stuff. Because “logging in with a web3 wallet” is actually signing something with your private key. That something can be a json token thing for logging in, but it can also be a transaction and the UX is so god-awful that people often don’t pay much attention to which they are doing and get ripped off.

[wmf]

It doesn't, but that's the only way to get blatant scam videos removed from YouTube.

[websap]

A random company is able to claim copyright infringement for one of the most beloved YouTube channels. WTF is going on at Google and Youtube?

[wruza]

Good morning, isn’t it? This goes for years, happens to every youtuber from time to time. And if they are tiny and have no creators community, they often just swallow the “demonetization” fact.

[robertlagrant]

Demonetisation isn't so bad (i.e. copyright claims). Copyright strikes kill the channel after 3 in a row within a month or so.

[indoordin0saur]

Thank you! BTW, loved you in Goodfellas.

[ikiris]

I’m very interested how they think any of their copyright takedown claims pass scrutiny.

[mrguyorama]

The system intentionally does not require scrutiny.

Youtube implemented this system as part of a lawsuit with Viacom who was going to take them to the cleaners. Putting all the power in the hands of the people making the claim was intentional.

If someone's video gets taken down incorrectly and then later put back up, Google does not care, someone else's video got the ad slots anyway. There's more content on Youtube uploaded every second than can be watched.

[everfree]

From their home page, it looks like their stated goal is to remove brand impersonation materials. Lookalike websites, social media compromises, malicious links, etc. They allege to work with registrars, contribute to blocklists and take down scam content. True brand impersonation of this ilk almost always includes copyright infringement.

Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation; the latter calls for being stamped out.

I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube themselves don't give a shit.

[ikiris]

And copyright doesn’t give the ability to fight any of that is the point. This all sounds like abuse of DMCA process.

[everfree]

Pretty sure if someone is misusing your company logo, they’re violating both copyright and trademark, among other things. I’m not a lawyer though.

[grues-dinner]

Depends on the logo. If it's just text or a simple shape, it can't be copyrighted.

3Blue1Brown's logo is (probably) copyrightable, but the TED or Veritasium channel logos are (probably) not. If it could be claimed to be derivative of some other work, public domain or not, you may not fully own the copyright either. In general, it can be a big fuzzy grey area that needs a court to decide fully. Meanwhile, a trademark infringement would be easy to show.

[mmmBacon]

If you and your company are responsible for attempting to take legitimate things down either purposely or though incompetence, you should at least be publicly identifiable and accountable.

[johnneville]

would be nice to see some punishment or compensation. apologizing and retracting the claim doesn't make the victim whole again.

[1oooqooq]

is that web3 speak for "we wouldn't want you stealing from the people we are stealing"