3 ms·

> So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Yes. In this case this is certainly b

> So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Yes. In this case this is certainly because this footage is in Disney's YouTube CMS and set to be auto-claimed. The fact that we are at the whim of an admin doing the right thing and removing that content from their CMS or at the very least changing the policy attached to it is problematic at best.

safety1st 3y ago
Intent is significant, it can determine outcomes in court rulings. So here we have this content ID system which Google claims exists to help some Google partners manage their copyright claims. One would think that would mean it helps them determine which claims are valid and which aren't. But it didn't appear to help Disney with that in this case, rather it enabled Disney to swiftly make an invalid claim after the film entered the public domain. So Google's tool in this case didn't help their partner manage valid copyright claims. Its just helped Disney suppress some other publisher. We've known for many years that Steamboat Willie would become public domain in 2024. If you were really trying to help your partners manage copyright claims wouldn't you build some notion of this into the system? Whereas if you were trying to kowtow to larger publishers in exchange for favors - maybe you would leave details like public domain out of your implementation. So what was Google's intent here? Of course they will have arguments like "it was a bug" or "that would be too hard," but finding out if those things are true is what you do discovery for.
- rezonant 3y ago
  As far as I know, Content ID has no information about public domain content, nor does it understand fair use in any way other than by allowed match percentages that you configure (as a content owner). Content owners are under agreement to only claim content that they have the rights to. If you abuse the privilege Google gives you, which is an approval system, ostensibly Google would remove your access to use the system. (Basically no chance that would happen to Disney) You are totally right that it should do these things, but I contend that an extralegal process that grants more rights to content owners (especially big ones) at the expense of fair use shouldn't be improved to the level of acceptability, I think it shouldn't be allowed.

safety1st 3y ago

Intent is significant, it can determine outcomes in court rulings. So here we have this content ID system which Google claims exists to help some Google partners manage their copyright claims. One would think that would mean it helps them determine which claims are valid and which aren't. But it didn't appear to help Disney with that in this case, rather it enabled Disney to swiftly make an invalid claim after the film entered the public domain. So Google's tool in this case didn't help their partner manage valid copyright claims. Its just helped Disney suppress some other publisher. We've known for many years that Steamboat Willie would become public domain in 2024. If you were really trying to help your partners manage copyright claims wouldn't you build some notion of this into the system? Whereas if you were trying to kowtow to larger publishers in exchange for favors - maybe you would leave details like public domain out of your implementation. So what was Google's intent here? Of course they will have arguments like "it was a bug" or "that would be too hard," but finding out if those things are true is what you do discovery for.

rezonant 3y ago
As far as I know, Content ID has no information about public domain content, nor does it understand fair use in any way other than by allowed match percentages that you configure (as a content owner). Content owners are under agreement to only claim content that they have the rights to. If you abuse the privilege Google gives you, which is an approval system, ostensibly Google would remove your access to use the system. (Basically no chance that would happen to Disney) You are totally right that it should do these things, but I contend that an extralegal process that grants more rights to content owners (especially big ones) at the expense of fair use shouldn't be improved to the level of acceptability, I think it shouldn't be allowed.