YouTube's $100 Million Upload Filter Failures Demonstrate What A Disaster Article 13 Will Be For The Internet
from the your-future-internet dept
The entire Article 13 debate is a weird one. It appears that both the recording industry and the film industry are going for broke on this one. The lobbying on this started a few years back, with the rather clever but completely bogus idea of the "value gap."
In case you haven't followed it, the idea of the "value gap" is that (1) YouTube pays less to musicians record labels than Spotify and Apple Music do for streams. (2) YouTube's general purpose video hosting platform is protected by intermediary protection laws (DMCA 512 in the US, Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive in the EU) allowing users to upload whatever they want, and YouTube only has to takedown infringing works upon notice. (3) Services like Spotify and Apple Music license all their works. (4) The "lower rates" that YouTube pays must be the result of the safe harbor, and the difference in payments is the "value gap." Article 13, then, is supposed to "fix" the value gap by completely removing any notice-and-takedown safe harbor for copyright-covered works.
Of course, almost all of this is bullshit. YouTube is used in very, very different ways from Spotify and Apple Music. While YouTube does have a competing music streaming service that is similar to Spotify/Apple Music, its payment rates there are equivalent. But on the general open platform, the rates are different. This is not because of the safe harbors, but because people use the platforms very, very differently. People use Spotify/Apple Music almost like radio -- to put on music that is constantly streaming playlists of songs. YouTube has all sorts of content, most of it not music, and while some may use it as a radio-style experience, that is fairly rare. And the recording industry has always received different rates based on different platforms and different kinds of usage.
Meanwhile, Article 13 will do nothing to solve the "problem" that all the "value gap" people keep insisting is a problem. That's because Article 13 will basically require an upload filter that will spot infringing works and block them before they get on the site (there's more to it than that, but that's a basic approximation of what the law will require in practice). Basically the only company that has actually done this already... is YouTube! YouTube has its ContentID system, which it has spent over $100 million developing, and which can block uploads and pull down content.
And... let's take a look at just how much damage such a system causes. Remember, YouTube has spent more on its filter than anyone else (by far) and it is considered easily the most sophisticated and advanced such filter.
And it sucks.
Last week, I saw musician Dan Bull (who wrote/performed the Techdirt podcast theme song) complaining that he had he had received a copyright claim on a video that was his own work, and from someone whose work was not in the video at all:
Another copyright claim on a video on my channel from someone whose content is not in the video at all... this system very rarely seems to work well does it
— Dan Bull đ (@itsDanBull) December 13, 2018
The issue, apparently, was that both Dan Bull and the claimant -- another independent rap artist -- had used used the same instrumental, that was available on a "non-exclusive" basis, meaning lots of artists could use it. That indie artist then tried to monetize their own work, but ContentID found anyone using the same properly licensed instrumental and gave people a strike.
And, even the way in which YouTube communicated with Dan Bull was ridiculous:
No YouTube, it isn't "being reviewed by the copyright owner". I'M the copyright owner, that's why I'm disputing it! pic.twitter.com/0UsBaQetKM
— Dan Bull đ (@itsDanBull) December 13, 2018
If you can't see that, YouTube told him that "your copyright dispute is currently being reviewed by the copyright owner," to which Dan Bull rightly pointed out that's bullshit, because it's not "the copyright holder" who is reviewing it.
A day later, someone else pointed me to a nearly identical situation with another super popular YouTube musician, The Fat Rat. A third party claimed copyright on his song and YouTube rejected The Fat Rat's dispute.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME @YouTube ?!?! THIS IS MY FUCKING SONG!!! @TeamYouTube @youtubemusic @YTCreators pic.twitter.com/IToGnJuwDJ
— TheFatRat (@ThisIsTheFatRat) December 12, 2018
And, then, soon after that, he posts a similar frustration to Dan Bull when YouTube incorrectly tells him that this is in the hands of "the content owner," when that's not whose hands its in at all:
UPDATE: I'm sure I'll get this sorted out with a lawyer but @YouTube's attitude here is mind-blowing. A guy claims my video, @YouTube gives the monetisation to him but then tells me it's not their business. Also notice they call HIM "content owner"! IT'S #MYFUCKINGSONG GODDAMIT pic.twitter.com/yKlL9ctXh4
— TheFatRat (@ThisIsTheFatRat) December 14, 2018
That's just two examples of YouTube's $100 million upload filter system claiming copyright on music incorrectly that I randomly came across in just the past few days. But it's not hard to find tons of other examples of this happening. Here's someone pointing out that each and every one of his videos is being copyright claimed one after another:
Does anyone have any info on who #Studio71_2_1 are and why theyâre going through my #YouTube videos one by one issuing copyright claims? The videos are all very different to one another so it doesnât make a lot of sense. pic.twitter.com/5TA1Jb6dXl
— Gareth Meurig (@GAZArts) December 10, 2018
And that seems to happen quite often too. Here's an incredible video from a popular YouTuber explaining in great detail how every single one of his videos had been copyright claimed:
In case you can't watch that, basically the guy legally licensed some music to be used as his outro music (paid the musician $50 for it, as per their request, even though the musician later claims anyone is free to use the music, so long as they include a Spotify link to his stuff). But, then a bunch of companies get involved, including Distrokid and Audiam, who claimed basically every single one of his videos, and his email conversation with both companies is maddening, as they don't seem to understand or care about what's going on -- and basically tell him that every time this happens he would need to email them again and hope they remove the claims, but they refuse to whitelist his account.
And here's another person highlighting that all 3,000+ of his videos just got a ContentID copyright claim:
A company is FALSELY copyright-claiming ALL (3000+) of my Youtube videos.. someone help? @YTCreators @YouTube @InaGames @Fwiz @StyleHaul pic.twitter.com/YO7gQFO06h
— Jelly (@JeIIy) December 7, 2018
And here's someone who got a copyright claim on a private, unlisted video that the uploader needed for a class assignment:
Thanks @YouTube for blocking my privated, unlisted video that I needed to upload for class in order for my professor to view. Meanwhile I pay for YoutubePremium only to be copyright striked on this group assignment...thanks a lot. pic.twitter.com/xJhS0B0Wxw
— Tiana Chun (@Pandagirl55555) December 12, 2018
Those are just the first few results that pop up for a quick search on Twitter of "Youtube" and "copyright." There are lots more. Indeed, there's an interesting one from the super popular YouTuber @Jack_Septic_Eye (Sean William McLoughlin) who explains that he accidentally caused a ton of bogus copyright claims by switching YouTube networks:
Switched youtube networks today and in the change over a bunch of people have gotten falsely copyright claimed on my behalf. This is obviously a mistake and iâve talked to them about reverting it. Sorry to anyone affected by it and hopefully will clear up in a couple of days
— Jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) December 10, 2018
In short, the $100 million ContentID system is a total fucking mess.
Bring that back around to Article 13, which will create massive fines should YouTube fail to catch any copyright-covered works with (per the industry's wishes) no safe harbors for platforms, and this problem will only get significantly worse. Under Article 13, YouTube would be crazy to give anyone even the benefit of the doubt if they receive a copyright claim. Not only that, it would be effectively required to not just block all of these works, but to prevent many of them from ever being uploaded in the first place.
What the various people pushing for Article 13 don't seem to realize is that bogus copyright claims happen all the time. Or there are mixups around content that multiple people license. Or there are multiple middle men making claims on behalf of copyright holders with no knowledge of who has licensed and who has not. Article 13 doesn't take any of that into account. It just says "license everything." Of course, the big labels/studios don't give a fuck if this leads to censorship of you piddly little independents and amateurs. They just want YouTube to hand them a giant check to "license" their entire catalog. That's the real endgame here. That it would block out independents and amateurs (i.e., competitors) is just icing on the cake. And, of course, it ignores that if YouTube spent $100 million on this system and it already has so many problems, just imagine how poorly everyone else's mandatory filters will work.
Article 13 is a horrible solution to a "problem" that doesn't even exist. The fact that YouTube's $100 million ContentID system is so full of bogus claims shows just one of the many problems with filters -- and making them mandatory won't suddenly make YouTube pay. The whole thing is just designed to be leverage. The labels and studios want to use Article 13 as a weapon against YouTube, basically saying "give us all your money in a giant license or we'll sue you over and over and over again." And, of course, should they actually get that, the money is unlikely to make its way back to any of the actual artists.
Europe is doing a big thing badly, and Article 13 is an unmitigated disaster.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneâs 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: article 13, copyright, eu copyright directive, filter errors, filters, takedowns
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“As I've said before, the only policy that makes any sense at all in this area is the following:
Infringement is the copyright owner's problem. It is not my problem, and they have no right to try to make it my problem until after they have proven, in a court of law, that I am part of the problem. If that makes things more difficult for them... not my problem.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It sounds like everyone else are the ones who are actually going to go broke though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The labels have contracts with the musicians where both parties agree on a royalty rate.
And as part of that contract, the musicians agreed to allow the labels exclusive rights to negotiate contracts with others. The labels then negotiated a contract with YouTube that pays .00003 cents a stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Labels even do damage control on posts on the Internet which explain this outrageous situation, actively censoring all those which talk in a negative way about them, when it is just the truth of those frustrated signed artists that want to warn others not to make the same mistake as they did. These labels perpetrate an outright scam against artists and artists cannot even complain.
And the icing on the cake is that in most cases legal action against them costs more than the royalties which artists would have received anyway, or is not practical at all (for example when the label resides in another country) so it becomes a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL Masnickâs last ditch lie is now to say that musicians donât see any of the money so YouTube should just to be able to continue to skim and keep all the money for themselves.
Hmm. Can you point out exactly where I said this... because... oh yeah, I never said anything of the sort.
It's funny that the only way you can call me a "liar" is to flat out make up shit you claim I said that I never said. Desperate much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
fails to account for the thousands of independent musicians getting ripped off by YouTube
Have you ever stopped to consider the role YouTube plays in there even being "thousands of independent musicians" to begin with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Explain how voluntary use of a distribution service is being ripped off. How many of those musicians also get money from also being on other platforms, or via Patreon or other sources of patronage?
Also note, even for many musicians signed to labels, recordings are advertising for live performances, which is where they make their money.
Also note, some income is better than none, and may add up to a decent hourly rate for the actual work done in making a recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But according to Masnick (when suits his slant), Google will actually come out ahead if Article 13 is passed! My bet is that's true and that Google is secretly promoting this. You should recall that Youtube flipped on it, without informing Masnick...
For your notion of "restraint": A) corporations are still (just barely) vulnerable / accountable to legislatures; B) IF want to be in The People's Marketplaces and gain money, then corporations must obey rules.
And that's why you aren't in position to make those decisions. You are an immature hot-head. Your notion of pulling out of Europe is just... pitiable, really. And my bet is that most citizens of Europe would be glad if Google left. They could struggle along and develop local alternatives like Russia, China, and India, keep all money and control local, as should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can't agree more with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More seriously, I wonder who the liability on THE Fat Rat's content lies. Clearly, the other content creator holds liability, but I wonder if YouTube holds direct liability for proactively assisting (Content ID) in copyright fraud and appropriation (Creating an environment where the first to upload can claim the exclusive copyright on works licenced non-exclusively
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
In what other area do you insist on that?
That's known, kid. Now YOU state what percentage of claims are bogus as compared to the daily millions of instance in which copyright works just fine.
Exactly NONE of what you example is Youtube's fault nor show its ID system fail!
There is NO connection here other than YOU put false claims near anti-Article-13 text! Feeble and desperate, kid.
To FIX this, Youtube needs only to follow the DMCA and restore the content when contested. Then it's up to the claimant to continue.
Problem solved. Without any relation whatsoever to Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
And of course it's another version of Masnick's reverse sequitur of "corporations are incompetent, therefore must be left entirely unregulated". It's one of his favorite trick. But of course in reality, if his assertion is true, then regulation is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So every system must leave when they promise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
The Article 13 filters are "notice and stay down" - meaning you could not restore the content until the content is proven, probably by a court, that the content is not infringement. So your solution fails when Article 13 is brought into the equation. It was mentioned in the article. Did you miss that?
However, your decision to narrow the discussion is disingenuous. Mike is highlighting the fundamental flaws in automatic filters that Content ID demonstrates. Then he draws the clear line to Article 13 and its requirements to prevent uploads, and that the issues present in Content ID, which has had $100 million invested in it, are going to be much worse when the law requires Content ID level filters and places financial and criminal penalties on failures to catch infringing content. And that sites that can't afford Content ID's price tag will be working with even worse filters. That is a reasonable connection between 2 current news stories, even if it makes your position look bad.
The article isn't about resolving the current situation with an unapplicable law. The Article is about questioning how to resolving this same situation under Article 13.
Also, I might note there was a good article a while back about how, at the scale of youtube, a 95% effective filter would still let bad content through (False Negatives) while blocking larger swaths of perfectly fine content (False Positives). (I think it was actually talking porn filters). It gives you a good sense of the numbers you were asking for. I couldn't find it in my quick search though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
That said, Jim Sterling makes use of the Copyright Deadlock to prevent ads from showing on his ad free channel. He will intentionally use content from multiple rights holders to get multiple claims, preventing monetization entirely. (He once got Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Japan to deadlock the system by both claiming the same video).
As a note, Jim Sterling provides commentary on the game industry and video games, which requires the use of imagery and footage of game play. He captures his own footage, or provides attribution when another gives him game play. His channel was highlighted by YouTube as the textbook example of Fair Use back when YouTube was making a big show of caring about it, for those interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So every system must automatically bar false inp
That said, Jim Sterling makes use of the Copyright Deadlock to prevent ads from showing on his ad free channel. He will intentionally use content from multiple rights holders to get multiple claims, preventing monetization entirely. (He once got Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Japan to deadlock the system by both claiming the same video).
As funny as that technique is, I can't help but find it just a wee bit absurd that he's essentially forced to game the system in order to prevent others from abusing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So every system must automatically bar false inputs?
That's a good point. Youtube obviously would have the statistics that would answer this question. However, YouTube seems to withhold a number of key statistics, such as the number of videos uploaded daily (downloads per day are listed in both numbers and total hours, as are total hours uploaded per day). At around .6 million hours of video uploaded daily (not sure if this figure includes livestreams) the number of daily uploads might be somewhere around 1-5 million. Many of these videos are obviosly bot-generated, such as the ones that convert newspaper articles to speech that are spewed out in rapid succession by many different Youtube accounts. Youtube apparently does not filter out these copyright-infringing videos, despite having all the in-house capability to easily do so.
As a multi-billion dollar business, Youtube almost certainly practices some degree of active quality control, as as such sets an acceptable "error" rate of both false-positive and false-negative in its ContentID system. However, it shouldn't be hard to guess which one takes priority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example is a noun, not a verb. [This message was brought to you by the Grammar Police: Upholding truth, justice, and the Oxford Comma.]
Any number of bogus DMCA claims show exactly how the ID system fails: If the system cannot distinguish between legal and illegal contentâor even legal and illegal uses of content, in line with the principles of Fair Useâhow âsuccessfulâ can the system ultimately look from the outside?
They already do that. (I beat a DMCA once before, so I speak from experience.) The issue lies in the DMCAâs ânotice and stay downâ systemâone I bet you would rage against if it were used against you, even though you have no problem supporting it when âcopyright holdersâ (read: international media corporations) use it against regular jackoffs who are not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Missing the point
Fix the problems or face fines that will eventually cripple these corporate entities or force them out of the EU - either method would be a win for the EU and I am with the EU on this.
Algorithms and technology be damned!
If they have to hire half the continent to monitor content and check legitimacy then so be it - the problems these social media companies have created are getting people killed are putting innocent users in legal jeopardy and the ones to blame are companies that store that data and HIDE behind technology. If it's too big to manage then it shouldn't be big...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Missing the point
(It isn't, because businesses want you to be able to find their [phone number]/[website URL] so you can contact them and receive their services)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Missing the point
If it's too big to manage then it shouldn't be big...
This is exactly the issue at stake here. The internet is very big, much too big to police in its current state. Now there are fundamentally two ways to deal with that. One is that we develop further in the way we've traditionally operated the internet and accept a certain level of collateral damage around IP as a consequence as business models shift and previously closed markets are opened up(both illegally as IP violatons, and legally as publishers become less necessary as a distribution channel). The second is that we convert most of the internet from an open communications channel into a broadcast channel. Most people will have their potential audience cut down to a tiny fraction of what it is now, as only those rich, famous, or influential enough (or who have the support of someone in those categories) will be tenable to platforms, and the throughput of peer-to-peer channels is drastically limited by discovery costs in the absence of search services, to say nothing of the technical challenges of scaling them which are rather beyond the average person (tbh, even setting up a single direct channel is beyond the average person).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Missing the point
"Fix the problems or face fines that will eventually cripple these corporate entities or force them out of the EU - either method would be a win for the EU..."
How would the loss of these companies be a win for the people of the EU? Millions use these products, and even if they want them improved they obviously don't want them gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Missing the point
Now, the elections for the EU parlament are usually not advertised properly thus making so 60% of the population or so does not vote.
In Spain(I live there) we had a 43% turnout in 2014. How sad and manipulated does that number feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Missing the point
"Then they need to tell their elected representatives where their priorities lie. As time goes by it's getting harder and harder to straddle the fence on these issues."
Copyright was ALWAYS in complete conflict with a great many basic freedoms ensconced in the UN human rights and most constitutional charters in the western hemisphere.
It's just that lack of viable mass communications technology in the hands of the citizenry has always kept that conflict from erupting. As soon as the tech exists, BOOM. The war erupts for real.
We've seen some of this before. The self-playing piano. The Tape cassette and VCR. Media formats like the MP3. Every last new technology has managed to eradicate copyright functionally in the areas it impacted.
And now, we're in reality up to a point where we either need to abolish the internet - and most functional freedoms - to enforce copyright... ...or we'll have to accept that copyright was p.o.s. legislation from the start and toss in the garbage pile of history, right on top of "Lese Majeste"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I've said before, the only policy that makes any sense at all in this area is the following:
Infringement is the copyright owner's problem. It is not my problem, and they have no right to try to make it my problem until after they have proven, in a court of law, that I am part of the problem. If that makes things more difficult for them... not my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition, copyright infringement is a civil matter. Tax dollars should not be used in pursuit of corporate/private profit. These corporations need to learn a little personal responsibility and stop demanding others make their business work for them.
Copyright infringement is not a felony regardless of what these idiots spew in support of the ridiculous proposed laws attempting to make it so. If your business model relies upon the government to do some of your business activity then said model is flawed and will eventually fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 512(f) of DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Section 512(f) of DMCA
There were a flurry of lawsuits a few years ago, but unfortunately the Dancing Baby Lawsuit effectively but the nail in the coffin of that approach. The bar set by the courts over several rulings was so high that it could never be proven the copyright holder acted in a manner that triggered 512(f) penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Section 512(f) of DMCA
(Not a lawyer, but have worked for a website provider handling DMCA notices.)
The DMCA provides platforms with protection from lawsuits from copyright holders if the platform removes content in accordance with DMCA requirements. It also protects the platforms from lawsuits from the platform users whose content is removed if DMCA processes are followed. If ContentID is not a DMCA system, YouTube doesn't benefit from DMCA safe harbors for videos removed by ContentID and is potentially vulnerable to legal action from all of the users whose material is improperly removed.
While it might be crazy to take on Google, it seems there's potential for several lawsuits and possibly a class action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Section 512(f) of DMCA
They just get the problem fixed and then complain about it via twitter until drowned out by the next person... to get it fixed and just complain about it on twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Section 512(f) of DMCA
2) It is a US law, ad does not help Europeans.
3) Almost all those who suffer false claims cannot afford the legal bills to fight an action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you won,t be sued by large music companys if you
take down infringing content .
or they may sue the user/uploader .
Article 13 makes youtube legally responsible for all
content uploaded ,
so the record companys will have more leverage against
youtube , give us more money or we will sue you
1000 times over .
The legacy companys don,t care if milliions of users
are blocked from youtube ,
and user free speech is diminished .
ALso the record companys will have less competition from small independent artists ,singers
.
under article 13 youtube may simply block
ALL music content from small creators unless
they can prove they have a license to use the music .
Right now no website has a list of all the songs,book,s, videos ever made so its impossible to make a filter thats would work properly in accordance with section 13 .
Youtube should not just be giving all ad revenue
to companys because they sent them a dmca notice,
they could hold onto the money until the claim is resolved .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahhhh
You will never learn and will always suffer. "it is better to tend to the inconveniences of too much liberty than to deal with attending to too little of it"
"Give me power to protect you and I will only use it to put my boot upon the backs of your necks."
~Government (no matter which form I take)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ahhhh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ahhhh
You can tell that I am "smar" and Capable of "learning" things because I keep "posting" exactly the Same Things, over and "over" Again.
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Takedowns of private videos
On copyright takedowns of non-public videos: the University of California, Berkeley, hosts course lecture recordings on YouTube. Since 2015, the videos are not public and can only be viewed after logging in with a berkeley.edu account. Despite that, several of the videos have disappeared due to copyright claims. (Ctrl-F for "copyright".)
https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_ Status_Fall_2015
https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_Status_Fall_20 16
https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_Status_Spring_ 2017
As time passes, even more videos from the past disappear. YouTube is not a trustworthy repository for archival videos like these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Takedowns of private videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm curious, do you find burying your head in the sand a productive way to accomplish your goals? Pretending that something will of course never happen when it's just shy of happening is a great way to ensure that it does, to the point that I almost have to wonder if you're in fact in favor of stuff like Article 13 and trying to get people to not take it as seriously as they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopsony power
Blocking out competitors will give then (more) monopsony power, so they can lower compensation for creators. It looks like it is the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love ContentID because I get free money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice platform you got there, be a shame if something happened...
The problem is that the ones pushing for this legislative train-wreck would look at the examples you listed and see that as a benefit, rather than examples of why it's such a problem.
Smaller channels getting slammed by bogus claims, requirements set stupidly high such that sites are much more likely to kill off user submitted content entirely, problems that can be avoided entirely if content producers just sign with the 'right' people and hand over the rights to their works...
Or put another way: Stuff like this is a feature, not a bug, to the ones pushing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice platform you got there, be a shame if something happene
Well for the fraction of a percent of creators whose works they accept, the rest can pay an agent to keep on trying until they go broke, or give up trying to get published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SWEET! Did I mention sweet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even this statement is putting it mildly. Automated AI based filtering will never be able to function properly without some kind of false positive detections ruining things for users. No matter how much money they put into it, it's impossible to design an automated system that can account for and accurately determine the ways in which content is being used including for fair use, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one excepted, you say? So even RIAA, MPAA and EU politicians might get copyright strikes?
Hmm, there might be an upside to all this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content ID finds nothing, yet finds something, in the same Video
Because those are so frustrating especially with game videos I now upload test videos to check if I need to mute potions prior uploading, because the Youtube removing or muting thing isn't working correctly or also takes years.
But I now encountered a new low, I uploaded a 5 Min. Video potion i wanted to test for Content ID claims, after uploading, processing there was nothing, even after reaching HD there was nothing.
So I finished the 99 minute Video where that 5 min. potion also was a part of, and guess what happens after processing it, yeah Content ID claim just in that 5 minute potion that i uploaded hours ago to test for.
So you know, you can't even test it like this, because it sometimes find something and sometimes not in the exact same part.
Well, so I deleted and re-uploaded that 19GB Video with the claimed part muted, which is way faster than using the Youtube muting tool that needs a day for it while i need 5 minutes.
And in case there's again a Content ID claim then (who knows with a borked system like this), I will simply delete, mute and re-upoad it again, and again, and again, and again,... Till there is finally peace!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here another method to prevent ads from showing on channels
What Jim Sterling does is interesting, but there's even a simpler method -> Set the Video to 18+ Adults only, that's it, 100% no ads and no monetisation possible.
I did that on Videos of Zelda game play that had multiple Nintendo Content ID claims.
And nice side-effect, after a about 8 months those claims suddenly disappeared, who knows perhaps age restricted Zelda Videos send out wrong signals, like if there something obscene in those game or so. But I now still won't remove that age restriction on them, because they should have thought it over before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]