15 ms·

The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. Sadly, it seems like it’s going to b

by jchw 5y ago

The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.

sc11 5y ago
Thankfully said EU law includes a part that it's forbidden to block content for copyright reasons if the copyright claim is invalid. It includes ways for NGOs and users to go after companies that overblock. How this will actually work in practice is unclear since it's obviously an impossible requirement but some NGOs like the German GFF are already collecting cases and are looking to take legal action (see e.g. https://freiheitsrechte.org/aufruf-illegale-sperrungen/ https://freiheitsrechte.org/aufruf-illegale-sperrungen/ (in German))
- Aerroon 5y ago
  That requirement is there so that YouTube can't just block videos in Germany again. It's entirely there just to make sure that Google and other platforms must make a deal with the copyright holders. It's perpetuating the same garbage system and removes tools to fight back against it.
  - sc11 5y ago
    How does it force YouTube to make a deal? They could still block all copyrighted material that they didn't have a licence for, they're just not allowed to falsely block anything.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      Iirc the EU law requires platforms to negotiate with rights holders. Ie Google can't just block the videos and be done with it.
anigbrowl 5y ago
YouTube isn't a scrappy little startup with no resources left over after keeping the servers up and running 24-7. They absolutely have the talent, capital, and legal resources to innovate in this area and to assess things like public domain claims. The concept of public domain resources is not a difficult one, you don't need special legal training or advanced math to understand the idea that copyright expires and that works whose copyright has expired are free to all. There is no mechanism to even assert public domain status on Youtube. You have to wait and offer it as a defense if subjected to a copyright infringement claim, and the copyright infringement claim is presumed to be valid and the claimant is the first judge of the public domain assertion. Youtube didn't invent the system, but they are far from being helpless victims as you imply.
- jchw 5y ago
  I don’t think it can be made clearer: YouTube fought the battle and lost. This is the compromise. Sure, they aren’t a scrappy little startup. Can anyone please propose what they’re supposed to do after losing the lawsuit?
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Keep fighting.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      Why should Google keep wasting money. If its that important then people can protest to change the laws.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
        Is Google presently restrained from helping users to organise alternative legislation and general protest?
        sumedh 5y ago
wesleywt 5y ago
I might be naive but I think the overzealous copyright strikers are hurting their products as they are limiting the views these musical products receive. Essentially deleting themselves from zeitgeist. I have not heard main stream music in years. Yet I am listening to new music almost everyday.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  This is a great point. Music use to be everywhere from tvs to movies to drug stores, elevators, etc. Everyone heard many of the top 40 so a common language and understanding existed. I don't think there is a mainstream anymore. The only place to hear popular music is advertising and it is always from much earlier eras. Shows like WKRP cannot work anymore. You can't even get it on dvd because of the music licease demands. Todays popular music are highly profitable but only heard by a small group.
Aerroon 5y ago
>I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really. It already passed. Now we're just waiting for the consequences.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  What are you referring to? There are many directives that were passed but none mandates the mechanism of content ID. In fact there was a directive, which you are probably referring to, that explicitly states that the mechanisms of content ID cannot be mandated.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It is explicitly for the benefit of YouTube. It is possible to make a non-antagonistic system that complies with DMCA: Respond to the takedown upon receipt and give account holders an easy path to restore the disputed content under fair use or for invalid claims. Then the originator of the claim can use the normal legal process and Google is off the hook as a safe harbor. Google doesn't want to do that because they're in bed with the media companies to get favorable treatment on their paid services.
moksly 5y ago
> The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. It’s entirely YouTubes fault. Their business model is automated moderation and it’s constantly proven faulty. Yet they haven’t made a decent support system around it. Their automated systems is the primary reason why we would never consider using Google Cloud, even though parts of it would enable us of building apps that we can’t with Azure or AWS. Their support is just horrible though. When something goes wrong with our office365 or azure setup we can call Seattle (I’m not sure where exactly Microsoft is located, sorry) and they will give us hourly updates until it’s fixed. With Google the support we get, even as an enterprise organisation with 10.000 employees is the same you get, an automated process that likely won’t solve your issue until it gathers enough publicity to make a real human at Google notice. The automated bans and takedowns work for YouTube because it’s content creators and it’s viewers are it’s products and not it’s customers, but I’m looking forward to when the EU puts their foot down on it. > EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really. The EU is slowly moving to making platforms responsible for their content and how they treat their users. I don’t see it as the end of the open web, however, because the web isn’t open now and haven’t been for quite some time as this channel getting wrongly banned shows you. Google is an evil advertising company and the sooner they get broken down the better.
- randomswede 5y ago
  So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    So what you are saying is that if youtube cannot solve the problem of scale, those problems should be dumped on the general public instead of youtube decreasing their scale? That is some interesting logic.

by jchw 5y ago

sc11 5y ago

Thankfully said EU law includes a part that it's forbidden to block content for copyright reasons if the copyright claim is invalid. It includes ways for NGOs and users to go after companies that overblock. How this will actually work in practice is unclear since it's obviously an impossible requirement but some NGOs like the German GFF are already collecting cases and are looking to take legal action (see e.g. https://freiheitsrechte.org/aufruf-illegale-sperrungen/ https://freiheitsrechte.org/aufruf-illegale-sperrungen/ (in German))

Aerroon 5y ago
That requirement is there so that YouTube can't just block videos in Germany again. It's entirely there just to make sure that Google and other platforms must make a deal with the copyright holders. It's perpetuating the same garbage system and removes tools to fight back against it.
- sc11 5y ago
  How does it force YouTube to make a deal? They could still block all copyrighted material that they didn't have a licence for, they're just not allowed to falsely block anything.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Iirc the EU law requires platforms to negotiate with rights holders. Ie Google can't just block the videos and be done with it.

anigbrowl 5y ago

YouTube isn't a scrappy little startup with no resources left over after keeping the servers up and running 24-7. They absolutely have the talent, capital, and legal resources to innovate in this area and to assess things like public domain claims. The concept of public domain resources is not a difficult one, you don't need special legal training or advanced math to understand the idea that copyright expires and that works whose copyright has expired are free to all. There is no mechanism to even assert public domain status on Youtube. You have to wait and offer it as a defense if subjected to a copyright infringement claim, and the copyright infringement claim is presumed to be valid and the claimant is the first judge of the public domain assertion. Youtube didn't invent the system, but they are far from being helpless victims as you imply.

jchw 5y ago
I don’t think it can be made clearer: YouTube fought the battle and lost. This is the compromise. Sure, they aren’t a scrappy little startup. Can anyone please propose what they’re supposed to do after losing the lawsuit?
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Keep fighting.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    Why should Google keep wasting money. If its that important then people can protest to change the laws.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      Is Google presently restrained from helping users to organise alternative legislation and general protest?
      - sumedh 5y ago

wesleywt 5y ago

I might be naive but I think the overzealous copyright strikers are hurting their products as they are limiting the views these musical products receive. Essentially deleting themselves from zeitgeist. I have not heard main stream music in years. Yet I am listening to new music almost everyday.

ipaddr 5y ago
This is a great point. Music use to be everywhere from tvs to movies to drug stores, elevators, etc. Everyone heard many of the top 40 so a common language and understanding existed. I don't think there is a mainstream anymore. The only place to hear popular music is advertising and it is always from much earlier eras. Shows like WKRP cannot work anymore. You can't even get it on dvd because of the music licease demands. Todays popular music are highly profitable but only heard by a small group.

Aerroon 5y ago

>I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really. It already passed. Now we're just waiting for the consequences.

Kbelicius 5y ago
What are you referring to? There are many directives that were passed but none mandates the mechanism of content ID. In fact there was a directive, which you are probably referring to, that explicitly states that the mechanisms of content ID cannot be mandated.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

It is explicitly for the benefit of YouTube. It is possible to make a non-antagonistic system that complies with DMCA: Respond to the takedown upon receipt and give account holders an easy path to restore the disputed content under fair use or for invalid claims. Then the originator of the claim can use the normal legal process and Google is off the hook as a safe harbor. Google doesn't want to do that because they're in bed with the media companies to get favorable treatment on their paid services.

moksly 5y ago

> The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. It’s entirely YouTubes fault. Their business model is automated moderation and it’s constantly proven faulty. Yet they haven’t made a decent support system around it. Their automated systems is the primary reason why we would never consider using Google Cloud, even though parts of it would enable us of building apps that we can’t with Azure or AWS. Their support is just horrible though. When something goes wrong with our office365 or azure setup we can call Seattle (I’m not sure where exactly Microsoft is located, sorry) and they will give us hourly updates until it’s fixed. With Google the support we get, even as an enterprise organisation with 10.000 employees is the same you get, an automated process that likely won’t solve your issue until it gathers enough publicity to make a real human at Google notice. The automated bans and takedowns work for YouTube because it’s content creators and it’s viewers are it’s products and not it’s customers, but I’m looking forward to when the EU puts their foot down on it. > EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really. The EU is slowly moving to making platforms responsible for their content and how they treat their users. I don’t see it as the end of the open web, however, because the web isn’t open now and haven’t been for quite some time as this channel getting wrongly banned shows you. Google is an evil advertising company and the sooner they get broken down the better.

randomswede 5y ago
So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  So what you are saying is that if youtube cannot solve the problem of scale, those problems should be dumped on the general public instead of youtube decreasing their scale? That is some interesting logic.