YouTube belatedly promises to have a couple human beings involved with ContentID
-
-
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?
That would require giving a shit which, if YouTube was giving, they would have implemented in 30 minutes 6 years ago.
-
That's half the solution.
The other hand if YouTube doing spot-checks to ensure that the company making the claim actually owns the content they are claiming against. I mean sometimes it's an innocent mistake, like Pro Games Review accidentally filing a claim against Take2 Interactive's game trailer, because they published some commentary on the trailer. But a lot of times, it's just BLATANT.
I eventually just removed my video of MechWarrior gauss rifle kills set to the 1812 Overture, because any recording of the 1812 Overture, no matter how public domain, gets ContentID flagged every couple weeks. And I was sick of dealing with it. And it was a pretty good video, too.
-
That's half the solution.
The other hand if YouTube doing spot-checks to ensure that the company making the claim actually owns the content they are claiming against. I mean sometimes it's an innocent mistake, like Pro Games Review accidentally filing a claim against Take2 Interactive's game trailer, because they published some commentary on the trailer. But a lot of times, it's just BLATANT.
I eventually just removed my video of MechWarrior gauss rifle kills set to the 1812 Overture, because any recording of the 1812 Overture, no matter how public domain, gets ContentID flagged every couple weeks. And I was sick of dealing with it. And it was a pretty good video, too.
@Lorne_Kates said:
That would require giving a shit which, if YouTube was giving, they would have implemented in 30 minutes 6 years ago.
Well at least they're pretending to give a shit now, that's one step in the right direction.
Like that guy replying on Twitter says, though: talk is cheap. YouTube needs to put up, or shut up. This has been a problem for almost a decade now, fucking fix it.
Fuck you Discourse. I'm not removing the dupe. You all have to read my brilliant thoughts twice now. Suck it.
-
Like that guy replying on Twitter says, though: talk is cheap. YouTube needs to put up, or shut up. This has been a problem for almost a decade now, fucking fix it.
.... I was going to do a "+1" joke, but Dickpores autocompleted plus with that-- and the one user of Google Plus will get a kick out of that icon-- especially since that one G+ user is getting all of Google's attention that should be on, y'know, fixing their broken as shit YouTube.
Suck it.
Suck it twice!
-
For people who pay their bills by Ad revenue generated by videos, it mean roughly the same as you're fired without severance.
But YT is not your employer. They currently have a commercial relationship with you, but they're within their rights to choose not to, just as any other business may choose to refuse you service. And if you plan to make your living money from your YT channel, that's something you really need to be aware of and to plan for.ContentID is far more restrictive to the non-copyright-owner than the DMCA legislation is.
Happy to take your word for it, I know nothing about the details of ContentID.The other [half is] YouTube doing spot-checks to ensure that the company making the claim actually owns the content they are claiming against.
Yeah, this.
-
@cheong said:
For people who pay their bills by Ad revenue generated by videos, it mean roughly the same as you're fired without severance.
But YT is not your employer. They currently have a commercial relationship with you, but they're within their rights to choose not to, just as any other business may choose to refuse you service. And if you plan to make your living money from your YT channel, that's something you really need to be aware of and to plan for.
That's why I say "roughly". Other then the fact that no employment contract is signed, those people who pay their bills through YouTube Ads. get a rather stable monthly income from YouTube.Perheps a better analogy is that they're similar to "contracted content provider" (The eula for monetizing uploaded content is a contract) and in such case the laywers forced YouTube to single-sidedly end the contract, This is genuine B2B relationship.
-
Peter Noone is a musician. Why is he so interested in blocking copyright holders from finding lawyers?
This door swings both ways.
-
Happy to take your word for it, I know nothing about the details of ContentID.
For one thing, DMCA doesn't allow the copyright holder to force you to keep the content online, but route all your earnings from it to them. Where that is the default mode for ContentID.
DMCA also doesn't have any kind of long-term punishment if you take down a piece of content after receiving a notice. (In fact, that's kind of the intended use of DMCA notices.) YouTube keeps it as a "strike" for 6 months, even if you take down the content in a timely matter. And three "strikes" and they delete all your content, every bit.
-
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.
It's the kind of thing the Chaser guys would have done themselves to prove the point. They did mention it on the show and thought it was pretty funny!
-
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?
I think we've had this discussion before... and I think we've figured out it's not a great idea due to how many possibilities of abuse open up on YouTube's part.
Besides, anything that involves the users having to jump through hoops to prove they're not
a horseinfringing copyright while allowing the IP holders to spam claims is inherently broken. Just slam everyone with a copyright claim and hope at least part of the users won't care enough to argue - bam, free money.
