Musicians Celebrate: UK Small Venues Can Now Play Live Music License-Free [Updated]

Google: That Thing We Said About Manually Reviewing Borderline YouTube Takedowns? We Didn't Mean It That Way

from the ooops dept

Fri, Oct 5th 2012 1:31pm — Mike Masnick

Earlier this week, YouTube made some news for changing the way its ContentID program works, including improving the appeals process. Among the improvements was one in which more "borderline" cases that ContentID matched, but without as high confidence that it was definitely infringing, would go through a slightly different process:

“We’ve improved the algorithms that identify potentially invalid claims. We stop these claims from automatically affecting user videos and place them in a queue to be manually reviewed.”

I, and many others, believed this meant that Google would have people manually review those borderline cases. Some people in our comments even interpreted this to be an admission that Google could pre-check videos for infringement -- a mathematical impossibility. However, Google has since clarified the statement to note that it wouldn't be Google doing the manual review.

But what he meant to say was that some of the automatic matches will be sent to be reviewed “by the content owner” — not by Google

Of course, we've seen content owners have little qualms about overclaiming their rights at times, but perhaps this isn't a terrible idea. One of the real problems with ContentID was that it does these blocks completely automatically -- meaning that they could even be against the copyright holder's own real wishes. Pushing borderline cases to content holders to manually review is a step in the right direction, though still one that is likely to be abused.

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

Filed Under: contendid, copyright, fair use, manual review
Companies: google, youtube

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 1:40pm

From context within the announcement, that's exactly what I thought they meant.

I'm still happy that the presumptive rights-holders will be subject to rules for DMCA perjury. I'm almost as happy about that as I am angry that no one will ever face any real consequences for filing a false DMCA claim.

(I used "presumptive" as a compromise from my initial choice of "alleged". Trolls are free to replace that word with "poor besieged" if it makes them feel better.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re:
  Funny thing is - actually copyright holders actually talk to each other and work it out... not so much of a problem.
  
  I love that google is getting on board, helping with artists rights!
  
  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/google-pro-artist-policy-changes-challenge-allega tions-of-net-censorship/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2012 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Could you tell bob that, hurricane head? He still insists Big Search is behind everything. Maybe if you lick his shoes he might be less unpleasant!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 1:54pm

If lying about it was perjury, it would make an excellent step. If you're willing to perjure yourself to be an asshole, you get what you deserve, and an incentive for the manual reviewers to get it right. Sadly, without a serious legal reprucussion, this is just a tool of abuse :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re:
  What manual review, the presumed content holder will probably automatically claim infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lennart Regebro, 5 Oct 2012 @ 2:04pm

From my experience of this (with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY-AS5wlfwc ) I don't think the content "owner" reviews it manually even if you dispute it. They just claim they have copyright anyway. There is no drawback to it for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drew, 5 Oct 2012 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re:
  What will change is that if the uploader claims that ContentID made a mistake, or they are making fair use of the material, the rightsholder will have to file a real DMCA takedown request which involves paperwork and signed statements that can be used to sue takedown abusers for perjury.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lennart Regebro, 5 Oct 2012 @ 7:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That would be good. Do you have a link explaining that this is fact is the case?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Drew, 8 Oct 2012 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The explanation is in the Youtube blog post that kicked this all off: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2012/10/improving-content-id.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2012 @ 2:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Computer stored signatures images have been used for years to sign letters.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 2:12pm

By the content owners yes that's smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 4:27pm
  
  Re:
  Who would you send suspected counterfeit Nikes to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 6 Oct 2012 @ 2:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nike. Because they're probably better-made.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corby (profile), 5 Oct 2012 @ 2:50pm

""But what he meant to say was that some of the automatic matches will be sent to be reviewed �by the content owner� � not by Google""

And what is to stop this so called "the content owner" lying with stating that the copyright belongs to them when it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re:
  Nothing, but the important thing about it is that Google will not have to decide a case like a judge. By handing that honour to the "content owner" we are back to youtube not having to defend takedown-requests and the blame in case of a court-case will be on the "content owner". The system is, however, still turned the wrong way in terms of consumer-protection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Michael, 5 Oct 2012 @ 2:52pm

Content ID may have improved?
About 10 days ago, I uploaded a video of myself performing a JS Bach composition (The Little Fugue un Gm) that is clearly in the Public domain.

As soon as the upload finished, I was slapped with a copyright notice from Youtube. There was also a small form that I could fill-out to dispute the claim if I felt the claim was invalid. I filled it out immediately and sent it in. This was around 1am. Within 5minutes, the copyright claim was withdrawn.

Should that claim ever have been filed against me? No.

Was it straightened-out in a timely, efficient manner. Yes.

For that, IMO, Youtube deserves kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Oct 2012 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re: Content ID may have improved?
  This one time NASA put up the video from Mars, and it was taken down because a news service claimed ownership.
  And until people were mocking them on the web, they didn't back down.
  
  This one time a dude uploaded video in a forest and a bird sang, and some company claimed ownership he filled out the form contesting it and the company doubled down and claimed they had reviewed in and it was totally theirs.
  
  So I've got 2 idiotic moves vs your 1 good outcome, so I think its still screwed up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Slicerwizard, 7 Oct 2012 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Content ID may have improved?
    "So I've got 2 idiotic moves vs your 1 good outcome, so I think its still screwed up."
    
    But now those two idiotic moves will have to be real DMCA notices.
    
    If the idiots cave and back down - win.
    
    If the idiots double down and actually file a bogus DMCA notice - big win - nail their asses to the wall.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 5 Oct 2012 @ 3:11pm

ContentID sucks
Google needs to start supporting its community more. Without it, they are nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2012 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re: ContentID sucks
  By doing what? Hiring actual people to do the work? Think of all the poor robots that will end up on the street.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Oct 2012 @ 11:09pm
    
    Re: Re: ContentID sucks
    They could use that army of lawyers and sue content holders for perjury claims on behalf of the users targeted with bogus notices.
    If there was an actual penalty the system might work as intended and Google would look better in the users eyes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nelson, 5 Oct 2012 @ 3:17pm

Something about the fox running the hen house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 7 Oct 2012 @ 5:47am

3 strikes
Each 'content owner' or parent company gets three chances to file bogus claims. After that they aren't allowed to file any additional claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Oct 2012 @ 4:55am

One more reason to start questioning takedowns en masse. Maybe the MAFIAA morons will actually pay attention to how much fair use there is and how people define copyright differently from them...

We should watch how this thing goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]