Google Finally Changes ContentID Appeals Process
from the good-move dept
While some aspects of YouTube's ContentID feature have been quite cool, creating new ways for content creators to monetize their works, there have been significant problems too, especially in taking down legitimate content with little recourse for the uploader. Thankfully, it appears that the folks at YouTube have finally realized that the counter-notification/appeals process for ContentID takedowns was bogus. A lot of people get DMCA takedowns and ContentID takedowns confused, but they're different. With the DMCA, you have an official counternotice process, and if the copyright holder doesn't sue (realistically, file for an injunction), then YouTube puts your content back up after 10 business days. However, with ContentID, there are no legal rules. Google handled ContentID disputes by letting the copyright holder simply "reject" the dispute -- and that was about the end of it, even in cases where they were putting ads on someone else's content. Now, however, YouTube has revamped the appeals process so that if someone disputes a ContentID takedown, the copyright holder would need to file an actual DMCA claim if they want to keep claiming infringement:Users have always had the ability to dispute Content ID claims on their videos if they believe those claims are invalid. Prior to today, if a content owner rejected that dispute, the user was left with no recourse for certain types of Content ID claims (e.g., monetize claims). Based upon feedback from our community, today we’re introducing an appeals process that gives eligible users a new choice when dealing with a rejected dispute. When the user files an appeal, a content owner has two options: release the claim or file a formal DMCA notification.This is a much more reasonable process that doesn't allow people claiming copyright to effectively take over a video regardless of whether or not the video's uploader disputes it. This probably should have happened a long time ago, but it's good to see it finally has.
The announcement also claims that their system is becoming better at avoiding "invalid claims." It sounds as though there's some sort of threshold now, where if something is borderline, it goes into a manual review queue, rather than automatically being taken down. So the more "gray area" cases will get a human review first.
We'll see how all of this works out, but it's good to see that Google is taking many of the complaints about ContentID's overeager takedowns seriously.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Define, please.
Actually, I have to laugh - it's Google / Youtube finally admitting that perhaps reviewing stuff would be a good idea, you know, with humans. They will certainly need to put some manpower on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google is now being inundated with an exponential amount of legitimate takedown notices. I don't blame them for wanting to separate the wheat from the chaff. But they also have been alerted to what is on the the horizon for those that play fast and loose with the law, and that is precisely why they've been trying to clean up their act as quickly as possible.
No one was amused with their BS SOPA drama. They got to play that card once and that ship has now sailed. They have a huge market cap and their investors demand a legitimate business model, not one based on skittles and unicorns.
And copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No one was amused with their BS SOPA drama."
Yeah, people can't think for themselves and they don't know what's good for them. Especially those pesky digital natives freetards you know.
"their investors demand a legitimate business model, not one based on skittles and unicorns."
Meanwhile investors flock in droves to buy stocks big content companies who so successfully re-invented their business model for the digital age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
CMCSA
a little actual research won't kill you, pal. Promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Clearly you haven't been here on this site very long. I remember reading articles that said that somewhere in the region of 30% of all DMCA notices received by Youtube are bogus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait, I meant I read articles on here every day saying stupid shit.
Lose the zero and you'll be closer to the actual number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120907/13121720312/copyright-holders-still-sending- dmca-takedowns-content-thats-been-gone-months.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/163 93220051/universal-music-uses-bogus-dmca-claim-to-take-down-negative-review-drakes-album.shtml
ht tp://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.ie/2009/03/googles-numbers-on-bogus-dmca-notices.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, it is an undue burden. It's also laughable that those who hold copyright on a number of things say they are unable to police the internet due to the undue burden that would be placed upon them to do so, yet they expect others to undertake the same burden on their behalf.
"Google is now being inundated with an exponential amount of legitimate takedown notices."
False. I won't go into details, but the facts show otherwise. There is an exponential amount of FALSE takedown notices. Which is why Google, at least, is going to have humans review said notices. Perhaps this is the first step towards holding those filing false notices responsible, you know, that whole "perjury" bit mentioned in even filing said notices.
"I don't blame them for wanting to separate the wheat from the chaff."
I don't either. It looks like sooner rather than later filing false notices might lead to repercussions, and the people you support might start being a bit more careful.
"But they also have been alerted to what is on the the horizon for those that play fast and loose with the law, and that is precisely why they've been trying to clean up their act as quickly as possible."
Oh dear fortune teller, give me tonight's Texas Lottery numbers. Seeing as how you know what is on the horizon and all. /s
Google, nor the majority of those who you'd label piracy supports or whatnot, have never played fast and loose with the law. They've followed the letter of the law exactly, and in fact, Google for damn sure, have even gone above and beyond what was required of them. Just to shut up people like you, as little good that does them. ContentID, not required by the law. Monetizing things like ContentID, not required by the law. Allowing for the ability to file multiple notices at a time, not required by the law. I could go on.
The facts are not on your side and it's clearly evident at this point you know not at all what you speak of.
"No one was amused with their BS SOPA drama."
Aww. That's cute. Still upset about SOPA. Without going into it, because it'd be pointless, I'd just like to point out it wasn't Google's BS SOPA drama. Much like Chris Dodd you blame the wrong person/group. SOPA's failure was your own. The reason SOPA failed was because the people decided enough was enough and made their voices heard to THEIR elected representatives.
"They got to play that card once and that ship has now sailed."
Blah blah blah. Keep shaking your fist at Google. I'm sure it'll get you nowhere even faster. Well, besides a trip to the hospital. That ulcer I'm sure is building up inside you is only going to appear and get worse that much faster with all that resentment you have inside you.
"They have a huge market cap and their investors demand a legitimate business model, not one based on skittles and unicorns."
This statement is a beauty. Because any idiot, except you apparently, knows Google has a legitimate business model. Advertising. They make money through ads, always have, always will. And all their products are built around this fact.
"And copyright infringement."
Yawn. I think I've shot down enough of your silliness to not even have to bother with this last one. You've been so clueless on the rest that this last one is evident really. You know nothing. But that won't stop you from sounding like an old man saying, "And another thing..." hours after he's already lost an argument. It's cute really. "And copyright infringement..." Lol.
One day, you trolls might realize just how pathetic you sound and realize if you put half as much effort into telling those above you to give the people more legal options in convenient and affordable ways you'd have the problem beat lickety split. Of course one day pigs might fly, and it'll be for damn sure happening before you guys ever do that. But hey, anything's possible. Except you getting a clue. (But you're in good company, have you met bob?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While their business model is clearly not based off of Skittles and unicorns (see paragraph above noting other products / models they employ), I am increasingly convinced that their infrastructure runs entirely off of Skittles and unicorns.
You espouse that Big Content is the only ones producing anything and that Big Search steals from Big Content only. Are you aware that Google has pioneered managing enormous datasets? Not only do they pioneer them, but they (relatively quickly) share those advancements as well so others can build off of those concepts.
Can you really fathom the amount of data they are able to sift through to provide us with the products that we use? If you haven't ever looked into how Google's infrastructure works, it truly is an incredible, breathtaking thing.
I strongly contend that Google's advancements in technology are a creative thing. They are advancing humanity in ways that Big Content never would (and I would argue never could).
So let's not pretend like Google just "steals" from Big Content. Google absolutely does produce. And what it produces is a true work of scientific genius and art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lol ....
First of all, from what I understand from economists, loss from infringement is really rare.
If it's a legitimate notice, the website has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which suggests that the social costs of policing IP privileges is too high suggesting that we should get rid of these laws.
It also suggests that there is just way too much IP law. The purpose of IP law should be to expand the public domain and to serve a public interest but clearly the public domain is not being expanded since everything is covered and so everything is infringing. Protection should be the exception, public domain should be the rule, if IP law is indeed serving its purpose of expanding the public domain and serving the public interest. Less should be covered and IP should be opt in with a central registration database (having multiple copies of course) with content stored on that database and the release date so that we can know when it's supposed to enter the public domain and release it. Also, IP should not last so long. We need a clearer way of determining what's infringing and not everything should be infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and it's laughable to suggest that Google's business model is based on infringement. That's a lie and you know it. Google doesn't make anything off of infringement and if copy protection laws were abolished right now Google would still do fine.
and these are the people that want Megaupload gone. These are the people that want Bittorrent, Napster, digital lockers, etc... gone. People that claim that any information distribution system that they don't have full control over bases its existence on infringement. Neither megaupload nor Google is based on infringement but you like and claim so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean manpower to cope with the DDoS'ing of these robots sending out millions of non-human reviewed non-accountable claims ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://obscurantist.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words if you don't that any DMCA or Content ID takedowns, this year, that you let go un-appealed or could not a appeal because this did not exist at the time, you may appeal up to 3 Content ID takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3
2
1
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aka well fuck me they are using other video hosting sites that aren't monolithic, faceless, and doing stupid things to avoid hassles... shame they are still leaving in droves while we got around to noticing how badly we screwed this all up.
One wonders if it is to little to late, the video hosting game is ripe for someone to disrupt YouTube. People losing entire accounts over bogus claims, people losing revenue from scammers working the system, and the creators are getting annoyed.
When NASA can't manage to keep control of their footage, your system is fucked. When you can't figure out NASA has the rights to a video feed from Mars and not some news syndicate your doing it wrong.
Maybe its time to actually start calling out the false DMCA complaints and demand compensation. The form says perjury, maybe its time someone pursue these things... I vote for the company with lots of money and quite a bit to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HTML5 Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google does not own HTML5 so someone who wanted to disrupt the market would add support for both things, or something even better. That is how market disruption works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try this
Only corporations can have copyright afterall.
And that mindset helps drive people to hate copyright even more and ignore it more often. Respect is a 2 way street and it has been far to long since the cartels respected people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an interesting point though, if the MAFIAA chooses to file a DMCA notice (considering they will actually review all the contested stances) will the uploader be able to counter the DMCA notice or the content will be shutdown with it? There should be a process so the uploader knows about the DMCA notice and has the option to file for some counter-notice or the pertinent judicial process if needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You probably won't want to wish that, because I can imagine Youtube / Google starting to get upset when they spend more and more time trying to deal with morons disputing that their current video of Nirvana isn't infringing because it's non-commercial or some other wild eyed concept like that. Google could end up spending a shit load of money dealing with idiots like you trying to stand on a legal head of a pin, based on bad advice about fair use from sites like this one.
So how is life in the Socialist Republic of Brazil these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In any case the system is broken and if they eventually become overwhelmed by the amount of legitimate requests it'll only put this fact under the spotlights and maybe we can have a review of the copyright system itself, not some random tool. Because that's what I was saying, not some random pirate protest as you seem to think. I believe there's plenty of bogus takedown attempts to actually overwhelm any sane review system.
Also, 48 hours of video uploaded every minute (or second, can't recall the exact value right now). Think about that and think how the MAFIAA is using bots because even they can't cope with the sheer amount of content being uploaded.
We have yet to see numbers on how many of those takedowns are legitimate or not and it won't happen reliably anytime soon because you'd need some effort to analyze and prove fair use or not (for instance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As opposed to having to spend a shitload of money to satisfy idiots like you? Despite the fact that they're already following the letter of the law as it is explicitly laid out? And then on top of that doing more than the law requires just to get idiots like you to stfu?
Yeah, I don't see a problem. If anything finally pushes Google too far it's people like you and the various industries wanting more and more than is required by the law. And Google saying you know what, f*ck you. Do it yourself. Monetization of ContentID? We're getting rid of that. ContentID? Getting rid of that too. You're welcome to license the technology from us and pay for us to incorporate it, at your expense of course. And so on and so forth.
Yeah, you and yours would hate that. You're so in the wrong you don't even realize it. And that you think the public pointing out legitimate uses would upset Google shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously? That's a pretty weak attempt at an insult.
This "Socialist Republic" is the world's fifth largest economy, the largest in South America. They have fucking aircraft carriers!
I'd say that they are doing pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, well I own the copyright upon that bird song and you now owe me gobs of cash for your willful infringement of my property.
What?, ummmm yes - we hd real people review it you bloddy pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a big step to have YouTube follow DMCA law when then infringement claims become a lot more serious and those defending their uploads have a greater defence. So should they want to reject a DMCA notice then their video stays up and this can then turn into a court matter where both side can state their case to a Judge.
This step would help to eliminate false claims to other people's uploads as has been very common. So this is a good step for Google to take when they are now actually following the law instead of making up their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once there are fines for corps sending bogus notices, or their underlings doing it the system MIGHT get to what it is supposed to be. The best insult would be to hand over 90% of the fine to the person who was victimized by the bogus notice and 10% to Google for having to waste time playing keystone cop for the cartels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]