YouTube Fails In Explaining Flood Of Takedowns For Let's Play Videos
from the not-how-to-do-this dept
Last week, there had been some rumors that YouTube was changing its policies around so-called "let's play" videos, with some arguing that "Google was implementing SOPA" when it came to let's play videos -- and that all videos would have to be previewed first to make sure there was no use of copyright-covered content. That seemed like a clear exaggeration, but over the past few days there have been numerous reports from a variety of different sources about how many of the biggest video game channels on YouTube were suddenly getting inundated with copyright claims, many of which people felt were bogus.So what's happened? Well, it's not that YouTube "implemented SOPA." Rather it appears to be a combination of pushing out its ContentID "scanning" program to channels that are listed as affiliates to so-called "MCNs" (Multi-channel Networks). MCNs are effectively "collections" of independent YouTube channels, banding together for certain advantages, such as cross-promotion and ad sales across all videos. While most people are familiar with ContentID, as far as I can tell (and despite repeated attempts to speak to multiple people, no one seems interested in explaining the details), it appears that ContentID generally works on newly uploaded videos, whereas going back and scanning existing videos is more targeted. And, it's that back scanning that has been "enabled" here. In other words, if those videos had been uploaded very recently, they might have been hit with the same ContentID claim, but these were "back catalog" videos in many cases, which sort of grandfathered them in. That explains the sudden influx. Going back over all those old videos has turned up a bunch of matches.
Then there's a separate issue: which is that many people claim that the claims are completely bogus. Even though they're on let's play videos, they're not coming from the video game companies, but other third parties. In fact, the big video game companies, like Ubisoft, Capcom and Blizzard say they have no problem with let's play videos and are actually trying to help those impacted in figuring out what to do.
This move is almost certainly a result of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) suing Fullscreen, a big MCN, claiming copyright infringement. There are some generally interesting legal questions about whether or not an MCN is actually liable for any infringement by an independent YouTube producer, but some of these MCNs have grown to be quite large, and the publishers want money. YouTube is likely trying to clean up the videos associated with MCNs in one big move to avoid any future issues.
What that means, however, is that it's likely one of the reasons that people aren't recognizing the names making the copyright claims is that the matches aren't on the game play, but rather the music either in the video games themselves (likely in many cases) or that video makers add to their videos in general. To their credit, it appears that many of the gaming companies are actually helping video creators clear that music.
The whole thing is a bit of a mess, but not as crazy as it first appeared. And it's certainly not a case of "SOPAfying" YouTube videos. It's just extending the ContentID scanning to those channels to try to clean out problems and, hopefully, avoid future lawsuits against those MCNs.
That said, YouTube's communications over this have been dismal and have greatly contributed to the problem. The company has put out the identical statement to everyone who's asked (including us):
We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.That's... somewhat useless. It doesn't address the reasons or the concerns of the video makers, and has many scared. That is not the best way to explain the situation, and only lends credence to the exaggerated claims that YouTube is helping to kill off let's play videos, when that's not the case at all. It also presupposes an extraordinary level of knowledge that most people don't have of Content ID, copyright, MCNs, licensing, publishing and more. It's basically the opposite of providing the information that video makers actually need -- leaving them freaked out about a massive influx in copyright claims they don't understand. Without a better, more honest and clear explanation, most users are blaming the most obvious party: YouTube.
It appears that YouTube briefed some MCNs on the basics of this change, which is why those rumors came out last week, as the MCNs tried to explain the issue to the affiliates -- but generally did so badly, because this stuff is complicated enough as is, and then you add a game of legal telephone where the people passing on the details don't really understand the issues either. YouTube could have done a much, much, much better job laying out the details of what it was doing and why (and even how that actually should help MCNs by avoiding lawsuits like the NMPA's. But instead, it's got a ton of people freaked out and its communications to those people are almost non-existent other than the cryptic statement which, while accurate, fails to portray the full situation.
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: contentid, copyright, flagging, licensing, mcn, takedowns, youtube
Companies: google, nmpa, youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“With all other claimants, if you go through the whole dispute > appeal > counter-notice process, you can eventually clear your video of false copyright claims. But when UMG claims a video, it is impossible to ever clear the copyright claim, because once you get to the counter-notice stage UMG will just "override" your counter-notice and keep the video offline.
MCNs were user's last refuge against these types of claims. If Content ID now applies to MCNs as well, there truly is no escaping it. A sad day indeed.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Must be some irrelevant control freak who thinks hes important wanting to make a rukus.
Btw Youtube I am tired of seeing articles about your absurd policies. Anymore of this and we will simply go out and make another youtube. Get your shit together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Anymore of this and we will simply go out and make another youtube."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "Anymore of this and we will simply go out and make another youtube."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "Anymore of this and we will simply go out and make another youtube."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "Anymore of this and we will simply go out and make another youtube."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Content ID exists because YouTube was found liable for the infringement of their users when they were sued by Viacom.
Any sufficiently large streaming site will inevitably face the same lawsuits. The only solution is to demand meaningful copyright reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.#2013_District_Court _ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
YouTube was not found liable in that case. In fact, the lawsuit went in Google's favor twice, and Viacom backed off a tiny bit in the battle after their second loss when Google offered the Content ID fig leaf.
Google doesn't do Content ID because they're required to at all. They do Content ID because they're trying to kiss up to the major content companies. What they haven't yet learned is that no matter how much they bend over for those people, they still hate Google with every fiber of their beings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With all other claimants, if you go through the whole dispute > appeal > counter-notice process, you can eventually clear your video of false copyright claims. But when UMG claims a video, it is impossible to ever clear the copyright claim, because once you get to the counter-notice stage UMG will just "override" your counter-notice and keep the video offline.
MCNs were user's last refuge against these types of claims. If Content ID now applies to MCNs as well, there truly is no escaping it. A sad day indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People are essentially being taken down for violating their own copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A) *Cha-ching*!
or
B) Do this or we'll drag you into court, force you to spend a ton of money defending yourself, and then get our pet congresscritters and/or senators to pass laws to make your life a living hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, WHAT?!
If that's true, that shows, more than anything else, that copyright needs to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which law? The DMCA notification and counter-notification law?
It's simple. YouTube has a deal with UMG. UMG can therefore take down whatever they like on YouTube.
The DMCA doesn't apply because they aren't using the DMCA form. And remember that the notification and counter-notification laws are ONLY there to provide immunity to YouTube itself from liability. They are free to ignore those provisions if they don't mind losing the immunity. And YouTube is frankly not worried about a lawsuit from you that they wrongly took down your content. Their TOS states "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Probably the same way they got DMCA passed in the first place. Plenty of Benjamins, Hookers, and Blow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The bigger problems are the legal uncertainty, a first and last initiative from content holders (takedown and counter-notice), the fact that the costs of taking it to court far outweighs any possible profit, the difference in "power" (economic and otherwise) of the sides in the conflict and the randomness of bots like Content ID. The situation of UMG is a different kind of fullblown market distortion.
No, contentID is not the real problem. It is a symptom of a host of other problems with no easy solutions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ignoring the law should not be allowed as a business model."
Anyhoo, yet again, Mike complains that people can't just take the works of others and do whatever they wish with it. Mike's "support' of copyright means only that those who put the time and money into its production are fully entitled to do so, but not necessarily to get all the rewards from those investments: he wants that spread out among second-hand hacks.
Mike's notions are all get-rich-quick schemes by using products someone else made. His continued defense of Megaupload shows his ideal "business model": neither pay to produce nor royalties on any of the files hosted so costs are just above bandwidth, and able to avoid legal liability so long as pretend ignorance of infringed content.
06:37:05[h-370-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Argue what you want about Let's Plays, ootb, reviews, previews and interviews CLEARLY fall under fair use and UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, it SPECIFICALLY states that Fair Use is NOT infringing!
In fact, Blue...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfHdasuWtI
Watch that, you MIGHT learn a thing or three about HOW this is hurting people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, I agree. Except that YouTube can exclude whatever they like whether or not it infringes. If they have a policy to take down any video that UMG wants down, then you're out of luck on YouTube. You could even get a declaratory judgement of noninfringement and YouTube would be under no obligation to restore the video. Unless you have some legal theory that can force YouTube to publish your content... and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a very bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's ridiculous that youtube is indiscriminately handing out copyright notices on behalf of a ridiculous number of copyright holders to begin with, even more so that it's completely automated without any input from anyone. The rightsholders themselves should have to find the videos themselves and submit notices through youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I remember correctly, he stopped using it because people were complaining about the loading.
Either way, it's easy to understand why video creators are slowly but surely using different video streaming platforms other than YouTube. Heck, it's no wonder Doug Walker went to create TGWTG, his own website (as atrociously outdated the web design as it is) after getting hit from copyright claims. True, he opened up The League of Super Critics, but it's only a matter of time before the system claims them too. Same with LittleKuriboh and Team Four Star. They use Blip more often than YouTube to continue to upload videos even after consistently fighting against the ContentID system.
Honestly, I hope that YouTube eventually dies when there are better options for video creators and reviewers out there. Blip and Dailymotion come to mind...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Ignoring the law should not be allowed as a business model."
No, Mike's never said or implied anything like that. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we all know you can't and won't.
"Mike's "support' of copyright means only that those who put the time and money into its production are fully entitled to do so, but not necessarily to get all the rewards from those investments: he wants that spread out among second-hand hacks."
It's like you set out to make yourself look ignorant... You've obviously never watched Let's Play videos and don't really understand what the adults are talking about. These videos are entirely beneficial to the game creators, providing FREE promotion and advertising, and making games more valuable to players. Similarly any music heard in these videos is clearly beneficial to the music's creators, putting their music in front of people who might not otherwise hear it. It's not like you go actively searching for songs by looking through Let's Play videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYxNuLWQi7w
No chance for an appeal after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't seem to understand the entirety of the situation... It isn't just Let's Players who are being affected by this (they have always been a slippery slope, on one hand yes they are using other people's content, but on the other hand that content is just a stage. For the most part viewers are watching the YouTube personality), but reviewers of video games as well.
AngryJoe from the AngryJoeShow has roughly 500 videos. Over 60 of those videos have been tagged for copyright claims. Since he is reviewing the content in those videos, it falls under fair use, which an automated bot cannot determine. Isn't it astounding how with the previous system, he never had a single strike, now with this automated system he is looking at 60? He isn't a small channel either, his views per video ranges from a few hundred thousand to upwards of 3 million. With a channel that large, surely he would've been flagged for copyright infringement before, wouldn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So far that feature is very basic and somewhat bug-ridden, but it has been stated by their CEO that they want to improve that capacity a lot down the line. Youtube also experiments with some live broadcasts on their end.
Since I think the poster talked about "let's play" the markets are definitely overlapping and will start to overlap even more over time as they start to move into eachothers main markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, I can see claiming copyright on music that someone added to their video.
But claiming it on the music that comes with the game itself? No. Especially not with someone talking over it. If you sold your music for use in the game, you sold it for ALL uses of the game. That's as ridiculous as a sculptor suing people for taking pictures of the courthouse because their statue is there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims
http://www.museumofhoax es.com/hoax/weblog/comments/is_the_eiffel_tower_copyrighted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JqjDhuPFaQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Youtube's Copyright Changes to Game play Footage
http://youtu.be/35P2-kVuHKI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They talk about what MCNs are (though Adam works for one, doing their own gaming content, he is still in the dark on the details); the different kinds of content being targeted; copyright, fair use & how the system is broken; how the big companies are trying to help; & much more. The game insiders talked about how all these Game videos are free advertising, among other things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw
A lot of what they discuss in the Hangout I've seen TechDirt post about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just freeloaders
This reminds me of when the Curiosity rover landed on Mars and NASA's videos got flagged because a news network put one of their broadcasts into the Content ID system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ugly corner cases
Classical music (various performances, including synthesized music)
Covers (even, as covered on Techdirt previously, Band's performing a cover of their own work to re-release with better terms)
Written permission from an authorized agent (who may not have communicated with, or whom does not have any control over, 'rogue' enforcement agents).
Fair Use - The, yes it's a copy, but it's covered.
Oh, and the above also ignores all aspects of International things; what rules cover a user based in Germany vs a user in Canada vs a user in the UK vs a user in the US or anywhere else?
I think I've finally seen an 'industry' with more inherent liability and even less clarity than 'software patents' (protected ways of /thinking/) cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.longplays.org/downloads.php?cat_id=21
World of Longplays, a site that links to user recorded longplays of video games (not Let's Plays that typically have commentary). The videos are stored on Archive.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can only imagine this is an attempt at corporate suicide from YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What alternatives are there to YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What alternatives are there to YouTube?
They could afford to pay top-notch lawyers, they could afford to spend the massive court fees from multiple appeals and cases, they could afford to pay people to do nothing but represent them in court, however a smaller company on the other hand would not be able to do any of this, and would swiftly be crushed via the system.
Probably the best example of this was Veoh, that, despite winning every single case filed against it, was still run into the ground and bankrupted, because every time they won the other side would just appeal or sue them again, and the court fees eventually reached the point where Veoh simple couldn't pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What alternatives are there to YouTube?
Not true. However, most people do use it.
Think of it like the situation with search engines. People use Google all the time, but there's a huge amount of competition ranging from Bing to Dogpile to DuckDuckGo. Most people use Google, however, mainly due to branding, simple familiarity or the "good enough" conundrum. Which is that even if far superior products out there exist, people will stick with what's familiar.
Things can change - and change quickly, just as they have in the past. Google quickly took marketshare from household name search competitors when they first appeared, and the same can happen to them, in any space they currently operate within.
But, the real problem in this case isn't YouTube or Google, it's the content providers. If those other services are currently "better", it's only because they're small fry who haven't gained the attention of the corporate lawyers yet. Unless something changes, they will be faced with the same problems YouTube were - set up automated policing, even if it negative affects your own lawyers, or die. they're not "getting away" with anything, it's that they've been shown what the alternatives are, and if Google don't want to spend the resources fighting this, how the hell is a smaller site going to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“You don't seem to understand the entirety of the situation... It isn't just Let's Players who are being affected by this (they have always been a slippery slope, on one hand yes they are using other people's content, but on the other hand that content is just a stage. For the most part viewers are watching the YouTube personality), but reviewers of video games as well.
AngryJoe from the AngryJoeShow has roughly 500 videos. Over 60 of those videos have been tagged for copyright claims. Since he is reviewing the content in those videos, it falls under fair use, which an automated bot cannot determine. Isn't it astounding how with the previous system, he never had a single strike, now with this automated system he is looking at 60? He isn't a small channel either, his views per video ranges from a few hundred thousand to upwards of 3 million. With a channel that large, surely he would've been flagged for copyright infringement before, wouldn't he?