infinitesoup

5 ms·

1.
by infinitesoup 2y ago
> A youtube copyright notice / copyright strike is not the same as a DMCA takedown. Yes it is. YouTube doesn’t magically get to ignore the DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with layering Content ID on top to allow
2.
by infinitesoup 2y ago
YouTube’s “three strikes” policy is their implementation of the DMCA’s “repeat infringers” requirement: > has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or netwo
3.
by infinitesoup 2y ago
You’re conflating the two systems. YouTube does have the Content ID system, which does automatic detection and is mostly used to monetize (not take down) copyrighted content. But this case is a copyright strike, which means there was a DMCA
4.
by infinitesoup 2y ago
Sounds like he got a copyright strike, which means a DMCA takedown, not a Content ID claim. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
5.
by infinitesoup 2y ago
> hold onto the revenue until the dispute is resolved They do that: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
6.
by infinitesoup 8y ago
There's a different option for if the video is public domain or otherwise not copyrightable to handle this case. I assume that that "lawyerly language" is to dissuade users from abusing the process and choosing an option when
7.
by infinitesoup 8y ago
Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers t
8.
by infinitesoup 8y ago
Yes, sorry, you're right -- they do it to keep the safe harbor protection (which is the only sane option when running a video sharing website).
9.
by infinitesoup 8y ago
But YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law. Their Content ID system provides an automated way to detect potential infringement by large copyright holders and redirect ad revenue to them, but if uploaders di
10.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
YouTube has an equivalent of that too: https://support.google.com/youtubegaming/answer/6304294?hl=e...
11.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
I agree that their monetization policy is pretty vague; I wish it was clearer but they probably have to cover their bases. As for "people that abuse moderation tools for hateful or trolling purposes": these people won't be gi
12.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
There's a lot of misinformation going on in the Reddit thread. These "Heroes" get better tools for flagging videos faster (among other things), but it's still just flagging. Every flag still gets reviewed by a human at Y
13.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
I found an option to turn off notifications for those messages. If you open the notification settings for a channel that you're subscribed to, you can uncheck "Include community post notifications" and then stay subscribed to
14.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
> Censorship and demonetisation on YouTube seems to be happening to people fairly regularly, and without appeal, via poorly calibrated algorithms Demonetization happens when a video doesn't meet their "advertiser-friendly&quo
15.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
After the uploader disputes an automated claim, the claimant can uphold it as you described, but the user then has the option to appeal that claim. The only way to settle that appeal is for the claimant to either drop the claim or at that p
16.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
Flagged videos aren't removed automatically; a human reviews them first. It would probably be better if it was more automated, because humans make mistakes and machines don't get tired after a long day of reviewing videos. "
17.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
YouTube also allows users to sell or rent their videos directly through the website [0], so this doesn't seem very different to me. [0]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3249127?hl=en
18.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
Well, the law does not allow YouTube to "punish" false DMCA takedowns, so in those cases there's not much they can do. It's up to the person who had their content taken down to file a lawsuit if they want the person fili
19.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
I just looked on some of the claims I've gotten on my own videos, an one of the options for a dispute is "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.", which I think sums up the problem you were facing
20.
by infinitesoup 10y ago
That's not quite true. YouTube does have to follow the DMCA as required by law, and so they do so accordingly. They also have a separate automated system ("Content ID"), which can automatically block videos or put ads on them
21.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
> there is no attempt to curtail bad actors on that side of the table Do you have evidence to back that up? According to YouTube's Help Center, they do revoke Content ID access from those who abuse the system[0]. [0]: https:/&
22.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
> Content ID exists so YouTube can ease big partners. It's probably more to ease their own burden. YouTube likely receives a huge number of takedown requests daily, but with Content ID a lot more can be automated. Also, without Co
23.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
Or, from another perspective, Content ID is one of the best things about YouTube. Rather than all videos with copyrighted content being taken down, many get to stay up and viewable, and the owner of the content is happy because they can sti
24.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
How do you determine which video is the "original" version? That is, how do you tell which uploader owns the content? There isn't really a way to know until the content owner makes a compliant (anyone can file a DMCA takedown
25.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
That's not correct. Content ID is an automated takedown, but if you dispute a content ID claim, then the content owner has to respond with a DMCA takedown request if they want to continue the process. All other takedowns (including tha
26.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
Can you clarify what you mean by "short circuiting"?
27.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
> I think we need to be angry at YouTube too. YouTube makes it exceptionally easy to file takedowns, no proof of validity required. You should be angry at how copyright law works in the U.S., not at the fact that YouTube has to follow
28.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
It's unfortunate for Streamus, but expected and reasonable in my opinion (especially since the developer knew he was breaking the ToS from the beginning). YouTube presumably has negotiated contracts with the content owners which allow
29.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
There is a list of songs that content ID knows about here: https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/ad_supported_music It also looks like they are planning on releasing some tools to better track how people listen to diffe
30.
by infinitesoup 11y ago
> Also please make content id available to all rights holders. Unfortunately, I don't think that that is feasible for them. Everyone is a potential rights holder, and granting everyone access to that would likely lead to widesprea

More ›