5 ms·

I'm pretty sure this instance isn't a lazy regex problem (though that is also a thing), it's straight-up fraud on the part of the party making these copyright c

I'm pretty sure this instance isn't a lazy regex problem (though that is also a thing), it's straight-up fraud on the part of the party making these copyright claims. They're finding existing videos, uploading their own (infringing!) copies, then making copyright-infringement accusations against the originals. Google should be requiring people making copyright-infringement claims to provide payment information or a bond, and investigate enough of the disputes to make this scam unprofitable. Allowing this sort of thing to happen unpoliced makes YouTube videos de facto ephemeral; one of the important use cases is that people upload-and-forget things like lectures, and those have a tendency to disappear when no one's keeping an eye on them.

marcan_42 5y ago
The "original" "song" in this case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ClqZHkSnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ClqZHkSnc It is not ripped from my video; it's just someone else typing on a keyboard. Content ID just seems prone to throwing false positives on non-musical noises, since it doesn't understand that the frequency spectrum over time of noise isn't copyrightable like the frequency spectrum over time of music is. That said, yes, the system is broken in more weird ways. I have a video where I played back a B&W music video through a laser projector, and YouTube keeps offering me to make copyright claims against other videos of the same song/MV run through edge-detection algorithms and filters that look similar. The funny thing is that video is (correctly) Content ID copyright claimed/monetized by the song's owners, but I guess I have the right to place a sub-claim on copies of the video part? (even though none of the hits are actual rips of my video, just people doing similar stuff to the same source material, so they're all false positives anyway). These algorithms just don't understand derivative works; when two people use the same source material, it just thinks one ripped off the other. I did get one actual wholesale match of a rip-and-reupload against an original video of mine though, claimed it, and the author did take it down, so it worked as intended in that one case. But the false positive rate is atrocious. Edit: upon further inspection, the website of the distributor for the "song" in question says they specialize in Content ID and it's suspiciously generic: https://www.umag.io/ https://www.umag.io/. That makes me wonder if they're just a front for Content ID abuse. The "song" isn't stolen, but it might've been distributed as part of a collection of fluff to see if they get Content ID hits on noise. There are no hits for this "artist" other than the music stores themselves.
8note 5y ago
What benefit does google get from doing that?
- duxup 5y ago
  IIRC YouTube’s system was put in place after negotiations with content providers.
  - Accujack 5y ago
    Yes... content providers like the MPAA, RIAA, and other corporate organizations. Essentially, the Youtube system was permanently wired to favor the same set of interests that have corrupted the US copyright system. By automating their claim system and related customer service, Youtube achieves a high success rate for handling claims "properly" from the top few creators as organized by revenue. They probably give satisfactory service to the people who generate 90% of the money for the platform using their automated claim system, which is cheap to operate. In other words, their system handles the people who make them money and screws over anyone who's not big enough or corporate connected. People who don't make them enough money don't matter. I can hardly remember a time when Google's motto was "Don't be evil."
olliej 5y ago
They can’t charge anything, they can’t audit anything, they must basically treat every DMCA claim as being legitimate or they open themselves to liability if they’re wrong. This is not Google’s fault. It is the fault of the DMCA as it has essentially no penalty for incorrect claims. Even a deliberately fraudulent claim has no direct penalty - as I understand google would have to bring perjury charges (costing money) and likely not receive any compensation. The DMCA is trivially a useable, and it isn’t possible for a company to defend themselves from being used to enable such abuse, without opening themselves up to legal liability.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  These are not DMCA claims. These are automated Content ID claims, made possible by the automated system Google put in place for this purpose. They have nothing to do with any law. It is an extralegal mechanism. The DMCA only comes into place once disputes get rejected by the copyright holder. Google can and absolutely should police Content ID more, such as by penalizing groups that register non-music into the system.
  - olliej 5y ago
    I guess they simply don't have an incentive to do so - media companies immediately attack anything that "weakens" their tools, and their senators will act accordingly :-/
m463 5y ago
I think google could possibly watermark the original video upload somehow. It could remove frames or other information from the uploaded video, or it could add some sort of invisible watermark. Then it's possible that folks who download the video from google and try to submit it would have a less detailed video and could be easily seen as a copy.

marcan_42 5y ago

The "original" "song" in this case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ClqZHkSnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ClqZHkSnc It is not ripped from my video; it's just someone else typing on a keyboard. Content ID just seems prone to throwing false positives on non-musical noises, since it doesn't understand that the frequency spectrum over time of noise isn't copyrightable like the frequency spectrum over time of music is. That said, yes, the system is broken in more weird ways. I have a video where I played back a B&W music video through a laser projector, and YouTube keeps offering me to make copyright claims against other videos of the same song/MV run through edge-detection algorithms and filters that look similar. The funny thing is that video is (correctly) Content ID copyright claimed/monetized by the song's owners, but I guess I have the right to place a sub-claim on copies of the video part? (even though none of the hits are actual rips of my video, just people doing similar stuff to the same source material, so they're all false positives anyway). These algorithms just don't understand derivative works; when two people use the same source material, it just thinks one ripped off the other. I did get one actual wholesale match of a rip-and-reupload against an original video of mine though, claimed it, and the author did take it down, so it worked as intended in that one case. But the false positive rate is atrocious. Edit: upon further inspection, the website of the distributor for the "song" in question says they specialize in Content ID and it's suspiciously generic: https://www.umag.io/ https://www.umag.io/. That makes me wonder if they're just a front for Content ID abuse. The "song" isn't stolen, but it might've been distributed as part of a collection of fluff to see if they get Content ID hits on noise. There are no hits for this "artist" other than the music stores themselves.

8note 5y ago

What benefit does google get from doing that?

duxup 5y ago
IIRC YouTube’s system was put in place after negotiations with content providers.
- Accujack 5y ago
  Yes... content providers like the MPAA, RIAA, and other corporate organizations. Essentially, the Youtube system was permanently wired to favor the same set of interests that have corrupted the US copyright system. By automating their claim system and related customer service, Youtube achieves a high success rate for handling claims "properly" from the top few creators as organized by revenue. They probably give satisfactory service to the people who generate 90% of the money for the platform using their automated claim system, which is cheap to operate. In other words, their system handles the people who make them money and screws over anyone who's not big enough or corporate connected. People who don't make them enough money don't matter. I can hardly remember a time when Google's motto was "Don't be evil."

olliej 5y ago

They can’t charge anything, they can’t audit anything, they must basically treat every DMCA claim as being legitimate or they open themselves to liability if they’re wrong. This is not Google’s fault. It is the fault of the DMCA as it has essentially no penalty for incorrect claims. Even a deliberately fraudulent claim has no direct penalty - as I understand google would have to bring perjury charges (costing money) and likely not receive any compensation. The DMCA is trivially a useable, and it isn’t possible for a company to defend themselves from being used to enable such abuse, without opening themselves up to legal liability.

marcan_42 5y ago
These are not DMCA claims. These are automated Content ID claims, made possible by the automated system Google put in place for this purpose. They have nothing to do with any law. It is an extralegal mechanism. The DMCA only comes into place once disputes get rejected by the copyright holder. Google can and absolutely should police Content ID more, such as by penalizing groups that register non-music into the system.
- olliej 5y ago
  I guess they simply don't have an incentive to do so - media companies immediately attack anything that "weakens" their tools, and their senators will act accordingly :-/

m463 5y ago

I think google could possibly watermark the original video upload somehow. It could remove frames or other information from the uploaded video, or it could add some sort of invisible watermark. Then it's possible that folks who download the video from google and try to submit it would have a less detailed video and could be easily seen as a copy.