4 ms·

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.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Maybe if you can’t manage your platform, the problem is that your platform shouldn’t be so big? In the same way that the answer to packing a club that can safely hold 100 people with 1000 people isn’t to shrug and say “well, of course we can’t safely manage this many, what did you expect?”
    - Navarr 8y ago
      You want an internet with upload queues?
      - gotocake 8y ago
        I want an Internet with alternatives to Google who can compete, because Google isn’t allowed to automate QC. If a platform can’t control itself, it shouldn’t be allowed to automate the control incompetently and call it good, then hide behind algorithms.
        SpelingBeeChamp 8y ago
        Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business? Man, I'm glad you're not in charge. Google is not a government service, and YouTube (forget about YouTube-As-You-Want-It) is not a constitutional right. Have you forgotten that you are talking about an advertising company? That's what Google is. Don't like the business decisions of a private company? Don't patronize it. And hey, if you think that you can do better (and that people would give a shit) you can start your competing business. There are many alternatives to every one of Google's business lines, and there are very low barriers to entry. Fundamentally, though: why are you using a company's product that you dislike so much?
        gotocake 8y ago
        Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business? No, this could apply equally to all companies, FaceBook and Twitter for example, or Amazon and their counterfeits. If your platform is too big for you to manage in a way that complies with basic consumer protections, you either need to step up your controls, or shrink your platform.
pluma 8y ago
I think this is the reason YouTube is complaining. Previously they just got away with Content ID and it was just how the service worked. Now the law is drawing attention to the concept and people might get the idea that maybe an automated decision isn't the fairest implementation of this law and not having a real appeals process is unacceptable. Especially if you consider that the EU already explicitly included a ban of purely automated decisions in the GPDR (though "luckily" that is probably not applicable in the context of Article 13, yet). YouTube doesn't protest the idea of upload filters. YouTube just doesn't want upload filters to be a thing so much that they might end up being regulated and have legal decisions based around them because that means Content ID will be regulated and have legal decisions based around 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.
- gotocake 8y ago
  Maybe if you can’t manage your platform, the problem is that your platform shouldn’t be so big? In the same way that the answer to packing a club that can safely hold 100 people with 1000 people isn’t to shrug and say “well, of course we can’t safely manage this many, what did you expect?”
  - Navarr 8y ago
    You want an internet with upload queues?
    - gotocake 8y ago
      I want an Internet with alternatives to Google who can compete, because Google isn’t allowed to automate QC. If a platform can’t control itself, it shouldn’t be allowed to automate the control incompetently and call it good, then hide behind algorithms.
      - SpelingBeeChamp 8y ago
        Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business? Man, I'm glad you're not in charge. Google is not a government service, and YouTube (forget about YouTube-As-You-Want-It) is not a constitutional right. Have you forgotten that you are talking about an advertising company? That's what Google is. Don't like the business decisions of a private company? Don't patronize it. And hey, if you think that you can do better (and that people would give a shit) you can start your competing business. There are many alternatives to every one of Google's business lines, and there are very low barriers to entry. Fundamentally, though: why are you using a company's product that you dislike so much?
        gotocake 8y ago
        Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business? No, this could apply equally to all companies, FaceBook and Twitter for example, or Amazon and their counterfeits. If your platform is too big for you to manage in a way that complies with basic consumer protections, you either need to step up your controls, or shrink your platform.

pluma 8y ago

I think this is the reason YouTube is complaining. Previously they just got away with Content ID and it was just how the service worked. Now the law is drawing attention to the concept and people might get the idea that maybe an automated decision isn't the fairest implementation of this law and not having a real appeals process is unacceptable. Especially if you consider that the EU already explicitly included a ban of purely automated decisions in the GPDR (though "luckily" that is probably not applicable in the context of Article 13, yet). YouTube doesn't protest the idea of upload filters. YouTube just doesn't want upload filters to be a thing so much that they might end up being regulated and have legal decisions based around them because that means Content ID will be regulated and have legal decisions based around it.