10 ms·

> Copyright claims is a perfect example. Yep. One of my favorite subscribers to watch is some guy (Harald Baldr[0]) who travels around remote areas of the wor

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• mebutnotme 7y ago
  YouTube are actually adding some tech to help with this. In future when making a claim you have to add the timestamps in the video where the copyright occurs. Then the creator will get that info as well as a few simple quick-fix options to cut out that portion of the video or replace it. It's long overdue but they do seem to be making some strides to help creators at last.
  • kevingadd 7y ago
    Yes, but will it detect the claims and allow you to fix them without stealing all your revenue?
    • anticensor 7y ago
      Yes, but subject to claimant's approval if you did not remove the offending sections.
      • dvtrn 7y ago
        A part of me feels like claimants will find a way of gaming this and making their approval a series of endlessly nudged goalposts...given the way IP holders are already taking advantage of the tools already at their disposal.
        • deleted 7y ago
          [deleted]
        • anticensor 7y ago
          No, two rounds max; both parties lose (suspect's video deleted and claimant gets a strike) it is not resolved in two rounds.
          • dvtrn 7y ago
            So the claimant still, invariably get what they want, which is a pulled/not published video? That doesn’t sound like both parties losing to me.
            • anticensor 7y ago
              You seem to have forgot the 3 strike rule.
              • dvtrn 7y ago
                No I really didn’t-could do without the implication, why don’t we and leave the personal jabs about what I forgot or didn’t out of this and stick to the issue. I don’t believe as designed that even three strikes does well at (pardon the pun) striking a balance between content creators and content ID claimants. YouTube’s own behavior, leading up to where we sit now, and the behavior of claimants gives me no reason to give either party the benefit of the doubt or faith in how they purport to be handling content claims. I forgot nothing, friend.
  • bobthepanda 7y ago
    Interesting, is there a source about these changes?
    • jsnell 7y ago
      https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/07/better-tools-to-resolve-manual-Content-ID-claims.html https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/07/better-tools...
• wybiral 7y ago
  They make it hard to correct those things too. You have to re-upload the entire thing as a new video instead of being able to edit or replace existing videos to deal with copyright claims. But then their algorithms also seem to demote content creators from deleting or unpublishing videos so correcting those things actually hurts your channel in the long run. One of my more popular videos could never be monetized because I added a song (via the old YouTube editor interface) that turned out to have a copyright claim but the interface doesn't allow me to remove or change the background music in post. So I'm given the option to delete something with 911k views and annoy my viewers with a duplicate upload or just cut my losses.
  • swang 7y ago
    i thought they have the option of muting audio now?
    • swang 7y ago
      people are downvoting a question? so i looked myself. seems like there is that option now. they also have an option to just "mute" the infringed song but it's in beta https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en
      • deckar01 7y ago
        That's not a question. That's a statement with a question mark at the end. Also, the statement ignores the fact that the parent comment asserted edits have no impact on demonitization, so even if it was correct it would be moot.
        • anonymfus 7y ago
          In many languages the question mark can be the only difference on print between interrogative and declarative sentence, and as my native language is one of them, I hope that English will develop in that direction.
• huslage 7y ago
  Not to mention that that's not a copyright violation if it's incidental and under 1 minute or so.
  • pdmf 7y ago
    Just curious, do you have a source for that? I'd like to read more about it
  • dijksterhuis 7y ago
    Not quite true. Incidentals under Fair use are entirely dependant on the context of the created content (at least for the UK). News/educational - likely okay as incidental. Everything else is up to the courts to decide. Under this example, I’d argue that this is not incidental usage. The audio could be considered integral to the “scene” that is being recorded. It gives the audience an idea of what place x looks, feels and sounds like. And this is certainly not news/educational content.
    • nickjj 7y ago
      > Under this example, I’d argue that this is not incidental usage. The audio could be considered integral to the “scene” that is being recorded. It gives the audience an idea of what place x looks, feels and sounds like. And this is certainly not news/educational content. But if you watched his videos this isn't the case. It's him walking through some public outdoor market in Sri Lanka and one of the vendors happens to have a radio on which is captured by his camera's microphone as he walks through while narrating what's going on. He didn't go out of his way to capture the audio separately and then overlay it afterwards. It's background noise that was recorded in the same audio stream he uses for his voice's microphone, which makes it pretty much impossible to cut out later short of muting all of the audio or making artificial cuts to remove the content. In any case, it's a shitty situation for both the content creator and the viewer.
      • dijksterhuis 7y ago
        How it was recorded has nothing to do with copyright law (in this case, mechanical rights are a whole thing). A musical work was publicly performed (via the radio). He recorded that musical performance (making a copy of the musical work in the process) and then distributed that recording of it to a wider audience. Each time someone watches that video, that is a public performance of that musical work. Whether there was intent or not, it doesn’t matter. How it was recorded doesn’t matter. Copyright law doesn’t care about intent. It cares whether a musical work has been performed or copied. Both have happened in this case. And it can be argued that it does not fall under news programming (he’s not a journalist breaking a story) nor educational (he’s not teaching anything). Therefore it will struggle to be considered fair use. This is actually copyright law finally being applied correctly on the internet. Its just taken years for it to actually happen on platforms like YouTube.
• ridaj 7y ago
  Why blame YouTube? They're doing it at the request of the right holders, who would otherwise have a claim to pull the whole video down. They also provide an automated tool to scrub claimed music from already-uploaded videos (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en) You might say the music rights holders lack empathy though...
  • jedberg 7y ago
    The rights holder most definitely would not have a claim to pull the whole video down. If a human looked at that and saw it was music playing at the mall that was incidental to the video, it would be a clear case of fair use.
    • dijksterhuis 7y ago
      Fair use is entirely dependant on the context of the content. It is never really a “clear case”. It’s decided on a case by case basis by the courts.
      • Latty 7y ago
        Sure, but historically, no one would bother taking such a case to court because the supposed damages from a video in that kind of case are obviously non-existent. The ability to spam these kinds of take-downs at essentially zero cost and with no ramifications for the chilling effects and false claims create an environment where it is the norm.
        • pas 7y ago
          Sounds like an opportunity for a classic class action lawsuit.
  • Max-q 7y ago
    Blame YouTube because they made the system. And if you dispute the claim, the clamer gets to decide if the clame was false. The system is totally wrong.
• veritas3241 7y ago
  I don't understand why they won't put the money in escrow instead of just shunting it to the claimant. Presumably because it would require people to make a determination. Seems irresponsible.
  • magashna 7y ago
    It's not really a DMCA so this supposed legal process is really just made up by YT who don't have any obligations
    • wang_li 7y ago
      Along with some other reasons, the fact that they have implemented a system which effectively strips DMCA protections from content uploaders should result in there being no safe harbor provisions in effect for them.
      • kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        An internet service provider can impose any rules they want unless a client can produce a contract saying otherwise. Safe harbors are an indemnification against being sued for contributory infringement. That doesn't obligate them to host non-infringing content.
        • wang_li 7y ago
          Given that the DMCA is not a fundamental property of the universe, rather it's legislation. That legislation was written in a way to give both copyright holders, people who want to put content on the internet, and service providers a framework for dealing with copyright. If that framework isn't working out for all the interested parties, then it can be changed. When the framework isn't doing it's job, it should be changed. And in my opinion, part of that is that there should be no safe harbor for: * content that is upload by users who cannot be affirmatively identified. * content that is uploaded by users who are not within the jurisdiction of the united states. * if a service provider implements mechanisms that defeat the intent of the law Ultimately, yes, I get it that no one is required to host others' content. But at the same time we're not required to provide get out of jail cards.
• senorjazz 7y ago
  funny how they can detect that, but all the unofficial pirated music on there is not possible to detect
  • nickjj 7y ago
    That's what I was thinking initially too. But I don't think their goal is to have the videos removed. It's to collect any ad revenue generated from the video. If they collect all of the ad revenue then the last thing they want is for the video to be removed because now it's free advertising for them. If 100 people upload a song and those songs get millions of views, the record label keeps all of that ad revenue. I believe that's why you can find nearly every song ever made uploaded by many people on Youtube. The record labels and Google love it because they get paid.
    • therealx 7y ago
      Also, I believe thats why a lot of those videos show the lyrics in the video portion - it changes the audio's use.
• newsreview1 7y ago
  That's rotten.