5 ms·

There are many potential technical solutions to solving the problems of identifying copyright infringement and mediating the dispute between parties in a way th

by bavell 7y ago

There are many potential technical solutions to solving the problems of identifying copyright infringement and mediating the dispute between parties in a way that is fair to all involved. But why is the current system a dumpster fire? It seems Google/YT doesn't care because the companies sending out fraudulent disputes are many times the the same companies spending $$$ on ads. Without any real penalties for fraudulent claims (correct me if I'm wrong) they have every incentive to send out disputes by the truckload just to see what sticks. The only real damage done to Google/YT as a result of fraudulent disputes like these are to it's reputation of not being friendly to creators - a view I think is already firmly rooted. We desperately need alternatives but it's an uphill battle the whole way with huge barriers to entry...

clarry 7y ago
> But why is the current system a dumpster fire? Lack of incentive to care. They're too big, and what can the small user or uploader do except whine? It's always the same problem with massive power asymmetry.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  And very strong incentive (ie lots of expensive lawsuits) to care in the other direction. Create the same incentive in the direction that you care about (maybe also with lawsuits) and maybe something will change.
bostik 7y ago
The solution is to go nuclear and enshrine adversarial balance in law. If a company, or an agent acting in their name, makes a fraudulent copyright claim, then have the wronged party name one item in the offending company's catalog that becomes public domain. Any contractual losses for entities who were benefiting from royalties in the said work are the offender's problem. Not only do the copyfraudsters lose a (possibly much more valuable) item from their catalog, they'd also have to compensate those whose incomes they have affected with their fraudulent acts. Align the incentives and make the stick painful enough. People being people will take care of the rest.
- philpem 7y ago
  Judge: "BigMedia, this court finds you made a false copyright claim for Billion Dollar Movie. Per 123 USC 8675309, you must select one item from your catalogue to release to the public domain." BigMedia: "Your Honour, we select This Cheap Crappy Z-List Movie We Made Just To Serve As Ablative Armour In Disputes Like This."
  - bostik 7y ago
    Which is exactly why I specified that the wronged party gets to name the item in the other's catalog.
- jbay808 7y ago
  What's to stop me, jbay808, from sending fraudulent copyright claims in Disney's name, against you, bostik, as part of a coordinated plan to make Star Wars public domain?
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    No law anyone passes will ever push a Disney property like Star Wars into the public domain, no matter what was written into it But on the other hand, nothing's going to stop you from filing fraudulent DMCA claims. The few measures in the law designed to discourage it don't work.
    - etrabroline 7y ago
      Not with that attitude.
  - etrabroline 7y ago
    Nothing, but you wouldn't be an agent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency
- kevingadd 7y ago
  No regulatory change will make any difference here unless you ban Content ID via new regulations. Google opted out of the DMCA claim-and-takedown system in order to avoid being harassed by big companies like Viacom, the system people are dealing with is broken by design because it's the system Big Media demanded. As a result none of these claims go through legal channels and there is no way to apply legal penalties, all the users consented to this system in the 375th version of the YouTube Clickthrough Terms of Service.
robotnikman 7y ago
Back in July I saw an article[1] which mentioned Youtube will introduce a new system where copyright holders would have to specify specifically which part of the video had the copyright infringing content. This seems like a good solution since it makes it harder to just sling copyright claims left and right, and make it so entire videos don't get taken down. Unfortunately it looks like either it was never introduced, or did not end up working as hoped. -- [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/10/youtube-copyright-claim-system-revamp/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/10/youtube-copyright-claim-...
- Izkata 7y ago
  Some commenters here seem to know which part of their video was flagged, so it sounds like it was implemented and had no effect.
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  > ...or did not end up working as hoped. Or media companies found it onerous.
gnopgnip 7y ago
The root of this problem is that copyright lawsuits in the US are solely handled in federal court, and it typically costs $100k+ to pursue this kind of lawsuit. As a result of this there are significant penalties for infringement, with statutory damages of up to $30k per work infringed, and up to $150k for willful infringement. This means that maintaining safe harbor protections is essential, and a platform has no choice but to err on the side of caution because of the damages at stake. If there was a small claims court, or some other venue where copyright cases could be heard the law around statutory damages could be changed, and it would be less risky for platforms to decide in favor of content creators more often.

by bavell 7y ago

clarry 7y ago

> But why is the current system a dumpster fire? Lack of incentive to care. They're too big, and what can the small user or uploader do except whine? It's always the same problem with massive power asymmetry.

d1zzy 7y ago
And very strong incentive (ie lots of expensive lawsuits) to care in the other direction. Create the same incentive in the direction that you care about (maybe also with lawsuits) and maybe something will change.

bostik 7y ago

The solution is to go nuclear and enshrine adversarial balance in law. If a company, or an agent acting in their name, makes a fraudulent copyright claim, then have the wronged party name one item in the offending company's catalog that becomes public domain. Any contractual losses for entities who were benefiting from royalties in the said work are the offender's problem. Not only do the copyfraudsters lose a (possibly much more valuable) item from their catalog, they'd also have to compensate those whose incomes they have affected with their fraudulent acts. Align the incentives and make the stick painful enough. People being people will take care of the rest.

philpem 7y ago
Judge: "BigMedia, this court finds you made a false copyright claim for Billion Dollar Movie. Per 123 USC 8675309, you must select one item from your catalogue to release to the public domain." BigMedia: "Your Honour, we select This Cheap Crappy Z-List Movie We Made Just To Serve As Ablative Armour In Disputes Like This."
- bostik 7y ago
  Which is exactly why I specified that the wronged party gets to name the item in the other's catalog.
jbay808 7y ago
What's to stop me, jbay808, from sending fraudulent copyright claims in Disney's name, against you, bostik, as part of a coordinated plan to make Star Wars public domain?
- kevingadd 7y ago
  No law anyone passes will ever push a Disney property like Star Wars into the public domain, no matter what was written into it But on the other hand, nothing's going to stop you from filing fraudulent DMCA claims. The few measures in the law designed to discourage it don't work.
  - etrabroline 7y ago
    Not with that attitude.
- etrabroline 7y ago
  Nothing, but you wouldn't be an agent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency
kevingadd 7y ago
No regulatory change will make any difference here unless you ban Content ID via new regulations. Google opted out of the DMCA claim-and-takedown system in order to avoid being harassed by big companies like Viacom, the system people are dealing with is broken by design because it's the system Big Media demanded. As a result none of these claims go through legal channels and there is no way to apply legal penalties, all the users consented to this system in the 375th version of the YouTube Clickthrough Terms of Service.

robotnikman 7y ago

Back in July I saw an article[1] which mentioned Youtube will introduce a new system where copyright holders would have to specify specifically which part of the video had the copyright infringing content. This seems like a good solution since it makes it harder to just sling copyright claims left and right, and make it so entire videos don't get taken down. Unfortunately it looks like either it was never introduced, or did not end up working as hoped. -- [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/10/youtube-copyright-claim-system-revamp/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/10/youtube-copyright-claim-...

Izkata 7y ago
Some commenters here seem to know which part of their video was flagged, so it sounds like it was implemented and had no effect.
jagged-chisel 7y ago
> ...or did not end up working as hoped. Or media companies found it onerous.

gnopgnip 7y ago

The root of this problem is that copyright lawsuits in the US are solely handled in federal court, and it typically costs $100k+ to pursue this kind of lawsuit. As a result of this there are significant penalties for infringement, with statutory damages of up to $30k per work infringed, and up to $150k for willful infringement. This means that maintaining safe harbor protections is essential, and a platform has no choice but to err on the side of caution because of the damages at stake. If there was a small claims court, or some other venue where copyright cases could be heard the law around statutory damages could be changed, and it would be less risky for platforms to decide in favor of content creators more often.