21–30 of 80 posts
Until there is a financial penalty for wrongful use of the DMCA this type of thing will continue. They use robots to create reports (maybe not in this case) because for them there is simply zero downside. That downside needs to exist.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. 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…
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402
This particular video seems like a nice test case of the review system.
There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.
I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable. 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.
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.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. 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…
Content ID is not open to anyone though. 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.
There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.
I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable. 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.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. 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…
I think the headline in the article and here is misleading and should be changed.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: ContentID is not, has not been, and will never be the DMCA. It was developed by YouTube so Viacom would drop the suit that would likely have stripped YouTube's safe harbor protections under the DMCA. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Link to the original and not some reupload to imgur: http://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-interne... :)
I think linking to a re-upload is weirdly in spirit with the comic's sentiment. 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.