YouTube belatedly promises to have a couple human beings involved with ContentID



  • Wow, only like 5-6 years late. I'm actually shocked Google's even AWARE of all the ContentID scammers, considering how clueless they appear to be in general.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    In today's installment of "Services that Blakey doesn't pay for, but bitches incessantly about..."



  • If you don't like my threads, don't read them.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    The title needs more emoji, but otherwise I just wanted to rankle you.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Wow, only like 5-6 years late. I'm actually shocked Google's even AWARE of all the ContentID scammers, considering how clueless they appear to be in general.

    I've been stung by this too, I only noticed because I had adverts emblazoned across my videos. I didn't have any messages or emails telling me about this. I then logged into my channel and (after quite a bit of digging around in their shit UI) found that my videos were listed as containing copyrighted material.

    Bear in mind, these were music videos featuring original songs created by my band. Every single part of the video was under our copyright. I filed a dispute and it took well over a month for it to get straightened out. That's over a month worth of advertising revenue that somebody got from our material.



  • And when you file dispute, you risk the chance of "ignorant lawyer at their side just choose to take down your video", resulting in a strike.

    For people who earn money through making video and get money from Ads there, they risk losing their account and all videos with it.

    No wonder there's so many blogs contains the anger of people bitten by this.

    IMO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes, they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system.


  • sockdevs

    @cheong said:

    IMO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes, they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system.

    FTFH


  • Dupa

    [quote="accalia, post:7, topic:54929]
    @cheong said:

    IMO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes, they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system.

    FTFH
    [/quote]

    FTFFPD



  • @kt_ said:

    [quote="accalia, post:7, topic:54929]
    @cheong said:
    IMO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes(s), they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system.

    FTFH

    FTFFPD
    [/quote]

    FTFCP


  • sockdevs

    @kt_ said:

    [quote="accalia, post:7, topic:54929]
    @cheong said:
    IMO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes, they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system.fired, out of a cannon, into a sharktank

    FTFH

    FTFFPD
    [/quote]

    FTFYOLO


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I heard last night about a firm of lawyers that has just posted a billion-dollar (Australian) loss. :popcorn:


  • sockdevs

    i'm not up on the conversion rates these days. that's what.... a sawbuck fifty?



  • Nostalgia Critic did a decent video recently about the fair use problem and spends a good while explaining how Youtube's system can screw over a content creator, for anyone who doesn't directly use it and is curious:

    Where's The Fair Use? - Nostalgia Critic – 19:59
    — Channel Awesome


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place


  • sockdevs

    @dkf said:

    1000000000

    that's not a Billion! That's a Milliard!



  • @cheong said:

    MO, lawyers who file false copyright strike should also get a strike, and with say 10 strikes, they should be taken away the ability to claim copyright by ContentID system. face an inquiry by the board of lawyers and if found guilty, disbarred from practicing at all

    FTFY.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I'd go for tarring, feathering, and whipping out of town. I'd use a whip with a steel barb on the tip.



  • Guys, look, GooTube's copyright policy isn't broken. It works perfectly, and never allows for abuse or false positive.

    I mean, look at this shit-fucker the copyright police managed to catch!

    Can you believe the sheer audacity of this asshole, posting a vlog talking about snow? That's COPYRIGHT (somehow) and it's completely fair and balanced to let a random stranger post a claim and steal all ad revenue generated by that video. Otherwise, the terrorists win.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @DoctorJones said:

    That's over a month worth of advertising revenue that somebody got from our material.

    You could prevent that by hiding the video, although there's an obvious drawback.



  • @DoctorJones said:

    Bear in mind, these were music videos featuring original songs created by my band. Every single part of the video was under our copyright.

    This IMO is more important than having a human look over the claims. There needs to be some consequence for falsely claiming copyright, like a bunch of these shady companies are doing.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @hungrier said:

    This IMO is more important than having a human look over the claims. There needs to be some consequence for falsely claiming copyright, like a bunch of these shady companies are doing.

    Sounds to me like YouTube are doing such a bad job of this that they need to be on the defendant side of a class action suit over bad faith copyright claims…



  • Supposedly the CEO of YouTube saw Nostalgia Critic's video. But that's just something I am seeing everywhere in comment sections, so it could just be a rumor.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @dkf said:

    I heard last night about a firm of lawyers that has just posted a billion-dollar (Australian) loss. :popcorn:

    Are they depreciating their paralegals? :wtf:?



  • @DoctorJones said:

    I've been stung by this too, I only noticed because I had adverts emblazoned across my videos. I didn't have any messages or emails telling me about this.

    Yeah. They email you about community rules violations (someone clicks "Report as Spam" or whatever), but they don't email about ContentID. Perhaps if the ContentID match takes the video down, I haven't had that happen to me. (90% of my ContentID matches have been scammers, and scammers want ad revenue, not to take things offline.)

    @DoctorJones said:

    Bear in mind, these were music videos featuring original songs created by my band. Every single part of the video was under our copyright. I filed a dispute and it took well over a month for it to get straightened out. That's over a month worth of advertising revenue that somebody got from our material.

    I usually just make the videos private ASAP so they don't get more than the bare minimum. Don't delete the video, YouTube can flag you because they think you're attempting to delete a video to avoid a strike.



  • Does YouTube even have a CEO? It's a division of Google. (Or, I guess, Alphabet?) It could have a President or Director.





  • Wow. Google can't even get corporate structure right.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Or, I guess, Alphabet?

    Yeah, I think YouTube is now technically a company in its own right owned by Alphabet, as is Google (which no longer owns YouTube). But nobody thinks of it that way.



  • Yeah I guess if Alphabet's a holding company, it's not too weird for YouTube to have a CEO. That also means all of YouTube engineering and such staff is divorced from Google now, also. Huh. Not sure if that's good or bad.



  • @dkf said:

    I'd go for tarring, feathering, and whipping out of town. I'd use a whip with a steelwood barb on the tip.

    And remember to aim for the heart.



  • @LB_ said:

    Supposedly the CEO of YouTube saw Nostalgia Critic's video. But that's just something I am seeing everywhere in comment sections, so it could just be a rumor.



  • The blog post Susan links to is the same one I'm talking about in the OP. FYI.



  • We all pay for Google. Assuming we don't use adblock...

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Susan Wojcicki (SusanWojcicki)

    Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening: goo.gl/uOCKEx @GradeAUnderA @ChannelAwesome @IHE_OFFICIAL

    Wow, wait, so GradeAUnderA was listened to and called out specifically? And this was the day my faith in humanity was restored.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I usually just make the videos private ASAP so they don't get more than the bare minimum. Don't delete the video, YouTube can flag you because they think you're attempting to delete a video to avoid a strike.

    Thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind.



  • Fair use is one thing, but there's no legal basis to say that YouTube shouldn't take down videos that are fair use. YT are a private entity, they can take down whatever videos they like. If it's easier and more profitable for them to just take down every video that anyone complains about, that's their call.

    Presumably at some point there's a balance where concern for customer satisfaction leads them to put a certain amount of effort into it, which I guess is where the OP comes into it. But you can't claim that YT is required to let you post a particular video just because it's legal.

    Now, I certainly understand why people are upset about the current process; I'm sure I would be too, if I was trying to make money off a YT channel. The fact that (as presented, anyway) someone can make an arbitrary claim and grab the money without the claim even being looked at, and keep that money even if the claim is later rejected, is horrible and extremely unfair. But that's, presumably, part of the conditions you agree to when you start a YT channel.

    YT are in a bit of a bind really. It's obviously economically impractical to manually review every claim, so they have to rely on automated processes to do the vast bulk of the work. And they have to comply with the DMCA which, as I understand it, is pretty one-sided.

    FWIW, I do agree that there needs to be some penalty applied to people who make false claims. If there's one thing we should have all learned by now, it's the tragedy of the commons. If filing a false claim has no serious repercussions then people will file ALL THE CLAIMS just because they can. If having a claim overturned meant a financial penalty and rate limiting on future claims, the number of frivolous claims would drop off sharply. Then it might be possible to look at some of the other issues of equity in the process.



  • @Scarlet_Manuka said:

    Fair use is one thing, but there's no legal basis to say that YouTube shouldn't take down videos that are fair use. YT are a private entity, they can take down whatever videos they like. If it's easier and more profitable for them to just take down every video that anyone complains about, that's their call.

    One may agree with you if taking down video with unresolved copyright claim does not count as a strike.

    Remember, anytime you have 3 effective strikes (I think strikes expire after half year passed), your account will be terminated and all videos in your account will be deleted. For people who pay their bills by Ad revenue generated by videos, it mean roughly the same as you're fired without severance.

    It should also cost the lawyer's job for filing falsy claims to be fair.



  • @cheong said:

    Remember, anytime you have 3 effective strikes (I think strikes expire after half year passed), your account will be terminated and all videos in your account will be deleted. For people who pay their bills by Ad revenue generated by videos, it mean roughly the same as you're fired without severance.

    And this is why blind automatisms resulting in extreme actions are a moronic thing to implement.



  • @Scarlet_Manuka said:

    And they have to comply with the DMCA which, as I understand it, is pretty one-sided.

    Contentid is completely separate from DMCA. Google has persuaded most entities to use content Id instead, because there is instant pay for the claimant, and there is no repercussions. Google created this fucking mess because of the mess dmca is.
    It's entirely Google's own problem, because they made it so. I don't feel sorry for them at all. (granted dmca would make other problems for them,but there are possible repercussions)



  • @Scarlet_Manuka said:

    And they have to comply with the DMCA which, as I understand it, is pretty one-sided.

    ContentID is far more restrictive to the non-copyright-owner than the DMCA legislation is.



  • Hopefully they get better people than what they've had in the past... There was an incident a few years back where a 15 year old claiming to be from the "Australian Broddcasting Corperation" managed to get 200+ videos from The Chaser's War On Everything removed simply by filling in a DMCA form. Even provided a Hotmail address as the business contact.

    Youtube didn't bother to check with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation if it was okay, even though it was and they had an agreement with Youtube that the videos were fine to be uploaded.



  • @Scarlet_Manuka said:

    there needs to be some penalty applied to people who make false claims

    @Scarlet_Manuka said:

    rate limiting on future claims

    The problem with any sort of penalty that prevents them from making future claims is that those future claims might be valid, and if so, YouTube is legally required to let them make the claims.

    If YouTube won't accept someone's valid claim because rate limiting, bad prior claims... any reason... they can get their lawyers and go after YouTube and win, because YouTube's policy is now supporting copyright infringement.



  • Why not just hold the advertisement money in escrow for a few weeks and give it to the video's owner if it's shown that the video is not actually stolen?



  • @anotherusername said:

    YouTube is legally required to let them make the claims.

    That's why I propose take away the ability to use ContentID as ground to file false claim only. I won't stop them watch the videos one by one themselves and figure out which song/video clip they found might be copying from the creation of author subscribed their service. XD



  • Ah. Yeah, that would be better. Still sounds like something that runs the risk that they might possibly be able to go crying to a judge and get an order that says otherwise, though.



  • The law actually doesn't require content hosts provide tools for them to file copyright notice. Just that the lawyer persuaded the judge that YouTube and other content hosts should have ability to find out what is copyright infringing material and what is not, so they created ContentID as answer and let them judge themselves.

    I don't think the judges will mind to give "a little inconvenience" to lawyers that misuse the tool.



  • I seem to recall that copyright holders argued (successfully) that it was entirely impractical for anyone to attempt to manually review all of the vast amount of information that's uploaded to YouTube on a continuous basis, and thus they needed some kind of automated tool to find and flag infringing videos.

    Basically, if you're preventing someone from using the ContentID system to police YouTube for their own intellectual property, they have no chance in hell of successfully finding and reporting infringing videos faster than they can be uploaded.

    Am I going to shed a tear for them? No. Given that they lost it because they abused it, hell no. But they could probably find a sympathetic judge somewhere.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Why not both? As @anotherusername pointed out, Youtube can't legally rate-limit claims. But they could rate-limit access to ContentID. Offer it by default, but revoke access to anyone who makes more than 3 false claims. That way, assholes can still file claims, they'll just lose access to a tool that makes it easier but which Youtube isn't required to offer.

    But yeah, that would eventually still lead to a legal shitstorm. I mean, lawyers gonna lawyer, after all.



  • @anotherusername said:

    they have no chance in hell of successfully finding and reporting infringing videos faster than they can be uploaded.

    Noone prevents the copyright holder to find another lawyer.

    Remember, only the holder of copyright can file copyright lawsuit, and I think the supreme court already ruled "right to sue" cannot be split from copyright. Therefore the lawyer here merely is providing service to their clients (the copyright holders).

    So no, as long as YouTube does not block access to ContentID system to everyone, I don't think the lawyers have ground for complaint.



  • @cheong said:

    Noone prevents the copyright holder to find another lawyer.

    Peter Noone is a musician. Why is he so interested in blocking copyright holders from finding lawyers? None of this adds up.



  • I need the "yawn" emoji here.

    EDIT: Maybe :zzz: will do here for now.

    EDIT 2: Emojipedia has been quite helpful for suggesting the replacement.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.