5 ms·

Isn’t that I what I wrote? Yes, the claimant is the only arbiter of the Content ID appeal, but if the uploader wants to take things further, they can force the

Isn’t that I what I wrote? Yes, the claimant is the only arbiter of the Content ID appeal, but if the uploader wants to take things further, they can force the matter from a Content ID claim to a DMCA takedown, which can ultimately be decided by a court - if a takedown is filed, a counter-notification is filed, and the rightsholder decides to sue. It is not permanently in the hands of the claimant. If the uploader believes they are not infringing with enough conviction that they are willing to potentially be sued over it, they can turn a Content ID claim into a legal matter. And if the rightsholder backs down, the uploader wins. The person I was responding to claimed that YouTube doesn’t follow the law because they don’t follow the DMCA process in relation to Content ID. This is what they wrote: >What YouTube does instead, which is absolutely unacceptable and far beyond what the law requires, is put the purported copyright holder in charge of judging the video poster's appeal, and naturally they tend to say "no". No counter-notice mechanism, video doesn't go back up. While that is, of course, technically true, in reality it’s not, since nearly [0] all Content ID claims can be turned into DMCA takedowns if the uploader is dissatisfied with the result of their Content ID appeal. And when that happens, there is the counter-notice mechanism that the parent comment claimed does not exist. [0] A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios. I don’t know for sure, but I believe those contracts are intended to make it so people can’t upload copies, let’s say, of obviously infringing feature films, and then force Sony Pictures to go through the DMCA takedown process with what may be an eleven year old kid in Vietnam, who would be all-but-impossible to sue.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios. I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal. Also: > I don’t know for sure, but I believe those contracts are intended to make it so people can’t upload copies, let’s say, of obviously infringing feature films, and then force Sony Pictures to go through the DMCA takedown process with what may be an eleven year old kid in Vietnam, who would be all-but-impossible to sue. That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either.
- trogdor 3y ago
  >I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal. Maybe. I have never received one, nor do I know anyone who has. I am also very careful about what I upload. I have paid a lot of money in fees to license content when it’s been necessary, and otherwise I would rather not take chances. Despite that, on one memorable occasion I had to fight it out with Sony Music. That dispute almost went to court, and I had a university’s First Amendment legal clinic defending my side. Fortunately, Sony Music backed down. That wasn’t fun, though. >That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either. You might be right, though I was trying to describe the reason I think those contracts exist. I wasn’t saying anything definite, nor was I saying they are a good thing, though I probably implied it. I do have personal experience having my company’s content infringed by a YouTube channel run by someone in Vietnam, and who filed a counter-notification in response to a takedown notice, despite their infringement being blatant. Suing someone overseas is ridiculously expensive, and they were probably judgment-proof anyway. It sucked. Regarding your other point, I don’t think it’s possible to have Content ID automatically match audio that is less than ten seconds long. It used to be, but it’s not anymore.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios. I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal. Also: > I don’t know for sure, but I believe those contracts are intended to make it so people can’t upload copies, let’s say, of obviously infringing feature films, and then force Sony Pictures to go through the DMCA takedown process with what may be an eleven year old kid in Vietnam, who would be all-but-impossible to sue. That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either.

trogdor 3y ago
>I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal. Maybe. I have never received one, nor do I know anyone who has. I am also very careful about what I upload. I have paid a lot of money in fees to license content when it’s been necessary, and otherwise I would rather not take chances. Despite that, on one memorable occasion I had to fight it out with Sony Music. That dispute almost went to court, and I had a university’s First Amendment legal clinic defending my side. Fortunately, Sony Music backed down. That wasn’t fun, though. >That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either. You might be right, though I was trying to describe the reason I think those contracts exist. I wasn’t saying anything definite, nor was I saying they are a good thing, though I probably implied it. I do have personal experience having my company’s content infringed by a YouTube channel run by someone in Vietnam, and who filed a counter-notification in response to a takedown notice, despite their infringement being blatant. Suing someone overseas is ridiculously expensive, and they were probably judgment-proof anyway. It sucked. Regarding your other point, I don’t think it’s possible to have Content ID automatically match audio that is less than ten seconds long. It used to be, but it’s not anymore.