[HN Gopher] More phony copyright claims for YouTube creators ___________________________________________________________________ More phony copyright claims for YouTube creators Author : relwin Score : 57 points Date : 2022-12-12 20:18 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (larryjordan.com) (TXT) w3m dump (larryjordan.com) | placatedmayhem wrote: | YouTube's copyright controls have been a constant sore spot for | creators for years at this point. YouTube/Google seems | uninterested in addressing the problems. It seems that | improvement is either imperceptibly small or just outright | doesn't exist. | | What will it actually take for this to improve? Copyright | legislation (e.g., DMCA) roll back or alteration? Content | creators and/or viewers leaving the platform over it? Something | else? | vezycash wrote: | >What will it actually take for this to improve? | | Mass, coordinated DCMA takedown notices against disney and | other parties that designed DCMA. | | For max impact, a mix of legit & fake DCMA notices should be | used. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >What will it actually take for this to improve? | | People willing to pay for content. | | One one extreme, you will have YouTube and it's user generated | content and ads and the huge moderation costs. | | On the other is professionally produced content, like Comcast, | Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, etc. | | It may or may not be economically viable to have an option in | the middle, or at least it has not been so far. Vimeo is the | only one that came close to making it work, as far as I know. | ninth_ant wrote: | As long as there is no viable alternative to YouTube, Google | has zero incentive of improving the situation. The current | system works for Google, with no downside for them thanks to | their monopolistic grasp on the market. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | It might be enough to just have a class action lawsuit against | Google requiring them to actually follow the actual DMCA | process. | jandrese wrote: | Many-trillion dollar lawsuits similar to what media cartels | threaten them with if they don't implement highly abusive mass | takedown systems with little to no oversight. | commandlinefan wrote: | I don't know what the solution is, but with every year it's | becoming more and more apparent that the entire concept of | copyright is incompatible with a global communications network. | nostromo wrote: | Twitter really needs to move into the longer form video space to | give YouTube some competition. YouTube has gotten very lazy with | their near monopoly on long form video and now only innovates by | increasing the number of ads every quarter to show revenue growth | and desperately copying TikTok. | atty wrote: | I don't see how Twitter could afford to compete with YouTube | financially. YouTube has the larger audience (3x MAU) so they | get the best advertising deals, and they STILL don't break out | YouTube's profit/loss individually, suggesting it's probably | either low margin or a loss leader for alphabet. | yamtaddle wrote: | Reads like an argument for breaking up Google, so they can't | dominate and suppress markets by funding unprofitable units | indefinitely. | GregWWalters wrote: | I'd welcome competition. Vimeo is the closest thing I can think | of and it differentiated itself. But I don't think Twitter is | the right one to do it. IMO, these services are best when | they're narrowly focused. YouTube branching into shorts, | Facebook and Instagram branching into... well, everything... | has made those services cluttered, and makes their once core | features worse. | kevingadd wrote: | To truly compete with YouTube, Twitter would need a video | discovery algorithm at least on the same level. Multiple large- | following (1m+ subs) YouTubers have said that as much as they | have grievances with YT, other platforms like Twitch and | Twitter don't have the kind of discovery tools they would need | to grow an audience there and make money. (Twitter would also | need really robust advertising infrastructure for this, IMO) | pityJuke wrote: | > Actually, probably the majority of You Tubers don't use any | music | | This just isn't true. | | YouTube music falls into two camps: 1) Licensed music from paid | royalty sources. AudioJunkie, Epidemic, etc. 2) Video game music, | because that isn't in ContentID because otherwise you'd claim | people playing their games (it can absolutely be manually | claimed, but creators just take the risk here). | | I suspect Pond5 here aren't a great service. | | I also keep on re-parsing this article because of the English, | but | | > and for many of those who do, the more ads the better as the | reason for uploading a video is to make money and they really | don't care about quality. | | If you get copyright claimed for music, you don't get the money | from the video? More ads won't help? I'm so confused at to what | this person is getting at, as they've meddled a diatribe about | advertising with a diatribe about music copyright claims. | reaperducer wrote: | Considering how cheap bandwidth is, and how good compression is, | are we yet approaching point where it makes sense for content | creators to host their own videos? | | 99% of what's on YT doesn't need to be in HD, anyway. | kevingadd wrote: | One of the main reasons creators put content on YouTube is the | discovery algorithm. It's much easier to grow an audience for | videos on YT compared to hosting it yourself. | yamtaddle wrote: | 1) People won't find the content if it's not on Youtube. | | 2) You will struggle (even more) to monetize the views you _do_ | get, if you 're not on YouTube. | | 3) Bandwidth is _sorta_ cheap when you 're getting a little bit | of it bundled with other things that have high margins (say, | cloud VM hosting) but video hosting can exceed what you can get | with that kind of "free" bandwidth pretty quickly. It begins to | really add up, after that. | SoftTalker wrote: | Fair use is another one. I'm not a musician, but like listening | to music. I recently discovered Rick Beato's YouTube videos where | he breaks down "what makes this song great" | | He plays snips of songs, analyzes them, talks about the chord | progressions, the key changes, melodies, drum fills, bass lines, | solos, and sometimes gets pretty deep into technical/music theory | analysis. Then he'll play a bit more and then talk about that | part of the song. It's clearly fair use, and if anything it | promotes interest in the artist and their music, but (according | to him) he's constantly getting videos blocked or copyright | claims. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | Wouldn't it be great if, for every false copyright claim, the | person/entity making the claim received strikes and had to | compensate the person subjected to the false claim? Make abusing | the system costly? Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright | claim system abuse? Maybe? | pifm_guy wrote: | Even $50 would probably be decent compensation for most | YouTubers. It would probably reign in false claims | dramatically, and reduce the numbers of appeals enough that | real humans can check each one. | cyberphobe wrote: | Yeah probably, but wouldn't really be sufficiently punitive | to really deal with the problem. It should be a % of the | abuser's revenue | endisneigh wrote: | This would only work if a successful claim resulted in the | YouTuber having to pay, otherwise such an asymmetric situation | would never be sustainable. | | Given how many popular videos sit on the edge of copyright | abuse it's not really in Google's interest to do this anyway. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work. | | Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website | | Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his copyright | | Step 3: Charlie sends Bob a DMCA takedown notice. | | Step 4: Bob takes down Alice's media, issues Alice a notice | that he's received a claim, and is now protected from being | sued by Charlie. | | Step 5: Alice disagrees that her upload violates Charlie's | copyright, and issues a counter-claim to Bob. | | Step 6: Bob reinstates Alice's upload, notifies Charlie that | Alice has contested his claim, and is now protected from | being sued by Alice. | | Step 7: Charlie sues Alice, because he still believes the | content to be in violation of his copyright, or gives up | | Step 8: Court case / counter suit decides damages between | Charlie and Alice | | The problem is not the DMCA system, which if anything is too | generous to the media host. The problem is YouTube's added | bullshit layer, which goes something like "Charlie hints that | he might send a DMCA takedown, Bob takes down Alice's video | and threatens to ban her from the platform" | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | I would agree with this. It should work both ways. There may | be a few edge cases where it really wasn't clear if it was or | was not copyright infringement; both cases were reasonable. | These would be the exception where neither party may be | fined. | GregWWalters wrote: | If a claimant makes a bad-faith claim or the claim is done by | undersupervised automation? Sure. But I think some of these | claims are false positives by YouTube's ContentID system. In | those cases, does YouTube pay? I agree there needs to be a | disincentive to over-claiming (including but not limited to | holding ad revenue in escrow and returning it to the video's | owner if the claims are false) but in practice, I don't know | how it needs to work. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | If its an automated system, then yes I think youtube should | have to compensate users when the system youtube created, | screws over an innocent user. If the government, who is | almost as powerful as google, similarly created a system | where they falsely arrest huge swaths of innocent people, | then they too should have to compensate their victims. The | goal here is to get youtube to do better, and the only way to | do that is economics. | cyanydeez wrote: | This system was setup to make the DMCA easy for copyright | holders. There's zero consideration about whose holding. | | Before YouTube, I was getting takedown notices from Qwest | internet and when I wrote them demanding proof, they ignored me | and just flipped the switch back on. | | Eventually they just automated the takedown system so you had | to go through some isolated dcma system. | | They have no cares about consumers because consumers present | zero legal threat. | Tagbert wrote: | And remember that YouTube's system is not DMCA. DMCA rules do | not apply nor do any protections. The YouTube system is | designed to favor copyright holders and those who claim | copyright. | GuB-42 wrote: | > Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright claim system | abuse? Maybe? | | It is called following the law! DMCA Section 512(f) basically | says that if you issue a false claim, you are liable for all | damage you caused, including attorney fees. | | I don't know what lawyers have to say, but it looks like easy | money for a law firm if DMCA false claims are so common and so | obvious. | lesuorac wrote: | > (f)Misrepresentations.--Any person who knowingly materially | misrepresents under this section-- (1)that material or | activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was | removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be | liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, | incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or | copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service | provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the | result of the service provider relying upon such | misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the | material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in | replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access | to it. | | 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. Judges are not | state machines, it matters not what the technically correct | decision may be, they are not required to make it. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. | monocasa wrote: | Reminder that the normal YouTube copyright process isn't the | DMCA process, but instead a process YouTube came up with as | part of a settlement with the record labels that gives those | making the claim nearly all of the power. | yummypaint wrote: | The youtube TOS does not shield people making false claims | from liability. It is extremely lopsided in every other | aspect, though. | kevingadd wrote: | YouTube circumvents the DMCA with a custom process, which is | why fraud is so rampant - they intentionally designed a | system to enable fraud (at the behest of media companies) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-12 23:00 UTC)