5 ms·

"YouTube has already invested more than $60 million into its Content ID system" That actually seems low to me, given we're talking about numbers (revenue, user

"YouTube has already invested more than $60 million into its Content ID system" That actually seems low to me, given we're talking about numbers (revenue, users) in the billions.

ilikerashers 8y ago
I was surprised when the best way to watch UFC 229 (PPV) was simply typing it into YouTube and watching full HD quality. YouTube won't do anything unless government action forces them to.
- danso 8y ago
  Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content. I uploaded a copy of one of the few wide-release U.S. movies in the public domain ("His Girl Friday" [0]) and was hit with a takedown notice instantaneously as the upload finished. I didn't contest it at the time, and I wonder if it's because Content ID was triggered by the Columbia Pictures fanfare/logo in the opening. [0] https://archive.org/details/his_girl_friday https://archive.org/details/his_girl_friday edit: By "robust", I actually mean, "a bit overly proactive", in that the system seems to be efficient in its detection, but the system's design seems unavoidably vulnerable to false positives.
  - jobigoud 8y ago
    > Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content. It's overly aggressive and has tons of false positive.
- josefresco 8y ago
  I too was also amazed at how easy it was to find pirated TV content via Google having long given up my pirate ways. I pay for YouTube TV and their DVR messed up and didn't record 1 episode of a TV series. After exhausting all legal ways to acquire said content, I found numerous links on page 1 and 2 of Google, offering the content with minimal shadiness. The trick was to search for a very specific titles, such as "Shark Tank Season 1 Episode 1" or "Shark Tank S1E1" etc. This filters out all the "general" results. If 37 year old me, years detached from pirating can figure this out in 10 minutes, it's clear Google gives zero f*cks unless compelled (legally) to do so. Edit: To clarify, the streams were not hosted on YouTube, but rather Google results led me to 3rd party streaming options. This isn't a criticism of Content ID, more Google's policy towards privacy in general.
knaik94 8y ago
I think the fact that so little has human oversight and no direct way of disputing with a human is probably how they can handle it.
- shady-lady 8y ago
  Exactly. So the solution YouTube has isn't appropriate. They should invest in a better solution even if that involves having more humans in the loop for review/approval. That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws. It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws that could substantially damage our payroll spend"
  - tyfon 8y ago
    Having more humans in the loop would probably benefit the content creators as they could actually reason with them and claim fair use for stuff. Provided that they actually hire competent staff for this. I don't monetise my videos by default but I've have a few videos where I have had 1-2 minutes of copyrighted music. When that happens they will force monetise the whole video for me and send the money made by it to the music copyright holder (BGM in my case). That seems a bit silly to me.
  - feri339 8y ago
    How would you ever manually review 400 hours of video per minute (likely much more by now). It's just impossible. And who is to say that the human reviewers would make no mistakes. It's not always a clear cut decision I'm guessing. So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet). Obviously the best solution would be to burden the copyright owners with prooving that they own certain content. So just DMCA pretty much. The copyright system is just so broken really. It only favors big content owners and middle men. This whole shitty EU law comes down to this: Old media/distributers were asleep at the wheel for 20 years. Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.

"YouTube has already invested more than $60 million into its Content ID system" That actually seems low to me, given we're talking about numbers (revenue, users) in the billions.

ilikerashers 8y ago

I was surprised when the best way to watch UFC 229 (PPV) was simply typing it into YouTube and watching full HD quality. YouTube won't do anything unless government action forces them to.

danso 8y ago
Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content. I uploaded a copy of one of the few wide-release U.S. movies in the public domain ("His Girl Friday" [0]) and was hit with a takedown notice instantaneously as the upload finished. I didn't contest it at the time, and I wonder if it's because Content ID was triggered by the Columbia Pictures fanfare/logo in the opening. [0] https://archive.org/details/his_girl_friday https://archive.org/details/his_girl_friday edit: By "robust", I actually mean, "a bit overly proactive", in that the system seems to be efficient in its detection, but the system's design seems unavoidably vulnerable to false positives.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  > Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content. It's overly aggressive and has tons of false positive.
josefresco 8y ago
I too was also amazed at how easy it was to find pirated TV content via Google having long given up my pirate ways. I pay for YouTube TV and their DVR messed up and didn't record 1 episode of a TV series. After exhausting all legal ways to acquire said content, I found numerous links on page 1 and 2 of Google, offering the content with minimal shadiness. The trick was to search for a very specific titles, such as "Shark Tank Season 1 Episode 1" or "Shark Tank S1E1" etc. This filters out all the "general" results. If 37 year old me, years detached from pirating can figure this out in 10 minutes, it's clear Google gives zero f*cks unless compelled (legally) to do so. Edit: To clarify, the streams were not hosted on YouTube, but rather Google results led me to 3rd party streaming options. This isn't a criticism of Content ID, more Google's policy towards privacy in general.

knaik94 8y ago

I think the fact that so little has human oversight and no direct way of disputing with a human is probably how they can handle it.

shady-lady 8y ago
Exactly. So the solution YouTube has isn't appropriate. They should invest in a better solution even if that involves having more humans in the loop for review/approval. That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws. It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws that could substantially damage our payroll spend"
- tyfon 8y ago
  Having more humans in the loop would probably benefit the content creators as they could actually reason with them and claim fair use for stuff. Provided that they actually hire competent staff for this. I don't monetise my videos by default but I've have a few videos where I have had 1-2 minutes of copyrighted music. When that happens they will force monetise the whole video for me and send the money made by it to the music copyright holder (BGM in my case). That seems a bit silly to me.
- feri339 8y ago
  How would you ever manually review 400 hours of video per minute (likely much more by now). It's just impossible. And who is to say that the human reviewers would make no mistakes. It's not always a clear cut decision I'm guessing. So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet). Obviously the best solution would be to burden the copyright owners with prooving that they own certain content. So just DMCA pretty much. The copyright system is just so broken really. It only favors big content owners and middle men. This whole shitty EU law comes down to this: Old media/distributers were asleep at the wheel for 20 years. Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.