3 ms·

This is more of a YouTube thing. They are very trigger-happy on copyright and implement a "strike" system that will quickly get you demonetized. It's fairly eas

This is more of a YouTube thing. They are very trigger-happy on copyright and implement a "strike" system that will quickly get you demonetized. It's fairly easy to file a strike against anyone and the target has little recourse other than taking down the video even if it has nothing to do with copyright. It's not DMCA so you don't even have the right to counter-file. And of course since it's Google there's no one you can call or email to get real help unless you're a super popular channel with an assigned rep.

dehrmann 2y ago
Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims.
- chgs 2y ago
  Why?
  - Retric 2y ago
    For the overall good of society, and quite possibly to avoid lawsuits.
  - Guvante 2y ago
    Because it is considered one of the biggest problems on the platform. Creators are frustrated that unless they are big enough to get YouTube to notice them they at minimum have to dox themselves to remove a bad DMCA claim. Honestly in a world with Content ID they don't necessarily need the current system to remain as is to make the big publishers happy, who already get preemptive blocking of content without lifting a finger.
    - ysavir 2y ago
      > Creators are frustrated that unless they are big enough to get YouTube to notice them they at minimum have to dox themselves to remove a bad DMCA claim. Unfortunately, creators have very little leverage over YouTube, nor any realistic ability to move to a different platform. The can be frustrated all they want, but until YouTube has a reason to fear creators leaving the platform en masse, there's little pressure on them to change.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - ElevenLathe 2y ago
        One might argue that having tons of popular entertainers who are frustrated with the platform, and there being no exclusivity agreements with those entertainers (AFAIK, and contrary to the way Twitch treats its top streamers) would create an opportunity for competitors to pop up. That said, I don't think there is realistically anything YouTube can do do materially improve things under current laws. They can provide a real person to talk to about why the bogus claim is being taken seriously, but they still have to take it seriously. If we want Google to fix this for us, they will have to do so via lobbying to change the laws, or at least some kind of creative but successful lawsuit that dramatically changes how they are interpreted. The product people are not capable of fixing this, it's in the lawyers' and courtiers' court (so to speak).
        Guvante 2y ago
        YouTube is not doing the bare legal minimum IIRC. For instance the three strike system that results in your entire channel being demonetized is not required by law. Additionally they could work with creators to get them in touch with people who can help rather than relying on social media to forward them the worst instances.
        ysavir 2y ago
        > One might argue that having tons of popular entertainers who are frustrated with the platform, and there being no exclusivity agreements with those entertainers (AFAIK, and contrary to the way Twitch treats its top streamers) would create an opportunity for competitors to pop up. I wish, but it's not that easy. A potential competitor needs to not only start off with the ability to handle all the video uploading and delivery, but it has to also provide the audience and monetization. If YouTube was strictly a content hosting service there wouldn't be much of an obstacle in this regard, but it's also the discovery platform that audience members go to in search of content. The network effect is too strong because hosting and discovery are bundled into one.
    - chgs 2y ago
      Is this affecting YouTube’s bottom line? I’m sure that creators would like to have a person to talk to, but it doesn’t seem that alphabet needs to provide one. Will they make more money if they did?
      - Guvante 2y ago
        Demonetized means YouTube also doesn't make money. They literally stop showing ads in front of it.
- Blackthorn 2y ago
  Viacom vs YouTube is how we ended up here, unfortunately. The system didn't just spring forth from nothing.
- lmm 2y ago
  What incentive do they have to make one though? What are people who get falsely struck going to do, move to Kick?
- x-complexity 2y ago
  > Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims. [rant] Youtube *can't* have a better system, because it's based on (A) how DMCA takedowns work, (B) how Safe Harbor platforms are supposed to work, and (C) how Viacom vs Youtube made YT extremely reliant on Safe Harbor to prevent another stupid lawsuit from big corps. To have a better system in the first place, *at the very least*: - Safe Harbor protections must be boosted so that ALL copyright problems must be passed over to users, and thus shield the platform from being in *any way* liable for those violations. Lawsuits that target platforms should be automatically dismissed if they're about copyright complaints, unless it's about enforcement of the above procedure. - DMCA takedowns must require the claimant to submit public evidence of both (a) the offending snippet & (b) the contrasting source. - DMCA takedowns cannot be made for any content slice shorter than 20 seconds. - (Most importantly) Copyright claims must be "innocent until proven guilty", i.e. the claimant must be the one to prove fault, and not requiring the defendant to prove innocence. [/rant]
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    This sort of system would be get support from a sizable majority of people across political lines. The fact we don't see it implemented shows just how little public opinion can matter when it comes to the laws we have to live by.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    Or introduce cruel punishments (many years of jail together with high damage compensation) for any false copyright claims.
  - 8note 2y ago
    Youtube can have a better system by having it be straight DMCA, such that claimants have to actually submit DMCA claims that can be counterclaimed. the currently parallel system avoids claimants being held responsible for false claims
    - mjx0 2y ago
      I'm not aware of an instance of DMCA bullying resulting in the claimant being held responsible. Do you know of any?
rlpb 2y ago
I wonder if it counts as libel?
throawayonthe 2y ago
"YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is." by Tom Scott https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

dehrmann 2y ago

Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims.

chgs 2y ago
Why?
- Retric 2y ago
  For the overall good of society, and quite possibly to avoid lawsuits.
- Guvante 2y ago
  Because it is considered one of the biggest problems on the platform. Creators are frustrated that unless they are big enough to get YouTube to notice them they at minimum have to dox themselves to remove a bad DMCA claim. Honestly in a world with Content ID they don't necessarily need the current system to remain as is to make the big publishers happy, who already get preemptive blocking of content without lifting a finger.
  - ysavir 2y ago
    > Creators are frustrated that unless they are big enough to get YouTube to notice them they at minimum have to dox themselves to remove a bad DMCA claim. Unfortunately, creators have very little leverage over YouTube, nor any realistic ability to move to a different platform. The can be frustrated all they want, but until YouTube has a reason to fear creators leaving the platform en masse, there's little pressure on them to change.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ElevenLathe 2y ago
      One might argue that having tons of popular entertainers who are frustrated with the platform, and there being no exclusivity agreements with those entertainers (AFAIK, and contrary to the way Twitch treats its top streamers) would create an opportunity for competitors to pop up. That said, I don't think there is realistically anything YouTube can do do materially improve things under current laws. They can provide a real person to talk to about why the bogus claim is being taken seriously, but they still have to take it seriously. If we want Google to fix this for us, they will have to do so via lobbying to change the laws, or at least some kind of creative but successful lawsuit that dramatically changes how they are interpreted. The product people are not capable of fixing this, it's in the lawyers' and courtiers' court (so to speak).
      - Guvante 2y ago
        YouTube is not doing the bare legal minimum IIRC. For instance the three strike system that results in your entire channel being demonetized is not required by law. Additionally they could work with creators to get them in touch with people who can help rather than relying on social media to forward them the worst instances.
      - ysavir 2y ago
        > One might argue that having tons of popular entertainers who are frustrated with the platform, and there being no exclusivity agreements with those entertainers (AFAIK, and contrary to the way Twitch treats its top streamers) would create an opportunity for competitors to pop up. I wish, but it's not that easy. A potential competitor needs to not only start off with the ability to handle all the video uploading and delivery, but it has to also provide the audience and monetization. If YouTube was strictly a content hosting service there wouldn't be much of an obstacle in this regard, but it's also the discovery platform that audience members go to in search of content. The network effect is too strong because hosting and discovery are bundled into one.
  - chgs 2y ago
    Is this affecting YouTube’s bottom line? I’m sure that creators would like to have a person to talk to, but it doesn’t seem that alphabet needs to provide one. Will they make more money if they did?
    - Guvante 2y ago
      Demonetized means YouTube also doesn't make money. They literally stop showing ads in front of it.
Blackthorn 2y ago
Viacom vs YouTube is how we ended up here, unfortunately. The system didn't just spring forth from nothing.
lmm 2y ago
What incentive do they have to make one though? What are people who get falsely struck going to do, move to Kick?
x-complexity 2y ago
> Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims. [rant] Youtube *can't* have a better system, because it's based on (A) how DMCA takedowns work, (B) how Safe Harbor platforms are supposed to work, and (C) how Viacom vs Youtube made YT extremely reliant on Safe Harbor to prevent another stupid lawsuit from big corps. To have a better system in the first place, *at the very least*: - Safe Harbor protections must be boosted so that ALL copyright problems must be passed over to users, and thus shield the platform from being in *any way* liable for those violations. Lawsuits that target platforms should be automatically dismissed if they're about copyright complaints, unless it's about enforcement of the above procedure. - DMCA takedowns must require the claimant to submit public evidence of both (a) the offending snippet & (b) the contrasting source. - DMCA takedowns cannot be made for any content slice shorter than 20 seconds. - (Most importantly) Copyright claims must be "innocent until proven guilty", i.e. the claimant must be the one to prove fault, and not requiring the defendant to prove innocence. [/rant]
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  This sort of system would be get support from a sizable majority of people across political lines. The fact we don't see it implemented shows just how little public opinion can matter when it comes to the laws we have to live by.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  Or introduce cruel punishments (many years of jail together with high damage compensation) for any false copyright claims.
- 8note 2y ago
  Youtube can have a better system by having it be straight DMCA, such that claimants have to actually submit DMCA claims that can be counterclaimed. the currently parallel system avoids claimants being held responsible for false claims
  - mjx0 2y ago
    I'm not aware of an instance of DMCA bullying resulting in the claimant being held responsible. Do you know of any?

rlpb 2y ago

I wonder if it counts as libel?

throawayonthe 2y ago

"YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is." by Tom Scott https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU