4 ms·

I was really hoping that, after reading the title, YouTube Community was going to be about Google crowdsourcing DMCA takedown request reviews. As in, let the co

I was really hoping that, after reading the title, YouTube Community was going to be about Google crowdsourcing DMCA takedown request reviews. As in, let the community (a jury of your peers) decide if a takedown is fraudulent (I've got many, yet to receive a legitimate claim!) rather than relying on the "word" of an automated robot that only knows how to say, "take it down!".

dragonwriter 10y ago
> YouTube Community was going to be about Google crowdsourcing DMCA takedown request reviews. Crowdsourcing would be incompatible with DMCA safe-harbor requirements (so they wouldn't be "DMCA takedown request reviews" if they were crowdsourced.)
- sp332 10y ago
  Maybe not DMCA, but ContentID. If the algorithm finds a match, let some humans look at it before slapping ads on it and handing the money to someone else.
- euyyn 10y ago
  Plus who are we kidding, if it were crowdsourced all of them would be flagged as fraudulent.
mulmen 10y ago
That's not really how juries work in reality, that's how juries work on Reddit. It's an interesting idea though, it's far too easy to issue a fraudulent DMCA takedown and there are no repercussions as far as I know.
- georgemcbay 10y ago
  Filing a false, bad-faith DMCA claim is technically an act of perjury, but I've never heard of anyone convicted or even seriously threatened with this action since it is almost impossible to prove bad faith.. ESPECIALLY when algorithms are automatically doing much of the damage. In any case, I think YouTube kinda subverts much of the DMCA provisions by having their own claim system (the whole ContentID thing) which often comes into play and causes problems (for content creators, not for people making claims of dubious authenticity) before real DMCA claims are made.
  - fryguy 10y ago
    It is only perjury to claim that you are the owner or qualified to act on the behalf of the owner of the copyrighted work that you allege is being infringed upon. For instance, if you are some random person, it would be perjury to file a DMCA takedown for a legitimately infringing video on YouTube of Steamboat Willie, because you are not Disney. It is not perjury (under the wording of the DMCA) if there is a video titled "Willie and his Steamboat" which is of a child playing with a toy steam boat and does not contain any footage from the Disney video, if you legitimately are authorized by the copyright owner of Steamboat Willie (Disney).
doh 10y ago
I understand your pain, but I do believe this can be still solved with a technology, they just have to care. For instance fair use is very hard to identify accurately but it's not impossible. There is less than 0.01% cases when it can't be decide automatically (still a huge number though) and those should be reviewed by people. YouTube's problem is that there is no interested to improve the product (content id). Technology is good enough, but the product itself sucks. Full disclosure, I'm heavily biased as I built my company on their (and others) inefficiencies.
- CobrastanJorji 10y ago
  > I do believe this can be still solved with a technology, they just have to care. For instance fair use is very hard to identify accurately but it's not impossible. There is less than 0.01% cases when it can't be decide automatically. Fair use is not a definition -- it is a legal doctrine. Conclusively determining whether a video is fair use not only impossible for a computer, it is impossible for people. The only way to determine whether a video falls under fair use conclusively is to conduct a Federal trial and a series of appeals.
  - doh 10y ago
    > The only way to determine whether a video falls under fair use conclusively is to conduct a Federal trial and a series of appeals. There are precedents that can be use to determine fair use. Not everything fals in those categories but as I mentioned before, majority already does.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> YouTube Community was going to be about Google crowdsourcing DMCA takedown request reviews. Crowdsourcing would be incompatible with DMCA safe-harbor requirements (so they wouldn't be "DMCA takedown request reviews" if they were crowdsourced.)

sp332 10y ago
Maybe not DMCA, but ContentID. If the algorithm finds a match, let some humans look at it before slapping ads on it and handing the money to someone else.
euyyn 10y ago
Plus who are we kidding, if it were crowdsourced all of them would be flagged as fraudulent.

mulmen 10y ago

That's not really how juries work in reality, that's how juries work on Reddit. It's an interesting idea though, it's far too easy to issue a fraudulent DMCA takedown and there are no repercussions as far as I know.

georgemcbay 10y ago
Filing a false, bad-faith DMCA claim is technically an act of perjury, but I've never heard of anyone convicted or even seriously threatened with this action since it is almost impossible to prove bad faith.. ESPECIALLY when algorithms are automatically doing much of the damage. In any case, I think YouTube kinda subverts much of the DMCA provisions by having their own claim system (the whole ContentID thing) which often comes into play and causes problems (for content creators, not for people making claims of dubious authenticity) before real DMCA claims are made.
- fryguy 10y ago
  It is only perjury to claim that you are the owner or qualified to act on the behalf of the owner of the copyrighted work that you allege is being infringed upon. For instance, if you are some random person, it would be perjury to file a DMCA takedown for a legitimately infringing video on YouTube of Steamboat Willie, because you are not Disney. It is not perjury (under the wording of the DMCA) if there is a video titled "Willie and his Steamboat" which is of a child playing with a toy steam boat and does not contain any footage from the Disney video, if you legitimately are authorized by the copyright owner of Steamboat Willie (Disney).

doh 10y ago

I understand your pain, but I do believe this can be still solved with a technology, they just have to care. For instance fair use is very hard to identify accurately but it's not impossible. There is less than 0.01% cases when it can't be decide automatically (still a huge number though) and those should be reviewed by people. YouTube's problem is that there is no interested to improve the product (content id). Technology is good enough, but the product itself sucks. Full disclosure, I'm heavily biased as I built my company on their (and others) inefficiencies.

CobrastanJorji 10y ago
> I do believe this can be still solved with a technology, they just have to care. For instance fair use is very hard to identify accurately but it's not impossible. There is less than 0.01% cases when it can't be decide automatically. Fair use is not a definition -- it is a legal doctrine. Conclusively determining whether a video is fair use not only impossible for a computer, it is impossible for people. The only way to determine whether a video falls under fair use conclusively is to conduct a Federal trial and a series of appeals.
- doh 10y ago
  > The only way to determine whether a video falls under fair use conclusively is to conduct a Federal trial and a series of appeals. There are precedents that can be use to determine fair use. Not everything fals in those categories but as I mentioned before, majority already does.