YouTube Copyright Transparency Report Shows The Absurd Volume Of Copyright Claims It Gets

from the turn-the-hose-off dept

Any cursory look at Techdirt for stories involving YouTube and copyright issues will give you a very accurate impression of the state of all things copyright for the platform: it's a complete shitshow. You will see all kinds of craziness in those posts: white noise getting hit with a copyright claim, labels claiming copyright on songs in the public domain, and all kinds of issues with automated systems like ContentID causing chaos. That really is a sample platter rather than the whole meal, but it's also worth noting that YouTube knows this is a problem.

To that point, the platform recently put out its first "Copyright Transparency Report" that teases out all kinds of numbers for copyright claims on YouTube videos. As with any statistical report, how you view it is going to come down to how you want to slice and dice the numbers. For instance, it's worth noting that over 99% of the copyright claims YouTube receives comes from ContentID, an automated system. More to the point of this particular post, you will likely also witness copyright enforcement advocates focus on numbers like this from YouTube's own report.

As the report notes, we see low levels of disputes relative to total claims, particularly within tools that use automatic detection. In the first half of 2021, fewer than 1% of all Content ID claims were disputed.

Sounds great, right? Even with some couched language, this looks for all the world like even YouTube is acknowledging that a tiny fraction of the copyright claims are disputed and is therefore a system that is working well. You might even decide to assume that this translates to 99% of copyright claims made at YouTube are accurate and valid.

Except that that is absurd. Vast numbers of people either lack the time, interest, or bravery to dispute a copyright claim like this. Many others may not even realize it's something for which there is a process to take action on such disputes.

And besides all of that, when you dig into the actual raw numbers rather than percentages, it becomes very clear that YouTube does indeed have a copyright enforcement problem.

Over 2.2 million YouTube videos were hit with copyright claims that were later overturned between January and June of this year, according to a new report published by the company today. The Copyright Transparency Report is the first of its kind published by YouTube, which says it will update biannually going forward.

2.2 million claims were overturned in favor of the uploader in a six month period. Let that wash over you for a second and then realize that, while this represents a tiny percentage of the overall claims, it's still a huge number. And when you factor into all of this both that there is zero chance that the actual numbers of invalid copyright claims aren't much higher and the fact that YouTube creators have long complained that this is a massive problem from a process standpoint, well, it again becomes obvious that YouTube has a copyright enforcement problem.

Though mistaken copyright claims are a drop in the bucket on a larger scale, YouTube creators have long complained about how the platform handles claims, saying overly aggressive or unjustified enforcement can lead to lost income. Copyright claims can result in videos being blocked, audio being muted, or ad revenue going back to the rights owner. This new report gives shape to a problem that YouTube itself has acknowledged needs updating.

In 2019, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a blog post that the company heard the concerns from creators and that YouTube was “exploring improvements in striking the right balance between copyright owners and creators.”

We most certainly haven't reached that balancing point yet. I anticipate that YouTube is releasing this transparency report as part of a broader and longer term plan to alleviate the problems this is all causing. If not, then all YouTube appears to be doing is telling on itself with this report, which is not the kind of corporate action I would expect.

Meanwhile, thanks to overly restrictive copyright enforcement, YouTube's valuable creator base is left waiting for help.

Filed Under: contentid, copyright, dmca, false claims, overblocking, takedowns, transparency
Companies: google, youtube

As We Get Closer And Closer To The EU Requiring ContentID Everywhere, More Abuses Of ContentID Exposed

from the vast-shakedown-machine dept

EU member states are getting ready to implement Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, which will more or less force every platform that hosts any user-generated content, to either license every damn thing (impossible) or to put in place a tool like ContentID, that automatically spots and takes down "infringing" content. Despite the fact that Google spent over $100 million on its ContentID and competitive offerings (mainly Audible Magic) are quite expensive, defenders of this plan kept insisting that those filters work. Plenty of people have pointed out that they don't work very well at all, and it's even worse than just leading to legitimate content being taken down. Having such a tool, means that it will be abused.

CCN.com recently wrote up yet another article highlighting the problem of massive false flagging campaigns showing up for YouTube videos:

The latest problem surrounds mass false copyright claims. It turns out that false claiming someone’s video revenue as your own is so easy that companies can seemingly do it en masse. And these companies aren’t just going after subtle, small-time channels. They’ve hit some of YouTube’s biggest creators.

Much of the article focuses on a company called Studio 71, which is the one filing a bunch of these recent false claims. Lots of folks are online highlighting these bogus takedowns.

There are a lot more like that too.

The company behind all of these claimed that it was "a technical problem with YouTube that is out of our hands" but never quite explained what sort of problem it was.

To its (slight) credit, the company claimed that it released all of those claims, even ones not disputed. But still.

At least one person asked them to explain how it happened and how it can be prevented in the future... and got no answer.

Whether or not this was an overzealous individual, an automated system out of control, or some other failure, it doesn't change the basic fact that any such filter system will be regularly abused, on purpose or not, to takedown or claim the revenue on tons of content. This is exactly what we tried to tell people in the EU before they voted on the Copyright Directive... and they kept insisting it wouldn't possibly happen. After all, they said, they wrote into the law that it shouldn't be abused. I'm sure that will work out just great...

Filed Under: contentid, copyright directive, eu, false claims, false flags
Companies: google, studio 71, youtube

Charter Spectrum Fails To Wiggle Out From Under State Lawsuit For Crappy Service

from the fat-lady-has-yet-to-sing dept

Early last year, Charter Spectrum was sued by New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman for selling broadband speeds the company knew it couldn't deliver. According to the original complaint (pdf), Charter routinely advertised broadband speeds executives knew weren't attainable -- while simultaneously refusing to upgrade their network to handle added consumer demand (a problem that only got worse in the wake of its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks despite promises of ample "synergies"):

"The AG’s investigation also found that Spectrum-TWC executives knew that the company’s hardware and network were incapable of achieving the speeds promised to subscribers, but nevertheless continued to make false representations about speed and reliability. The investigation further revealed that while Spectrum-TWC earned billions of dollars in profits from selling its high-margin Internet service to millions of New York subscribers, it repeatedly declined to make capital investments necessary to improve its network or provide subscribers with the necessary hardware."

But the lawsuit also exposed how Charter was gaming an FCC program that uses routers with custom firmware to track real-world ISP performance. The lawsuit also hints at the fact that Charter executives toyed with intentionally creating congestion at peering points in order to extract additional money out of content and transit companies, something you'll recall was at the heart of an industry battle with Netflix a few years ago. Those problems miraculously disappeared with the passage of net neutrality rules that governed interconnection (read: expect this problem to resurface with the elimination of the rules).

Charter, unsurprisingly, has argued that the lawsuit is without merit. It also tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming that the FCC's recent repeal of net neutrality includes a provision (lobbied for by ISPs) that prohibits states from trying to hold ISPs accountable for service shortcomings, be they privacy infractions or net neutrality violations. Fortunately for broadband users stuck under cable's growing U.S. broadband monopoly, New York State's Supreme Court last week shot down that argument (pdf) in a ruling.

The court argued repeatedly that despite the FCC attempts to pre-empt state authority over broadband ISPs, both the FCC repeal and existing federal law make it clear states still have a role to play in holding ISPs accountable for consumer protection:

"Spectrum-TWC fails to identify any provision of the FCA (Federal Communications Act) that preempts state anti-fraud or consumer-protection claims, or reflects any intention by Congress to make federal law the exclusive source of law protecting consumers from broadband providers' deceptive conduct."

Schneiderman's office was quick to applaud the ruling in a statement:

"This decision ensures that our office can continue to hold Charter-Spectrum to account for its failure to deliver the reliable internet speeds it promised consumers. The allegations in our lawsuit confirm what millions of New Yorkers have long suspected — Charter-Spectrum has been ripping you off, promising internet speeds it simply could not deliver."

As we've been noting, Charter, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon lobbyists have been busy trying to gut all state and federal oversight of broadband ISPs in an effort that goes well beyond just killing net neutrality. That should be an obvious problem, given that the combination of limited competition and regulatory capture tends to not end particularly well for American consumers historically (Comcast being exhibit A). But with this ruling and the 26 states busy passing their own net neutrality rules in the wake of the federal repeal, that's going to be a steeper and more expensive uphill climb than many ISP lobbyists anticipated.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, consumer protection, eric schneiderman, false claims, new york
Companies: charter spectrum