4 ms·

Google’s engine also doesn’t seem to understand basic copyright law. Simply having a brief clip of someone else’s content doesn’t, under many ‘fair use’ cases,

Google’s engine also doesn’t seem to understand basic copyright law. Simply having a brief clip of someone else’s content doesn’t, under many ‘fair use’ cases, constitute a copyright violation. The whole system is also grossy a “guilty until proven innocent” setup. There’s little penalty for people just putting out bogus claims so content creators tend to get flooded with “content claims” even when a 2 second human review clearly shows the claim to be bogus (see earlier posting about guy’s white noise video getting slammed with content claims). Google’s crappy AI tech combined with crappy policies are creating a living hell for many content creators. Of course here Google is basically just making up its own laws for their own world. As a private platform they can basically do whatever they want. Does that violate their “don’t be evil” mantra? We report, you decide.

JosephHatfield 9y ago
Here's an exercise for the reader. Record a short video of anything, and ensure that the soundtrack is of you playing random notes on any instrument of your choosing. Then, upload the video to YouTube, and count the number of minutes before you receive the inevitable copyright infrignement claim.
- AckSyn 9y ago
  You're not joking either. Mine was 15 minutes and timing it wasn't even a goal of mine. Automated systems like that shouldn't be allowed.
Twirrim 9y ago
> Google’s crappy AI tech combined with crappy policies are creating a living hell for many content creators. Unfortunately, as I understand it, they're somewhat forced to by US law and the quirks of safe harbor provisions, by which they have to show that they've done everything they reasonably could to stop infringement. The law in this case is focussed heavily on the copyright holders, and end user experience doesn't even enter in to it. If they don't respond quickly and effectively to copyright infringement, they lose their safe harbor protections and become liable for the copyright infringement themselves as well. The whole Content-ID stuff came out from the "Viacom vs Youtube" court case, and while the case came out in Google's favour the writing was clearly on the wall. Putting in Content ID ensured that Google stopped being sued by every major copyright holder and their mother. It sure sucks for end users, the system is god awful, but I'm not convinced Google has any real choice here.
- bonesss 9y ago
  > Putting in Content ID ensured that Google stopped being sued by every major copyright holder and their mother I think it's also important to remember that YouTube wants to be a LOT more than just a place for cute kitty videos. Video rentals, event streaming, PPV events, content-channels, paid services... ContentID is a lot about the DMCA and handling 'pirate' uploads, but the overall positioning is to keep the platform competitive for the various media producers to (hopefully), monetize YouTube.
tomohawk 9y ago
If they're just some platform provider, thats one thing. If they're a monopoly, then that's something completely different. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but its hard to operate as one because every decision (rightfully) gets much more scrutiny.
moron4hire 9y ago
They don't say, "Don't Be Evil" anymore. If Google's mantra is anything, it's "Don't Hire People". It seems to me their Content ID system would be an excellent way to winnow down the massive amount of upload traffic YouTube receives to a manageable amount for more complete, human review, to obviate false-positives. But they would rather have false-positives than hire anyone. Fair Use is a right[0], so Google is regularly and massively violating its users' rights. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150222/16392430108/reminder-fair-use-is-right-not-exception-defense.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150222/16392430108/remin...
- adventured 9y ago
  Their manta is definitely not "don't hire people." 24,000 employees to 78,000 employees in seven years. One of the greatest hiring binges in the history of technology businesses. It's not an unwillingness to hire. It's a foundational belief that technology can be leveraged to solve the problem in question. That has always existed inside of Google. They disagree with you that the best solution is to hire a mass of people (content reviewers etc) and throw them at the problem. Are they fundamentally wrong or is the technology approach embryonic yet? If they've got an army of people doing that job in another 5-10 years, that'll be telling.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > If they've got an army of people doing that job in another 5-10 years, that'll be telling. That started about a month ago: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/05/technology/google-youtube-hiring-reviewers-offensive-videos/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/05/technology/google-youtube-hi...
- lozenge 9y ago
  Fair use is a right, and free speech is a right, but there's no right to have Google host your videos. > Freedom of expression is a right that may not be abridged by the government Key word, the government.
  - 9y ago
pavel_lishin 9y ago
The Content ID system has nothing to do with enforcing copyright, and everything to do with enforcing an internal ruleset that has to do with monetization, and how much cash Google pays out to YouTube video creators.
Sylos 9y ago
I'm hoping the EU's General Data Protection Regulation is going to bite Google's arse for this (among many other things). Its Article 22 pretty much says that you cannot impede the rights of a person based on an automated decision. Obviously there's exceptions for that rule, which Google is going to cling on as much as possible, but hopefully something comes out of it either way. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
- hellbanner 9y ago
  What is the cost for doing this? eg. false copyright claims "My white noise video has copyright claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325
  - jonesetc 9y ago
    It often comes with demonetization. It's especially a problem for people who make YouTube content for a living. Much, or possibly even most, of the income for these videos comes in a short burst when the video is first uploaded. This initial time can make up huge portions of a person's income.
    - walterbell 9y ago
      Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?
- Natanael_L 9y ago
  Since Google is just a host I don't think a court would consider a right to post, Google gets to pick what they host, perhaps the court would however consider a charge on anticompetitive behavior.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    I think, that's more of a US thing that people don't have a right to an offer. In Europe, it usually rather goes that it's a public offer, therefore anyone in principle has a right to take this offer, you can especially not exclude them because you dislike their skin color or sexual orientation etc., but they can forfeit this right under certain circumstances, for example if someone repeatedly steals from your grocery store, then you can ban them from entering your store, but you generally do need a judge to confirm that. Then again, the article actually specifies "...or similarly significantly affects him or her". So, it doesn't even need to be a right to upload to YouTube. Of course, it's up for debate if it "significantly affects" someone when they cannot upload YouTube-videos, but at the very least with the many people making their living off of YouTube, this should be a pretty clear case.

JosephHatfield 9y ago

Here's an exercise for the reader. Record a short video of anything, and ensure that the soundtrack is of you playing random notes on any instrument of your choosing. Then, upload the video to YouTube, and count the number of minutes before you receive the inevitable copyright infrignement claim.

AckSyn 9y ago
You're not joking either. Mine was 15 minutes and timing it wasn't even a goal of mine. Automated systems like that shouldn't be allowed.

Twirrim 9y ago

> Google’s crappy AI tech combined with crappy policies are creating a living hell for many content creators. Unfortunately, as I understand it, they're somewhat forced to by US law and the quirks of safe harbor provisions, by which they have to show that they've done everything they reasonably could to stop infringement. The law in this case is focussed heavily on the copyright holders, and end user experience doesn't even enter in to it. If they don't respond quickly and effectively to copyright infringement, they lose their safe harbor protections and become liable for the copyright infringement themselves as well. The whole Content-ID stuff came out from the "Viacom vs Youtube" court case, and while the case came out in Google's favour the writing was clearly on the wall. Putting in Content ID ensured that Google stopped being sued by every major copyright holder and their mother. It sure sucks for end users, the system is god awful, but I'm not convinced Google has any real choice here.

bonesss 9y ago
> Putting in Content ID ensured that Google stopped being sued by every major copyright holder and their mother I think it's also important to remember that YouTube wants to be a LOT more than just a place for cute kitty videos. Video rentals, event streaming, PPV events, content-channels, paid services... ContentID is a lot about the DMCA and handling 'pirate' uploads, but the overall positioning is to keep the platform competitive for the various media producers to (hopefully), monetize YouTube.

tomohawk 9y ago

If they're just some platform provider, thats one thing. If they're a monopoly, then that's something completely different. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but its hard to operate as one because every decision (rightfully) gets much more scrutiny.

moron4hire 9y ago

They don't say, "Don't Be Evil" anymore. If Google's mantra is anything, it's "Don't Hire People". It seems to me their Content ID system would be an excellent way to winnow down the massive amount of upload traffic YouTube receives to a manageable amount for more complete, human review, to obviate false-positives. But they would rather have false-positives than hire anyone. Fair Use is a right[0], so Google is regularly and massively violating its users' rights. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150222/16392430108/reminder-fair-use-is-right-not-exception-defense.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150222/16392430108/remin...

adventured 9y ago
Their manta is definitely not "don't hire people." 24,000 employees to 78,000 employees in seven years. One of the greatest hiring binges in the history of technology businesses. It's not an unwillingness to hire. It's a foundational belief that technology can be leveraged to solve the problem in question. That has always existed inside of Google. They disagree with you that the best solution is to hire a mass of people (content reviewers etc) and throw them at the problem. Are they fundamentally wrong or is the technology approach embryonic yet? If they've got an army of people doing that job in another 5-10 years, that'll be telling.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > If they've got an army of people doing that job in another 5-10 years, that'll be telling. That started about a month ago: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/05/technology/google-youtube-hiring-reviewers-offensive-videos/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/05/technology/google-youtube-hi...
lozenge 9y ago
Fair use is a right, and free speech is a right, but there's no right to have Google host your videos. > Freedom of expression is a right that may not be abridged by the government Key word, the government.
- 9y ago

pavel_lishin 9y ago

The Content ID system has nothing to do with enforcing copyright, and everything to do with enforcing an internal ruleset that has to do with monetization, and how much cash Google pays out to YouTube video creators.

Sylos 9y ago

I'm hoping the EU's General Data Protection Regulation is going to bite Google's arse for this (among many other things). Its Article 22 pretty much says that you cannot impede the rights of a person based on an automated decision. Obviously there's exceptions for that rule, which Google is going to cling on as much as possible, but hopefully something comes out of it either way. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

hellbanner 9y ago
What is the cost for doing this? eg. false copyright claims "My white noise video has copyright claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325
- jonesetc 9y ago
  It often comes with demonetization. It's especially a problem for people who make YouTube content for a living. Much, or possibly even most, of the income for these videos comes in a short burst when the video is first uploaded. This initial time can make up huge portions of a person's income.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?
Natanael_L 9y ago
Since Google is just a host I don't think a court would consider a right to post, Google gets to pick what they host, perhaps the court would however consider a charge on anticompetitive behavior.
- Sylos 9y ago
  I think, that's more of a US thing that people don't have a right to an offer. In Europe, it usually rather goes that it's a public offer, therefore anyone in principle has a right to take this offer, you can especially not exclude them because you dislike their skin color or sexual orientation etc., but they can forfeit this right under certain circumstances, for example if someone repeatedly steals from your grocery store, then you can ban them from entering your store, but you generally do need a judge to confirm that. Then again, the article actually specifies "...or similarly significantly affects him or her". So, it doesn't even need to be a right to upload to YouTube. Of course, it's up for debate if it "significantly affects" someone when they cannot upload YouTube-videos, but at the very least with the many people making their living off of YouTube, this should be a pretty clear case.