[HN Gopher] More phony copyright claims for YouTube creators
___________________________________________________________________
More phony copyright claims for YouTube creators
Author : relwin
Score : 57 points
Date : 2022-12-12 20:18 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (larryjordan.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (larryjordan.com)
| placatedmayhem wrote:
| YouTube's copyright controls have been a constant sore spot for
| creators for years at this point. YouTube/Google seems
| uninterested in addressing the problems. It seems that
| improvement is either imperceptibly small or just outright
| doesn't exist.
|
| What will it actually take for this to improve? Copyright
| legislation (e.g., DMCA) roll back or alteration? Content
| creators and/or viewers leaving the platform over it? Something
| else?
| vezycash wrote:
| >What will it actually take for this to improve?
|
| Mass, coordinated DCMA takedown notices against disney and
| other parties that designed DCMA.
|
| For max impact, a mix of legit & fake DCMA notices should be
| used.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >What will it actually take for this to improve?
|
| People willing to pay for content.
|
| One one extreme, you will have YouTube and it's user generated
| content and ads and the huge moderation costs.
|
| On the other is professionally produced content, like Comcast,
| Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, etc.
|
| It may or may not be economically viable to have an option in
| the middle, or at least it has not been so far. Vimeo is the
| only one that came close to making it work, as far as I know.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| As long as there is no viable alternative to YouTube, Google
| has zero incentive of improving the situation. The current
| system works for Google, with no downside for them thanks to
| their monopolistic grasp on the market.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| It might be enough to just have a class action lawsuit against
| Google requiring them to actually follow the actual DMCA
| process.
| jandrese wrote:
| Many-trillion dollar lawsuits similar to what media cartels
| threaten them with if they don't implement highly abusive mass
| takedown systems with little to no oversight.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| I don't know what the solution is, but with every year it's
| becoming more and more apparent that the entire concept of
| copyright is incompatible with a global communications network.
| nostromo wrote:
| Twitter really needs to move into the longer form video space to
| give YouTube some competition. YouTube has gotten very lazy with
| their near monopoly on long form video and now only innovates by
| increasing the number of ads every quarter to show revenue growth
| and desperately copying TikTok.
| atty wrote:
| I don't see how Twitter could afford to compete with YouTube
| financially. YouTube has the larger audience (3x MAU) so they
| get the best advertising deals, and they STILL don't break out
| YouTube's profit/loss individually, suggesting it's probably
| either low margin or a loss leader for alphabet.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Reads like an argument for breaking up Google, so they can't
| dominate and suppress markets by funding unprofitable units
| indefinitely.
| GregWWalters wrote:
| I'd welcome competition. Vimeo is the closest thing I can think
| of and it differentiated itself. But I don't think Twitter is
| the right one to do it. IMO, these services are best when
| they're narrowly focused. YouTube branching into shorts,
| Facebook and Instagram branching into... well, everything...
| has made those services cluttered, and makes their once core
| features worse.
| kevingadd wrote:
| To truly compete with YouTube, Twitter would need a video
| discovery algorithm at least on the same level. Multiple large-
| following (1m+ subs) YouTubers have said that as much as they
| have grievances with YT, other platforms like Twitch and
| Twitter don't have the kind of discovery tools they would need
| to grow an audience there and make money. (Twitter would also
| need really robust advertising infrastructure for this, IMO)
| pityJuke wrote:
| > Actually, probably the majority of You Tubers don't use any
| music
|
| This just isn't true.
|
| YouTube music falls into two camps: 1) Licensed music from paid
| royalty sources. AudioJunkie, Epidemic, etc. 2) Video game music,
| because that isn't in ContentID because otherwise you'd claim
| people playing their games (it can absolutely be manually
| claimed, but creators just take the risk here).
|
| I suspect Pond5 here aren't a great service.
|
| I also keep on re-parsing this article because of the English,
| but
|
| > and for many of those who do, the more ads the better as the
| reason for uploading a video is to make money and they really
| don't care about quality.
|
| If you get copyright claimed for music, you don't get the money
| from the video? More ads won't help? I'm so confused at to what
| this person is getting at, as they've meddled a diatribe about
| advertising with a diatribe about music copyright claims.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Considering how cheap bandwidth is, and how good compression is,
| are we yet approaching point where it makes sense for content
| creators to host their own videos?
|
| 99% of what's on YT doesn't need to be in HD, anyway.
| kevingadd wrote:
| One of the main reasons creators put content on YouTube is the
| discovery algorithm. It's much easier to grow an audience for
| videos on YT compared to hosting it yourself.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| 1) People won't find the content if it's not on Youtube.
|
| 2) You will struggle (even more) to monetize the views you _do_
| get, if you 're not on YouTube.
|
| 3) Bandwidth is _sorta_ cheap when you 're getting a little bit
| of it bundled with other things that have high margins (say,
| cloud VM hosting) but video hosting can exceed what you can get
| with that kind of "free" bandwidth pretty quickly. It begins to
| really add up, after that.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Fair use is another one. I'm not a musician, but like listening
| to music. I recently discovered Rick Beato's YouTube videos where
| he breaks down "what makes this song great"
|
| He plays snips of songs, analyzes them, talks about the chord
| progressions, the key changes, melodies, drum fills, bass lines,
| solos, and sometimes gets pretty deep into technical/music theory
| analysis. Then he'll play a bit more and then talk about that
| part of the song. It's clearly fair use, and if anything it
| promotes interest in the artist and their music, but (according
| to him) he's constantly getting videos blocked or copyright
| claims.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Wouldn't it be great if, for every false copyright claim, the
| person/entity making the claim received strikes and had to
| compensate the person subjected to the false claim? Make abusing
| the system costly? Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright
| claim system abuse? Maybe?
| pifm_guy wrote:
| Even $50 would probably be decent compensation for most
| YouTubers. It would probably reign in false claims
| dramatically, and reduce the numbers of appeals enough that
| real humans can check each one.
| cyberphobe wrote:
| Yeah probably, but wouldn't really be sufficiently punitive
| to really deal with the problem. It should be a % of the
| abuser's revenue
| endisneigh wrote:
| This would only work if a successful claim resulted in the
| YouTuber having to pay, otherwise such an asymmetric situation
| would never be sustainable.
|
| Given how many popular videos sit on the edge of copyright
| abuse it's not really in Google's interest to do this anyway.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work.
|
| Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website
|
| Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his copyright
|
| Step 3: Charlie sends Bob a DMCA takedown notice.
|
| Step 4: Bob takes down Alice's media, issues Alice a notice
| that he's received a claim, and is now protected from being
| sued by Charlie.
|
| Step 5: Alice disagrees that her upload violates Charlie's
| copyright, and issues a counter-claim to Bob.
|
| Step 6: Bob reinstates Alice's upload, notifies Charlie that
| Alice has contested his claim, and is now protected from
| being sued by Alice.
|
| Step 7: Charlie sues Alice, because he still believes the
| content to be in violation of his copyright, or gives up
|
| Step 8: Court case / counter suit decides damages between
| Charlie and Alice
|
| The problem is not the DMCA system, which if anything is too
| generous to the media host. The problem is YouTube's added
| bullshit layer, which goes something like "Charlie hints that
| he might send a DMCA takedown, Bob takes down Alice's video
| and threatens to ban her from the platform"
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| I would agree with this. It should work both ways. There may
| be a few edge cases where it really wasn't clear if it was or
| was not copyright infringement; both cases were reasonable.
| These would be the exception where neither party may be
| fined.
| GregWWalters wrote:
| If a claimant makes a bad-faith claim or the claim is done by
| undersupervised automation? Sure. But I think some of these
| claims are false positives by YouTube's ContentID system. In
| those cases, does YouTube pay? I agree there needs to be a
| disincentive to over-claiming (including but not limited to
| holding ad revenue in escrow and returning it to the video's
| owner if the claims are false) but in practice, I don't know
| how it needs to work.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| If its an automated system, then yes I think youtube should
| have to compensate users when the system youtube created,
| screws over an innocent user. If the government, who is
| almost as powerful as google, similarly created a system
| where they falsely arrest huge swaths of innocent people,
| then they too should have to compensate their victims. The
| goal here is to get youtube to do better, and the only way to
| do that is economics.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| This system was setup to make the DMCA easy for copyright
| holders. There's zero consideration about whose holding.
|
| Before YouTube, I was getting takedown notices from Qwest
| internet and when I wrote them demanding proof, they ignored me
| and just flipped the switch back on.
|
| Eventually they just automated the takedown system so you had
| to go through some isolated dcma system.
|
| They have no cares about consumers because consumers present
| zero legal threat.
| Tagbert wrote:
| And remember that YouTube's system is not DMCA. DMCA rules do
| not apply nor do any protections. The YouTube system is
| designed to favor copyright holders and those who claim
| copyright.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > Attempt to compensate victims of the copyright claim system
| abuse? Maybe?
|
| It is called following the law! DMCA Section 512(f) basically
| says that if you issue a false claim, you are liable for all
| damage you caused, including attorney fees.
|
| I don't know what lawyers have to say, but it looks like easy
| money for a law firm if DMCA false claims are so common and so
| obvious.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > (f)Misrepresentations.--Any person who knowingly materially
| misrepresents under this section-- (1)that material or
| activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was
| removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be
| liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees,
| incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or
| copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service
| provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the
| result of the service provider relying upon such
| misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the
| material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in
| replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access
| to it.
|
| 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. Judges are not
| state machines, it matters not what the technically correct
| decision may be, they are not required to make it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
| monocasa wrote:
| Reminder that the normal YouTube copyright process isn't the
| DMCA process, but instead a process YouTube came up with as
| part of a settlement with the record labels that gives those
| making the claim nearly all of the power.
| yummypaint wrote:
| The youtube TOS does not shield people making false claims
| from liability. It is extremely lopsided in every other
| aspect, though.
| kevingadd wrote:
| YouTube circumvents the DMCA with a custom process, which is
| why fraud is so rampant - they intentionally designed a
| system to enable fraud (at the behest of media companies)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-12 23:00 UTC)