Youtube really needs to find a proper solution to this problem. But at least they acknowledge it and and are taking steps to improve.
http://youtubecreator.blogspot.co.at/2016/04/improving-conte...
Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
71–80 of 80 posts
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
You had that right, up until the point you agreed youtube's TOS/EULA. And you are still free to bring a suit under the DMCA ... except you also agreed yourself out of that too.
Which is my point, the DMCA really has nothing to do with this, its all YouTube's TOS/EULA.
Well, the DMCA has something to do with in, in that the DMCA approach of adopting a safe harbor process rather than a mandatory process is exactly what encourages businesses to make other arrangements that differ from the DMCA process if by doing so they can reduce their costs and satisfy the key players from whom they would be concerned about litigation in the absence of the safe harbor, while neglecting the interests of parties -- e.g., most people that aren't big media companies -- to whom they would have no or insignificant liability without the safe harbor.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#73On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies, companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These large companies didn't care bec…
"when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money"
If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a single company's claim?
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#74On a similar note a Game YouTuber, Jim Sterling (Jimquistion), was frustrated that when he put out videos with some clips of video games or other movies, companies would come in and claim ownership and monetize his videos. He didn't like that since he wanted to be ad-free and these companies would essentially force his viewers to watch ads that he wouldn't even get any money for. These large companies didn't care bec…
"when there are multiple claimants for one video, Google's system doesn't give any of them any ad money" If that's true, then couldn't he simply file a claim of his own to counter a single company's claim?
Maybe? I'm not really sure. How hard is it to get into the contentID system?
I'm guessing part of the reason he did this was more for the humor of screwing with larger media companies.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#75I'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…
Dear Google: This is about as evil as you can get.
I think we will witness much more evil stuff from Google in the future.
This is just a small taste.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that can't be left to the claimant. So Google should charge a fee for each complaint to cover the cost of the verification. But then you could make the company pay more simply by uploading thousands of infringing videos… In any case a simple air date sanity check would have prevented this particular case.
By "certify", GP might mean "certify under penalty of perjury", where the specific wording (which would probably need some notes about certifying they had verified their ownership) is strict enough to give one a bit of legal ammunition against false complaints.
Exactly. Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
My charitable guess is that Content ID isn't available to everyone because of scaling issues with the vetting process for the database. While it's theoretically possible to open the floodgates to everyone, that would present a massive human resource challenge for Google. I have no idea how Google's vetting process works for those who meet the eligibility requirements...but I imagine it involves lawyers and background…
That is overly charitable. Google does not vet Content ID claims to be sure that the claimer is actually the copyright owner. Lots of smaller content producers get takedown notices when a bigger player steals content, reuploads it, and then issues Content ID takedown notices to the original creator.
I wasn't saying they vet claims per se; I was saying they almost certainly have to vet people who sign up for Content ID in the first place. Which might explain why they limit signup privileges to known commodities. (Or at least might partially explain it).
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.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which suggests a nice solution if Congress were to be reasonable: amend the DMCA to clarify that ContentID itself would invalidate safe harbor. In other words, require actual neutrality for safe harbor.
Thing is, Google owns the site, and presumably has the right to decide which videos it wants on its site. Unless one thinks they should never be allowed to take videos down, as disgusting or hateful they might be (except for valid DMCA requests), how would you draft that rule?
Strawman version: Google gets safe harbor if they are neutral as to what videos are on the site.
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.
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which suggests a nice solution if Congress were to be reasonable: amend the DMCA to clarify that ContentID itself would invalidate safe harbor. In other words, require actual neutrality for safe harbor.
> Which suggests a nice solution if Congress were to be reasonable: amend the DMCA to clarify that ContentID itself would invalidate safe harbor 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…
Not if ContentID invalidated your safe harbor with respect to other copyright holders. Frankly, that seems reasonable to me. If YouTube infringed my copyright, made safe harbor available to Viacom, and didn't make it available to me, why should YouTube have safe harbor against my claim?
Re: Fox 'uses' a gameplay video from YouTube, and removes the original with DMCA
#80I'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…
ContentID is the DMCA. It isn't a DMCA takedown, but it is a scheme designed to satisfy Google's DMCA obligations. Viacom was perhaps the fire behind its deployment, but it is the DMCA that dictates that the system exist. 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 co…
It brings YouTube into compliance with the DMCA, but it goes above and beyond. It automates only takedowns -- putting content back up is a process that must be manually done by a user. There's seemingly no human presence you can reach out to as an uploader. There's no way for a user to upload content and explicitly flag it as "I own this, if anyone claims copyright on it they're wrong" (see NASA having their own landing footage taken down by an overly-zealous Content ID match). There's no way for someone to upload a work as royalty-free or public domain (I've heard horror stories about that more than a handful of times).
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.