4 ms·

A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.

by adaml_623 3y ago

that_guy_iain 3y ago
This isn't really an issue with YouTube's copyright system but in copyright laws.
- orra 3y ago
  No, there's a problem with both. This was a Content ID complaint, not a DMCA takedown.
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    Why is the content id system there? Oh right to make sure they don't get sued to shit.
    - orra 3y ago
      Content ID is not required for YouTube to be protected by Safe Harbor.
      - that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers. I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        You didn't claim anything. You implied that the content id system is created to make a former CEO money and in an illegal scheme. Which is complete nonsense and treated as such.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        I claimed that the reasons behind the existence and structure of the Content ID system are more complicated than just "avoiding lawsuits". I also pointed out that the primary source for that explanation is a CEO who is already known to have engaged in illegal cartel-like behavior. Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.
chrismorgan 3y ago
It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match, which it very obviously should. My experience on public domain English hymns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892.
- wolframhempel 3y ago
  I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers. - If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers. So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    Design is driven by incentives.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    Content ID’s problem is that it’s unbalanced: the power to terminate your Google account (not just your YouTube channel!) is given to any unscrupulous actor. (I dunno, maybe they have some checks in place, but I’ve heard enough of nobodies managing completely fraudulent claims that I’m confident that if they intend such checks, they’re fallible.) There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices. The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly). And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse. —⁂— ¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.

A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.

that_guy_iain 3y ago

This isn't really an issue with YouTube's copyright system but in copyright laws.

orra 3y ago
No, there's a problem with both. This was a Content ID complaint, not a DMCA takedown.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  Why is the content id system there? Oh right to make sure they don't get sued to shit.
  - orra 3y ago
    Content ID is not required for YouTube to be protected by Safe Harbor.
    - that_guy_iain 3y ago
      So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers. I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        > I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        You didn't claim anything. You implied that the content id system is created to make a former CEO money and in an illegal scheme. Which is complete nonsense and treated as such.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        I claimed that the reasons behind the existence and structure of the Content ID system are more complicated than just "avoiding lawsuits". I also pointed out that the primary source for that explanation is a CEO who is already known to have engaged in illegal cartel-like behavior. Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.

chrismorgan 3y ago

It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match, which it very obviously should. My experience on public domain English hymns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892.

wolframhempel 3y ago
I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers. - If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers. So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
- colordrops 3y ago
  Design is driven by incentives.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  Content ID’s problem is that it’s unbalanced: the power to terminate your Google account (not just your YouTube channel!) is given to any unscrupulous actor. (I dunno, maybe they have some checks in place, but I’ve heard enough of nobodies managing completely fraudulent claims that I’m confident that if they intend such checks, they’re fallible.) There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices. The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly). And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse. —⁂— ¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.