4 ms·

For the sake of argument, assume that we want to protect copyright on sites like YouTube. What is a good, fair solution here? Given the scale, I think that aut

For the sake of argument, assume that we want to protect copyright on sites like YouTube. What is a good, fair solution here? Given the scale, I think that automated solutions are required to have any reasonable enforcement. However automated (and non-automated) solutions will have false positives. Right now it seems like there is no cost to a false positive (claiming that a video is copyrighted when it is not), and so systems are happy to be aggressive with these notices. Likewise, the cost of a false negative (missing a copyrighted video) is high to the rights holder, as they are losing revenue. Since these systems use machine learning, it seems that it’s easy to add noise and fool them. I’ve seen videos that are flipped, slightly skewed, and have audio sped up or slowed down, presumably to get around the system. So I would assume that the system would have to be a bit aggressive to catch added noise. I think it’s ultimately an economics problem though. Since there’s basically no cost to the person making the claim when there’s a false positive, there’s less incentive to avoid false positives. However, it seems hard to charge fees here - if you’re charging people to take down content that they hold the rights to, that’s basically extortion. Any thoughts on what could be done to improve it? I think long term, we have to evolve our understanding of copyright and licensing, but given the current regime, is there even a solution?

millisecond 9y ago
There doesn’t need to be a charge to remove legit content violations but if the removal is contested and found to be false the original claimant should pay up. I’d like the penalty to be steep enough that if you’re using machine learning to flag content a human should still be incentivized to take a look before the claim is submitted.
emsy 9y ago
The problem with the current system is that it‘s the opposite of due process. Instead of letting some copyright violations slip as the cost of freedom of expression, the current system restricts freedom as the cost for minimizing copyright violations.
gridaphobe 9y ago
Why should it be YouTube’s responsibility to enforce copyright? Shouldn’t the beneficiaries of copyright be the ones to pay for its enforcement? If that were the case we might see many fewer claims, simply because it’s not worth the time/effort. This doesn’t directly address false positives, or the problem of fair use (which seems to be a real issue on YouTube), but it could be a start.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Without YouTube's system, you'd have automatic takedowns based on nothing but keywords in the title: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for-files-it-hasnt-looked-at/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/warner-admits-it... There's no cost when you have bots sending emails. You'd have to fix the law first.
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    But as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request. The problem is Youtube have their own version of the law and just automatically believe the claimant.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request Can you find a single entity that has ever been hit with these "legal repercussions"?
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        The responses to you will mostly be people who haven't read the details of the Diebold case and assume that it set a precedent for false claims of infringement; it didn't, and it's still basically impossible to get someone penalized for that. The issue, as other commenters noted, is that the only claim made under penalty of perjury is that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of a copyrighted work. The claim that someone has infringed your rights (or the copyright holder's rights) is not made under penalty of perjury. The only way to get someone penalized for it is, essentially, to get them to admit in court "Yeah, I knew it wasn't infringing, but I sent a notice anyway out of malice". Which is, well, pretty much what happened in the Diebold case. Other issuers of mass automated takedown notices are dumb, but not quite that dumb.
ashelmire 9y ago
The solution is to review claims and punish abusers on both sides of copyright. There is essentially no review process. All claims are automated, which is pretty bogus, and false claims are not punished.
friendzis 9y ago
This certainly does not deal with gray areas, but quite well copes with blatant cases: monetize false claims on both sides. The protocol: * Copyright holder fills a copyright claim, video is not taken down or demonetized, ad revenue is held in escrow * * If content uploader agrees with claim - video is removed/demonetized/ad revenue directed to copyright holder * * Content uploader fills a dispute *claiming fully original content*, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * Copyright holder does not dispute the dispute, ad revenue is released to video uploader * * * Copyright holder fills counter-dispute, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * * Content is reviewed by human, decision awarded, false claim party penalized, human reviewer expenses paid from penalty In cases where the content is clearly not what copyright holder claims to be or content is clearly original this system disincentivizes automated, "what we have to lose" counter-claims. Of course, in gray area cases like "does this still fall under fair use" cases this is probably even worse than current setup, therefore I stress fully original content in the protocol, which should be different for fair use disputes.
predakanga 9y ago
As I understand it, appeals against these Content ID strikes are assessed by the (alleged) rightsholder. A good start would be having appeals handled by an impartial party, though I'm sure everyone involved would be loathe to pay for that.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> For the sake of argument, assume that we want to protect copyright on sites like YouTube. What is a good, fair solution here? Well, it may not be a “good, fair” solution, but the process provided a safe harbor by the DMCA is a better, fairer process than the actual process used by YouTube. The problem is that, as it stands, YouTube likely has no liability to users for taking content down without any good justification, and do has no incentive to follow the part of the safe harbor process that provides protection against liability to the accused user.
zuminator 9y ago
One entirely fanciful solution would be to DDoS YouTube's copyright system with bogus takedown requests. Place multiple takedowns on EVERY YouTube video. Then they would have no choice but to come up with a system that relies on more than just the say-so of a so-called "rights holder."
- detaro 9y ago
  They'll just shut down/limit the easily accessible ones and let the ones for big customers running as is.

millisecond 9y ago

There doesn’t need to be a charge to remove legit content violations but if the removal is contested and found to be false the original claimant should pay up. I’d like the penalty to be steep enough that if you’re using machine learning to flag content a human should still be incentivized to take a look before the claim is submitted.

emsy 9y ago

The problem with the current system is that it‘s the opposite of due process. Instead of letting some copyright violations slip as the cost of freedom of expression, the current system restricts freedom as the cost for minimizing copyright violations.

gridaphobe 9y ago

Why should it be YouTube’s responsibility to enforce copyright? Shouldn’t the beneficiaries of copyright be the ones to pay for its enforcement? If that were the case we might see many fewer claims, simply because it’s not worth the time/effort. This doesn’t directly address false positives, or the problem of fair use (which seems to be a real issue on YouTube), but it could be a start.

icebraining 9y ago
Without YouTube's system, you'd have automatic takedowns based on nothing but keywords in the title: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for-files-it-hasnt-looked-at/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/warner-admits-it... There's no cost when you have bots sending emails. You'd have to fix the law first.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  But as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request. The problem is Youtube have their own version of the law and just automatically believe the claimant.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    there are legal repercussions for filing an incorrect DMCA takedown request Can you find a single entity that has ever been hit with these "legal repercussions"?
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      The responses to you will mostly be people who haven't read the details of the Diebold case and assume that it set a precedent for false claims of infringement; it didn't, and it's still basically impossible to get someone penalized for that. The issue, as other commenters noted, is that the only claim made under penalty of perjury is that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of a copyrighted work. The claim that someone has infringed your rights (or the copyright holder's rights) is not made under penalty of perjury. The only way to get someone penalized for it is, essentially, to get them to admit in court "Yeah, I knew it wasn't infringing, but I sent a notice anyway out of malice". Which is, well, pretty much what happened in the Diebold case. Other issuers of mass automated takedown notices are dumb, but not quite that dumb.

ashelmire 9y ago

The solution is to review claims and punish abusers on both sides of copyright. There is essentially no review process. All claims are automated, which is pretty bogus, and false claims are not punished.

friendzis 9y ago

This certainly does not deal with gray areas, but quite well copes with blatant cases: monetize false claims on both sides. The protocol: * Copyright holder fills a copyright claim, video is not taken down or demonetized, ad revenue is held in escrow * * If content uploader agrees with claim - video is removed/demonetized/ad revenue directed to copyright holder * * Content uploader fills a dispute *claiming fully original content*, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * Copyright holder does not dispute the dispute, ad revenue is released to video uploader * * * Copyright holder fills counter-dispute, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * * Content is reviewed by human, decision awarded, false claim party penalized, human reviewer expenses paid from penalty In cases where the content is clearly not what copyright holder claims to be or content is clearly original this system disincentivizes automated, "what we have to lose" counter-claims. Of course, in gray area cases like "does this still fall under fair use" cases this is probably even worse than current setup, therefore I stress fully original content in the protocol, which should be different for fair use disputes.

predakanga 9y ago

As I understand it, appeals against these Content ID strikes are assessed by the (alleged) rightsholder. A good start would be having appeals handled by an impartial party, though I'm sure everyone involved would be loathe to pay for that.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> For the sake of argument, assume that we want to protect copyright on sites like YouTube. What is a good, fair solution here? Well, it may not be a “good, fair” solution, but the process provided a safe harbor by the DMCA is a better, fairer process than the actual process used by YouTube. The problem is that, as it stands, YouTube likely has no liability to users for taking content down without any good justification, and do has no incentive to follow the part of the safe harbor process that provides protection against liability to the accused user.

zuminator 9y ago

One entirely fanciful solution would be to DDoS YouTube's copyright system with bogus takedown requests. Place multiple takedowns on EVERY YouTube video. Then they would have no choice but to come up with a system that relies on more than just the say-so of a so-called "rights holder."

detaro 9y ago
They'll just shut down/limit the easily accessible ones and let the ones for big customers running as is.