4 ms·

> This system is clearly a CYA for Google: Sorry, the DMCA protections for google are almost absolute. Without a notice and takedown they are unexposed. Thei

by nullc 6y ago

> This system is clearly a CYA for Google: Sorry, the DMCA protections for google are almost absolute. Without a notice and takedown they are unexposed. Their handling might just be incompetence, or it might be a money maker (e.g. to force people to allow copyright holders to monetize their videos)... what it isn't is a CYA.

Someone1234 6y ago
YouTube's copyright system isn't the DMCA. The DMCA contains minimum protections for abuse (penalty of perjury), whereas YouTube's private system contains absolutely none. Content owners literally make money by flagging as much as possible, and there's no reason not to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kelnos 6y ago
No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued. The DMCA process does not require content hosters to pro-actively guess whether or not newly-posted material might violate someone's copyright. It just requires that they provide an avenue for rightsholders to file claims, which have to be promptly acted upon. Google's system unnecessarily favors big players at the expense of individual creators. For all the flak the DMCA gets, its claim/counterclaim process is way better for creators than Google's system is.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  >For all the flak the DMCA gets, its claim/counterclaim process is way better for creators than Google's system is. I suspect this is the crack in the YT foundation that will allow for real competition to emerge. Several YouTube creators have formed a competing network specifically because of the BS they deal with regarding ContentID being so anti-creator.
  - prox 6y ago
    What is the competing network? Interested in YT alternatives. Can’t wait to see their medieval copyright process go.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Probably nebula: https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/ Discovery is really horrible though, at least in my opinion. You get a free subscription if you sign up for curiositystream: https://help.curiositystream.com/hc/en-us/articles/360034158291-CuriosityStream-Nebula-FAQ https://help.curiositystream.com/hc/en-us/articles/360034158... I got the promotion from one of the legal Eagle videos: https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw
      - kenneth 6y ago
        I want to use Nebula, but the UX there is such garbage (less reliable streams, no discovery/algo, no good movile/tx ux) it's really hard to get onboard, even if I'd prefer to.
- polishTar 6y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to use the DMCA, they obviously can. If the content creator would prefer the rightsholder use the DMCA, they can dispute+appeal which will force the rightsholder to file a DMCA takedown if they want to continue with their claim. Unfortunately there's often a lot of confusion about the dispute+appeals process, since it's a multi-step process and there's a ton of people incorrectly conflating disputes with appeals, but the important takeaway is that a content creator can choose to force a DMCA takedown via an appeal (which happens after a rejected dispute). The reason content creators rarely choose to go the route of forcing a DMCA takedown is because: 1) the only remedy for a DMCA takedown is a removal of the entire video, which is often less preferable than the remedies offered by the google process (ex: replacing/muting the audio in the claimed section, monetization split, restrictions in only some geographical regions) 2) the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. This manifests on YouTube as a 3-strikes-and-your-channel-is-deleted policy that only applies to DMCA takedowns, but not copyright claims that come through the optional google process. 3) There's some scary warnings about how particularly vindictive rightsholders react to this by choosing to file a lawsuit against the creator in addition to filing the DMCA takedown
  - SrslyJosh 6y ago
    > Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. So, optional in the "or we'll break your legs" sense.
    - polishTar 6y ago
      I suppose. It's optional in the sense that the DMCA process is the alternative, and the DMCA sucks really bad. My interpretation of google's copyright system is that it tries to straddle the line of being both significantly less punishing to content creators while also giving enough of a remedy to rightsholders so they don't end up preferring the DMCA takedown. The system is completely useless if rightsholders disfavor it and use the DMCA instead (which by law they can do at any time). This is a really unfortunate challenge around the design of copyright systems like googles that isn't often appreciated. All this would be so much easier if the DMCA was just reformed. There are so many obvious changes that could be made to make it much more tolerable and remove the need for complex systems like google's.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  > No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued. I imagine it was because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... Yes, Google won in the end, but there were times when it didn't (they won on appeal) and the cost of the lawsuit itself, the insecurity of its outcome and the potential impact that could have down the line to doing business with Viacom I think were enough to act.
- nullc 6y ago
  > No, that's not correct. Exactly what are you saying isn't correct? Are you claiming that if google does not proactively take down content, absent any DMCA complaint, they are libel for infringement and do not benefit from S512 limitations on liability? If you are not, how is my statement that this isn't a case of google covering their ass to avoid legal liability (because none exists)?

by nullc 6y ago

Someone1234 6y ago

YouTube's copyright system isn't the DMCA. The DMCA contains minimum protections for abuse (penalty of perjury), whereas YouTube's private system contains absolutely none. Content owners literally make money by flagging as much as possible, and there's no reason not to.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 6y ago

No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued. The DMCA process does not require content hosters to pro-actively guess whether or not newly-posted material might violate someone's copyright. It just requires that they provide an avenue for rightsholders to file claims, which have to be promptly acted upon. Google's system unnecessarily favors big players at the expense of individual creators. For all the flak the DMCA gets, its claim/counterclaim process is way better for creators than Google's system is.

mywittyname 6y ago
>For all the flak the DMCA gets, its claim/counterclaim process is way better for creators than Google's system is. I suspect this is the crack in the YT foundation that will allow for real competition to emerge. Several YouTube creators have formed a competing network specifically because of the BS they deal with regarding ContentID being so anti-creator.
- prox 6y ago
  What is the competing network? Interested in YT alternatives. Can’t wait to see their medieval copyright process go.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Probably nebula: https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/ Discovery is really horrible though, at least in my opinion. You get a free subscription if you sign up for curiositystream: https://help.curiositystream.com/hc/en-us/articles/360034158291-CuriosityStream-Nebula-FAQ https://help.curiositystream.com/hc/en-us/articles/360034158... I got the promotion from one of the legal Eagle videos: https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw
    - kenneth 6y ago
      I want to use Nebula, but the UX there is such garbage (less reliable streams, no discovery/algo, no good movile/tx ux) it's really hard to get onboard, even if I'd prefer to.
polishTar 6y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to use the DMCA, they obviously can. If the content creator would prefer the rightsholder use the DMCA, they can dispute+appeal which will force the rightsholder to file a DMCA takedown if they want to continue with their claim. Unfortunately there's often a lot of confusion about the dispute+appeals process, since it's a multi-step process and there's a ton of people incorrectly conflating disputes with appeals, but the important takeaway is that a content creator can choose to force a DMCA takedown via an appeal (which happens after a rejected dispute). The reason content creators rarely choose to go the route of forcing a DMCA takedown is because: 1) the only remedy for a DMCA takedown is a removal of the entire video, which is often less preferable than the remedies offered by the google process (ex: replacing/muting the audio in the claimed section, monetization split, restrictions in only some geographical regions) 2) the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. This manifests on YouTube as a 3-strikes-and-your-channel-is-deleted policy that only applies to DMCA takedowns, but not copyright claims that come through the optional google process. 3) There's some scary warnings about how particularly vindictive rightsholders react to this by choosing to file a lawsuit against the creator in addition to filing the DMCA takedown
- SrslyJosh 6y ago
  > Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. So, optional in the "or we'll break your legs" sense.
  - polishTar 6y ago
    I suppose. It's optional in the sense that the DMCA process is the alternative, and the DMCA sucks really bad. My interpretation of google's copyright system is that it tries to straddle the line of being both significantly less punishing to content creators while also giving enough of a remedy to rightsholders so they don't end up preferring the DMCA takedown. The system is completely useless if rightsholders disfavor it and use the DMCA instead (which by law they can do at any time). This is a really unfortunate challenge around the design of copyright systems like googles that isn't often appreciated. All this would be so much easier if the DMCA was just reformed. There are so many obvious changes that could be made to make it much more tolerable and remove the need for complex systems like google's.
d1zzy 6y ago
> No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued. I imagine it was because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... Yes, Google won in the end, but there were times when it didn't (they won on appeal) and the cost of the lawsuit itself, the insecurity of its outcome and the potential impact that could have down the line to doing business with Viacom I think were enough to act.
nullc 6y ago
> No, that's not correct. Exactly what are you saying isn't correct? Are you claiming that if google does not proactively take down content, absent any DMCA complaint, they are libel for infringement and do not benefit from S512 limitations on liability? If you are not, how is my statement that this isn't a case of google covering their ass to avoid legal liability (because none exists)?