47 ms·

This morning I got a copyright claim for a video I published in 2015 which had a brief bit of background music, using a royalty-free song I got as a perk for be

This morning I got a copyright claim for a video I published in 2015 which had a brief bit of background music, using a royalty-free song I got as a perk for being an iTools user from FreePlay in _2003_. I can choose to combat the copyright claim (and during this process you check a box that says "you agree that you could have your account deleted if you don't win this claim" (something like that)), or I can give the $1/year revenue I got from that video to the scummy company that files these claims. To me that's $1/year lost revenue (no big deal, right?) but that company now gets the revenue from this video—and millions of other videos... so they're making mint and gambling that most users won't even try to appeal.

Muuuchem 7y ago
I am sick of this and thinking about canceling youtube premium...
hinkley 7y ago
Doesn't that mean they need to be sending a hundred of these out per hour, 40 hours a week, just to make payroll?
- imtringued 7y ago
  It's fully automated.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  A machine (script) can send out a lot more than a hundred/hr. Remember, they don't have to be true.
  - velosol 7y ago
    The person clicking the button just needs to think it's true.
- lozenge 7y ago
  They upload the sound clips, YouTube finds the matching videos and sends them a list, then a human reviews the list(haha just kidding) and activates the revenue stealing. I'm sure some of those videos are earning a lot more than $1/year.
- mokus 7y ago
  And somehow the user is the one that might get banned in this scenario?
adameast9000 7y ago
To be honest this doesn't seem that hard. write an application that crawls youtube videos in some order, grab the audio and stream it to something like echonest, then strike if it hits on anything?
gwd 7y ago
> I can choose to combat the copyright claim (and during this process you check a box that says "you agree that you could have your account deleted if you don't win this claim" (something like that)), or I can give the $1/year revenue I got from that video to the scummy company that files these claims. Obviously the problem is that it's completely unbalanced. Do people making copyright claims have the same threat? "By disputing this counter-claim, you agree that you could have your right to file any copyright claims revoked." If not, then yeah, it's absolutely unfair.
- ivalm 7y ago
  But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry.
  - gwd 7y ago
    > But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry. Filing a claim automatically and conveniently is not protected by law. They could just as well say, "We have an automated system with a convenient interface for good-faith actors. If you show yourself to be acting in bad faith, you can exercise your legal claim in writing by sending it to this address: X. The postal system to that office is pretty bad, loses stuff all the time, so you'd better send it FedEx."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bonzini 7y ago
    Filing claims by suing is protected by law; filing claims on YouTube is not.
    - tempestn 7y ago
      Under the DMCA that isn't the case. Platforms, including YouTube, are required to react to your claims if properly submitted.

Muuuchem 7y ago

I am sick of this and thinking about canceling youtube premium...

hinkley 7y ago

Doesn't that mean they need to be sending a hundred of these out per hour, 40 hours a week, just to make payroll?

imtringued 7y ago
It's fully automated.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
A machine (script) can send out a lot more than a hundred/hr. Remember, they don't have to be true.
- velosol 7y ago
  The person clicking the button just needs to think it's true.
lozenge 7y ago
They upload the sound clips, YouTube finds the matching videos and sends them a list, then a human reviews the list(haha just kidding) and activates the revenue stealing. I'm sure some of those videos are earning a lot more than $1/year.
mokus 7y ago
And somehow the user is the one that might get banned in this scenario?

adameast9000 7y ago

To be honest this doesn't seem that hard. write an application that crawls youtube videos in some order, grab the audio and stream it to something like echonest, then strike if it hits on anything?

gwd 7y ago

> I can choose to combat the copyright claim (and during this process you check a box that says "you agree that you could have your account deleted if you don't win this claim" (something like that)), or I can give the $1/year revenue I got from that video to the scummy company that files these claims. Obviously the problem is that it's completely unbalanced. Do people making copyright claims have the same threat? "By disputing this counter-claim, you agree that you could have your right to file any copyright claims revoked." If not, then yeah, it's absolutely unfair.

ivalm 7y ago
But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry.
- gwd 7y ago
  > But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry. Filing a claim automatically and conveniently is not protected by law. They could just as well say, "We have an automated system with a convenient interface for good-faith actors. If you show yourself to be acting in bad faith, you can exercise your legal claim in writing by sending it to this address: X. The postal system to that office is pretty bad, loses stuff all the time, so you'd better send it FedEx."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bonzini 7y ago
  Filing claims by suing is protected by law; filing claims on YouTube is not.
  - tempestn 7y ago
    Under the DMCA that isn't the case. Platforms, including YouTube, are required to react to your claims if properly submitted.