Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Promises Changes To Copyright Claim Policy (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: YouTube has set up a new team dedicated to weeding out false copyright claims and subsequent erroneous takedowns, responding to community criticism. Complaints have accused the video streaming site of a lazy approach to monitoring content, and using an unreliable automated system, Content ID, to enforce copyright policy. In response to these allegations, YouTube has announced that it will be introducing a workforce focused entirely on minimizing mistakes that delete legitimate videos. The tech giant has also promised to improve transparency into the status of monetization claims, and help strengthen communications between video creators and its support teams.
They won't do jack shit because any movement in the other direction has the MPAA/RIAA sneaking on to Google's campus in the middle of night, writing LIABILITY on the lawn with gasoline, and setting it on fire.
it's about profit, profit!
they'll still delete videos at random?
Yeah whatever. It's too little too late.
Should lead to automatic denial of the next 2 claims from the same claimant. The second false claim should lead to automatic denial of the next 4 claims (and so on). I think that would solve the problem pretty quickly.
Facts have a liberal bias.
It's only six years late. Par, for Teh G!
Can't we just promote the alternatives?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We purchased the rights to use a particular piece of music for the intro sequence we use on many of our department videos. Every time we post a new video, an automated "third party content" claim is immediately placed against it. I contest it and, after a while, the claim is removed... only to repeat the next time with a new claim based on the same piece of music we've already demonstrated many dozens of times we have the rights to use.
So I'll believe it when I see it.
#DeleteChrome
Until false claims carry some penalty, false claims will continue.
The penalty doesn't need to be particularly harsh. I'd say 3-strikes and you can no longer submit automated take down. After you've falsely accused 3 videos, all further accusations will go into a queue for human review
It would allow a company to police its trademark and take down any flagrant violators, but dissuade automated scripts that flags dozens of videos on flimsy grounds.
That's just my suggestion, there are certainly more options to punish false accusers. Until some punishment is in place though, youtube's words are hollow.
This signature is false.
After receiving thousands of false, incomplete, and otherwise invalid claims from one company, Comcast starting ignoring them. The court ruled Comcast was therefore liable for the claims they ignored. Under current law, the ruling against Comcast was more or less correct (it was borderline, arguable, under current law).
So while "three strikes and you're out " may be a sensible policy, YouTube can't really do that under current law. The DMCA REALLY needs an amendment that strongly discourages improper notices. Something along the lines of "three strikes and you're out" would greatly reduce the number of wrongful claims, which is actually the one big problem with the DMCA. Congress has to do that, though, not Youtube.
If that were fixed, and people were educated about counter-claims under DMCA, it would actually be a pretty good law. The DMCA system works pretty well in cases where the complainant isn't being reckless about filing improper claims.
If you read the linked Google Groups thread, YTSpencer didn't make any actual commitments and didn't ever come back to respond to anyone. This reeks of a company trying to sweep a major publicity problem under the rug without taking any action. The fact that you can literally steal monetization with a copyright claim and the money isn't clawed back when the appeal process finds in favor of the video author means that there's no downside to "jacking" monetization with bogus claims en masse--which is exactly what's being referred to in the thread: an incident where "[Merlin] CDLTD" monetization-jacked as many "Damn Daniel" videos on YouTube as possible and YouTube/Google gladly raked over the bucks.
This is not news. Nothing has changed. There was some murmuring and hand-wringing from YouTube and the status quo resumed its march.
Nowhere do I see "consequences for false flags" or "actually giving people their stolen monetization money back." What a bunch of corporate fluff bullshit.
I'd rather see the law changed so companies (and people) that file bogus takedown notices are fined (or better, face criminal charges, or both)
If fair damages for each infringing song range from $750 to $80,000 per song, then the record industry can afford to hire lawyers to thoroughly vet each takedown notice. Even if it takes 15 minutes to review the video and ensure it's a valid copyright claim, that lawyer will be saving the industry $3000 - $320,000 per hour. They'll all be rich!
you guys forgot to mention that all this is because of a youtuber called GradeAUnderA who started this whole #MakeYoutubeGreatAgain in one of his videos, urging people to tweet it to the CEO of youtube. She then responded to the tweets and someone at google even got hold of GradeAUnderA to talk to him. Gotta give credit where its due guys.
Until this weekend my main Youtube channel was inaccessible for over a year, as it didn't have an email address associated to it. I was so happy to see it back.
This one I used all the time but could only view. Granted it was of no outside value as it's just a lot clips of my game play, and unless you play games you could care less that I found the first glitch in Call of duty's BO https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
FWIW the youtube channel I have able to access has two videos, one has seen over 400000 views, it's 4 seconds long and nobody likes it - but the demographics it has collected are downright informative or scary depending upon your outlook.
Big corporation does something bad: How dare they?! When are they going to do the right thing?
Big corporation does something good (or at least tries to): Whatever! It won't work! Big stupid corporations don't care about us and big stupid government is in the pocket of the big stupid corporations!
There is no such thing as good news on here, apparently. Unless it involves Raspberry PI or 3D printing. (But not 3D printing guns.)
I've been seeing a few videos with the #WTFU (Where's The Free Use) attached to it. Looks like it may have actually worked!
Can't we just promote the alternatives?
How will that solve anything though? Once an alternative gets popular enough the same people will come after them with the same frivolous claims. The problem is the US law which lets them do this with impunity, not the particular website which gets targeted by these idiots.
I'd like to see a "repeat offenders" classification for copyright claimants like the copyright holders want for alleged infringers. If more than a certain percentage of your copyright infringement claims turn out to be bogus, your claims get diverted for review and won't be acted on until someone's checked the content and checked with the uploader. Same standard for any automated system, if it can't maintain at least the same level of accuracy expected of claimants then it's results can't be used until after human review.
YAWN. Is YT pandering microphone still on?
Want to stop "erroneous" take-downs of non-infringing content? Amend the law so that if 0.1% of your take-down claims is improper the content in question is transferred to the public domain. Companies would tread really carefully if they risked losing ownership of the content in question. If content holders expect such severe penalties for infringers its only fair that there be severe penalties for claiming infringement where none exists.
Well Its About time we put the abusers at the stand! too many people beating on the system. also Check out Richie Nuzz in this Remix https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How can I have fun dox drop people on youtube without my good old false DMCA's?
I hope youtube changes their minds.
Don't ruin the fun of trolling!
Prior to Content Id, representatives of rightsholders would run automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video could then file a counter-notice. This is the DMCA process.
With Content Id, automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video can file a counter-notice. It's exactly the same as the DMCA process (as actually implemented*) , except that all of the notices are in the exact same format since YouTube generates them, and Youtube can ensure that the software which does the matching does a reasonably good job of matching videos to copyright protected samples. It's the same process, just implemented in such a way that it's more efficient for YouTube.
If DMCA were amended to penalize improper notices, Content Id could (and almost certainly would) be updated to match.
* When DMCA was being debated and public comment was being accepted, approximately nobody predicted that a huge mass of claims would be filed by automated software, so that's not what DMCA was intended to be. That is in fact what happened under DMCA though, and Content Id simply standardised the matching algorithm and the formatting of complaints to be used for content on YouTube.
** I know some of the first people who were involved with trying to create and use software to handle the thousands of infringements of their unique content. They did so with the best of intentions, and it made sense at the time. Then it got out of hand when large media companies send hundreds of thousands of notices without making sure that their systems for doing so worked extremely well first. Not all programmers are great, and some not-great programmers authored some not-great DMCA systems, for customers who found out that there's no real penalty for sending a bad DMCA notice.
"mistakes" don't delete anything, more sloppy grammar from AMERICANS, as usual.
Did you mean "mistakes that lead to legitimate videos being deleted"? Or was that too hard for your tiny, AMERICAN brain to think up?
I recently had two of my videos blocked worldwide thanks to BBC Worldwide. Previously they had had copyright matches against them for use of music, but no blocks - I assume the BBC (the proper UK BBC) was getting any ad money, which was fine by me.
Anyway, I disputed both with a long rant about how it was a heavily edited montage with a specific new, uh, y'know, thing behind it and they were restored immediately. So far nothing else has happened, so I assume BBC Worldwide aren't bothered enough to employ a human to react to anyone who disputes one of their claims.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why does anyone pay for music when you can get it for free, without ads, from YouTube?
So I assume i pissed off a youtube troll because all 1900+ videos in my channel were flagged for copyright. I promptly removed all of the videos flagged.. well that's a lie, I unlisted them, set them to private, and I'm deleting them in batches of 30 because apparently you can't just delete all of your videos. Anyhoo. I complained to them that fair use license applied to all content i posted, and even included the VIDEO where the content owner asked people to share the videos via their channels and gave copyright to do so. youtube declined to answer. So it gets better, what gets flagged next and disables monetization for my channel? Several "videos" I made that are actually a single jpeg of my guitar rig, and audio of my jamming and improving on the guitar. That's right, they even flagged those and they are blocked globally until it's resolved. So, enough complaints even with out proof and my videos get deleted and my account terminated. How many false claims does it take from a content owner to have their ability to file complaints terminated??
I have an animated film I made in college in 1986 (pre internet) -- which I uploaded to youtube well before they had things like channels or monitization or anything. Videos at the time were limited to 10 minutes. I uploaded the film to youtube so long agao, I can't even tell you what name and password were used to upload it.
Recently (about 5 months ago); I was treated to a takedown notice cliaming my video violates someone's copyright, but that was all they could tell me. To dispute the claim, as well as see the details of the takedown, I had to login to "my channel".
Of course, I don't *have* a channel, and like I said, I can't even remember what account I used to upload the film.
So there's no recourse for me, except maybe to re-upload the film under a new account I can keep track of.
But what makes me furious is that Youtube had NO PROBLEM with my film for 10 years -- and now all of a sudden I'm violating copyright? Fuck you Youtube, you don't deserve my business.
You're making money off of me, not the other way around. I never earned a dime for my film, but my content helped you become a multi-billion dollar company. Fuck you are the horse you rode in on.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"Rejecting" a notice isn't an option under DMCA. The company hosting the content doesn't isn't the judge, and exercises no discretion. If they get a notice for a particular URL, and don't receive a counter-notice from the other side, they must take it down in a timely fashion.
They can only "reject" it if it's notice a DMCA notice, because it doesn't contain the information required by DMCA, such as the URL and the statement of agency.
That should read:
They can only "reject" it if it is not an actual DMCA notice, because it doesn't contain the information required by DMCA.
I'm 99% sure that a notice generated by a bot is not a valid DMCA notice. YouTube takes them seriously because of agreements with the content providers, not because of the DMCA itself.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
> I'm 99% sure that a notice generated by a bot is not a valid DMCA notice.
What do you mean by "valid"? Do you mean 1) "correctly identifies an actual infringement which is not fair use or any other defense", or do you mean 2) "is a notice, as defined by DMCA"? Or do you mean 3) "I think that somewhere in the DMCA it says that you're not allowed to use any computer programs to assist in generating notices"?
As to 3), here's the text of the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
You'l notice it does not ban the use of software to create notices. In fact, it says almost nothing about -creating- notices, it's all about what a service provider must do when they -receive- a notice.
It's the second meaning that matters. The company hosting the content has to act when they receive a notice. They can't / don't have to decide whether the content actually infringes, they only have to realize that they have received a notice. A notice is defined as a communication which "substantially complies" with these requirements:
(i) A physical OR ELECTRONIC signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed [the name of the song/movie/etc that was copied] or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. [The URL]
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Note that in (vi), the "under penalty of perjury" comes AFTER the word "and", not before. it applies only to the statement of agency.
Sadly as others have pointed out such strategies would backfire badly under the current law.
On the other hand there *is* theoretically liability imposed for fraudulent takedown notices within the DMCA text, it's just that Joe Shmoe doesn't have the resources to sue Sony, Disney, etc. over false claims. So, what Google *could* do, is take their giant list of false claims received, and help organize class-action lawsuits against the offenders. It shouldn't be that hard for a good lawyer to argue that the standards of "reasonable belief" or whatever it is in the DMCA is not met simply because an automated system known to have an atrocious false-positive rate said that a video was infringing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
However,
>(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
Should open the door to perjury charges, since there's no way "good faith" is satisfied by a video being flagged by a system known to have an atrocious false-positive rate. Hence any claim based entirely on such a system is inherently fraudulent, regardless of whether or not any infringement is actually occurring.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It may well be negligence, which opens the door to a civil suit.
> Should open the door to perjury charges
That's a common misconception, and the reason I specifically ended the post by highlighting which clause that applies to:
> > Note that in (vi), the "under penalty of perjury" comes AFTER the word "and", not before. it applies only to the statement of agency.
The clause is:
âoeunder penalty of perjury, that the complaining party
is authorized to act on behalf of the owner"
It applies only if I were to send a DMCA notice claiming that I represent LucasFilm, asking that a copy of Star Wars be taken down. I don't work for LucasFilm, so that would be a lie. It does NOT say "under penalty of perjury that everything in the notice is true and the judge and jury will agree with all of it". The perjury attestation is only regarding the identification of the person sending the notice.
Being less-than-careful about whether or not it's actually infringement would be negligence, and the person could be sued. It wouldn't be criminal perjury unless they lied about being a representative of the copyright holder. Of course it depends on what the person knows about how much the system they are using sucks.
> since there's no way "good faith" is satisfied by ...
"Good faith" doesn't really add anything significant here. In US law, good faith basically goes to intent - it means they are trying to take care of infringements, rather than maliciously trying to cause improper takedowns. 'Good faith" is -almost- the same thing as "lack of malice" - the person didn't set out with the goal of causing harm, even if they weren't very careful about avoiding harm.
PS, here's why the perjury clause is limited only to agency. Suppose I say that I'm a lawyer representing LucasFilm. That's either true or false. If I say I am, but my claim is false, that can be perjury.
On the other hand, suppose I publish a song that sounds a lot like "Stairway to Heaven". Is that infringement? It depends. It depends on how close my song is to Stairway, it depends on how much of my song sounds like Stairway, it depends on if my song is a parody of Stairway. Ultimately, it's a matter of opinion (though there are guidelines). You can't commit perjury by stating that it is (or is not) infringing, because that's a matter of opinion.
The DMCA requires that the site list the contact information for the designated agent as follows:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
That's in  512. So requiring a web form of any kind, with or without a captcha, would require a change of law.
They were on their way to having NOTHING on YouTube with a bullcrap policy like that