Thursday, December 21, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

NASCAR Fan-Friendly Copyright Claims Needed Extra Boost to Pacify Fans
Andy Maxwell, 21 Dec 08:37 AM

Recurring news that another established and popular content creator faces copyright issues on YouTube is something the world will have to get used to.

Developing copyright law tends to go in one direction and with most social media platforms today showing less willingness to fight, some types of user-generated content may be in for a more restricted ride.

On Wednesday, NASCAR fanatic and popular YouTuber Brock Beard sounded dejected in a post published on X. Two screenshots, featuring copyright claims against a long list of his older videos, were headed by, "I'm getting too old for this."

By the end of the day, he probably felt 21 again.

"NASCAR Community in Shock"

An article on Essentially Sports reporting on the complaints begins by stressing the importance of the NASCAR community. Whether at the track itself or discussing the sport online, fans are an integral part of the experience. When they're happy, everyone is happy, and when Brock Beard suffers hard times, his fans are right there with him.

So what was Brock Beard too old for exactly, and why were his fans in shock?

According to the report, the YouTube copyright claims threaten Beard's social media presence. While Beard is also the founder and editor of NASCAR fan-site Lastcar.info, a social media exodus could damage his ability to stay close to his fans while doing what he loves; putting out popular videos, one of which reportedly attracted a million views.

Popular Content vs. Copyright Claims

Copyright claims come in all shapes and sizes but in general terms, genuine claims and blatantly bogus claims can often be verified in a few seconds, at least to the standard required by the DMCA. That should provide fairly clear guidance on whether content should've been taken down or left online.

The broad space between these two extremes is an entirely different matter and on YouTube, things can become even more complicated. Content ID, for example, can allow infringing content to stay online, when previously a claim would've seen the content taken down. As reproduced in the image below, all claims posted to Twitter show that the allegedly infringing videos were considered unsuitable for monetization.

NASCAR-Beard

At least as far as the truncated titles are useful, the videos for which monetization isn't allowed were not taken down from YouTube. Why Sears Point Is Awesome, Johnny and The Fast White Car, and Darrell Waltrip's Victory Tour 2000, are among those most easily identified. All three were uploaded over three years ago and judging by Beard's reaction, the monetization ban was probably something new.

Nature of the Videos

With running times of 45 to 56 minutes, these videos are essentially fan-made documentaries that clearly involved significant effort, not to mention expert knowledge. Importantly, NASCAR fans find them engaging and entertaining; they actually enhance their enjoyment of the sport.

The videos feature original NASCAR race footage, obtained from official broadcasts or recordings of those broadcasts, accompanied by a running commentary, presumably provided by Brock Beard himself. In the descriptions of the videos are detailed credits, with some linking to spreadsheets crediting dozens of sources on YouTube from where the clips used in the documentaries were obtained.

Why the documentaries were left alone for three years is typically a matter for the copyright owner. However, a thread on Twitter suggests that NASCAR's copyright claims are affecting others too, with one user suggesting that the claims may be linked to NASCAR Productions' new state-of-the-art facility which is dedicated to content creation.

Ultimately, the reasons for the claims are unimportant; copyright owners have the right to take action against unauthorized use of their content whenever they like, albeit with a few exceptions.

What About Fair Use?

Whether the use of the NASCAR copyrighted content enjoys protection under the doctrine of fair use is a matter for a court to decide and for hardcore gamblers to speculate on.

Google's copying of 11,500 lines of Oracle's code ultimately concluded in favor of the former while Donald Trump has managed to stretch out his fair use defense, concerning 40 seconds of the song Electric Avenue, for more than three years.

That being said, the first factor of fair use – the purpose and character of the use – balances various facts, including whether there was a commercial component to the use. While not conclusive in its own right, a commercial component tends to weigh against a finding of fair use.

Could've Been So Much Worse

So to sum up, the copyright claims filed against the numerous videos didn't cost Brock Beard his YouTube account, they simply notified him that the videos wouldn't generate revenue moving forward. While that wasn't well-received, the all-important videos are alive and well.

From the perspective of a regular fan simply passing by on YouTube, nothing has been lost. If there are concerns about revenue being denied moving forward, that raises questions of whether commercial use of content requires an official license, or whether gambling on a fair use defense is a reliable option when things go wrong.

In light of some other rightsholders deleting videos resulting in immediate strikes, and entire accounts being shut down as a result, things could've been so much worse. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, things could hardly get much better.

NASCAR joy

Such a positive outcome will be welcomed by fans of the sport and if NASCAR is happy too, what's not to like?

Errors, potentially. But everyone makes those.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

UFC Wants Pirated Livestreams Knocked Down Faster
Ernesto Van der Sar, 20 Dec 10:46 PM

ufcThe UFC has promoted mixed martial arts fights for three decades. Today, however, the company is also fighting a battle of its own against online piracy.

Unauthorized views of UFC events have taken off in recent years. The organization is trying to put a stop to these pirated livestreams, but that's proving to be a drawn-out battle.

Last week, General Counsel Riché McKnight shared UFC's concerns with lawmakers during a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing. While site-blocking discussions dominated the hearing, UFC's comments are worth highlighting separately.

"Watch UFC Free"

McKnight's testimony describes the piracy problem as widespread and costly. Pirated livestreams can get millions of views and these free alternatives result in lower subscriptions revenues.

The problem isn't limited to people who record or stream UFC events on their phones. It regularly involves organized crime groups that tap into source signals and rebroadcasts them to profit from the advertising views they generate.

"Watch UFC Free"

watch ufc free

These people also brazenly advertise on social media platforms to attract viewers to their pirate websites, with slogans on social media sites such as "Watch UFC Free," McKnight notes.

"[T]hey will then post those livestreams and recorded videos to those sites, and those videos will often collect hundreds of thousands or millions of views before they are taken down."

"Expeditious"

According to UFC, several legislative hurdles prevent the company from being more efficient on the takedown front. They include the relatively 'slow' response time to DMCA takedown notices.

Under U.S. copyright law, online services are required to "expeditiously" respond to takedown notices if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. However, the law doesn't define what the term expeditious entails.

"[Online services] often will claim to us that they are removing content expeditiously even when they allow a livestream to stay up for the entirety of a UFC event or remove recorded content days later," Knight explains.

It can sometimes take hours or days before online services take action. This is a problem, since the value of UFC recordings and live streams diminishes quickly after the event is over.

The UFC calculated that for each event, it sends an average of 1,173 takedown requests for pirated livestreams and an additional 2,246 takedown requests for recorded content. 26% of the pirated livestreams remained online an hour after the takedown was sent. For recorded UFC content, 74% was still up after an hour.

Instant Takedowns

UFC suggests updating the legislative language to clarify the term "expeditious" as that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

"This issue can be easily remedied by adding a statutory definition to clarify what 'expeditiously' means for the purposes of determining whether OSPs are eligible for a safe harbor from liability based on the infringing conduct of their users.

"Specifically, we believe the law should be clear that, for live events specifically, 'expeditiously' means 'instantaneously' or 'near instantaneously'," McKnight adds.

kc

Replacing it with 'near instantaneously' still doesn't set a specific time limit, of course. But it does suggest that taking more than a day to process a livestreaming takedown notice is too long.

Repeat Infringers

UFC's General Counsel points out that more clarifications are welcome. The DMCA currently requires online services to terminate accounts of "repeat infringers" in "appropriate circumstances". Neither of these terms are specified.

McKnight doesn't offer a concrete definition but stresses that online services can take stricter actions against people who repeatedly post infringing content. That includes those who register new accounts.

"This could involve more stringent account verification measures, which some OSPs have already successfully implemented to reduce the prevalence of spam accounts," he notes.

"Future legislation could make clear that it is not enough to simply terminate a specific account and then turn a blind eye when the same user creates one or more additional accounts."

Site Blocking

The aforementioned suggestions all rely on the assumption that online services are complying with U.S. law, but that's not a given. The most notorious streaming platforms are designed to ignore copyright concerns.

For that group, site blocking would be a solution. UFC supports the calls from other rightsholders who believe that U.S. law should be updated to allow courts to issue "no fault" injunctions. These would make it possible to compel ISPs to block pirate sites, without making them liable.

"Under this sort of 'site-blocking' framework, copyright owners like UFC could address the harm caused by these websites—enabling U.S.-based users to easily view pirated content—without the existing hurdles to effective enforcement actions against such sites," McKnight concludes.

These suggestions are all noted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. Combined with input from other stakeholders, it will then decide whether legislative changes are needed.

A copy of the full written testimony from UFC General Counsel Riché McKnight is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: