4 ms·
Some comments are wondering how DCMA claims work and where ads revenue go to. So here is the gist. The current YouTube DCMA system is broken. Here's how it (ma
by hirako2000 2y ago
Some comments are wondering how DCMA claims work and where ads revenue go to. So here is the gist.
The current YouTube DCMA system is broken. Here's how it (mal)functions:
- Creator uploads video, gets ad revenue.
- First valid claimant gets ad revenue.
- Subsequent claimants are ignored, first claimant keeps all revenue.
This leads to a first-come, first-served system where the first claimant wins all, regardless of the actual IP ownership.
Would need to implement proportional revenue allocation and a more transparent with arbitrage claiming process, e.g moderators with subject expertise chiming in.
That's if YouTube wants to fix this. But they are rather worried about a/ being accused of copyright infringement for not taking "some" action and b/ aggravating their profit making distribution agreements with major content owners.
To note there is also an automated id system which applies primarily on audio fingerprints, to a degree visual frames as well.
- Creator uploads video, id system finds matching fingerprint against a large DB of copyrighted content and send ads revenue to whoever owns the match.
Also to note, that applies to largely most audio content at this point. Not much to big films (studios are still onto trying to keep distribution via their own streaming platform, to be platform or preferred partner platform).
We are in this mess, not because YouTube is dragging its feet, but because the IP laws simply aren't reconcilable with the way we create and consume content these days.
A brick needed to build a more fair revenue distribution system could be to revise legislations, e.g banning distribution exclusivity. That would give incentive for innovation, a startup could build an engine that redistribute somewhat fairly.
Ultimately, creators own their arts and can pretty much dictate how their works can be used, and call out their licensing fees. But when intermediaries step in and figure out exclusivity would milk more cash from consumers, it goes all the way to effectively lobby for the laws to remain crooked to their advantage.
- noname120 2y agoIf the first-come first-serve is true, what prevents a creator from self DMCA-ing all his videos so as to get all the revenue? Possibly by embedding a copyrighted sound that belongs to a company they create just for that purpose.
- everforward 2y agoPerjury charges. They're almost never pursued because of the difficulty of proving what someone knew or didn't know, but DMCA'ing yourself is perjury per se because you cannot infringe your own copyright. The RIAA/MPAA would absolutely lobby to make pursuing those perjury charges a priority.
- immibis 2y agoI DMCAed GitHub and Stack Overflow for not letting me delete my own content (both of them ignored it and then I sent GDPR notices to both; GitHub ignored that one a d SO told me to fuck off. Next step is a lawsuit, but that's expensive). The perjury declaration you have to make is that you believe everything in the notice is accurate and you believe you have the right to issue this notice. Actually, the less well you know the law, the safer you are from perjury. Plus, they'd have to actively sue you for perjury which costs them a lot of money for zero gain, unless you're spamming bad requests or something.
- debugnik 2y ago> Subsequent claimants are ignored, first claimant keeps all revenue. Are you sure? I remember Jim Sterling used to show content from multiple companies because multiple claims locked them all out from monetisation. Maybe it's changed since, though, that was years ago.