YouTube - At a lose where to go from here - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 12:37:39 pm
content: I'm new but been watching Dave for years. I know this won't be electronics related but, assuming Dave's been hit with these before I was hoping for friendly advice.Luckily, I took Dave's advice and linked my YouTube account with Lbry so everything is uploaded to both. The background to this store starts last year. I'm in the UK. Came across a parking enforcement website for some reason. While looking through it I was horrified to find it was HTTP only, they had no SSL cert at all yet expected people to fill in these forms to dispute their tickets.So, I took fiddler, filled in the forms and watched as the data was being passed over the net in plain text, ready to be intercepted by anyone. So I screen recorded all these issues because they had no visible e-mail address to report this. Not to mentioned, because we were in the EU at the time and still now are required to follow GDPR, the whole site and the main company site breaches GDPR. The whole site really does look like it was created by a student just learning HTML, but that's not the point.Anyway. A year later and the company involved has decided to flag my video on YouTube with a copyright strike. Surely this is malicious. How can you claim copyright on me recording myself browsing a website? There is no commentary over it, now I wish I had then I can say fair dealing if anything. But surely you can't claim copyright on a video of a user browsing your website? This has clearly been done to hide their GDPR breaches and poor security. My e-mail address is on my YouTube channel, all they had to do was e-mail it, inform me they've now purchased a certificate and that the site is more secure (the main company site isn't. It still points the the HTTP version on a Google search)So was hoping someone might know what I claim when sending the counter notification. I've already attempted once and YouTube rejected it (which is odd as the whole point of their system is they aren't supposed to be involved legally, so why do they moderate the the counter notifications, as that is getting involved legally).Thankfully we have Lbry and the video in full is still available there.Hopefully this thread doesn't annoy anyone.

author: Fixpoint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 01:00:13 pm
content: Quote from: steviefaux on September 17, 2020, 12:37:39 pmWell ... without knowing the concrete details, it is difficult to give any concrete advice. If you just recorded yourself browsing a commonly available website, without any copyrighted material being used, then I am pretty sure there is no copright violation, but how could I know what you should tell YouTube? I don't even know what you told them and why they rejected your statement.However, there is one thing: lawyers try many dirty tricks, and so you can try to fight them off even before they get started. Using commentary on your video always helps because then you can claim that you are not USING any copyrighted material but that you are COMMENTING on it. That is actually a difference legally.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 03:04:11 pm
content: I didn't want to put a link in my first post in case I got a rollocking but here it is on Lbryhttps://lbry.tv/@Stevenwhiting:e/parking-enforcement-agency-parkshield:3

author: Fixpoint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 05:22:53 pm
content: I don't have experience with YouTube copyright strikes and don't know what you did. So, I can only say what I would have done. I would have requested to reinstate the video and referred to YouTube's Fair Use policy. You can read about it here:https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9783148?hl=enOn this page, there are also links to the Fair Use FAQ and the Copyright Troubleshooter (on the right). Maybe they are still processing your request?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2020, 05:33:26 pm
content: There was similar thread here when Ericsson tried to shut down somebody who posted teardowns of their gear. Try to find it.IIRC the general conclusion was that the system is rigged against you, unless you are willing to go to court over that or credibly able to produce highly negative PREricsson appeared to have come to their senses under a growing threat of the latter.Also, I'm sure there are ways to report them to authorities if they actually do something illegal.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2020, 12:12:28 pm
content: Quote from: Fixpoint on September 17, 2020, 05:22:53 pmThanks. I've had a read and looked at specifics for the UK, from what I can work out I can claim "fair dealing" even if there is no commentary.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2020, 06:39:20 pm
content: ContactThe Registerabout this, let the idiots who tried to censor you discover what "the Streisand Effect" is. Seeherefor 'how to contact'.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2020, 09:57:13 pm
content: I second contacting el reg - it will be fun to see them hand this company their arse

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2020, 10:33:56 pm
content: Quote from: steviefaux on September 17, 2020, 12:37:39 pmI wonder, since you mentioned that the website featured in the video appears to be phoned in by some lazy coder, that the video was flagged as a lazy response to suppress the information rather than doing the hard work of fixing the actual problem.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2020, 04:34:21 pm
content: I'd love for The Register to take up the story but I e-mailed them and appear to have been ignoredWhat's more annoying is YouTube's counter notification system. Its a pain in the arse.I've submitted 3 times now and all times they've rejected but don't explain what they want. The one but last rejection they gave me a link, I read it and included everything required. They then rejected again and again just gave me the same link but again aren't telling me what is wrong. Why are they rejecting it. The only thing I can think of is the house number. They have on the form "Street address" so I put the street but not the house number. The reason being, it's clear that the owner of said shading car company will most likely use the address to be abusive. I could give my previous address and claim, if they check I'm registered there, that I'm in the process of moving but then fear that will kill the counter notification if they realise I've used a false address.This is what I've sent that was rejectedQuoteThe last rejection they gave me this linkhttps://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/counter-notification-requirements.htmlthis then redirects tohttps://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919Which clearly shows they are pointing to old links.It stated they need a link to the video but why? The counter notification is FROM the video so surely they have it already. I included it, they still rejected it.I've now e-mailed copyright@youtube.com direct but am losing all hope because I get the impression a bot is the only thing reading that mailboxes e-mails also.I just wish the Register would have replied and taken up the story.I've reported the company to the ICO now but even they are useless. They expect you to contact the company first. I never did back in August 2019 because they never had an available e-mail address (they don't want people who get tickets e-mailing them direct). They've also amended the date on their T&C to make out it was last edited earlier in the year, which was when they had NO GPDR information at all, unfortunately I never took a screenshot at the time and the wayback machine didn't have it.......double check.....GREAT THEY DO!I'd love for The Register to take up the story but I e-mailed them and appear to have been ignoredWhat's more annoying is YouTube's counter notification system. Its a pain in the arse.I've submitted 3 times now and all times they've rejected but don't explain what they want. The one but last rejection they gave me a link, I read it and included everything required. They then rejected again and again just gave me the same link but again aren't telling me what is wrong. Why are they rejecting it. The only thing I can think of is the house number. They have on the form "Street address" so I put the street but not the house number. The reason being, it's clear that the owner of said shading car company will most likely use the address to be abusive. I could give my previous address and claim, if they check I'm registered there, that I'm in the process of moving but then fear that will kill the counter notification if they realise I've used a false address.This is what I've sent that was rejectedQuoteThe last rejection they gave me this linkhttps://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/counter-notification-requirements.htmlthis then redirects tohttps://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919Which clearly shows they are pointing to old links.It stated they need a link to the video but why? The counter notification is FROM the video so surely they have it already. I included it, they still rejected it.I've now e-mailed copyright@youtube.com direct but am losing all hope because I get the impression a bot is the only thing reading that mailboxes e-mails also.I just wish the Register would have replied and taken up the story.I've reported the company to the ICO now but even they are useless. They expect you to contact the company first. I never did back in August 2019 because they never had an available e-mail address (they don't want people who get tickets e-mailing them direct). They've also amended the date on their T&C to make out it was last edited earlier in the year, which was when they had NO GPDR information at all, unfortunately I never took a screenshot at the time and the wayback machine didn't have it.......double check.....GREAT THEY DO!https://ibb.co/vx0XBWM

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2020, 10:02:22 pm
content: I would just let it go, and stop using Youtube as far as practicable - a big, faceless corporation that treats you like dirt... what do you expect?Build an electronic project instead, and make a video about that - you will be happier!

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2020, 05:57:55 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on September 24, 2020, 10:02:22 pmIt just annoys me. Although YouTube is an annoyance its more the parking company I don't want to win.YouTube is getting more and more annoying with their automated responses. Clearly no person has read the last e-mail and clearly they favour the person claiming the strike.Thank you for your counter notification.Based on the information you provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor your request. It has not been forwarded to the original claimant, and we will not be able to restore your video.To learn more about copyright, you may visit YouTube’s Copyright Center.Keep in mind that copyright strikes expire after three months, as long as you’ve completed Copyright School.We unfortunately are unable to assist further in this matter.- The YouTube TeamCounter-Notification as follows:Videos included in counter-notification:VIDEOHiI'm getting more confused with each Counter Notification rejection. You're not telling me why you're rejecting the Counter Notification. I've sent yet another one which has been rejected again but tells me what I need to include which I've done. Can someone please check this and explain what I'm missing if anything?It is for this videoVIDEOThank youSteve

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2020, 06:56:27 pm
content: Make a very short video highlighting what the problem is with big easily and quickly recognisable parts. Like their logo, a zoomed-in screenshot of cleartext data, etc. The post that on their twitter feed asking why they prefer to DMCA you than fix the problem. Ditto Facebook.If that doesn't work you're looking at serious money to sue YouTube. The real threat of doing so - that is, a pukka letter before action - might achieve what you want, but you need to be able to back up your bluffs. Probably sensible to admit defeat before this point.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2020, 08:53:02 pm
content: Not using SSL is not, itself, a breach of GDPR.GDPR relates to how you store and use data, not how that data reaches the intended destination. That said, if any of the data is of a significant personal nature, it's definitely a concerning lapse of judgement.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2020, 09:07:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 25, 2020, 08:53:02 pmArticle 5 of the GDPR requires that personal data shall be:"(f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures"In this day and age that equates to being properly encrypted while being transmitted electronically as an "appropriate technical" measure. It may not be explicitly mandated, but is by implication.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2020, 04:09:25 pm
content: Yep, SSL for forms is a def must under GDPR otherwise you're sending over those personal details in plain text.I've had another idea. My channel isn't monitised so I lose no money and the one strike doesn't affect anything. I've reshot the video with commentary and reluctantly followed the "Copyright School" from YouTube which means the strike expires in December. That way, the fools don't get my real address (which I'm pretty sure they wanted to either use for online abuse or send goons round). So I'm writing up an article on the whole episode and will post it on my own website linking to the lbry video. I'll see if I can get Register to pick it up (I doubt they will).It's just annoying seeing how easily it is to abuse YouTube's copyright system and they favour the person making the claim to the person making a counter claim. The counter claim, despite being legit and the whole video being legally legit, they keep rejecting and not explaining why.I still find it amusing (I maybe the only one) that they've attempted to hide the fact their T&C was invalid when I made the video. On the T&C page they've placed a date before I uploaded my video. But, thankfully, TheWayBackMachine capture the same page a few months after they claim their policy was updated and the updates are there

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2020, 05:38:56 pm
content: You just have to understand how much money is being made from owning intellectual property. Then it becomes obvious why the system is so biased in favour of copyright owners... he who pays the piper etc.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 06:18:42 pm
content: Its funny as their site is so poor but they have Copyright notices in their T&C. The only thing they can claim copyright on, is their REALLY poor logo which is used I believe once, on one page. Doing a reverse image search I've realised, which was somewhat obvious anyway, all other images on the site and stock ones used all over the place.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2020, 08:56:55 pm
content: They can claim copyright on their T&C as laid out. Actually, they can claim copyright on anything they want, but it's actually applicable to their version of the T&C. It would be interesting if they'd nicked it (it's usually boilerplate) and tried to claim someone elses IPR as theirs...