Copyright Filters And Takedowns Are Broken: Questlove Says YouTube Flagged Him For Playing His Own Tracks
from the because-of-course dept
Another day, another story of how broken copyright is in taking down content that shouldn't be taken down. We've been talking about all of the many ways in which notice-and-takedown systems are broken of late, but this one appears to be more of the problem with filters -- such as those now required in the EU, and which lobbyists are pushing for in the US, under the banner of "notice-and-staydown" (which would require a filter to function). Of course, the problem with filters is that they regularly get things wrong. And the very best of the filters is ContentID. YouTube has spent over $100 million on it, and yet... here's Questlove, of the Roots, highlightinghow it's taking down him playing his own music:
does this include not red flagging my dj sets? I'm not doing BTS numbers but I know djs are saving people from doing something self destructive in the night. the flagging is so bad I got warnings for playing my own music I created. https://t.co/Ctb8qzPz9a
— 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 (@questlove) June 12, 2020
Questlove posted this in response to a YouTube announcement that it was putting $100 million towards promoting black artists, complaining about YouTube flagging his (incredible and brilliant) DJ sets even for his own music.
But while it's easy to point the finger at YouTube's ContentID problem, the fingers really should be pointed at copyright law and the demands of the record labels. That's why ContentID is so bad, and it's why we should be very, very concerned about efforts to make ContentID-style filters mandatory.
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, filters, questlove
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Evening the playing field
The core issue is that the law is so laughably one-sided that sites effectively don't have any other choice but 'shoot first, ask questions only if challenged by someone with a loud enough voice'. You want to make stuff like this happen less all it would take is a few changes to the law:
-First and foremost, the copyright owner has all the responsibility, if they want to find infringement it it entirely on them, no more demanding that platforms do it for them.
-Next, institute penalties for bogus or fraudulent claims. If you're going to demand that someone's content be removed then you'd better be damned sure that you're in the right, otherwise it will cost you. For this I would suggest breaking out an old copyright maximalist favorite that was making the rounds a few years back, the strikes system, and make it so that after a certain number of 'strikes' within a set period of time the content goes irrevocably into the public domain. If a person/company knows that making enough bogus claims will cost them the ability to make any claims related to that content in the future, as it will no longer be theirs, then they are going to be very careful in issuing claims, and unlike a monetary penalty this isn't something a large company can just shrug off.
-Accusation is no longer treated as equivalent to a finding of guilt. Merely accusing someone of infringement should not warrant an automatic penalty as though they had been found guilty like removal of content, and if those issuing the accusations want to say that sites should be liable for facilitating infringement by ignoring claims then claims are not going to cut it, they need to prove that someone has been found guilty in court(default rulings wouldn't count towards this) multiple times and the sites still did nothing.
-Along those lines I'd set up something like an anti-SLAPP law for copyright cases, where if the accused can make a compelling case that their use falls under fair use then the one who made the accusation is forced to, at a minimum, pay all of their legal fees. For obvious cases this dismissal and fee payment would take place at the outset, for less obvious cases it would trigger should they prevail in court. This would allow those that believe that they have a case but couldn't afford it to defend themselves.
-Speaking of penalties, since the copyright maximalists love to compare copyright to theft the penalties should be scaled down to match, such that a song /movie/book doesn't go from being worth a couple of bucks to thousands or tens of thousands simply because it wasn't acquired/used legally. I imagine a lot of cases would simply never be bothered with if the potential payout was in the single, double, or maybe low triple digits, and since as far as I know that is the punishment for actual theft it would be entirely appropriate to set the penalties to that amount.
I'm sure there are refinements to be made and other fixes that could be added, but simply making it so that both sides face penalties for abuse and violations rather than just the one as it currently stands would likely go a long way to reducing those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evening the playing field
Wow, did you write this article? You certainly have a lot to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright violation as theft
Speaking of penalties: fraudulent claim of copyright is also theft -- theft from the public -- and so should be punished just as severely as copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright violation as theft
Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
As a friend is fond of saying "Crass refusal does not a rebuttal make"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
Yes, that's fair. But it's good to know there is a candle in the wind. As the hurricane of censorship batters the USA, people are happy to hear that not everyone is of the hive mind. In fact, few are hive minders. Very few. Mike accounts for Steve, PaulT, That Anonymous Coward, Code Monkey, and many others. Not really a hive at all, but Mike is a queen, that part is true. A queen with a lot of fake voices, all buzzing the same.
I, on the other hand, am Unique. I have an Opinion of MY OWN! A Candle In the Wind. Elton wrote that for me, actually. Me. A candle. Forever burning, forever lighting the path towards enlightenment and conservative values and Rand Paul and Ron Paul and Devin Nunes Don Bongino and Donald J. Trump, the Magnificent.
I AM UNIQUE! AND SO ARE MANY! AND WE HAVE GUNS! (No Kidding).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
"Mike accounts for Steve, PaulT,"
Mike accounts for me? Are you so delusional that you think he's me? Or, is the simple act of creating an account here so alien to you that you have to invent yet another fantasy word surrounding such honesty?
"AND WE HAVE GUNS! (No Kidding)."
Yes, that is why I'm always so concerned about your poor metal health. When you lose this outlet for your psychotic breaks, as you keep demanding you should, you're probably dangerous. Thankfully, I'm thousands of miles away, in a country that's competently beating the pandemic, with no danger of entering the second lockdown demanded by the orange one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
Project much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
I know it's in vain, but I'm bored, so I'm going to ask (again) for coherency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
I asked numerous questions, but he resorted to the projection argument that he clearly doesn't understand instead of providing answers, so I guess you won't get anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
Since you're the only one here who does it: Yes, you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
To quote a certain game...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
That candle burned out long ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
... in a sputter of rancid grease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright violation as theft
I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue with you unless you pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evening the playing field
I agree for the most part on what you're saying. But you have a major logical error on the penalities for improper strikes where you want the affected material to go into the public domain.
The issue is that all too often, material is flagged where the person issuing the flag HAS NO RIGHTS TO THE MATERIAL FLAGGED. It wouldn't be a financial penality for guilty party for that material to become public domain. It seems to me that a better penality would be a fine (hopefully payable to the victim), or a revocation of their ability to flag material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evening the playing field
Fair, should have clarified that what I listed was for when the copyright owner or someone they hired to do the job issues the takedowns, fines and/or the revocation of the ability to flag material as you listed would indeed be good ideas as punishments for those claiming content they don't own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consequences should go both ways
While I agree that the issue lays with copyright law and over exuberant IP maximalists, that doesn't mean that YouTube couldn't improve their dispute resolution system. What we hear is that they aren't very communicative and at the very least that part has to change, though I am certain other improvements could be made.
Content ID could probably use some help as well, but if I understand how that works, someone uploads their stuff, and then Content ID looks for a match. So one has to wonder how Content ID flagged original music? Was it that close to some other tune? Did someone copy Questlove's songs and then upload them to Content ID as their own? Is there another possibility?
If someone is caught claiming other peoples stuff, then they should lose their privilege to claim anything. It does not matter if the system is automated or not, there should be a duty of care to not make claims to things that are not actually owned by that claimant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube could improve its dispute resolution system, sure. But it has more incentive to keep things as-is — mainly because of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could improve your writing system, but that might require you finish school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: improve your writing system
require you TO finish school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: improve your writing system
Not sure. ... might require you finish bellyaching... I mean you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consequences should go both ways
How, as the law requires them to pass the counterclaim to whoever made the claim. The one thing YouTube cannot do without accepting a large risk is adjudicate counter claims, especially if they are asked to adjudicate fair use, which would make them party to any subsequent lawsuit challenging the fair use determination.
The insidious part of the DMCA and similar laws is that they place liability on a third party if they do anything other than take down material on receipt of a validly formatted claim, or risk large financial penalties. This means that third parties like YouTube, catch the heat for abuse of the system carried out by other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
Wow, you write just like PaulT. Failed attorney? Mike, Stephen, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
I'm not sure I'd call youtube a "Third party". They host the content, so they have some level of responsibility to act on removing material that shouldn't legally be there. At least when they are made aware. I know they want to shirk that responsibility as it doesn't fit their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
YouTube are absolutely a third party. They're not the artist or the copyright holder, and there's no central database to check who is who. They usually take something down when informed but this is wide open to abuse given the above. Literally the same video can be infringing and legal at the same time depending on who uploaded it.
As ever if you blame YouTube for this mess because they occasionally make the wrong decision on the thousands of hours of video people upload to them every minute, you're missing most of the actual problems. They could improve but they don't have magic yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
They are hosting the content, that makes them a key player, in my opinion. It's like saying an editor for a paper who decides to print absolutely any article anyone sends is a third party, because they choose not to moderate - or are reactive. But papers don't get away with that. I know they want to be seen as somehow as incidental, their business model depends on it. A third party in this situation could be an advitisor or someone very incidental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
A newspaper has full control over what appears on their pages, YouTube has very little control over what appears on their site. Also, when any publisher has to decide what is published from all the submissions that they receive, most submissions are never even considered for publication.
Copyright is no longer fit for purpose, as a law designed to protect the publishers interests in the very small amount of material published runs into problems when anybody can publish, and many people do. There is now more content published every hour or so than all the traditional publishers could publish in a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
You appear to be missing the entire point if user generated content and to be wishing that your own comments here get left for weeks in moderation if not outright banned. Very strange.
But, yes, the absolutely fundamental nature of an open platform is very different to a closed edited one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
Not at all, I understand their business model, they don't want to do editorial role. They want to limit their legal responsibility but keep all the advertising revenue. Takedown requests were a compromise to avoid having to go through onerous moderation, and avoid liability. If you don't have takedowns, then people will call for those who are hosting the content to be liable for copyright infringements. I get that many on this site don't like copyright, but it's not magically going to go away for a variety of reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways
"Not at all, I understand their business model, they don't want to do editorial role"
Yes, they don't want to be manually sifting through thousands of hours of video every minute and shoulder the costs of employing the ridiculous number of people that would involve, only for some asshole to still sue them whenever a mistake is made, or for you to whine when it takes a month for your comment to appear here due to the demand that it be edited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"even for his own music."
The first question - is it really his own music? He's been signed with Universal/EMI subsidiaries off the top of my head and I doubt that he's been playing on the Jimmy Fallon show for as long as he has without NBC trying to claim ownership of every recorded instance of his music on that show. If he's referring to music released under those contracts, it's likely not "his" music legally.
The second is - who issued the takedowns and why? A DJ set will naturally contain music that was originally released by all sorts of labels and contracts, and YouTube need to take down anything flagged - which might be for a single record played out in the set.
YouTube can improve the way it works, but I dare say that the fundamental issues at play here - artists often don't legally own the music they made, and the ones who do often don't recognise fair use or remixing as valid uses of their material - won't change no matter what YouTube do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow you sound like an attorney, maybe one that dropped out of school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see you have discovered the powerful debating technique of ad hominem attacks.
/s
marked as sarcasm especially for your benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why does everyone here sound the same, with amateur (and obviously wrong) legal analysis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're welcome to inform any of us where we're wrong, or indulge in intelligent adult debate where we can discuss the facts at hand.
I know you prefer playground taunts and fantasy worlds, but the options are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let it burn? That’s wrong, very wrong, but you endorsed it. Defund Police? That’s wrong, but you endorsed it. Blm? Same. AntiFa? Same. More and more ... on and on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's a good ad hominem without a strawman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Let it burn?"
Weird you say that since I said nothing of the sort.
"Defund Police? That’s wrong, but you endorsed it. Blm? Same. AntiFa? Same. More and more ... on and on.."
Your fantasy version of me who has said nothing I've ever said sure sounds scary.
Let's just note again that in response to me stating some very simple facts, you not only insisted I was wrong and refused to state any rebuttal, but when challenged made up a Narnia level alternate world.
Again, have you ever considered that the real world is better than your nightmare fiction? It must be easier to deal with the reality everyone else is living in than fight against something only you can see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, let's see: in the real world, Trump has alienated his allies and isn't the best buddy of Kim Jong Un as he'd like to believe; Hilary Clinton isn't in jail; the Mexico border wall isn't finished; Pizzagate turned out to be a scam; most of his voter base is likely to die from COVID-19 or a bullet from their own assault rifle posturing. Also in the real world, Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email, got scalped by a "fake" site, and scalped by a "fake" Indian.
Yeah, Hamilton's problem is not that he's never considered the real world. He's seen it, and he hates it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yeah, Hamilton's problem is not that he's never considered the real world. He's seen it, and he hates it."
It's still surely easier to deal with than the world he constructed? If you're going to invent a fantasy world, why make it one more difficult to live in? Very strange, but then we expect that from him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because part of having an imaginary narrative where the side you support are the heroes, you have to have a side villainous enough to be vilified.
That's why Hamilton doesn't see average people trying to get by, he sees a criminal empire trying to undermine the legacy copyright and Shiva Ayyadurai has wrought, and instead of seeing people who don't take bullshit for an answer he thinks America is under threat - because it feeds his savior narcissist tendencies.
Besides, it's not like Hamilton has to lift a finger. In his imaginary world Bill Barr not only saves his ass but kisses it better. Even his imaginary heroes need imaginary villains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My guess would be because you are a delusional person who doesn't have a firm grasp on reality. Everything that sounds wrong to you, seems to be filtered through an adult peanuts filter so that it becomes warped and fits into your preconceived notions. Literally everyone reading your posts believes you are an unhinged idiot, regardless of what name you post under.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the legal analysis is so obviously wrong, could you perhaps explain to us what is wrong with them and what the correct analysis would be? I think that would be a lot more helpful than snide sniping with no real information whatsoever.
I also think it would also be far more mature. But that's just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If the legal analysis is so obviously wrong, could you perhaps explain to us what is wrong with them and what the correct analysis would be"
That would certainly be welcome.
I'm very happy to be proven wrong about my understanding of the music industry, where an artist doesn't own the music they released under a major label, to the point where an artist can't DJ a set with solely his own music without being shut down by the label. I truly wish this is not the reality of what happens, and will gladly look at any evidence to disprove what I think happens.
But, instead, he decided to rant about a fantasy that has nothing to do with the point in hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know I'm answering a mere troll and you probably wont understand, but a lot of use here think the way we do because we actually listen to our conscience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you one of those people who believes thinking about legal issues should be illegal for non-attorneys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow you sound like an attorney, maybe one that dropped out of school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the legal side . . .
just because you created something does not mean you control it. as mentioned in the comments, this person is signed to entities that he most likely assigned certain administrative rights.
There are also Performance Rights, and other rights holders to be considered. These platforms only have licenses that allow x seconds of a song to be played. To protect themselves, they shut things down. It all boils down to money, who is paying and who is collecting. I do not believe there is currently a license category available for online DJs for them to play music legally. However, it can be done, but these DJs don't want to put in the work or invest to do so. Such as DJ Scratch and his Scratchvision which has been running for almost a decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he currently signed with a record company,
There's probably a clause in his contract re most of the revenue from streaming music goes to his record company, any streaming on YouTube will be blocked or taken down unless its goes through vevo on YouTube or some other official channel.
Music contracts are complex, singers, musicians, songwriters have different.
There' was an act of Congress to modernise the law re streaming music digital music revenue share and payments
But it doesn't really apply to YouTube.
YouTube is covered by the dmca and various agreements with the record company's
We need an detailed article by a tech expert and a legal expert to explain how the dmca law is applied on YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he currently signed with a record company,
There's probably a clause in his contract re most of the revenue from streaming music goes to his record company, any streaming on YouTube will be blocked or taken down unless its goes through vevo on YouTube or some other official channel.
Music contracts are complex, singers, musicians, songwriters have different.
There' was an act of Congress to modernise the law re streaming music digital music revenue share and payments
But it doesn't really apply to YouTube.
YouTube is covered by the dmca and various agreements with the record company's
We need an detailed article by a tech expert and a legal expert to explain how the dmca law is applied on YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No body..
NO body knows Who owns what..
You have agencies that declare they own this and that, but supply no proof.(what are the odds that no rights have been registered and they dont want anyone to check)
Then you have artists that pay them money or Dont, and load up their OWN works...and are taken down but that same system, only based on THEIR NAMES...
Where is the verification. There isnt any. There is no EASY source to access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petitions
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/00201617543/another-interesting-white-house-petition-redu ce-term-copyright.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/00201617543/another-interesting-w hite-house-petition-reduce-term-copyright.shtml
Discusses a now removed petition to reduce copyright term lengths. Such petitions can no longer really be found on whitehouse.gov or change.org.
I imagine starting one would result in the petition being removed. Perhaps Techdirt could host its own petition that can, over the years, gain more and more signatures. It can ask for all of the necessary information that a petition would need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Petitions
(to continue) it seems like these petition sources screen petitions that get through and now remove the ones they don't like. This is really bad. Perhaps sites like Techdirt can start their own petition to reduce copyright lengths and make the penalty structure of copyright less one sided (reduce penalties for infringers but increase penalties for those that issue false takedowns).
Techdirt should probably host its own very own petition section with a list of petitions that people could sign that would gain signatures over the years. Because it now seems like whitehous.gov and change.org are selective about the petitions they host and what they host is not organically chosen to serve the public will or interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Petitions
In fact, organizations like the EFF and public knowledge should host their very own petitions. I'm going to contact them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Petitions
Not only that but hosting your own petitions could bring more traffic to your website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Petitions
"it seems like these petition sources screen petitions that get through and now remove the ones they don't like."
Judging by the dates in the article URLs you linked to, it's more likely they were removed because they're over 8 years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]