
YouTube's Copyright Protection System Is a Mess - okket
https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-copyright-protection-system-is-a-total-mess-can-it-be-fixed-181222/
======
jstanley
I used to republish scam marketing videos for binary options trading scams on
YouTube.[0]

I recently got an email saying they had received a claim from the copyright
holder, which seems strange as it is unlikely that the copyright holder would
wish to identify themself.

The so-called "copyright holder" was actually a music publisher, and there was
music in the video at various points, so I assumed it must be about that.

But I looked at the identified time section, and there was no music at all. It
was just a guy talking. I have no idea why it matched.

I submitted an appeal. It gives you several options for why you want to
appeal, but notably absent is "the video does not contain any of the
claimant's material", so my "appeal" had to be submitted on the grounds that
my (non-)usage of the claimant's audio is fair use...

YouTube's copyright system is laughable.

[0] If you're interested, this is one of my favourites:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=BeeUXNF1H8s](https://youtube.com/watch?v=BeeUXNF1H8s)

~~~
babuskov
> I recently got an email

"an email". You're lucky.

I got a couple of videos with Creative Commons music. I also contacted the
original author and copyright holder about this. Apparently CDBaby just took
his songs and files copyright claims on all YouTube videos with his music.
He's a poor guy from Australia and has no resources to go against them. So,
now, every time I get a copyright claim, I have to challenge it. After giving
the evidence, they just let me have it, wait a couple of weeks and submit the
same claim again.

What's funny is that if you go to that album's page on CD Baby, you can see
that the Creative Commons license and original author's name and copyright are
right there next to the option to listen to the songs.

After numerous claims, I finally gave up and just removed the audio track on
all the videos myself.

If you read the thing carefully, YouTube doesn't even review the case.
Whatever you write there goes directly to people claiming to be the "copyright
holder".

YouTube should really have an option "The claimant doesn't have copyright on
this material". If you give enough evidence, and if they release the claim on
video after that was checked, the claimant should lose the right to claim
copyright on that audio match for _all_ videos.

~~~
eeeeeeeeeeeee
Totally agree, but that is almost certainly going to require humans to review
the complaint. I think that is ultimately why these systems are awful — way
too much dependence on laughably immature automation.

Google seems incapable of admitting that humans are still a necessary
component in these sorts of things. You see the same thing play out in many
other Google services.

~~~
babuskov
> that is almost certainly going to require humans to review the complaint

The solution that I'm proposing does not. At least, not YouTube employees. It
would work like this:

1\. Offer "the claimant doesn't have copyright for that audio" as one of the
options.

2\. You supply the proof of this (as it already works)

3\. The claimant reviews this proof (as it already works) In my case, it's
going to their own website and seeing that they are claiming rights on a
public domain music.

4\. The claimant releases the claim

5\. YouTube marks that the claimant has no rights over that audio and they
cannot pester anyone else with that. This would only work if I select that
they don't own the copyright in the first step, and they acknowledge it
themselves in step 4.

Basically, all it changes is adding one more checkbox when fighting a claim
and aftermath that the claimant has confirmed themselves that they don't
actually own copyright to that work.

------
swozey
I've been hearing a lot lately that hiking/nature photography people, who is
mostly what I follow, have been getting copyright striked by "meditation"
publishers for recording the actual waves crashing against a shore, or the
rain on a tent, things like that that happen naturally and they just happen to
film within their hiking videos.

I really, really wish Youtube had competition.

edit1: Example;
[https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/a74f7p/youtubes_con...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/a74f7p/youtubes_content_claim_system_is_out_of_control/)

edit2: TheFatRat made this song, it's his own music. He said anyone could use
it so long as they credited him. Some publisher made a remix of it, copystruck
his original, claimed it as their own and now they receive the revenue for its
views.

[https://twitter.com/ThisIsTheFatRat/status/10729330469391933...](https://twitter.com/ThisIsTheFatRat/status/1072933046939193344)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-
eV7fHNbM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-eV7fHNbM)

~~~
tcd
> I really, really wish Youtube had competition.

It would change absolutely nothing. This is NOT a platform issue, and any
other platform would face the exact same problem (needing a content ID, making
mistakes like this).

~~~
swozey
Allowing automated copyrighting with zero oversight is definitely a platform
issue. Youtube has an overabundance of content and can't control it all,
that's clear. But when they have zero actual competition they have no reason
to NOT be the bad guy. You're still going to go to Youtube, right? I can't
shift to tcdtube. My content creators aren't there.

~~~
tcd
There are other platforms, like Vimeo or Dailymotion, why aren't people
uploading there? Because there's no audience and Youtube is so widely
integrated (iOS, Android, Smart TVs etc).

But if another platform got to Youtube's size, it would have the exact same
issues, with having a fragile automated system, and not enough human reviewers
(too much content, humans are expensive and error prone).

There's no ideal or perfect system for monitoring audio/visual data, look at
Reddit for example, I can ban you because I am bored, or I dislike you, or
because I want to censor you.

What can you do about it? Nothing. Who cares? Nobody, Reddit carries on as
usual.

r/videos mods can control which Youtubers get traffic, ironically enough. They
can automod channels/posters away 'just for the lolz'.

~~~
simion314
> it would have the exact same issues,

Disagree, say you are a Patreon and also host the videos, games. If you
wrongly block your users they move, if they move you lose money. If small
youtubers have some videos removed YT won't lose as much since other videos
will be pushed to the viewers, the issue is that YT loses a ton more money if
they upset large publishers or some political party.

------
chirau
They shut down my channel with more than 20k subscribers earlier in September.
I sent in all the digital publishing rights contracts signed by all the
artists whose content I had.

No response, just automated emails. Even tried my assigned partner manager,
just more automated emails.

I feel most sorry for the artists... Most were from my home country in Africa
and I had given them a sustainable source of income. Overnight, like Thanos,
it was gone. I tried to fight for them, but YouTube would not even bat an ear.

Maybe one day we will get a better service than this.

And if there is a person from YouTube or Google here, your company really
needs to do better.

I personally have not forgiven them yet.

~~~
nikanj
Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does
not need to do better.

It seems protecting the rights of massive media companies at the expense of
tiny players has resulted them in attracting the massive crowds, at the
expense of tiny crowds.

Keeping Marvel trailers and Madonna music videos up brings in much more money
than serving the indie sector. They care very little for the false positives,
because only false negatives actually cost them money.

~~~
gizmo686
>Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does
not need to do better.

Careful with this line of thinking. Youtube got to having massive players by
moving up market from indie videos. The main thing blocking a competetor from
following the same path is that Youtube still dominates in the indie sector as
well. If they damage themselves in that market enough to give a competetor a
foothold, then they lose that moat; and their competetor can follow the same
up market path that Youtube took.

~~~
jrobn
I think there is a chance a competitor could pop up and hurt YouTube. They
would need to have a ContentID like system, monetization, and a non sucky
copyright system that isn’t gamable, and of course infastructure. Very tall
orders but could be done with a talented team.

YouTube has it exists today are out right abusing their indie people.
Shuttering channgles, demonitizing channels with very little feedback. A could
case in point would be Max Yurev. He has a great photograpy channel and they
demonistized him for months until he recieved some weird fwd email that said
re-monitize him its becoming a “PR problem”. They have zero accountability.

------
skilled
One of PewDiePie recent videos highlights this issue. He had one of his videos
copystriked in which he used a fair use segment from another video. And in
that segment was a song playing in the background. So, that's like three
levels deep of systematic abuse.

Apparently, you can also get in trouble by humming or singing (for a few
seconds) copyrighted songs. That's just plain stupid.

It's kind of funny though, seeing a song copyright holder getting hit by a
3rd-party strike. Goes to show what kind of a mess YouTube is turning into.

And it for sure does not help that YouTube's motto is 'screw creators. we are
always right.'.

~~~
ams6110
Yep, my kid had a video of himself singing a popular song removed on copyright
grounds. He was like 8 years old.

~~~
meh2frdf
Well that is what copyright upholds. The problem is there is no simple way you
can get a license for the video clip from the rights holders. And then no
sensible way of verifying that license with the platform.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Not necessarily. I think for most countries only public performances are
prohibited.

While YouTube certainly is a public platform I think an interesting case could
be made for videos with a limited popularity, say only viewed by family and
friends.

~~~
meh2frdf
So you would need a change internationally to copyright law, and then for
YouTube to limit the number of viewers to a video (which doesn’t make much
business sense).

There are a lot of opinions on how copyright should work, however little
understanding of how it actually works.

There are possible tech solutions that could work with the current copyright
system. The truth is both big tech and the rights collection societies like
the status quo as they both profit off the actual creative works done by
others. The actual battle is between who can get the biggest slice.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
It wasn’t meant as a suggestion, I actually meant that a case could be made in
court that a particular performance isn’t public with a reference to low view
counts.

~~~
meh2frdf
Fair enough :)

------
grecy
Another brilliant YouTube stupidity case has just shown up. This guy [1]
reviewed a channel that is very likely inappropriate.

HE gets a strike on his channel, the one he reviewed is still ticking along,
no consequences!

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA)

------
judge2020
The article touches on this, but a big factor of Content ID is that it's not
in any way tied to copyright law or the DMCA.

Yes, Youtube says users need to play by DMCA rules regarding what they own,
but content creators are not entitled to disputes, fair use, or even the
ability to sue over a claim.

~~~
zozbot123
> The article touches on this, but a big factor of Content ID is that it's not
> in any way tied to copyright law or the DMCA.

Yup - it's a "Copyright Protection System" that has nothing to do with
Copyright. So, how long before people start referring to it more simply, as a
"Protection" system"?

------
Applejinx
I've taken to tweeting every time my plugin-release videos are hit by a
ContentID troll:
[https://twitter.com/applejinx/status/1070249318609752064](https://twitter.com/applejinx/status/1070249318609752064)

I'm using Logic's Test Oscillator to generate white noise, which goes through
my plugins to demonstrate how they react, and gets shown on a frequency
analyzer.

Some bright spark (over the years it has been more than one 'publisher') has
ContentIDed noise… different sorts of noise… in order to stealth copyright
strike people's videos and get revenue. If you file a complaint they quickly
remove the claim so they're not noticed. Your only form for filing the
complaint involves making a statement that you think they're doing it by
mistake, and acknowledging that you know YouTube has nothing to do with it and
won't do a thing about it.

So this becomes an exercise I do over and over and over again.

Or I suppose I could never use a test oscillator or noise source again,
because somebody owns the idea of audio noise now. They've got a bunch of
different EQings of noise, so demonstrating a filter is no refuge. Since once
upon a time it was a different claimant, I think that from time to time
someone gets YouTube to kick them out of ContentID: I've been told of some
magic URL to go to where you can complain against this sort of abuse, but I
don't remember what it was and don't know if it's helpful or actually
dangerous for a creator to make use of such tools. I do know that it doesn't
help because the Noise Owners come back under different names and keep
operating.

I've been dealing with this for YEARS.

~~~
Applejinx
Also, Drew Gooden this November was not at all the first to copyright strike
themselves: I've done that as well, uploading an old CD of my own music which,
it turned out, I'd also distributed through CDBaby.

I don't remember ever telling CDBaby to attack people on YouTube over my work,
much less myself, and I wasn't able to get a satisfactory answer about whether
I could withdraw from their automatic listing with ContentID, so I ended up
removing the album from CDBaby entirely.

I'm sure others have had that experience with CDBaby. Probably some find it
valuable: as an individual I can't put stuff into ContentID, so it's one
obvious way to jump to the 'abuser' side of the equation. I'm not clear on how
you'd tell YouTube that you've licensed your music to somebody and to let
their channel/etc play your content, and without that there's no commercial
use to the system.

Well, except for copyright striking stuff that's not yours and seizing tiny
crumbs of ad revenue in however many hours or minutes you get before you're
noticed. It's generally old videos so I'm sure the real paydirt here is
copyright striking stuff that's old and forgotten.

It's still pathetic because stuff like that doesn't get views…

------
makecheck
It would be wonderful if _every single takedown request_ required a _phone
call_. And let these copyright claimers be put on hold for 40 minutes like
they’re trying to reach the cable company.

It sure as hell shouldn’t be automatic or point-and-click, and it sure as hell
shouldn’t be this guilty-until-proven-innocent system.

------
ekianjo
Good article but falls completely flat at the very end:

> For TheFatRat the recent trouble was the final straw. Yesterday he launched
> a petition urging YouTube to fix the copyright protection system which
> 22,000 people have signed already,

Since when do online petitions matter? Like... never?

------
AnssiH
I wonder whether Article 13(2b) of the infamous EU copyright directive will
change anything.

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&langua...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0337)

It requires "effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms" for
users affected by unjustified removals, and complaints shall "be processed
without undue delay and be subject to human review", and that "users shall
have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as
to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an
exception or limitation to copyright rules".

It might, or maybe YouTube's current mechanism already satisfies the above,
don't know.

~~~
c3o
Just to be clear, what you linked to is the European Parliament's proposal for
the law. Compromise negotiations are currently ongoing with the Council
(representing the member state governments), which in its own proposal does
not ask for human review or an independent dispute resolution body. At this
point it's unclear what the final law will say.
[https://juliareda.eu/2018/10/copyright-trilogue-
positions/](https://juliareda.eu/2018/10/copyright-trilogue-positions/)

No matter what the safeguards end up being though, Article 13 is likely to
make the problem worse overall because it will force all other platforms that
host a lot of user posts/uploads (all content types, including text and
photos) to also implement automated copyright systems, which are likely to be
even shoddier than YouTube's.

------
tcd
I'm not wanting to defend Youtube entirely but perspective is important with
issues like this. Never before in human history have we have had the ability
to have a free, unlimited access repository of our endeavors, and allow anyone
to share their stories or creations.

Youtube is still at the wright brothers level of their systems; they're
fragile, prone to mistakes and are pretty terrible to use. We didn't get to
airplanes in a decade or two, it took thousands of years and we're still
making improvements.

I see a lot of frustration but not many answers. How do you develop a system
that has to be flawless for everyone and deal with 350 hours of video uploaded
every minute.

That's like designing a perfect 4 lane highway with 350 cars every second of
every day, week, month and year, and having a perfect system in case of an
accident.

It's not possible, there will be mistakes and we should accept that but always
push for improvement, but we're still in the early stages. Just like aircraft,
it'll get better but it will take some time.

This isn't exclusive to Youtube, why do you think no one else is insane enough
to challenge them? Any provider would have these issues (there are many Twitch
dramas for example).

If I were Youtube I'd throw in the towel and just say "well, we can't deal
with this, goodbye".

That, I think, is far worse than a few videos being demonetized or channels
deleted.

Perspective is important.

~~~
saagarjha
A significant portion of the grumbling around this is that YouTube has put
their head in the sand and refused to admit that their service has issues, and
steadfastly continues to use automated systems when what they really need is
backup from a subjective human.

------
nutcracker46
Fuck YouTube and the copyright trolls infesting the service.

I have repeatedly fought copyright claims on material that was obviously
public domain. Being tired of reminding claimants and YouTube that NASA air to
ground comms and presidential speeches are not subject to copyright, I deleted
the content.

There were absurd claims, where my uploads were on YouTube for years before
the claimants published their material, and the audio was from events recorded
by the U.S. government a half century ago.

Yeah, fuck YouTube and the copyright trolls who infest it.

------
manfredo
YouTube seems like they're stuck between a rock, and a hard place. The stakes
for copyright infringement seem to be getting ever higher. The EU's Article 13
is perhaps the most extreme example of this, which effectively expects
platforms to be prescient and in whether or not content is infringing. On top
of this, the extremely large amount of content YouTube hosts make it
effectively impossible to manually review a large number of videos This puts a
huge pressure on the platform to be strict with copyright infringement, and to
try and minimize false negatives even at the cost of false positives.

To make matters worse, the media companies filing the copyright claims are the
established players that are getting disrupted by internet services like
YouTube. These companies have zero incentive to avoid false copyright claims,
and it seems like they have no accountability for the instances where they
flag unambiguously non-infringing videos. If you're even more cynical, they
actually have an incentive to file bogus claims as it degrades the experience
of using YouTube and thus hurts the established media companies' competitor.

The main solution I see is to have some element of accountability on the one
filing the copyright claim. E.g. charge $X for every false claim. Or revoke
the copyright holder's ability to file claims if they exceeding a certain
number of false claims, or they they flag unambiguously non-infringing videos.
Give the ones filing claims a strike, for once. But as far as I can tell,
enforcing these mechanisms would put YouTube and other platforms in violation
of the DMCA which is effectively a death sentence for such a platform.

~~~
Fej
For accountability: DMCA claims require a sworn statement under penalty of
perjury. The fact that it's a crime is a deterrent.

Unfortunately YouTube's Content ID system does not actually deal with DMCA
claims directly and so false claims are not unlawful under that provision.
YouTube has been fine with this because it keeps Viacom et al. off their back.

~~~
vsl
> The fact that it's a crime is a deterrent.

That was the goal, yes. In practice, it doesn’t work, and bogus claims are
widespread. Being a crime doesn’t deter in itself, when it’s never prosecuted.

Heck, some assholes openly _brag_ about willfully abusing DMCA for politics:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/vanaman/status/906983575337107456...](https://mobile.twitter.com/vanaman/status/906983575337107456?lang=en)
\- there’s no fear of committing a crime when it comes to DMCA, it’s a
perfectly safe perjury to commit.

------
heyjudy
Dave of EEVblog got hit with a copyright strike for something in the public
domain that a corporation uploaded and claimed as theirs. It's bullshit.

Worse, other randoms are extorting small-but-growing channels to pay them in
exchange for not pulling similar crap.

How I see it is that YT facilitates copyright abuse, fraud and racketeering
much more than it enforces legitimate copyright assertions.

------
anhonestopinion
Big youtubers should sue, win and create a precedent. Instead they make video
where they whine and things only get worse.

~~~
rezashirazian
This is a very good point. Top youtubers definitely have the resources to put
up a decent fight and add a certain level of consequence for haphazard video
claims by the Music Companies.

------
paulpauper
Dealing with YouTube support (and Google support in general) is the epitome of
'Kafkaesque'

------
paulpauper
Youtube has gotten out of control regarding copyright take-downs. Something as
inconspicuous as a MIDI file or some really old video game music in the
background can get a take-down notice. A publisher I used to follow, 10k subs,
got taken down recently for this. Appeal process was useless for him. I
suspect a someone will submit tons of flags and then YouTube will
automatically suspend the account. Guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of
YouTube.

------
libraryatnight
I had a video up once, and after a bunch of issues with background music on
other videos, I decided to use one of the royalty free selections youtube
offers up in their editor/upload tool. It still got flagged.

Past videos I made my own simple drum loops etc, and those got flagged.

I just don't really bother with creating content for youtube anymore. In part
because it's a pain, but equally just because I'm ADD and have moved on to
other interests :)

~~~
pedrocx486
I had a channel where I did silent game streams (no-commentary streams) and I
was playing a game where its background songs were generated procedurally (not
citing names today), and I got flagged by a company that represented "keygens
and cracks blah blah blah".

A company that represented songs in keygens. The ones used in piracy.

The irony was so strong I shut down my channel to never look back.

------
yantrams
On a somewhat unrelated and maybe tangential note, I felt the logo of Torrent
Freak reminded me of Techcrunch quite a bit and ran it against the logo
database I have and indeed found Techcrunch show up in the results.

[http://compute.vision/brands/logo-
results.html?hash=CD1POO56...](http://compute.vision/brands/logo-
results.html?hash=CD1POO56TN07DGJG)

Edit: Updated Link

------
paulpauper
Not to mention, YouTube req. a Google account. If you lose that, you lose your
YouTube account.

------
RyanShook
YouTube has no incentive to enforce copyright laws correctly. As long as large
rights holders can claim and takedown content on the platform YouTube gets to
keep placing ads against videos regardless of who actually owns the copyright.

------
lucb1e
We all know it's a mess. Most comments provide anecdotal or other evidence of
how terrible and unjust it is, but it's not a disputed issue. What I am more
interested to hear is what we can do about it.

~~~
izacus
Implement a framework where YT and/or copyright holder issuing the takedown
needs to pay damages for each mistaken takedown notice.

At this point the copyright holders keep the advertising revenue (!) for
period of demonetization even if the takedown was completely fraudulent. They
actually have a financial incentive to just issue as much Content ID takedowns
as possible because they earn money from them.

------
Nasrudith
Really it is impossible for it not to be a mess when the law is a mess. Until
there is a sufficiently severe punishment for fraudulent take-downs and it is
applied frequently there will be no hesitation. If they could give a three
strikes on false takedowns to be removed youtube would probably happily do it
just to reduce their load as all rightholders would have gotten themselves
banned.

------
InclinedPlane
YouTube is a perfect example of a platform that has somehow managed to serve
as host to an incredible ecosystem of content creators despite the management
having little real concept of the value of the system and consistently
treating its most important creators poorly. They would kill the goose that
laid the golden egg just to make things marginally easier for advertisers or
to save themselves the trouble of having to do real work.

Not only that, but they do a very poor job of contending with what can only
euphemistically be called "the wide diversity of content" on the site. Dumb as
rocks machine learning based recommendations and content filtering means that
for a vast majority of users (including minors and children) it's common to
watch perfectly ordinary videos and then be recommended all sorts of
ridiculous videos to watch next, from flat Earth and ancient aliens
conspiracies to misogynists to holocaust deniers and actual nazis.

To call YouTube a "mess" is a vast understatement. Much like twitter they have
captured the attention and engagement of enormous numbers of people, and yet
somehow they cannot figure out how to prevent the platform from becoming a
toxic hell hole (because they refuse to do the work), they treat their users
and creators poorly, and somehow they are constantly in a battle to increase
revenue. I support about half a dozen different folks who make youtube videos
via patreon but I refuse to give youtube money until they get their head out
of their ass.

------
cft
We should support and switch to Bitchute.com if we want to have more than one
internet cable channel.

------
annadane
And does it HAVE to be? At what point does YT just say "piss off, you can't
control the internet"? When they use the DMCA properly and not Content ID only
because they don't want to lose money on lawsuits?

------
slcjordan
The mess is simply a syptom of dated copyright laws applied in the modern era.

------
nitrogen
A lot of comments are assuming that any competitor to YouTube must have
something like ContentID. Why? It's not required by any law.

------
EamonnMR
I was uploading family videos transferred from VHS and one got flagged down
because in the background someone had a radio on.

------
ezoe
False flagging shall be a crime with jail sentence. The result of automation
shall be responsible.

~~~
clarry
Ok, put me in jail (I just flagged yer message)!

I agree though that there should be severe penalty for large scale,
intentional false flagging with intent to profit or cause losses to someone
else.

Smaller scale "accidents" that slip through from companies that do mass
flagging should probably have at least a small penalty, and if the flag caused
monetization to shift in favor of the false claimant, then all of that income
must be returned to the rightful owner. This would disincentivize false
flagging, and incentivize companies to fix their shit (or stop mass flagging
until they figure out something that doesn't have so many false positives).

AIUI the current system on YT is completely in favor of those who fraudlently
claim copyright, because they have nothing to lose and something to gain. This
is all Google's fault as far as I can tell.

Ultimately Goog will need to do human review in cases of dispute but they're
already doing that anyway for other reasons (e.g. child porn, gore, and other
content that isn't allowed on the site).

Though I'd really prefer that this isn't handled by Google at all. It should
go to courts, and if it's too much paperwork for courts to handle the flood of
copyright cases, then it's on the lawmakers to fix their broken laws and make
the system workable. One can dream..

------
Carpetsmoker
Every minute "over 400 hours" of content is uploaded to YouTube. It's a
serious challenge to moderate a community at that scale.

This extends far beyond just the copyright claims. There is all sort of
objectionable content being uploaded that needs to be removed, and it's easy
to find literal neo-Nazi propaganda in the YouTube comments, as well as all
sorts of racial slurs. Reporting this seems to have little effect in my
experience.

I don't have any good answers to this problem, but it's frustrating that
YouTube is so opaque in their process. I have no idea what happened to my
reports of neo-Nazi content for example (it wasn't removed) and also no
notification that it was reviewed but denied. I hold little love for Facebook,
but in my experience their process is a lot better.

~~~
reaperducer
_Every minute "over 400 hours" of content is uploaded to YouTube. It's a
serious challenge to moderate a community at that scale._

If only YouTube had a large parent company with a significant portion of a
trillion dollars that could be spent actually taking care of this problem.

Instead we get, “Let the bot script handle it. Oh, the system doesn’t work?
Too bad.”

~~~
tcd
"If only the world had a significant portion of several trillion dollars that
could be spent curing cancer".

Money isn't the answer to all the world's problems. But I'm intrigued to hear
how you think they should "take care of the problem". Maybe you can share your
innovative python script that solves the problem for good.

~~~
reaperducer
_I 'm intrigued to hear how you think they should "take care of the problem"._

Hire actual humans to review disputed decisions, while putting in a proper
appeals process that is also overseen by actual thinking humans.

 _Maybe you can share your innovative python script that solves the problem
for good._

I'm not Google. I don't pretend that all of the world's problems can be solved
by computers, and then fail while trying.

~~~
tcd
They do have humans, but they make mistakes and have bias. And if we need to
cover the amount of content Youtube gets per second we'd need a country of
people.

Oh wait, Youtube have just gone bankrupt.

~~~
lozenge
This is about disputed copyright claims, not all videos. Besides, most of
these copyright holders probably file hundreds of automated claims (from
examples in the thread: chiptune samples, royalty free drum loops,
presidential speeches, CC licensed music). If it's obvious that it isn't
copyrighted, YouTube can remove the fingerprint from the Content ID system and
force the supposed copyright holder to issue a DMCA notice, which is much
easier to dispute and works in favour of the uploader.

------
jwr
It seems that the whole "copyright claim" system is just a distraction. We are
all getting distracted instead of looking at the bigger picture: while we are
fighting, Google earns money no matter what.

I recently noticed my own work being sold on Etsy by thieves. Guess what, Etsy
doesn't even want to hear from you about copyright problems. There is no way
to report it (try it).

I hope eventually people will start suing and things will end up in courts. I
don't think courts will look kindly on profiteering from stolen property.

~~~
trevyn
The magic word for reporting copyright infringement is DMCA. First hit for
searching “etsy dmca”: [https://www.etsy.com/legal/ip-
dmca/](https://www.etsy.com/legal/ip-dmca/)

