Matt Lowne’s entire channel has been copyright claimed

Retro Starship · November 21, 2019

This is really upsetting me. Its almost like large corporations on the internet are trying to control us. Ill just shut this off and go read something. Hmmm I know I have some books by George Orwell around here.... :blink:

XB-70A · November 21, 2019

1 hour ago, Saturn5tony said:

Its almost like large corporations on the internet are trying to control us.

ProtoJeb21 · November 21, 2019

10 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Only as a last resort. After all, if YouTube finally gets shut down, we'll still need some place to watch each other's videos, right?

Which brings me to this question (aside from any action plan ideas): Should we try to

Save YouTube
PROS:
We'll get our beloved content-sharing platform back

Innocent content creators that have nothing to do with what happened to Matt won't suffer in the end.

CONS:
Executives may betray us.
Will need some kind of "Leverage"-style contingency plan and/or legal agreement

Let it live/die on its own

Kill it
PROS:
~~Revenge~~ Justice for their repeated civil rights violations.

They're hurting normal content creators anyway, so YouTube's death may make no significant difference to them

CONS:
Average everyday content creators (YT victims or not) who don't even know Matt will be hurt as well.

We'll have to rebuild on our own

YouTube is killing itself at this point. It’s trying so hard to appease massive corporations and groups like the FTC that it has completely lost sight of what it was supposed to be: a place for creators to thrive and post quality content. The more YouTube continues their poor practices or implements even worse systems (like the new COPPA rule that is probably going to demonitize most kid-friendly channels), the more creators will be leaving the site for others that don’t have corporations exploiting faulty copyright rules to get a quick buck out of someone else’s hard work.

As much as I enjoy watching YouTube, it’s very likely we will see it collapse within the next few years, especially with Article 13 on the horizon. Unless YouTube has a major change and decides to be better to their creators like they used to, they’re doomed. More and more people will leave, and the problems faced by smaller (<1 mil subs) channels will almost certainly be felt by even the biggest.

razark · November 21, 2019

1 hour ago, Saturn5tony said:

...large corporations on the internet are trying to control us.

It's almost as though companies exist to make a profit, rather than to make the world better and people happy.

HebaruSan · November 22, 2019

28 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

YouTube is [...] trying so hard to appease massive corporations and groups like the FTC

Note that in most cases Youtube's reactions to those factors are not optional. You mentioned COPPA; Youtube was fined $170,000,000 for systematically violating that law. Do you really expect them to openly defy a law and keep paying huge fines in order to satisfy your demand for "a place for creators to thrive and post quality content"? Same for the copyright stuff; if Youtube deliberately established itself as an anything-goes platform, copyright holders all over the world would file the mother of all class action lawsuits and shut Youtube down within a year.

39 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

leaving the site for others

They'll do exactly what Youtube has done if they ever reach the same scale.

Gargamel · November 22, 2019

11 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Kill it

PROS:
~~Revenge~~ Justice for their repeated civil rights violations.

Wait, wut? I'm not sure we're talking about the same incident here any more. What civil rights violations? Matt (unknowningly) used Copyrighted material illegally in a bunch of his videos. The copyright holder dinged him for it. The cause of it seems to be Youtube mistakenly hosted the file to start with.

None of that is a civil rights violation. Not even close. To even suggest that is a huge insult to any person has had their civil rights infringed upon. I'd really like to have an intelligent discourse on this subject, but it becomes very difficult when there is nothing but rhetoric and unfounded supposition being thrown around.

ProtoJeb21 · November 22, 2019

5 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Note that in most cases Youtube's reactions to those factors are not optional. You mentioned COPPA; Youtube was fined $170,000,000 for systematically violating that law. Do you really expect them to openly defy a law and keep paying huge fines in order to satisfy your demand for "a place for creators to thrive and post quality content"? Same for the copyright stuff; if Youtube deliberately established itself as an anything-goes platform, copyright holders all over the world would file the mother of all class action lawsuits and shut Youtube down within a year.

Sorry, I misspoke. The issue with the new COPPA rule is that it is so vague and has such a high consequence — a $42,000 fine for mislabeling a video as child-friendly or not.

HebaruSan · November 22, 2019

6 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

Sorry, I misspoke. The issue with the new COPPA rule is that it is so vague and has such a high consequence — a $42,000 fine for mislabeling a video as child-friendly or not.

Something that (apparently) not a lot of people know: Youtube does not have the power to issue fines. If a video producer working on Youtube is compelled to pay $42,000, they'll be paying that to the Federal Trade Commission, which does have the power to issue fines and is responsible for enforcing COPPA. Again, not something that's optional for Youtube.

Lisias · November 22, 2019

2 hours ago, Saturn5tony said:

This is really upsetting me. Its almost like large corporations on the internet are trying to control us. Ill just shut this off and go read something. Hmmm I know I have some books by George Orwell around here....

Not that much. They don't give a rat's ass about us. They want our money, and that's all.

The key for keeping them in check is… Not using our money.

You don't need to lead that guys to bankruptcy. You just need to make them loose more money than they are earning on the stunt. Make the wrongdoing unprofitable, and they will stop doing it.

Mars-Bound Hokie · November 22, 2019

32 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

What civil rights violations? Matt (unknowningly) used Copyrighted material illegally in a bunch of his videos.

Heavy emphasis on "unknowingly," since someone FALSELY labeled it as copyright-free. The timing of the copyright strike also seems way off to be in any way reliable, if you ask me.

Those could be good arguments for Matt's lawsuit: false labels and claim timing.
He also has the right to face his accusers in court, where a judge and/or jury can see that they're lying.

37 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

The cause of it seems to be Youtube mistakenly hosted the file to start with.

So why is Matt taking the blame for it - and why now? Why didn't they tell him earlier, like closer to the time/s he posted the video/s in question?

And why copyright-strike the entire channel and not just the videos that contain said material?

42 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

None of that is a civil rights violation. Not even close. To even suggest that is a huge insult to any person has had their civil rights infringed upon.

I could say the same thing about people who claim copyright violations when there are none - or about assault/discrimination claims in the real world. False copyright claims, which (like false assault claims) can also be used for EXTORTION, aren't the only type of shenanigans these crooks pulled off.

The best example where I live is the deranking, demonetizing, and deplatforming (censoring) of conservative (or at least non-"politically correct") outlets in the United States.
- That's an explicit violation of one's freedom of speech.
If Matt takes this to court and his accusers don't show, his rights would have been violated further since he has the right to confront them.
- It will also look bad for SonyATV if their representative commits perjury.

38 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I'd really like to have an intelligent discourse on this subject, but it becomes very difficult when there is nothing but rhetoric and unfounded supposition being thrown around

Then let's have an action plan here. I told Matt via forum DM and Gmail days ago (and DMed his discord just now) that we have his back, and now's the time to prove it.

Gargamel · November 22, 2019

1 minute ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Heavy emphasis on "unknowingly," since someone FALSELY labeled it as copyright-free.

If somebody hands you a VCR "off the back of a truck", it's still receiving stolen property, regardless of one's intentions. Same here. He used an IP that was owned by another entity. They are fully within their legal rights to request he not use it, regardless of where he obtained it.

18 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

The timing of the copyright strike also seems way off to be in any way reliable, if you ask me.

Those could be good arguments for Matt's lawsuit: false labels and claim timing.

What timing? Is there a nefarious plot to rid the world of KSP gameplay videos? The claims occured when they got noticed. And when one of these contractors sees one video from somebody with IP in it, they'll take a look at others the person has produced. Once they have compiled a list of infractions, then they report it.

3 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

And why copyright-strike the entire channel and not just the videos that contain said material?

From what I can see, they did strike individual videos, but because most of his videos used that music as an intro, then most of his videos got hit, which is essence striking his whole channel, but only because of the way Youtube policies are set up.

7 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

So why is Matt taking the blame for it - and why now? Why didn't they tell him earlier, like closer to the time/s he posted the video/s in question?

Because it up to the copyright holder, or their designated agents, to make the claims and make the Host of the Content (Youtube) and the content Creator (Matt) aware of the infringement. This can take time due to the signal to noise ratio. Smaller channels like Matt's will fly under the radar until they have made enough content to get noticed. In Matt's case, he had been using what he thought was royalty free music for a ling time, and the impact was far greater. The onus is on the IP owner to make the claims, not the Host.

5 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

That's an explicit violation of one's freedom of speech.

In the US, free speech is only protected from governmental interference, not private entity. If a newspaper refuses to publish an op-ed column just because they don't like it, that's their prerogative.

11 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

If Matt takes this to court and his accusers don't show, his rights would have been violated further since he has the right to confront them.

It will also look bad for SonyATV if their representative commits perjury.

If Matt does take this to court, and I kind of hope he does, and the IP owner's representatives do not show, then the case is tossed out, and ruled in Matt's favor. That's not a violation of anybody's rights, that is just the way court cases work. If you get a speeding ticket, and actually go to traffic court to contest it, and the issuing officer does not show (which happens often enough), then the case is tossed out. There is no rights violations though, you don't get to sue the police department for a lawfully issued speeding ticket that was never prosecuted.

There has been no perjury yet. Perjury is the act of lying under oath. That requires a court case. In this situation, one party claims they own something, and they have to show proof. If they fail to show convincing proof, then it's still not perjury, it's just them failing to support their case.

23 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

that we have his back

Of course we do. He's a solid member of the KSP community at large, and we wish him the best. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of a few dozen (or even a few hundred) fans attempting to boycott two of the biggest names in the entertainment industry. And as to starting a new video hosting service, why re-invent the wheel? There are already dozens, if not hundreds of similar sites already on the web. Why not find one that works and use that one instead?

Lisias · November 22, 2019

50 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

If somebody hands you a VCR "off the back of a truck", it's still receiving stolen property, regardless of one's intentions.

Nope. Intelectual Property doesn't works this way. In order to you get a stolen VCR, someone had lose the possession of one.

Using Intellectual Property without authorisation is copyright INFRINGEMENT, not robbery of a good.

If a song can be stolen, than any IP under your possession can be sold, the first sale doctrine would apply, the licensor could not limit the use of the property, and so on.

Any argument about Intellectual Property using any kind of robbery metaphors are plain non sequitur.

Gargamel · November 22, 2019

4 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Nope. Intelectual Property doesn't works this way. In order to you get a stolen VCR, someone had lose the possession of one.

Using Intellectual Property without authorisation is copyright INFRINGEMENT, not robbery of a good.

If a song can be stolen, than any IP under your possession can be sold, the first sale doctrine would apply, the licensor could not limit the use of the property, and so on.

Any argument about Intellectual Property using any kind of robbery metaphors are plain non sequitur.

True, but I was trying to convey the point that regardless of the means of Matt acquiring the music in question, it is still owned by the rights holder, and it is up to them to claim it. Perhaps a better metaphor was needed there.

Mars-Bound Hokie · November 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

If somebody hands you a VCR "off the back of a truck", it's still receiving stolen property, regardless of one's intentions. Same here.

More like him buying a car from what seemed to be a legitimate dealer, only for him to get arrested years later and find out that it was actually stolen. Sure, Matt was technically "in possession of a stolen vehicle," but doesn't the dealer get the blame too for not stopping him from obtaining it - assuming they're not the ones who stole it in the first place?

Shouldn't YT get some of the blame for allowing the songs in question to be mislabeled as "Royalty-Free?"

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

What timing? Is there a nefarious plot to rid the world of KSP gameplay videos?

More like [snip] biased content. Unfortunately, this also includes KSP videos since they have no political agenda (which is good). Their only agenda is to show off what they can do, regardless if it succeeds or fails.

COPPA isn't exactly helping either. KSP is meant for all ages to learn and play, but I doubt kids will understand orbital mechanics or good rocket design nearly as well as people 13 and over.
- Besides, what exactly qualifies as "for kids" under the new rules?
  - [snip]
- Whatever happened to "be better parents" or child filters on computers - or simply keeping young children off the internet?

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

In the US, free speech is only protected from governmental interference, not private entity. If a newspaper refuses to publish an op-ed column just because they don't like it, that's their prerogative.

That has been heavily debated recently, especially with social media and the abuse of "hate speech algorithms."

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

In Matt's case, he had been using what he thought was royalty free music for a ling time, and the impact was far greater. The onus is on the IP owner to make the claims, not the Host.

If Matt can prove that he had reason to believe that the music he used was royalty-free (which I'm sure he can), then the IP owner AND the host will have some serious explaining to do - if not just surrender already.

Perjury won't be an option, since that could be debunked.

Sure, the IP owner has a legitimate claim that the songs are protected, but Matt should also have a solid claim that at the time, he had no reason to believe he would get in trouble if he used the songs since they were from a royalty-free library.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

If Matt does take this to court, and I kind of hope he does, and the IP owner's representatives do not show, then the case is tossed out, and ruled in Matt's favor.

Hmm...

Objective: Za bo taj

(JUST KIDDING)

In all seriousness, though, it's up to us to make sure that Matt shows up on time to his own court date. I don't care if his enemies do; if they don't, then good for him.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of a few dozen (or even a few hundred) fans attempting to boycott two of the biggest names in the entertainment industry

You sure about that, because thanks to the number of shenanigans [snip] pulled off in recent years, I'm getting the "smiling Grinch face" thinking of ideas to at least disrupt them.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

And as to starting a new video hosting service, why re-invent the wheel? There are already dozens, if not hundreds of similar sites already on the web. Why not find one that works and use that one instead?

You got any websites in mind? Hopefully, not one owned by Sony or Google - or one that panders to the losers that ruined them.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Vanamonde

Mars-Bound Hokie · November 22, 2019

Just now, Gargamel said:

Perhaps a better metaphor was needed there.

I already used one - check my earlier post.

I was in the middle of typing it when @Lisias beat me to it.

Vanamonde · November 22, 2019

Politics never ends well on this forum, so it's off-limits. Please leave that for other parts of the internet. Also, we'd like people from all walks of life, so please refrain from denigrating characterizations of groups of people.

Some comments have been edited or removed.

Lisias · November 22, 2019

13 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

More like him buying a car from what seemed to be a legitimate dealer, only for him to get arrested years later and find out that it was actually stolen. Sure, Matt was technically "in possession of a stolen vehicle," but doesn't the dealer get the blame too for not stopping him from obtaining it - assuming they're not the ones who stole it in the first place?

Uh… Nope. Yeah, I'm picky on the subject - but I have good reasons: I don't wanna see anyone hurt by this plague called Copyright Trolling, and the only line of defense we have is knowing how this legal tragedy works. So, allow me to bore you to death with legalese.

Your metaphor doesn't apply because the concept of "sale" doesn't applies to Intelectual Property.

If a car is needed on a metaphor, the closest I can think of is you renting a limo from Rent-A-Car and then renting it again to someone to use as a Uber. The original owner of the car didn't lose it, but that property is being depreciated instead, losing its value.

Matt is that guy willing to use the limo as Uber. He thinks it's all right, he signed a contract and is paying the "renter" as contracted. But that guy didn't had the right to rent (again) the limo.

Lapis · November 22, 2019

20 hours ago, Saturn5tony said:

This is really upsetting me. Its almost like large corporations on the internet are trying to control us.

I dont believe that large faceless organizations are abusing their power just to make money. Surely that could not be true in the slightest

(its sarcasm. please have mercy.)

Edited November 22, 2019 by lapis

Fraston · November 22, 2019

What makes this situation so stupid is that SonyATV could have turned a blind eye; AFIAK a sequence of notes bearing a 20% similarity to one of their stolen pieces (they literally publish people’s work and make money off of it) had tripped their anti-personal expression bots and they got all liquidy about it, and decided “hEy yOU kNOw WHat? “WhAt?” “LETs leAvE A sAInT fOr DEaD! sOunDs gReAT! WHeN dO WE sTaRt?” “NOw!”

Retro Starship · November 22, 2019

59 minutes ago, lapis said:

(its sarcasm. please have mercy.)

Hehe! yea so was me getting my books about 1984 and my references to those large faceless organizations!

Lapis · November 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Saturn5tony said:

Hehe! yea so was me getting my books about 1984 and my references to those large faceless organizations!

I know, i need to get another physical copy. i had one somewhere...

Retro Starship · November 22, 2019

6 minutes ago, lapis said:

I know, i need to get another physical copy. i had one somewhere...

That book still scares me. It was the book we had for our graduation class too!

ProtoJeb21 · November 23, 2019

If anyone’s interested about what the new COPPA ruling means for YouTube, MatPat just made a video on it:

November 23, 2019

YouTube: literally a free service

Also YouTube: actually lets you make money out of it: profit from a free service

People: want to demand stuff from YouTube, as if it owed something to them

The whole "complaining about YouTube" thing is just a glorified r/choosingbeggars post (I don't have reddit). If you don't like the platform there are plenty alternatives, unless you're a fan of preaching the "we need a new platform" spiel while never having used the alternatives

Edited November 23, 2019 by Guest

kerbiloid · November 23, 2019

(Is the smile in the video already of age? Shouldn't it be blurred?)

P.S.
The cat as well. Most of cats are <18.

Edited November 23, 2019 by kerbiloid

Matt Lowne’s entire channel has been copyright claimed

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation