ContentID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns. They operate on a different, much less strict standard. Anyone that works with YouTube can flag any video for any reason (see Scripps taking down a public-domain NASA video[0]), and the content is removed immediately without giving the initial uploader a right to contest it (it can be restored laterº. A YouTube user has way fewer rights under ContentID than they do under the DMCA. If you are found in violation of ContentID, you must fight both YouTube and the claimant to have your case heard under the DMCA.
[0] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-i...
s512(c)(1)(C) "upon notification ... responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to"
"Expeditiously" is the key. That is, today, understood to mean now, not after the weekend or once Bill comes back from lunch. On a giant system like Youtube, it requires an automated system.
Add to this YouTube's poor view of fair use (they've come under fire in the past for misrepresenting fair use in a copyright education video), and it's a recipe for disaster.
I think the headline in the article and here is misleading and should be changed.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402
This particular video seems like a nice test case of the review system.
The issue comes from the second sentence of the second paragraph:
> Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated.
YouTube does nothing to verify the exclusive rights, as far as I can tell.
Setting a high bar for eligibility presumably cuts down on fraud, wasted cycles vetting obvious noise, and the need for an army of people to do the vetting and legal checksumming around the clock.
The little guy is collateral damage in this case, not the intended target. You could argue, hey, potato potahto, the net result is a system that favors the large content publisher and offers the little guy no chance to participate. But intent matters. If Google's intent is to manage scale, then hopefully Google acknowledges the unintended problems its solution creates, and it's working on a better solution. If Google's intent is indeed to favor the big publishers, then that's a different story.
ContentID is more acceptable to the only potential litigants against whom Google would care about the DMCA safe harbor against than is the process which makes available the DMCA safe harbor, so that wouldn't matter.
A safe harbor is a protection against legal liability which you otherwise might have. If you have a separate arrangement which is both lower cost for you to operate and more acceptable to the only people against whom you are concerned about using the safe harbor than the actual safe harbor process, you don't care about a safe harbor.
If google didn't agree to the ContentID system, Viacom would have most likely been able to strip them of their safe harbor status.
And that means the end of Youtube.
Yeah, something needs to be done, but having humans review takedowns just doesn't work at this scale, and if they aren't extremely over zealous about taking things down, they will be shut down.
Google is under the thumb of Viacom and other big media companies, and there really isn't anything they can do about it except agree or close up shop.
(Mind you, I think that there are definitely ways that Google can improve the situation, and that they should be pressured to do so, but it's not as simple as saying they are "evil")
This is just a small taste.
The damage is done, the money is made, and the perpetrators can just say, "whoops" and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing while they take their ill-gotten gains to the bank.
They use robots to create reports (maybe not in this case) because for them there is simply zero downside.
That downside needs to exist.
So there the problem is that Youtube gives preferential treatment to their more profitable users, they don't have to submit a legal document to Youtube, they just flag the content and are done.
I bet there was never even a human in this particular loop.
EDIT: Of course the ContentID system probably circumvents that entirely because technically your content is taken down automatically rather than because of a DMCA claim. Even though the effect on the uploader is the same: impacting the monetisation of a video they may have invested a significant amount of time into. If anything it's worse because there is no built-in way to counter-claim or claim damages (without directly going to court).
In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this particular case.
So he figured out how to get around stupid contentID flags. He put in clips of videos from different companies and spliced them into his videos. This caused a couple of companies to claim copyright over his video, but when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money. So in effect he gets to continue to use clips while not having any companies monetize his viewers.
If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a single company's claim?
I'm guessing part of the reason he did this was more for the humor of screwing with larger media companies.
The real problem here is that FOX copied the exact contents of an existing 7-year old youtube video in their Family Guy episode (maybe the creators tried to give a tribute). The ContentID rules state that you should have exclusive rights to the content in a specific region, which they don't.
Thinking about this again, the ContentID system is also at fault here: it is blatantly ignoring the upload date for video's on youtube. I don't know how the ContentID system works, but you should at least give the date on which the copyright of the reference content (=Family Guy episode) starts. If FOX would try to upload the Family Guy episode, the ContentID system should give a warning that it uses already existing, older content. Now Youtube/Google, that can't be so hard to implement, now can it?
Also, Youtube should handle complaints from incorrect takedowns a bit better. Like keep a reputation on parties using the ContentID system. Say you start at 100. If you do incorrect takedowns, your reputation decreases. If you do correct takedowns, it rises (come up with some statistical efficient tool)_. If it falls below 50, you are excluded from the ContentID system for breaking the rules, or somebody could sue the party or something. Make it transparent (yearly report) to the public, so they can judge.
Also the irony of responding with an uploaded video of a copyrighted show owned by a major studio is delicious. :)
http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-conte...
Although I prefer buying content directly from the artist, like Louis CK does. As long as it seems "fair", I buy.
That where piracy comes from: a rational argument about a skewed market.
Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.
This seems like a special case deserving of special attention. It doesn't seem like something that should be sloppily addressed by an algorithm.
The only time this would be a problem is if the bootleg trailer were uploaded before they uploaded the ContentID data, and Fox wanted to then upload the ContentID data and have it removed automatically. I can't see why they would do this, however, since presumably they are reacting to the bootleg upload in this case, and can then simpply issue a manual takedown request.
And now that Youtube is moving into licensed, subscription-based streaming with Youtube Red, channels using third party content under fair use are interfering with Google's potential future revenue, regardless of their actual legality. I still believe "hiccups" like the recent wave of let's play and reviewer channels disappearing mysteriously are an attempt by Google to drive those channels away, to make the site look more attractive for media companies and their IP.
The big question here is what are the consequences of adding a reference that the applicant does not have exclusive rights to? Is it YouTube's discretion? What happens if Fox/Viacom/Sony/whoever decides to include a clip of public domain classical music in their reference? They don't have exclusive rights to that music, do they?
"[Safe harbour applies] if the service provider— upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material."
"Awareness" would apply even absent a formal DMCA takedown pointing to the content. So after the first, Youtube is 'on notice' for repeats even where those don't get new takedown notices ... ContentID.
If they pay people for videos, no safe harbor on those videos. If they reject things for editorial reasons, no safe harbor.
This would probably be quite problematic. On the other hand, it would help address what I think is a big hole in free speech: almost add speech is mediated by companies, and those companies have no particular incentive to respect freedom of speech. Maybe the law should give them one.
>The only time this would be a problem is if the bootleg trailer were uploaded before they uploaded the ContentID data, and Fox wanted to then upload the ContentID data and have it removed automatically. I can't see why they would do this, however, since presumably they are reacting to the bootleg upload in this case, and can then simpply issue a manual takedown request.
Fox can issue a manual takedown, but they shouldn't need to. That's the entire point of the deal Youtube cut with the major studios that created ContentID. Fox uploads the videos they own, and then Youtube/ContentID finds all the infringers so that Fox doesn't have to pay a person to do it themselves.
This issue is obviously a special case where a clip from a video game, apparently sourced from Youtube, was excerpted in a network TV show. The network TV show - which is obviously protected - set off ContentID flags. Fox didn't set out to upload a Double Dribble clip to ContentID. This is an edge case.
The article then spuriously goes on to about the DMCA, but there's no evidence presented any DMCA takedown whatsoever. I don't even see any evidence of human intervention at all. If I had to guess, there's a setting in Fox's ContentID: If from Family Guy, block entirely.
It's unfortunate that this happened. It shouldn't have happened, but this is what inevitably happens when a technical solution (ContentID) is used to solve a social problem (piracy).
There should be an easy remedy for the video creator, and he is free to pursue copyright charges against Family Guy for using his video game clip in a TV show, if he thinks he has the rights to that clip. (I have no clue on that one.)
But this is a mountain being made of a molehill. Nobody's rights are being infringed. This is the deal you make when you sign on with Youtube: the big studios have the most power. They're only one player; if this deal irks you (and there are definitely legitimate reasons it would) there are plenty of other ways to host video.
Though I never quite understood which interpretation was intended:
* Creator shows their work to someone, who goes on claiming it's their own work.
* Someone shows "their work" to the original creator, who then realizes it's actually their work.
I only hope the original author is aware and supportive of the meta-sentiment of the re-upload/re-whitemark response.
I actually don't find it all that troublesome. The big selling point of Youtube is that it is relatively easy to get attention there. That doesn't do much to create a situation where it is hard to get attention elsewhere.
YouTube has business and licensing agreements in place with some of these content owners. There is absolutely no way they aren't vetting signups for Content ID in at least some capacity. For one thing, how would they pay people their rev share for premium content clips if they didn't have reasonable assurance those people really were MTV, or NBC, or Sony Music, or what have you?
Now, is my overall explanation overly charitable? Entirely possible. I really have no idea what goes on with this process. All I'm doing is offering a possible explanation.
No, under the DMCA, the content host has the option to let you do that after a takedown, and, if they choose to exercise that option, you lose any legal right to sue them for taking your content down that you otherwise would have had before considering the safe harbor.
But, since most use agreements with hosts are structured such that the host would never have any liability for taking down user-submitted content, this is pretty much a non-issue.
Apple seems willing to fight legal battles on moral grounds; why won't Google?
Re Apple. You sure they were fighting that battle on moral grounds because the CEO said nice things? Apple's been happy to do similar things for Chinese, lie about need for Mac security, squeeze extra money using Foxconn workers' misery, reduce number of buyers by charging luxury prices, and so on. They're not ethical in the least. That is probably a greedy corporation rolling in money ensuring it will continue to do so by positioning itself as a private alternative to Android. It's... Marketing.
Are there any public examples of them doing this for someone?
Because that is a really awesome thing to pledge, but without public actions backing it up it's an empty promise.
