6 ms·

> According to YouTube, about 6 percent of removals from July to December 2023 were abusive, along with 10 times more attempted abusive removals I uploaded the

• onemoresoop 2y ago
  What I don’t understand is how can they ransack through unlisted and private videos?
  • equestria 2y ago
    Google does the "ransacking" for them - ContentID.
    • itronitron 2y ago
      Funny how the companies doing the scanning to enforce copyright are also the same ones building generative AI capabilities off the copyrighted data.
      • kube-system 2y ago
        Not really, considering the origins of ContentID. It's just the same story over again. Google/YouTube didn't really want to build ContentID. It was a concession as a result of lawsuits from Viacom (and others) from the early days of YouTube, where they were about to be sued out of existence for having a platform, which at the time, was filled with blatantly pirated content.
      • lmpdev 2y ago
        Laws for thee but not for me
  • can16358p 2y ago
    Probably YouTube scanned it, found something potentially actionable, automatically informed the representatives. The video was unlisted, which is not private, technically totally accessible to anyone with the link.
  • diegof79 2y ago
    I can confirm from my experience that Google also automatically scans private videos. My YouTube account was recently mistakenly suspended; luckily, after a few minutes of panic, Google reinstated it. I discovered the suspension because my kid wanted to see a video on my TV's YouTube app (LG webOS), which showed an error without further explanation. Trying to find out what happened, I saw an email from YT about my account breaking the ToS with a video. "WTF!? I got pwned!" was my first reaction (followed by panic as YT uses my Google account). But, no, the culprit was a screen recording in 2015 that I did at work to showcase a UI prototype about a key-based VPC setup workflow I was working on. The video was private and unlisted, and I didn't remember it as I did it as a quick capture to share an idea with the team. I hypothesize that the video got flagged because the algorithm confused it with a "crack/hack tutorial." I was happy to see my account reinstated the same day. However, the whole experience didn't leave good taste: a small algorithm mistake can make your life miserable, and you don't have any human or support to correct it. Also, the "private" moniker in YT videos is an illusion.
    • thephyber 2y ago
      I have refused to create any content on YouTube for this reason. My Google account is too valuable to my digital identity. When Google banned a user because their Google Drive was used to share a picture of their child’s skin with the doctor for diagnosis reasons and Google flagged the account as CSAM, I felt vindicated that I don’t create content for YouTube. Not because I believe my content would get banned, but because their automated systems catch irrelevant content and the user experience of those instances is like a DoS on your digital identity.
      • kelvinjps10 2y ago
        Just use a separated google account for your channel?
  • sam0x17 2y ago
    RIAA types are terrified of the idea of secret networks of people sharing private links
    • jeroenhd 2y ago
      And rightfully so, back in the day I watched more than a few episodes through secret delisted playlists. They still exist, presumably hidden so that one of those AI copyright bots ("companies") can't take down every video in one fell swoop.
      • deadbabe 2y ago
        How do you find them?
        • jeroenhd 2y ago
          Back in the day I found them on forums that required accounts. I've long since switched to other mechanisms for pirating content not available in my region, so I wouldn't know where to find them these days. Presumably, there are Discord servers for that kind of thing, seeing as Discord has mostly replaced the forums of yore.
  • reaperducer 2y ago
    What I don’t understand is how can they ransack through unlisted and private videos? Can they just iterate through the URL keys? youtu.be/v=a0000aa youtu.be/v=a0000ab youtu.be/v=a0000ac youtu.be/v=a0000ad
    • dumbfounder 2y ago
      Sure, you just need to go through the 74 quintillion possibilities. Every day.
      • reaperducer 2y ago
        Only if the 74 quntillion possibilities exist. There's a pretty good percentage of 404s. Plus, they don't have to do it every day, and clearly don't, since some people get dinged for videos they uploaded months or years earlier. It's not like these organizations don't have the cash for the system to do it. It's not going to be one guy in the basement of the building overclocking a 386.
        • dumbfounder 2y ago
          You are making zero sense. The point is the ids are random, so yes there are 74 quintillion possibilities. And roughly 74 quintillion 404’s. You need to check all of them. If you want to keep up with them you need to check them often. No one has the cash to check 74 quintillion anything even with a million 386s. Even the 386sx.
        • Althorion 2y ago
          You won’t know if you’ll get a 404 until you make a network request. How many of those can you make per second? Hundreds? Thousands? Let’s be very generous and say millions. That means you just need millions of years to go through the entire range.
• david_allison 2y ago
  I'm getting content ID copyright warnings [not strikes] on audio recordings from the 1940s/50s.
  • jdietrich 2y ago
    Ahem: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap14.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap14.html
    • david_allison 2y ago
      Thankfully I have appropriate permissions
  • gjsman-1000 2y ago
    > audio recordings Recordings are copyrightable even if the underlying music is public domain. If you record a performance of Mozart's 40th symphony on your phone, you can be sued for copyright violations by the concert hall. (Don't be surprised that concert halls perform for more than just the attendees.)
• techjamie 2y ago
  It gets a little complicated around old pieces like that. As usual, I am not a lawyer, consult a legal professional before making any decisions based on this information. Even though an old work like that is in the public domain, if it was played as a recording, whoever owns the rights to the recording still has a claim to copyright. But even if it was played live and sung by the attendees, that doesn't necessarily mean the sheet music is public domain. Pianos from hundreds of years ago didn't play exactly like a modern piano, so there may have been an intermediary step where the original piece was modified to work on a modern piano when the sheet music went to print. The modifications to the sheet music could grant the person who sold the book a copyright. Doesn't necessarily mean the person has a valid claim, but it's not impossible.
  • ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > Pianos from hundreds of years ago didn't play exactly like a modern piano, so there may have been an intermediary step where the original piece was modified to work on a modern piano when the sheet music went to print. This is preposterous.
    • grayhatter 2y ago
      Welcome to US copyright law
    • AlotOfReading 2y ago
      Transcription (and arrangement) can involve a pretty serious amount of creative input. How do you think they should be handled instead?
      • mort96 2y ago
        I certainly don't think transcribing an old piece should mean that you now own the piece for the next 160 years.
        • gjsman-1000 2y ago
• netdevphoenix 2y ago
  Since the video was unlisted, it is likely that it was something flagged accidentally as opposed to someone actually trying to take it down
  • immibis 2y ago
    No, it's likely that someone is trying to extract maximum profit from their IP library.
    • netdevphoenix 2y ago
      But OP said the music was 18th century hymns. That's not in anyone's IP library. Not sure why I got downvoted for saying that
• catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  Offtopic. Last year I uploaded a recording of the mass for the wedding of my sister's sister in law (the husband had terminal cancer) My homebrew recording was expected days before the official recording. Youtube decided it was agaisnt community guidelines or something. Religion? Music? Child abuse (the ones spreading flowers)? Who knows. My appeal was successful like 6 months later. For the time being, upload it to somewhere else than youtube, like pcloud, dailymotion, etc. Youtube is the best techwise, but the legal situation is not stable. Best left for professionals (influencers)
• fsckboy 2y ago
  >But if I don't contest the claims, how can youtube possibly count them as abusive? I'm not saying Alphabet/Google/Youtube did this, but they do things on a massive scale and they could "look into" a reasonable sample of claims all on their own and generate very good statistics. (always good to remember, statistical significance is independent of population size, only dependent on sample size, and rather small samples have a lot of significance, see birthday paradox)
  • speerer 2y ago
    I don't think it's right that statistical significance is independent of population. 1 sample out of a population size 1 is plainly more significant than 1 in 100.
    • fsckboy 2y ago
      I'm not good enough at this to be explaining it, but statistical significance is based on probabilities. if humans have a 10% chance of having cancer at any moment, and you have one human on an entire planet, the probability for that planet is still 1/10 and not 100% or 0 based on whether that person has or does not have cancer, and having one sample from that population of 1 does not increase your confidence in the answer as to whether his cancer represents a cancer cluster. or something like that. If you need a sample of 30 people to achieve a certain degree of confidence, whether that sample comes from a population of 30 people or a population of 100,000 people, same confidence. We aren't trying to establish what percentage of people have cancer at any given moment, we are trying to establish whether this population matches what we know about the percentage who "should" have cancer. I'm really bad at explaining this. the more times you flip a coin, the more confidence you'll have in understanding the probabilities of that coin. for a given confidence level, you don't need to flip that coin more by 100x, you already know. There might be a population of a million coin flips, but you just need a sample of a certain size to obtain confidence that your sample is representative.
  • gritspartan 2y ago
    Scale is part of the problem. It actually hurts small businesses. There is a probably on Google Maps where a marketer will setup a website, a lot of business listings, and get a Google Business Profile for a "local business" which doesn't actually exist. This is all setup to attract unsuspecting customers to share their information which is then sold to local contractors often without informing the customers and/or the local contractors. It's a practice known as lead gen and/or rank-and-rent. For an example, you can look up a "business" called Seattle Grease Trap Services on Google Maps. It's part of a network of fake businesses run by marketer in Hawaii. Check the profiles of the people who leave reviews to find some of the others. Another example is found by searching for deck builders in Chicago. There are several variations of Koval, TOD, CPC, and similar companies. This is all operated by a local marketing company that I managed to identify in less than an hour. I report these frauds, nothing happens. I escalate. Nothing happens. So I've given up, but I know that these listings cost local businesses actually work. And even though they're against Google guidelines, nothing happens.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > for hymns written in the 18th century. YouTube matches a lot of classical music even if it was played by a different person. I mean, I uploaded a recording of myself playing something and it was flagged. But you can just contest it and most of the time it just goes away.
  • metadat 2y ago
    How is it valid to claim owernship over classical music, unless it is of a specific performance?
    • chii 2y ago
      It's not valid. But some punters try to make such a claim, in the hopes of a few dollars. It's fraud, but youtube/google cannot police it properly, because the bigger media companies _want_ to be able to make claims easier than a true DMCA claim. I do not believe this can be fixed, as they're diametrically opposed.
    • vouaobrasil 2y ago
      It isn't. The algorithm just can't distinguish between two performances many times.
    • pyuser583 2y ago
      Wouldn’t it be a specific performance? The performance at the funeral? If it was a Catholic funeral, the order of the mass is certainly copyrighted.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]