3 ms·

"However, YouTube expects that by removing the option to monetize these sorts of videos themselves, some copyright holders will instead just leave them alone."

• jaggirs 7y ago
  There is no incentive to block an infringing video. The presence of the sound is accidental anyways and does not damage the claimants revenue (it is not a replacement good). So the claimant wont directly (video revenue) or indirectly earn money from these claims.
• pxia 7y ago
  When the gain is smaller than the cost of hiring people to do the claim.
• Applejinx 7y ago
  I've had multiple videos ContentIDed for years now, off and on, by certain 'copyright holders'. The infringing 'works' are white noise. Literally. I make open source software plugins and use Logic's signal generator sometimes to demonstrate the spectral content of these plugins. I'll get copyright strikes specifically for the purpose of hijacking the ad revenue of these videos, specifying that it's the noise (or filtered noise) content of the video. They don't try to knock the video off YouTube, they are trying to mass claim all white noise on the platform to get whatever revenue they can until the real creator reassert their rights to their original content (at some risk: you are saying 'no, that is original content' to the YouTube machine and depending on the adversary to withdraw their claim in hopes of finding someone who is paying less attention) This would directly affect those trolls, and those guys would indeed skulk away: it's what they do when you challenge them, because they want to operate without calling attention to themselves.