3 ms·

Your positive opinion on their copyright stance does not seem to align with other YouTube creators - in particular, their complaints about aggressive automatic

Your positive opinion on their copyright stance does not seem to align with other YouTube creators - in particular, their complaints about aggressive automatic content ID application, that successful appeal often lead to the video being up but with redirected monitization to the claimant, the poor appeal process for the blind legal requests made using it, and the associated "copyright strike" system where third parties can basically terminate your source of income as a result of a few blind, incorrect takedown requests. Perhaps your type of content is less likely to get incorrect matches, or does not use fair-use or expired works often, or maybe you have access to better YouTube representatives than the average (semi-succesful or better) YouTuber.

trogdor 3y ago
I appreciate your reply. A few things: 1. Controversy sells. Content that riles people up attracts views. I have firsthand personal knowledge of a famous YouTuber, on one occasion, complaining publicly - to enormous audience response - about a Content ID claim that I know - with certainty - had already been resolved in his favor. I know that because I helped him through the process. 2. A successful appeal can never lead to the video being up, but with revenue redirected to the claimant. That is not possible. 3. The copyright strike system exists because of an act of Congress, not because of YouTube. The DMCA only shields online service providers from liability if they implement policies for terminating users who are “repeat infringers.” That’s the reason for the existence of “copyright strikes” and YouTube’s three strikes policy. I am not saying that I love Content ID or that it doesn’t have problems - even abuses. It does. But it’s also wildly misunderstood, and its faults are often overstated, even made up.

trogdor 3y ago

I appreciate your reply. A few things: 1. Controversy sells. Content that riles people up attracts views. I have firsthand personal knowledge of a famous YouTuber, on one occasion, complaining publicly - to enormous audience response - about a Content ID claim that I know - with certainty - had already been resolved in his favor. I know that because I helped him through the process. 2. A successful appeal can never lead to the video being up, but with revenue redirected to the claimant. That is not possible. 3. The copyright strike system exists because of an act of Congress, not because of YouTube. The DMCA only shields online service providers from liability if they implement policies for terminating users who are “repeat infringers.” That’s the reason for the existence of “copyright strikes” and YouTube’s three strikes policy. I am not saying that I love Content ID or that it doesn’t have problems - even abuses. It does. But it’s also wildly misunderstood, and its faults are often overstated, even made up.