[HN Gopher] YouTube can now warn creators about copyright issues...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube can now warn creators about copyright issues before videos
are posted
Author : finphil
Score : 87 points
Date : 2021-03-18 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| nicofcurti wrote:
| Honestly this was too obvious to not do anything until now. Next
| thing is fixing the demonetisation bs
| doh wrote:
| The only reason why they done is because it's mandatory under
| the impending legislation in EU [0].
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...
| varispeed wrote:
| So it is the might filter and pre-cursor of preventive
| censorship in the EU. Marvellous.
| doh wrote:
| Not sure what are you trying to say, but no law gets
| anything right. That said, the current market is very one-
| sided where platforms abuse both sides (creators and
| rightsholders) while nobody can do nothing about it. So I
| welcome the governments trying to find balance, even if
| it's not perfect.
|
| I think the law is cutting way too far in one direction,
| but I believe this is the first time the market has an
| opportunity to work together to find some form of balance.
| shmerl wrote:
| Sounds almost like Sheckley's Watchbird already :)
| mrkramer wrote:
| This should've been implemented earlier it would save a lot of
| users time and hassle. Google has enormous engineering manpower
| and computing resources they can do pretty much anything.
| duxup wrote:
| A hell of a lot more cooperative approach to help everyone avoid
| unintentional messes is long overdue.
|
| The folks who get their content taken down I'm sure would be
| happy to cooperate most of the time ...
|
| Really sad that it comes this late / after this much hassle.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| I can't imagine the incredible amount of man-hours that were
| wasted on detecting if your video has fucking copyrighted
| material in it. Absolute shame.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| The technology has existed for a nearly 20 years.
|
| Shazam [0] existed long before smartphones and could identify
| songs based on 10 second samples. YouTube can easily leverage
| this song-identifying technology to detect copyrighted
| material.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazam_(application)
| georgebarnett wrote:
| Recognising a song is not the same as recognising copyright.
| politician wrote:
| I'd like to see a total energy comparison between Content ID
| and Bitcoin PoW.
| varispeed wrote:
| I believe that artists should be reimbursed, but how YouTube does
| it does not look just at all. It is a simple money grab by fat
| major label execs who were able to cut deals with YT at the
| expense of regular people. Yes, if someone uses a copyrighted
| song, they should either be asked to use something else, provide
| proof of a deal or agree to send a split to an artist. I
| understand currently it is that the label takes all. I wonder why
| there isn't any lawsuit around this?
| mywittyname wrote:
| > I wonder why there isn't any lawsuit around this?
|
| There's been a ton of action around this, including an active
| class action lawsuit. Congress was hearing testimony on this
| exact subject back last year and there's legislative action
| going on in the EU. I suspect this move was in direct response
| to those hearings.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Meanwhile, in the real world, Jim Sterling is facing their
| channel being taken down because a random game developer didn't
| like their review and decided to copyright flag a bunch of
| different videos. They're at 2 strikes now, which means one more
| and the channel goes down. Fantastic system.
|
| https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/1372585399667806211
| peterlk wrote:
| Huh... This actually seems like not a bad way to ensure that
| Google is aware of the problem. A sufficiently large reddit
| community could probably knock a lot of big fish off of youtube
| with this approach
| sorenjan wrote:
| Did you see how Twitch handles copyright issues? They're latest
| solution is to make it easier for streamers to mass delete all
| their saved streams ("VODs") to not get DMCA strikes. Compared to
| Twitch Youtube seem much more competent and professional.
|
| https://www.esportstalk.com/news/after-a-year-twitchs-dmca-u...
| ronsor wrote:
| Every company looks more competent and professional compared to
| Twitch as of late. The latter seems to be involved in at least
| one controversy a month.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| What's weird about the Twitch situation is that they already
| had a system to solve this. If you had a VOD that flagged their
| Content ID, the offending part would get muted. Why not do the
| same thing for manual takedown requests?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| What if the video is using copyrighted material on fair use
| grounds? I guess you're still screwed then?
| doh wrote:
| They were forced to this because of the impending legislation
| in EU [0] which forces them to do so. Germany is toying with
| what they call pre-filtering, which would allow creator/user to
| state fair use/exception prior identification. Essentially one
| could claim fair use before a rightsholder can make their
| claim.
|
| So far it's part of the draft but we don't know if it will make
| it to the final legislation.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| It's baffling that this feature wasn't already available to
| content creators.
| hntrader wrote:
| What if they didn't want to give users a way to iterate quickly
| through various attempts at obfuscating copyright content by
| just the right amount in order to bypass the copyright
| screening?
|
| Not saying that was the reason but it's not implausible.
| varispeed wrote:
| I could think that they also wanted to increase engagement on
| the site. People better respond to music they know, so they
| were milking sweet ad commissions as long as they could.
| Maybe labels realised YT is taking a mickey and had a strong
| conversation with the execs.
| post_break wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it was in a backhanded way. I would upload a
| video and keep it private. Then you could wait and see if any
| part got flagged. If it didn't then you could publish.
| SirFatty wrote:
| Agreed... and it makes you wonder why Google held back on this.
| ravenstine wrote:
| It would have been baffling to me in the past, but I've felt
| it's pretty clear that YouTube is more interested in catering
| to mainstream entertainment giants rather than individual
| content creators. It's baffling they'd even bother with this
| now. The only reason I can think of why they would introduce
| this feature is that their algorithm has been backfiring on
| content creators they are politically aligned with.
| mikece wrote:
| "If YouTube's copyright identification system finds a violation
| after a video is scanned, the rights holder's policy will be
| automatically applied to the video, according to the company."
|
| During the height of the quarantine last year I managed the live-
| streaming of the traditional form of the Catholic Mass (1962
| Missal, substantially the same ruberics and ceremonials from the
| fifth century until the 1960s) at a local parish and on EVERY
| Sung High Mass there were multiple copyright flags applied
| because the liturgical hymns sung by the choir, the "newest" of
| which averaged 250 years in age and some of which were over a
| thousand years old, were part of a commercial recording by some
| professional choral ensemble. Had someone played a CD of that
| professional recording in the chapel then this would have been a
| copyright violation, but it's OBVIOUS to any human who listens to
| the sound on those videos that this was a live performance -- by
| volunteer, part-time singers who make lots of mistakes -- of
| works that have been in the public domain for centuries.
|
| This system is clearly a CYA for Google: they would rather flag
| videos and PERMANENTLY demonetize content creators based on
| repeated false positives (but still show advertisements on the
| videos anyway!) than to risk even the remotest chance that a
| content creator might sue YouTube for enabling copyright
| infringement.
| doh wrote:
| Can't speak for YouTube, but we[0] solved issues like this by
| making public domain the first class citizen of the system.
| Once a work enters a public domain in any of the 195 countries,
| is no longer possible to register it in our system for that
| country. This prevents any rightsholder to abuse the system.
|
| It also allows platforms and creators to freely utilize public
| domain, royalty free and Creative Commons works in their
| content without worrying about situation like this. We also
| distinguish explicitly between publishing and sound
| recording/performance so one can register one without impacting
| the other.
|
| [0] https://pex.com
| narrationbox wrote:
| Do you have any public pricing or startup plans?
| doh wrote:
| The way we make money is we charge % of revenue generated
| from the licensed content. So starting is free, using the
| service is free and the only time one would pay us if the
| platform makes money from any licensed content.
| narrationbox wrote:
| So if I am launching a Spotify/Audible-style
| music/audiobook streaming platform, how will the pricing
| work out? Do we pay you instead of the original author
| for any user uploaded content? If the original author
| chooses to upload their content onto our platform, do we
| scan it with your API and explicitly whitelist it and pay
| them directly?
|
| Your company looks very cool btw. What's your email?
| doh wrote:
| My email is r@pex.com
|
| The way this works is that you send all content through
| us via our SDK which generates fingerprints (so content
| doesn't exchange hands). If the rightsholder is
| registered with us (it's free), then we can take care of
| everything from payments, ADR (alternate dispute
| resolution), reporting, ...
|
| If the rightsholder uploads their own content to the
| platform, they are able to pre-license their content in
| our system (different word for allowlist, but a bit more
| nuanced as these lists run into GDPR issues).
|
| Rightsholders are also free to have direct relationships
| with platforms while we run the backend. We don't require
| any particular licensing to be done through us.
|
| Hopefully this makes sense.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I might suggest using a different email for public
| communications.
|
| When I read your email, it looks like "rape x dot com",
| which is quite unfortunate.
| doh wrote:
| I must say that's the first time someone said something
| like this. Not to dismiss your comment, but I don't think
| this is a common thing.
|
| I think one could also read it as rat pex, but also not
| something that ever happened before :)
| brailsafe wrote:
| This sounds like a sufficiently hard problem to devote a
| whole business to.
| doh wrote:
| If this is not a sarcasm then that's what we did. If it is,
| I honestly believe that this will end up being better that
| it seems on the surface.
|
| We modeled the company on VISA. The idea is to bring three-
| sided marketplace to allow creators to do what they do
| best, create, without worrying about the laws and
| regulations across the world, platforms to bring new
| opportunities to express to creators and rightsholders to
| benefit from their content.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _...even the remotest chance that a content creator might sue
| YouTube for enabling copyright infringement._
|
| Does this happen often? Ever? How does one sue a firm that
| never has humans available for interaction with the public? One
| suspects this is the motivation they'd like us to credit,
| because they have other, less defensible, motivations.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Fwiw, you sue in public courts where Google loses by default
| if they don't appear. Google does not yet run its own
| parallel court system and star chamber.
|
| EDIT: On second thought, if their services require binding
| arbitration, they do. Arbitration in contracts of adhesion
| should be flatly illegal.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Would a copyright owner who doesn't use YouTube be subject
| to such binding arbitration? Presumably such an owner could
| hire a third party to discover hypothetically infringing
| content?
| tehjoker wrote:
| All parties involved would have to have agreed in writing
| to binding arbitration, so yes any non-party can do
| whatever they want.
|
| EDIT: IANAL and this is not financial advice. ;)
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I don't think people realize how companies/people use
| binding arbitration to their advantage?
|
| These companies pay the arbitrators. It's usually done by
| mail, and their usually is no investigation into your case.
|
| The little guy wins only in egregious situations, and I
| have never met anyone who won especially going up against a
| big company?
|
| I get arbitration agreements for small companies, but not
| for huge monopolies, and scummy high interest rate card it
| cards.
|
| I had a run in with Columbia Credit Services, and still
| have a judgement following me over a credit card. Someone
| decided to look into the arbitration process of this
| company, and something like 99.9 percent of the time the
| customer lost. Even hired process servers whom would lie
| about serving the papers. All over a credit card sent in
| the mail.
|
| (Judgements last 10 years, and can be renewed. They tick
| away at 10% per year, if the creditor can't immediately
| your life miserable, and take your stuff with a warrant.)
| tehjoker wrote:
| I think it can be okay with companies large or small if
| the contract is something that is negotiated with real
| opportunity for making changes like removing such
| agreements. Arbitration when done with the real consent
| of both parties and with the choice of a neutral party
| that isn't expecting more business from one of them can
| save time and money. However, it's tyrannical for both
| large and small companies to just force these things on
| people regardless of how vulnerable their business model
| is.
|
| I'd note that it has never occurred to me that
| arbitration would ever have been in my own interest.
| devrand wrote:
| Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. is basically what
| caused Content ID to come into existence, despite being ruled
| in Youtube's favor. It was going to go to appeal but a non-
| monetary settlement was agreed upon, which is why it's
| believed that Content ID came from that.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._
| v._Y....
| jandrese wrote:
| Are you asking if a Record Company would sue someone on the
| Internet for copyright infringement? They are rather famous
| for doing so, and more than that, for asking for extremely
| large settlements. Sometimes calculating the "damages" in
| completely ridiculous ways like multiplying every view by
| $50,000.
|
| Don't forget what happened to cdrom.com. Literally sued out
| of existence because they allowed people to upload their own
| music to the cloud. They couldn't even share it, it was just
| uploaded to the cloud. Business completely destroyed.
| jessaustin wrote:
| In USA civil courts the wealthier party typically wins.
| Alphabet is going to be the wealthier party in most cases.
| Certainly more than "cdrom.com". This was one of the
| advantages cited back when Google purchased YouTube.
|
| https://archive.thinkprogress.org/poor-people-dont-stand-
| a-c...
| jandrese wrote:
| So why does Google bother with the false-positive heavy
| with draconian penalties ContentID stuff then?
|
| Oh, because Record Companies are still bigger than people
| who create content for YouTube.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Yes, "why" is a great question to ask, because ISTM
| Alphabet benefits from being able to blame an essentially
| unappealable process while it curates content uploaded to
| its platform by creators. I'm a rancher, and like
| Alphabet I prefer not to get in extended arguments with
| my livestock.
|
| If blame for the excesses of curation couldn't be
| offloaded to third parties, creators could form a class
| for enterprising attorneys.
|
| Sure, it's also good to have a ready defense against
| litigious record companies, but large firms don't have to
| have just one reason for doing things in particular ways.
| It is easy to imagine an alternative to the "ContentID"
| system that would be less capricious and would still make
| record companies happy.
| derekp7 wrote:
| The way cdrom.com worked is you would upload a fingerprint
| of your music. Then if they already had a track that
| matched the fingerprint, they would link that to your
| account and not require you to upload the whole track. So
| this was technically not within the scope of what is
| allowed by copyright law, which is why they got in trouble.
|
| Which is kind of strange how when something is
| "technically" a violation, even if it is within the spirit
| of the law (or equiv. to what is allowed), the copyright
| hammer comes down. Whereas when something is "technically"
| NOT a copyright violation, the hammer still comes down
| (such as that company that used a bunch of tiny TV antennas
| to stream broadcast TV over the internet to other markets
| -- each customer was "renting" one of the dedicated TV
| antennas and using the internet as a "long cable". Or the
| company that would dedicate a DVD player to each customer
| and stream movies across the internet, again claiming the
| internet was just a "very long cable". They both got shut
| down hard even though they weren't "technically" in
| violation).
| jandrese wrote:
| The whole "they're not physically your bits" argument
| never made a lick of sense. They never would be after you
| uploaded them over the Internet.
|
| The whole case depended on the Doctrine of First Sale not
| applying to CDs, so that's what the courts agreed to. The
| record companies could have gone after second hand record
| stores, at least the ones that sold CDs, if they wanted
| to at that point but it was kind of unnecessary because
| they were already dying.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| The reason why cdrom.com was sued out of existence was
| that it became trivial to simply publish directories of
| fingerprints and upload massive numbers of fingerprints
| into your account and get access to music you never
| bought.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The copyright owners are terrified by a new medium they don't
| understand for the most part so they extract their rents the
| way you know how.
|
| I made a dumb mashup containing spoken words and a song, I'm
| not sure whether that is fair use or not, but it got
| copyright striked for infringing upon something like "test
| song #3" by some record label. I couldn't even find out what
| that was.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > How does one sue a firm that never has humans available for
| interaction with the public?
|
| You don't sue a company by contacting customer service. I'm
| pretty sure they need to have some official representative on
| file somewhere, and you could probably serve them the lawsuit
| by sending a certified letter to their official address.
|
| The bigger barrier is Google/Youtube almost certainly have an
| arbitration clause in their terms of service.
| nullc wrote:
| > This system is clearly a CYA for Google:
|
| Sorry, the DMCA protections for google are almost absolute.
| Without a notice and takedown they are unexposed.
|
| Their handling might just be incompetence, or it might be a
| money maker (e.g. to force people to allow copyright holders to
| monetize their videos)... what it isn't is a CYA.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| YouTube's copyright system isn't the DMCA.
|
| The DMCA contains minimum protections for abuse (penalty of
| perjury), whereas YouTube's private system contains
| absolutely none. Content owners literally make money by
| flagging as much as possible, and there's no reason not to.
| kelnos wrote:
| No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the
| DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music
| studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-
| over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued.
|
| The DMCA process does not require content hosters to pro-
| actively guess whether or not newly-posted material might
| violate someone's copyright. It just requires that they
| provide an avenue for rightsholders to file claims, which
| have to be promptly acted upon.
|
| Google's system unnecessarily favors big players at the
| expense of individual creators. For all the flak the DMCA
| gets, its claim/counterclaim process is way better for
| creators than Google's system is.
| mywittyname wrote:
| >For all the flak the DMCA gets, its claim/counterclaim
| process is way better for creators than Google's system is.
|
| I suspect this is the crack in the YT foundation that will
| allow for real competition to emerge. Several YouTube
| creators have formed a competing network specifically
| because of the BS they deal with regarding ContentID being
| so anti-creator.
| d1zzy wrote:
| > No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what
| the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the
| movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of
| Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when
| they sued.
|
| I imagine it was because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
|
| Yes, Google won in the end, but there were times when it
| didn't (they won on appeal) and the cost of the lawsuit
| itself, the insecurity of its outcome and the potential
| impact that could have down the line to doing business with
| Viacom I think were enough to act.
| polishTar wrote:
| It's a bit more complicated than that.
|
| Google's system is optional for both the content creator
| and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to
| use the DMCA, they obviously can. If the content creator
| would prefer the rightsholder use the DMCA, they can
| dispute+appeal which will force the rightsholder to file a
| DMCA takedown if they want to continue with their claim.
|
| Unfortunately there's often a lot of confusion about the
| dispute+appeals process, since it's a multi-step process
| and there's a ton of people incorrectly conflating disputes
| with appeals, but the important takeaway is that a content
| creator can choose to force a DMCA takedown via an appeal
| (which happens after a rejected dispute).
|
| The reason content creators rarely choose to go the route
| of forcing a DMCA takedown is because:
|
| 1) the only remedy for a DMCA takedown is a removal of the
| entire video, which is often less preferable than the
| remedies offered by the google process (ex:
| replacing/muting the audio in the claimed section,
| monetization split, restrictions in only some geographical
| regions)
|
| 2) the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that
| companies terminate relationships with people that
| repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. This manifests on YouTube as
| a 3-strikes-and-your-channel-is-deleted policy that _only_
| applies to DMCA takedowns, but not copyright claims that
| come through the optional google process.
|
| 3) There's some scary warnings about how particularly
| vindictive rightsholders react to this by choosing to file
| a lawsuit against the creator in addition to filing the
| DMCA takedown
| kube-system wrote:
| Music copyrights are a minefield, even for old music, because
| it is often performed and rearranged, both of which would
| restart the copyright clock. And even if your church pays for
| performance licenses, it may not apply to when Google
| redistributes that performance. There is not a simple solution
| to the problem, even if there are 'mistakes' in the
| performance.
|
| Mistakes only make it more impossible of a problem to solve,
| because 2 notes could be the difference between a public domain
| work, and a rearrangement done last week. Did the performers
| make a mistake on the two notes that differentiate the works,
| or a different place? It's simply not possible to tell from the
| audio.
| mikece wrote:
| "Music copyrights are a minefield, even for old music,
| because it is often performed and rearranged, both of which
| would restart the copyright clock."
|
| Most of what the choir was flagged on was Gregorian Chant,
| the settings of which trace their origins to Old Testament
| worship in the Temple of Jerusalem, possibly as far back as
| King David's tabernacle singers. The texts are all ancient
| (200 to 1600 years old) and the "new" settings were composed
| by William Byrd (1540 - 1623) and Palestrina (1525 - 1594).
| We're not talking about something that was recently reset...
| though that would explain why Morten Lauridsen's "O Magnum
| Mysterium" is almost never heard in Divine Worship (that
| setting isn't even 30 years old yet).
| kube-system wrote:
| There are undoubtably a ton of variations of those chants
| over the past 120 years and probably millions of recorded
| performances of those chants. Any of which would be subject
| to a _new_ copyright on the date of that performance or
| rearrangement, regardless of the original date of the
| composition.
|
| A work being widely performed is a common situation that
| complicates attempts to solve the problem automatically. An
| infinite number of monkeys randomly singing a song will
| eventually sing one that sounds exactly like yours. How
| does an algorithm determine the difference in intent
| between my randomly singing choir of monkeys and your
| church's performance? It can't, as it compares audio -- it
| doesn't reason like humans do. Content ID doesn't know who
| your performers are, who recorded it, which sheet music
| your performers were reading from, where they made
| mistakes, and/or what licenses you have. (and FWIW, any
| given human watching the video wouldn't know much of this
| either)
|
| Two audibly identical works can be non-infringing, and two
| audibly differentiable works can be infringing. ContentID
| is an approximation -- it does not and never will have
| enough information to accurately judge everything.
| kelnos wrote:
| That argument doesn't hold water when my Pixel can hear a
| piece of classical music and identify the particular
| performer/album, not just the title of the music itself.
|
| If my phone can do that on its own (Google claims they
| aren't sending any audio to the cloud), then Content ID
| can surely do just as well, if not better, and not flag
| someone's church choir's performance as some recorded,
| copyrighted work.
| kube-system wrote:
| You are missing a big part of the problem space as it
| pertains to copyright law. That application is
| fingerprinting _a portion_ of the _audio_ and looking it
| up for a match in an existing database of copyrighted
| works for a match. This _is_ the same thing that Content
| ID does, and it 's exactly why it has false positives.
|
| Knowing whether portions of audio in a recording match
| other existing recordings is not enough to determine
| whether or not something breaks copyright law.
|
| You can demonstrate this with Shazam (/whatever the
| Google one is called). Live performances of any decent
| quality will often match recording fingerprints in their
| DB and give you a result of a particular artist/album.
|
| The law is simply more complicated than `if(audioMatches)
| then {illegal}`
|
| Sometimes a match on audio is _not_ an illegal copyright
| infringement.
|
| Sometimes audio that doesn't match _is_ illegal copyright
| infringement.
|
| Let's say you play a song from the year 1200 on the
| violin. You have the copyright to that performance. Now,
| let's say I play the same song, and I play it relatively
| well. I have the copyright to my performance. Likely, the
| audio fingerprints match, and Shazam/Google/Content ID
| will all say that my recording matches yours -- even
| though my performance was entirely legal, and we _both_
| own copyrights to our respective performances.
|
| The information Google is missing is:
|
| 1. it doesn't know that the sheet music we were both
| reading was authored in 1200. It doesn't have this
| information, it just has the audio.
|
| 2. it doesn't know that a different human physically
| performed the work. It just knows that the audio is the
| same.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I wonder how long those portions of audio are.
|
| With portion length and bitrate there is some theoretical
| number of music samples that could be 'brute forced' to
| cover the entire content ID space.
|
| I wonder if their snippets are long enough to make this
| an impossible number, or if this theoretical attack on
| Content ID could be put into practice.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >The law is simply more complicated than
| `if(audioMatches) then {illegal}`
|
| >Sometimes a match on audio is not an illegal copyright
| infringement.
|
| >Sometimes audio that doesn't match is illegal copyright
| infringement.
|
| >Let's say you play a song from the year 1200 on the
| violin. You have the copyright to that performance. Now,
| let's say I play the same song, and I play it relatively
| well. I have the copyright to my performance. Likely, the
| audio fingerprints match, and Shazam/Google/Content ID
| will all say that my recording matches yours -- even
| though my performance was entirely legal, and we both own
| copyrights to our respective performances.
|
| >The information Google is missing is that it doesn't
| know that the sheet music we were both reading was
| authored in 1200.
|
| I'll be honest I don't know anything about copyright but
| wouldn't solution be for example you as a YouTube content
| creator can claim the right to that particular song and
| the other guy as well and know Google has a record in
| their database that says:
|
| John owns right to 1200 violin song (song id)
|
| Jack owns right to 1200 violin song (song id)
|
| And then IF John's (song id) matches Jack's (song id)
| don't send copyright strike.
|
| Google needs to build YouTube knowledge graph so it has
| better awareness on information.
| standardUser wrote:
| I've always despised how YouTube removes videos with no trace of
| what was once there. I have dozens of videos saved to playlists
| that I will never be able to recover because there is no
| identifying information. Why not take down the file but leave the
| title for reference?
| ssalka wrote:
| This is why I youtube-dl everything
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-18 23:01 UTC)