6 ms·

YouTube's copyright system isn't broken, the world's is (2020) [video]

166 points by CHB0403085482 3y ago

ntlwax 3y ago
[flagged]
- jfax 3y ago
  Which individual do you identify as anti copyright with respect to this video?
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Nothing broken with three strikes from someone fraudulently claiming you've infringed without any proof? They should just implement solely what the DMCA requires (take down on notice, restore on counternotice) and the trolls would disappear. Their masters don't like that because it costs them money to litigate as intended by the law.
- Aunche 3y ago
  A copyright strike does require the claimant to submit a valid DMCA complaint. If a creator wants to ignore the YouTube's copyright strike system entirely, and YouTube will get rid of the strike, but that also means that you're accepting the legal liability instead of YouTube.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    That's not how it works with content ID falsely flagging non-infringing content. YouTube doesn't actually implement the DMCA process. They have their own bizarro version where "takedowns" don't take content down but instead revenue is redirected toward a troll. Fran Blanche got a strike for a film with the sound of blowing wind. She's gotten many other strikes from public domain content. Sony claiming the sound of wind: https://youtu.be/3TFESXDVdhM https://youtu.be/3TFESXDVdhM Troll claiming ownership of PD NASA films: https://youtu.be/1qCM9L_FaFU https://youtu.be/1qCM9L_FaFU Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32159830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32159830
    - paulgb 3y ago
      You’re both right. Aunche said that a copyright strike requires a valid DMCA complaint. A copyright owner can have material removed without a DMCA takedown, but it does not result in a copyright strike. From google: > Also, Content ID claims don't result in a strike. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en
    - Aunche 3y ago
      Simply complying with DMCA takedowns doesn't mean that YouTube gets to make money from copyrighted material that copyright holders didn't send a takedown for. That's why they got sued by Viacom and had to make the ContentID system as a compromise. Again, if you want to get rid of a strike, you just have to submit a counternotification. If it's obviously bullshit, then you'll get your video reinstated and you're probably not going to get sued. It sucks that you have to deal with this, but the harsh truth is that you just have to deal with stuff like this as a business owner.
    - hedora 3y ago
      In particular, fraudulent DMCA takedown notices create civil liability, so you can sue people that DMCA troll you. I'd wager that the YouTube EULA makes it clear that fraudulent YouTube takedowns do not create liability, and therefore protect the trolls.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        Abuse of DMCA has been common since inception but people rarely successfully retaliate because it could trivially run into 10s of thousands of dollars to do so with dubious chances of recovery. Furthermore if they have obfuscated their identity or are overseas you are unlikely to receive any satisfaction. Take downs ought to required to be attached to a substantial bond per creator not per work that can be recovered in country without substantial litigation. Legit creators could act through an intermediary while paying only a small fraction of the bond under the premise that they would rarely lose the bond and could recover from someone who has a legal identity attached. Trolls would virtually cease to exist as it would be expensive and futile. Post one fake notice lose your money exit. Legit companies that presently haphazardly take down programmatically would adjust their strategy after they lost the nth bond.
- jchw 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure the actual reason the Content ID and copyright strike system exists because Google was tired of getting sued by everybody. DMCA should've made it so that they effectively didn't have much liability, but they were getting sued by Viacom and probably would continue to be sued by just about everyone else, too (in an era where afaik YouTube remained unprofitable.) To quote them: > "[YouTube] goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works." But media companies didn't like far beyond legal obligations, they wanted more. And existentially, maybe YouTube was right to do that. Today, YouTube is clearly profitable and it's more culturally relevant than television in many places. But 10 years ago, it was edgy and new, scrappy, it didn't have as much mainstream appeal, and even if they ultimately won all of those lawsuits eventually, it would've left them with a ridiculous amount of legal spending and a bunch of possibly permanently severed relationships with the media companies that had all of the money. I don't think Google wanted to just delete channels of everybody. I think they did want to delete channels of people who were just splitting Family Guy episodes into 15 minute chunks and uploading that, but definitely there's a reason why copyright claims on YouTube today have more cardinality (depending on the kind of claim, for example, it can result in ad revenue going to the claimant, geoblocking, etc. Which also can be bad outcomes, but is a better outcome than just demolishing people's channels.) Google is a lot more on the evil end of things today than they ever were, but back when all of this went down in 2010-2014 it wasn't so bad. I think YouTube's compromise reflects more than just problems with Google. I think they developed a copyright system that would prevent them from being in constant legal turmoil indefinitely.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    It is still not clear that YouTube is profitable according to many analysts.
    - Andrex 3y ago
      Would love a source either way.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
- Matheus28 3y ago
  DMCA requires handling of repeat infringers so something similar to the three strikes has to exist.
  - kd5bjo 3y ago
    There’s a presumption of innocence to consider, though: Until a court has entered a judgment for copyright infringement against someone, they are only an alleged infringer.
throwaway290 3y ago
Featuring Jay Foreman's quasi-legal cameo! Worlds collide! (I wish this whole video was done by Jay, he is infinitely more entertaining and less patronizing sounding) (The post should have 2020 in the title) (but it is relevant today bc Tom's remarks about casual theft of photographers and other creators hard work directly apply to AI training. ClosedAI is basically the Giphy in his video)
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
(2020)
JdeBP 3y ago
YouTube has been recommending this to me on and off for years, probably since I first watched a Tom Scott video. I've still never actually watched it, because I really don't need a Tom Scott explainer of copyright. (-: When the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/regulation/8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/regulation/8) is repealed at the end of 2023, because it is Retained EU Law pursuant to an E.U. Directive (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2001/29/article/5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2001/29/article/5) made under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972, and making temporary copies in HTTP proxies and WWW browser caches becomes illegal again in the U.K. (which was one fault in a 1988 Act that the 2003 regulations were fixing), I wonder whether Tom Scott will notice.
- jon-wood 3y ago
  The government have backpedaled hard from their pogram against EU law, I suspect because someone finally managed to get across that just expunging a huge swathe of legislation without anyone knowing what exactly the result would be is bad for business.
- lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
  You sure about that? If you look at s1(6) of the Retained EU Law Act [1]: > The revocation of an instrument by subsection (1) does not affect an amendment made by the instrument to any other enactment. If you read the Explanatory Notes to the Commons Bill, it states this at paragraph 71 on page 11 [3]: > Subsection (3) clarifies that any amendments made by EU-derived subordinate legislation and RDEUL are not within scope of subsection (1). For example, where an instrument made under section 2(2) ECA 19721 is revoked by the sunset, if that instrument amended primary legislation, the amendment in the primary legislation will be unaffected. (Subsection 1(3) is now subsection 1(6) due to amendments, but the text of the subsection is unchanged.) The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 amends the CDPA - and the particular clause you refer to has been inserted in to the CDPA as s28A. Were the regulation to cease to apply due to s1 of the Retained EU Law Act, it wouldn't matter because all it does is amend CDPA so falls within the amending exception. As the Bill passed through Parliament, it was amended to require the Government to fully explicate all the legislation that would be affected and include it in a Schedule to the Bill. If you check the schedules, the CRR isn't on there. The government have published a commented list of this schedule as an OpenDocument spreadsheet which gives a little more explanation of why they're repealing each particular one. [3] If you download it and CTRL-F for copyright, the only entry is the Artist's Resale Right (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which it lists as superseded by the 2011 regulations but not formally repealed. The Retained EU Law Act is likely to have some important effects, and there are some important legal provisions like the Working TIme Directive and various bits of environmental law that will be going through the process in s1, but on copyright, it does nothing. Certainly not repealing s28A of CDPA. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28/pdfs/ukpga_20230028_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28/pdfs/ukpga_2023... (it's not been HTML-ified yet...) [2] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0156/en/220156en.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0156... [3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schedule-of-retained-eu-law https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schedule-of-retai...
tyingq 3y ago
Anything Google owned, though, makes it especially difficult to get a human being to help when automation has lost the plot.
amelius 3y ago
We need laws for crowdsourced IP.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  What specific element of the problem is this addressing? Does it in fact address all the issues that Scott raises in his video?
  - amelius 3y ago
    Ok, I admit I didn't watch the video.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Some time back I'd written a bit on the hierarchies of failure, or if you invert the sign bit, mandatory success chain, in problem solving: awareness (is there a problem?), diagnosis (what is it?), etiology (root cause), objective (goal or desired end-state), redress (intervention or method), communications (coordination & recruiting of others), execution (getting ... things done), and assessment (post mortem, how did things go?). See: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddi...> I've noticed many people: - Fail to acknowledge a problem at all. - Come up with the wrong diagnosis (mistaking symptoms for syndrome, or falsely attributing root cause). Also, as you have, identifying a part but not the significant whole of the problem. - Leaping straight in with a preferred method, a/k/a the "if you have a hammer..." syndrome (everything is a nail), or "garbage can theory" (you'll apply the set of tools in your toolbox to every problem, regardless of whether or not they fit). The other stages, successful execution, coordination (which often significantly involved preventing others from blocking effective measures), and assessment, also appear, but typically are mooted by issues further up the chain, or apply to grander-scale problems. Watch the video if you have the chance. It's good and thoughtful. And it really doesn't involve crowdsourced work to much degree. Edit: Swapped Wayback link for origin which is ... on RedditStrike.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ThatMedicIsASpy 3y ago
If you refuse to provide human customer service scaling depending on how many users/issues you have then your system is broken. This can also be said for VALVe since their dev team also does customer service (at their scale).
kosolam 3y ago
Anything and everything related to Youtube is broken. YouTube and Google is the cradle of evil. I dare you to prove me wrong.
- eimrine 3y ago
  10 years ago the corporation of evil was M$, when Google the Don't Be Evil eventually became more evil? I agree with the statement but seems like I have missed the moment when it happened.
  - jug 3y ago
    I think it was a long time ago now, back when Google stopped improving their core service (search) to help profits through a better service than the rest and no longer "breaking markets" like introducing Gmail with seemingly infinite storage at the time... (another service that has stalled) And now instead rather going for squeezing out profits by keeping people on their sites and selling their data. But maybe it was just a realization of what was more profitable? R&D becomes exponentially more expensive the more advanced search you try to provide, but any random weird company will be interested in user data for marketing.
    - eimrine 3y ago
      > seemingly infinite storage Just a little anecdote: I have subscribed to a lot of newsletters about some FOSS projects I like. I use to never read those letters and now I have reached the limit. Now I can not delete those newsletters without deleting everything because I can not mark more than few tens of those letters at once while having few millions of them.
      - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        That sounds excruciating. If possible, I suggest using email-to-RSS to solve that problem in the future.
      - knome 3y ago
sametmax 3y ago
Putting the burden of proof on the accused is broken, and it's not a feature of the world. It's a design choice by Youtube.
- immibis 3y ago
  It's definitely a feature of the world. If you are accused you have to pay (for a large company) potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars even if you are innocent.
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
Why can’t both be true? That both the world’s copyright system and YouTube’s is fundamentally broken. YouTube assumes “guilty until proven innocent” because that’s cheaper. It’s cheaper because properly following the chain of what constitutes free speech and whether a claim is legitimate are costly questions. So it just ignores all of that and takes action because otherwise copyright trolls like the RIAA would attack them. And that’s a big part of the problem, real world copyright laws and the DMCA are mostly used to protect large corporations. In the US it used to be 20+5 for copyright. The Founding Fathers reasoned that an artist deserved that long to profit off their successes, but that they should still innovate and create beyond that initial creation. Nowadays it’s death of the author + 75 years, or for anything produced before 1978, + 67. Walt Disney’s death was 66 years ago, with Mickey Mouse due to enter the public domain in 2024. We’re already hearing talks of Disney “losing Mickey Mouse”, so expect some intense lobbying and a bipartisan copyright bill to extend it to 100 and 87. And beyond the Death of Public Domain, we have laws such as the DMCA which are heavily abused across the entire Internet. Censoring information left and right, even when it’s perfectly legal and would be found so under the law. It’s a completely draconian idea with no balance at all. So yes, the copyright system in general is broken, but so is YouTube. And shifting the blame does not absolve YouTube of killing off the ability to have a human review the process, especially at their profit levels. Instead, it just shows Tom Scott is an apologist for YouTube, which makes sense considering that’s where his paycheck comes from.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  > YouTube assumes “guilty until proven innocent” because that’s cheaper. It’s cheaper because properly following the chain of what constitutes free speech and whether a claim is legitimate are costly questions. My impression was that the law itself was fine in this respect -- a claim could be met with a counterclaim (requiring legal commitment from the alleged offender -- signatures, identity, jurisdiction) and YouTube could then restore the media pending actual litigation. In other words, Legal Entity vs Anonymous defaults to a takedown, but Legal Entity vs Legal Entity defaults to keep up. That sounds reasonable to me, and the fact that youtube doesn't work that way is not a consequence of law but rather a corporate choice to put luxurious accommodation of large copyright holders ahead of basic decency towards content creators. > [Copyright creep is corporate welfare] Yep. Gross.

166 points by CHB0403085482 3y ago

ntlwax 3y ago

[flagged]

jfax 3y ago
Which individual do you identify as anti copyright with respect to this video?

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

Nothing broken with three strikes from someone fraudulently claiming you've infringed without any proof? They should just implement solely what the DMCA requires (take down on notice, restore on counternotice) and the trolls would disappear. Their masters don't like that because it costs them money to litigate as intended by the law.

Aunche 3y ago
A copyright strike does require the claimant to submit a valid DMCA complaint. If a creator wants to ignore the YouTube's copyright strike system entirely, and YouTube will get rid of the strike, but that also means that you're accepting the legal liability instead of YouTube.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  That's not how it works with content ID falsely flagging non-infringing content. YouTube doesn't actually implement the DMCA process. They have their own bizarro version where "takedowns" don't take content down but instead revenue is redirected toward a troll. Fran Blanche got a strike for a film with the sound of blowing wind. She's gotten many other strikes from public domain content. Sony claiming the sound of wind: https://youtu.be/3TFESXDVdhM https://youtu.be/3TFESXDVdhM Troll claiming ownership of PD NASA films: https://youtu.be/1qCM9L_FaFU https://youtu.be/1qCM9L_FaFU Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32159830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32159830
  - paulgb 3y ago
    You’re both right. Aunche said that a copyright strike requires a valid DMCA complaint. A copyright owner can have material removed without a DMCA takedown, but it does not result in a copyright strike. From google: > Also, Content ID claims don't result in a strike. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en
  - Aunche 3y ago
    Simply complying with DMCA takedowns doesn't mean that YouTube gets to make money from copyrighted material that copyright holders didn't send a takedown for. That's why they got sued by Viacom and had to make the ContentID system as a compromise. Again, if you want to get rid of a strike, you just have to submit a counternotification. If it's obviously bullshit, then you'll get your video reinstated and you're probably not going to get sued. It sucks that you have to deal with this, but the harsh truth is that you just have to deal with stuff like this as a business owner.
  - hedora 3y ago
    In particular, fraudulent DMCA takedown notices create civil liability, so you can sue people that DMCA troll you. I'd wager that the YouTube EULA makes it clear that fraudulent YouTube takedowns do not create liability, and therefore protect the trolls.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      Abuse of DMCA has been common since inception but people rarely successfully retaliate because it could trivially run into 10s of thousands of dollars to do so with dubious chances of recovery. Furthermore if they have obfuscated their identity or are overseas you are unlikely to receive any satisfaction. Take downs ought to required to be attached to a substantial bond per creator not per work that can be recovered in country without substantial litigation. Legit creators could act through an intermediary while paying only a small fraction of the bond under the premise that they would rarely lose the bond and could recover from someone who has a legal identity attached. Trolls would virtually cease to exist as it would be expensive and futile. Post one fake notice lose your money exit. Legit companies that presently haphazardly take down programmatically would adjust their strategy after they lost the nth bond.
jchw 3y ago
I'm pretty sure the actual reason the Content ID and copyright strike system exists because Google was tired of getting sued by everybody. DMCA should've made it so that they effectively didn't have much liability, but they were getting sued by Viacom and probably would continue to be sued by just about everyone else, too (in an era where afaik YouTube remained unprofitable.) To quote them: > "[YouTube] goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works." But media companies didn't like far beyond legal obligations, they wanted more. And existentially, maybe YouTube was right to do that. Today, YouTube is clearly profitable and it's more culturally relevant than television in many places. But 10 years ago, it was edgy and new, scrappy, it didn't have as much mainstream appeal, and even if they ultimately won all of those lawsuits eventually, it would've left them with a ridiculous amount of legal spending and a bunch of possibly permanently severed relationships with the media companies that had all of the money. I don't think Google wanted to just delete channels of everybody. I think they did want to delete channels of people who were just splitting Family Guy episodes into 15 minute chunks and uploading that, but definitely there's a reason why copyright claims on YouTube today have more cardinality (depending on the kind of claim, for example, it can result in ad revenue going to the claimant, geoblocking, etc. Which also can be bad outcomes, but is a better outcome than just demolishing people's channels.) Google is a lot more on the evil end of things today than they ever were, but back when all of this went down in 2010-2014 it wasn't so bad. I think YouTube's compromise reflects more than just problems with Google. I think they developed a copyright system that would prevent them from being in constant legal turmoil indefinitely.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  It is still not clear that YouTube is profitable according to many analysts.
  - Andrex 3y ago
    Would love a source either way.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
Matheus28 3y ago
DMCA requires handling of repeat infringers so something similar to the three strikes has to exist.
- kd5bjo 3y ago
  There’s a presumption of innocence to consider, though: Until a court has entered a judgment for copyright infringement against someone, they are only an alleged infringer.

throwaway290 3y ago

Featuring Jay Foreman's quasi-legal cameo! Worlds collide! (I wish this whole video was done by Jay, he is infinitely more entertaining and less patronizing sounding) (The post should have 2020 in the title) (but it is relevant today bc Tom's remarks about casual theft of photographers and other creators hard work directly apply to AI training. ClosedAI is basically the Giphy in his video)

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

(2020)

JdeBP 3y ago

YouTube has been recommending this to me on and off for years, probably since I first watched a Tom Scott video. I've still never actually watched it, because I really don't need a Tom Scott explainer of copyright. (-: When the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/regulation/8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/regulation/8) is repealed at the end of 2023, because it is Retained EU Law pursuant to an E.U. Directive (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2001/29/article/5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2001/29/article/5) made under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972, and making temporary copies in HTTP proxies and WWW browser caches becomes illegal again in the U.K. (which was one fault in a 1988 Act that the 2003 regulations were fixing), I wonder whether Tom Scott will notice.

jon-wood 3y ago
The government have backpedaled hard from their pogram against EU law, I suspect because someone finally managed to get across that just expunging a huge swathe of legislation without anyone knowing what exactly the result would be is bad for business.
lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
You sure about that? If you look at s1(6) of the Retained EU Law Act [1]: > The revocation of an instrument by subsection (1) does not affect an amendment made by the instrument to any other enactment. If you read the Explanatory Notes to the Commons Bill, it states this at paragraph 71 on page 11 [3]: > Subsection (3) clarifies that any amendments made by EU-derived subordinate legislation and RDEUL are not within scope of subsection (1). For example, where an instrument made under section 2(2) ECA 19721 is revoked by the sunset, if that instrument amended primary legislation, the amendment in the primary legislation will be unaffected. (Subsection 1(3) is now subsection 1(6) due to amendments, but the text of the subsection is unchanged.) The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 amends the CDPA - and the particular clause you refer to has been inserted in to the CDPA as s28A. Were the regulation to cease to apply due to s1 of the Retained EU Law Act, it wouldn't matter because all it does is amend CDPA so falls within the amending exception. As the Bill passed through Parliament, it was amended to require the Government to fully explicate all the legislation that would be affected and include it in a Schedule to the Bill. If you check the schedules, the CRR isn't on there. The government have published a commented list of this schedule as an OpenDocument spreadsheet which gives a little more explanation of why they're repealing each particular one. [3] If you download it and CTRL-F for copyright, the only entry is the Artist's Resale Right (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which it lists as superseded by the 2011 regulations but not formally repealed. The Retained EU Law Act is likely to have some important effects, and there are some important legal provisions like the Working TIme Directive and various bits of environmental law that will be going through the process in s1, but on copyright, it does nothing. Certainly not repealing s28A of CDPA. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28/pdfs/ukpga_20230028_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28/pdfs/ukpga_2023... (it's not been HTML-ified yet...) [2] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0156/en/220156en.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0156... [3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schedule-of-retained-eu-law https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schedule-of-retai...

tyingq 3y ago

Anything Google owned, though, makes it especially difficult to get a human being to help when automation has lost the plot.

amelius 3y ago

We need laws for crowdsourced IP.

dredmorbius 3y ago
What specific element of the problem is this addressing? Does it in fact address all the issues that Scott raises in his video?
- amelius 3y ago
  Ok, I admit I didn't watch the video.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Some time back I'd written a bit on the hierarchies of failure, or if you invert the sign bit, mandatory success chain, in problem solving: awareness (is there a problem?), diagnosis (what is it?), etiology (root cause), objective (goal or desired end-state), redress (intervention or method), communications (coordination & recruiting of others), execution (getting ... things done), and assessment (post mortem, how did things go?). See: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddi...> I've noticed many people: - Fail to acknowledge a problem at all. - Come up with the wrong diagnosis (mistaking symptoms for syndrome, or falsely attributing root cause). Also, as you have, identifying a part but not the significant whole of the problem. - Leaping straight in with a preferred method, a/k/a the "if you have a hammer..." syndrome (everything is a nail), or "garbage can theory" (you'll apply the set of tools in your toolbox to every problem, regardless of whether or not they fit). The other stages, successful execution, coordination (which often significantly involved preventing others from blocking effective measures), and assessment, also appear, but typically are mooted by issues further up the chain, or apply to grander-scale problems. Watch the video if you have the chance. It's good and thoughtful. And it really doesn't involve crowdsourced work to much degree. Edit: Swapped Wayback link for origin which is ... on RedditStrike.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ThatMedicIsASpy 3y ago

If you refuse to provide human customer service scaling depending on how many users/issues you have then your system is broken. This can also be said for VALVe since their dev team also does customer service (at their scale).

kosolam 3y ago

Anything and everything related to Youtube is broken. YouTube and Google is the cradle of evil. I dare you to prove me wrong.

eimrine 3y ago
10 years ago the corporation of evil was M$, when Google the Don't Be Evil eventually became more evil? I agree with the statement but seems like I have missed the moment when it happened.
- jug 3y ago
  I think it was a long time ago now, back when Google stopped improving their core service (search) to help profits through a better service than the rest and no longer "breaking markets" like introducing Gmail with seemingly infinite storage at the time... (another service that has stalled) And now instead rather going for squeezing out profits by keeping people on their sites and selling their data. But maybe it was just a realization of what was more profitable? R&D becomes exponentially more expensive the more advanced search you try to provide, but any random weird company will be interested in user data for marketing.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > seemingly infinite storage Just a little anecdote: I have subscribed to a lot of newsletters about some FOSS projects I like. I use to never read those letters and now I have reached the limit. Now I can not delete those newsletters without deleting everything because I can not mark more than few tens of those letters at once while having few millions of them.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      That sounds excruciating. If possible, I suggest using email-to-RSS to solve that problem in the future.
    - knome 3y ago

sametmax 3y ago

Putting the burden of proof on the accused is broken, and it's not a feature of the world. It's a design choice by Youtube.

immibis 3y ago
It's definitely a feature of the world. If you are accused you have to pay (for a large company) potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars even if you are innocent.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

Why can’t both be true? That both the world’s copyright system and YouTube’s is fundamentally broken. YouTube assumes “guilty until proven innocent” because that’s cheaper. It’s cheaper because properly following the chain of what constitutes free speech and whether a claim is legitimate are costly questions. So it just ignores all of that and takes action because otherwise copyright trolls like the RIAA would attack them. And that’s a big part of the problem, real world copyright laws and the DMCA are mostly used to protect large corporations. In the US it used to be 20+5 for copyright. The Founding Fathers reasoned that an artist deserved that long to profit off their successes, but that they should still innovate and create beyond that initial creation. Nowadays it’s death of the author + 75 years, or for anything produced before 1978, + 67. Walt Disney’s death was 66 years ago, with Mickey Mouse due to enter the public domain in 2024. We’re already hearing talks of Disney “losing Mickey Mouse”, so expect some intense lobbying and a bipartisan copyright bill to extend it to 100 and 87. And beyond the Death of Public Domain, we have laws such as the DMCA which are heavily abused across the entire Internet. Censoring information left and right, even when it’s perfectly legal and would be found so under the law. It’s a completely draconian idea with no balance at all. So yes, the copyright system in general is broken, but so is YouTube. And shifting the blame does not absolve YouTube of killing off the ability to have a human review the process, especially at their profit levels. Instead, it just shows Tom Scott is an apologist for YouTube, which makes sense considering that’s where his paycheck comes from.

jjoonathan 3y ago
> YouTube assumes “guilty until proven innocent” because that’s cheaper. It’s cheaper because properly following the chain of what constitutes free speech and whether a claim is legitimate are costly questions. My impression was that the law itself was fine in this respect -- a claim could be met with a counterclaim (requiring legal commitment from the alleged offender -- signatures, identity, jurisdiction) and YouTube could then restore the media pending actual litigation. In other words, Legal Entity vs Anonymous defaults to a takedown, but Legal Entity vs Legal Entity defaults to keep up. That sounds reasonable to me, and the fact that youtube doesn't work that way is not a consequence of law but rather a corporate choice to put luxurious accommodation of large copyright holders ahead of basic decency towards content creators. > [Copyright creep is corporate welfare] Yep. Gross.