6 ms·

What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?

by Zephyreks 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago
How about a copyright enforcement system that doesn't go above and beyond what's required?
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Why not say "no" to more people? Allowing the automation of this is really bad and heavily favors people with big bucks- would requiring a different written statement per video make sense at all?
sieabahlpark 7y ago
If a creator can't afford to publish content without a company striking their account then why would any creator stay? It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.
- binarymax 7y ago
  Creators go where the consumers are. You can move to a different platform or start your own but you won’t get any viewers. It’s the equivalent of not liking the taxes in a city retail space, and moving your store out to the desert in protest.
  - amenod 7y ago
    If creators were smart they would always publish on two (or more) platforms - Youtube and Vimeo for example. It doesn't cost them much in terms of time and effort, it gives their viewers a choice (given the choice, I would rather watch alternative), and if enough creators do that, it keeps Youtube on their toes. Which means that they might care a bit more about the creators. On a related note, Google should clean up their customer support. Everywhere.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    moving your store out to the desert in protest. Sounds kind of like the outlets at Cabazon, or any of the music and art festivals in the desert. Just need people to group together and do it.
  - icxa 7y ago
    What will end up happening is the major content creators, the ones that have massive followings will treat YouTube as the "advertisement" to the other platform they are on. "Hey guys thanks for checking out my video, here's a small preview. To view the full version, check me out at <some_other_platform>.com!" It's similar to what the big ones did with monetization (turned off all monetization, and now do in-video ads or some donation platform). Once that happens, there will be enough traffic on the new platform for enough medium size players to test the waters, then the whole thing will topple down. The only thing YT will have left is existing content, of which the only task remaining will be a race to archive what is currently on there. Unlike a real desert, everyone can still reach you in your internet desert, and eventually it can become an internet oasis. Then again, maybe once that happens YT will actually start to become content-creator friendly again.
singron 7y ago
How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization. Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference. Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to find inaccurate claims.
- mentos 7y ago
  Could tweak this so that only 25% of revenue is at stake for this penalty if it’s too harsh but I like 100%
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    Or just ban the channels of the networks that abuse the system. Would be hilarious if disney got their channel banned for not understanding fair use laws. Why can't google be more like that :/
- asveikau 7y ago
  That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and act like that's the law. The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    The 'content owner' can always choose to opt out and file DMCA requests instead of using ContentID, though. If they don't like Google's system... They don't have to use it. But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
    - 7y ago
benologist 7y ago
They do have over $100 billion in savings, so maybe that number should actually be $90 billion and that other ~10% dedicated to the boring stuff like supporting their users. It's no accident that Amazon, Comcast, AT&T etc can support 100m+ people by phone... and pure accounting chicanery that Google does not.
falcolas 7y ago
A three (or ten, or even 300) strike plan, where they lose the right to make copyright claims in a "guilty until proven innocent" fashion - the company must provide sufficient evidence to YouTube that the content is infringing. They would still have the DMCA process, but they lose rights to use the copyright strike process until they prove their competence.
- sam0x17 7y ago
  I completely agree with this. There should be enormous consequences for false reports, and there should be an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible).
  - gipp 7y ago
    Sure, but YouTube doesn't have that option. Any of the suggestions given here would almost certainly lose YT their safe harbor status. YouTube's policies are as Draconian as they are because that's literally the only way to comply with the law. I can't for the life of me figure out why YT doesn't have some kind of messaging strategy around that.
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      But the fast-track mechanism YouTube offers to big content creators appears to be quite separate to the various legally mandated takedown mechanisms.
    - sam0x17 7y ago
      The point is though, they aren't fighting it at all. There are all kinds of ways they could penalize copyright claimants that wouldn't affect safe-harbor status, but they aren't doing it. They are in bed with the movie and music studios.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible). How do you get an AI to evaluate what is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" ? Fair use is hard enough for lawyers and judges.

What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?

monocasa 7y ago

How about a copyright enforcement system that doesn't go above and beyond what's required?

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Why not say "no" to more people? Allowing the automation of this is really bad and heavily favors people with big bucks- would requiring a different written statement per video make sense at all?

sieabahlpark 7y ago

If a creator can't afford to publish content without a company striking their account then why would any creator stay? It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.

binarymax 7y ago
Creators go where the consumers are. You can move to a different platform or start your own but you won’t get any viewers. It’s the equivalent of not liking the taxes in a city retail space, and moving your store out to the desert in protest.
- amenod 7y ago
  If creators were smart they would always publish on two (or more) platforms - Youtube and Vimeo for example. It doesn't cost them much in terms of time and effort, it gives their viewers a choice (given the choice, I would rather watch alternative), and if enough creators do that, it keeps Youtube on their toes. Which means that they might care a bit more about the creators. On a related note, Google should clean up their customer support. Everywhere.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  moving your store out to the desert in protest. Sounds kind of like the outlets at Cabazon, or any of the music and art festivals in the desert. Just need people to group together and do it.
- icxa 7y ago
  What will end up happening is the major content creators, the ones that have massive followings will treat YouTube as the "advertisement" to the other platform they are on. "Hey guys thanks for checking out my video, here's a small preview. To view the full version, check me out at <some_other_platform>.com!" It's similar to what the big ones did with monetization (turned off all monetization, and now do in-video ads or some donation platform). Once that happens, there will be enough traffic on the new platform for enough medium size players to test the waters, then the whole thing will topple down. The only thing YT will have left is existing content, of which the only task remaining will be a race to archive what is currently on there. Unlike a real desert, everyone can still reach you in your internet desert, and eventually it can become an internet oasis. Then again, maybe once that happens YT will actually start to become content-creator friendly again.

singron 7y ago

How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization. Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference. Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to find inaccurate claims.

mentos 7y ago
Could tweak this so that only 25% of revenue is at stake for this penalty if it’s too harsh but I like 100%
- sam0x17 7y ago
  Or just ban the channels of the networks that abuse the system. Would be hilarious if disney got their channel banned for not understanding fair use laws. Why can't google be more like that :/
asveikau 7y ago
That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and act like that's the law. The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  The 'content owner' can always choose to opt out and file DMCA requests instead of using ContentID, though. If they don't like Google's system... They don't have to use it. But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
  - 7y ago

benologist 7y ago

They do have over $100 billion in savings, so maybe that number should actually be $90 billion and that other ~10% dedicated to the boring stuff like supporting their users. It's no accident that Amazon, Comcast, AT&T etc can support 100m+ people by phone... and pure accounting chicanery that Google does not.

falcolas 7y ago

A three (or ten, or even 300) strike plan, where they lose the right to make copyright claims in a "guilty until proven innocent" fashion - the company must provide sufficient evidence to YouTube that the content is infringing. They would still have the DMCA process, but they lose rights to use the copyright strike process until they prove their competence.

sam0x17 7y ago
I completely agree with this. There should be enormous consequences for false reports, and there should be an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible).
- gipp 7y ago
  Sure, but YouTube doesn't have that option. Any of the suggestions given here would almost certainly lose YT their safe harbor status. YouTube's policies are as Draconian as they are because that's literally the only way to comply with the law. I can't for the life of me figure out why YT doesn't have some kind of messaging strategy around that.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    But the fast-track mechanism YouTube offers to big content creators appears to be quite separate to the various legally mandated takedown mechanisms.
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    The point is though, they aren't fighting it at all. There are all kinds of ways they could penalize copyright claimants that wouldn't affect safe-harbor status, but they aren't doing it. They are in bed with the movie and music studios.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible). How do you get an AI to evaluate what is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" ? Fair use is hard enough for lawyers and judges.