Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers to either give them stronger tools than the DMCA provides or face a blackout from these major publishers. They wanted final control over their IP on Youtube and they got it, damn the law. If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.
YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.
People's search (need?) for offense is becoming pathological.
But what I do know is that about half of the YouTube channels I follow have already started putting videos up on other services -- they're eager to get out of the YouTube ecosystem. And I'm eager to follow them.
If DuckDuckGo's any indication then I'm holding out hope for new challengers.
They always come back within a few days.
So long as 99% of users stay there, creators will stay there. If creators leave, that leaves a gap that'll quickly be filled by another creator. Youtube needs to do something that makes the viewers absolutely give up, and that's when migration will happen. I can't really imagine anything that'd do that except requiring paid accounts to view any content.
Alternatively, if some competitor comes along, has all the same content Youtube has, and offers better payments for creators without caving in to every single copyright claim, that'd draw people in like nothing else. But that's seemingly impossible now that the web isn't a wild west anymore.
YT is about the only player in the market that the MPAA can't scrounge enough pocket change to meet the price of, but they don't have to because it plays ball with their demands.
1. It's the second largest search engine in the world, and likely the GO TO search engine for any DIY / Howto type topic. Keeping control of this keeps them in control of search field.
2. It's a massive platform for adsense. Having a single stop for advertisers on both the web and on youtube helps keep google ahead of it's competitors in advertising
3. The unspoken advantage it gives google in the world of machine language and AI. Endless natural language data in every language you can imagine, facial recognition, etc etc.
I highly doubt they care how much money it loses.
Does Google care when their products fail? No, they just move on to the next data vacuum one of their developers designed or that they acquired.
Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.
Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."
When he contacted Valve they responded - "We didn't make the youtube claim". So SOMEBODY did, but not the actual owners.
The best part is you don't need to own the ip you make a claim against. If they challenge take maximum amount of time and withdraw challenge. Keep repeating for new videos until the channel agrees.
So, both idiots and greedy, then.
You could certainly describe that behavior as greedy, but it isn't an active attempt to steal revenue.
Unless you run up against some studio that has a private deal with YT in which case they'll just take down your video - no appeals.
DMCA takedowns have the option you specified.
Content ID is a seperate system, where it's entirely controlled by the claimant. They can choose to claim your video or not, and you have no option (other than to sue them - i.e the reverse of the DMCA system) if you want your video to go back up.
e: And to be clear, this was a Content ID claim. It's in the first screenshot on twitter where it says "Blocked - No one can view this video to one or more of the Content ID claims below"
e2: Also, Content ID does have an appeal system, but if the claimant rejects the appeal your only recourse is to initial legal action.
Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims.
"If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear."
So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then they would vanish? How do you figure?
The difference between the two systems is that the DMCA has language about fraudulent claims, whereas wading through the ToS and contracts you have with YouTube will be nigh impossible. A lawyer might take your DMCA case where youtube wouldn't really be directly involved, but nobody is up for a fight with YouTube directly. It's never worth the money to these YouTubers at their current scale.
Either YouTubers need a union as powerful as the major media cabal to bargain with YouTube on their behalf or some particular publisher needs to be making movie studio money before this system is fixed.
And if you dispute a content ID claim, the claimant must either retract it or convert it into a DMCA notice. So they have no additional legal protections if they want to keep it down permanently.
I really don't see how this system is broken and needs to be fixed. Money is kept in escrow while claims are disputed, and ultimately the rights owner must allow the content to be reinstated or file a lawsuit.
As I understand it, for YouTubers who rely on monetization of their videos, the system is completely broken. A ContentID strike takes down or demonetizes the video immediately. The YouTuber disputes the strike. Once processed, that video goes back up -- but it's too late, the monetary damage has already been done, as most of the money a video will make is made in the first few days. Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue.
That said, I think that anyone who has a business that relies so heavily on income from from YouTube has a very precarious business to begin with. I'd advise them to get the majority of their nickels in some other way.
If disputed within 5 days, the money is held in escrow and disbursed upon reinstatement. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en&ref_...
"If the policy is set to block (don't allow users to view the video on YouTube) or track (allow users to view the video without advertisements), this policy may be temporarily lifted until your dispute is resolved. Learn more about policy and claim basics. During this time, your video cannot be monetized."
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 (click "file a dispute", then "What happens after you dispute?"
I believe I saw somewhere that monetization is the most common rather than block or track, but can't find it now.
Strikes are not perfectly 1:1 with DMCA requests. I don't know how to prove that, but I don't trust some reductive Google support pages to have the whole picture either.
I'm fairly confident in what I've said (there's content ID claims, both manual and automatic, and then there's DMCA claims). The EFF does not mention any third option. They mention ToS issues, which are strikes but which aren't because of copyright. And there's a brief mention of contractual obligations, which I mention in my post as well. Those aren't a separate way to take down content, but rather an agreement not to consider disputes from certain rights owners (as far as I know, the only one that's been identified is UMG). This is rare and I have not heard of widespread abuse of this.
It's somewhat confusing because Youtube doesn't always use the term DMCA in their documentation. But it's fairly clear when they say "formal notice", mention that it's a legal requirement, and link to the counternotice page.
Your Reddit guide was very good but I would still not call a strike the same thing as a DMCA notice. YouTube doesn't have to have a strike system, they do that to placate the major rights holders who don't want to deal with serial offenders so that there's not a big court battle about whether YouTube knows they are uploading copyrighted content. ContentID serves the same purpose, to shield YouTube from liability. But YouTube lets copyright holders abuse these tools and so far has gotten away from trouble for doing so.
If you're a big media company, you don't want to file a DMCA notice every time someone uploads a pirated video on Youtube. Even if you use the most sophicated bots to file real DMCA takedowns, you're bound to have at least a 1% error rate and get sued a bunch of times.
2. It's easy to counterclaim, which removes the strike completely after 14 days.
The legislature? Corporations obviously pursue profits within the legal framework, and this is the most profitable path within the legal framework. Lawmakers can challenge or reduce this sort of abusive pressure by content publishers in a number of ways but they don't. The current legal framework seems to tacitly allow publishers to effectively move as a bloc in punishing any platform, whether it's by Google or someone else, that refuses to accept their anti-consumer practices.
But of course you can keep blaming one corporation. Bad Google, why don't you just voluntarily do what I want, profits be damned?! See if that changes anything.
(1) Accommodation of technology.—The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
(2) Definition.—As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and—
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
In the context where the DMCA was written, it seems most likely that they were thinking of, say, Napster banning known copyright enforcement agencies in order to prevent them from scanning its network.
It worked - the media companies backed off. It's also a massive failure, in that it's been abused to the detriment of the content creators since it came into being.
Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything.
Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b.
Alphabet made $86b last year.
They did not, and I'm curious where the mixup came from. They did $46.1b in revenue fiscal year 2019, and $10.7b in profits.
Alphabet gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2019 was $86.264B, a 16.62% increase year-over-year.
At this point, YouTube is just another part of the entertainment industry, with commensurate business interests.
Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_....
Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal defense that you may use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the litigation from going forward.
And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair Use if the defendant is making money directly off of whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a teacher who makes copies whole-clothe of newspaper articles doesn't make money directly off of sharing articles with students, a YouTuber putting up videos for ad revenue is.
I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way like: floatplane.com and watchnebula.com
Support creators you care about or they may not be around much longer.
I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of YouTube.
And then the legal issues: as a scrappy new website, you're unlikely to be able to protect your users from large copyright holders, which in practice means new YouTube competitors will be even more quick to take down fair use videos than YouTube to prevent being sued out of existence.
I've been thinking about building something like that for a long time, but I just don't see how it would be feasible in the current copyright system.
The only solution I see would be sites like Dropout or Nebula(? not too familiar with it), where the platform is effectively the same as the content creator. This of course is inaccessible to the vast majority of smaller creators.
Start slowly, maybe a nightly gaming news show. Get a few podcasts to live broadcast their episodes.
I'm not sure how much YouTube notices though, they still have all the rest of their HUGE pie.
There's a few creators who managed to get Patreon as a second source of funding, but there's just no getting away from the fact that Google signed up advertisers who actually pay for a lot of YouTubes hosting, infrastructure and payout costs.
If creators move away from the platform they'll need to handle those deals by themselves from a weaker negotiating position. It's significantly easier to get money from all three: Patreon donations, their own in-video advertisements AND youtube advertiser payouts.
I don't think that is the case. For what I've seen, the discontent has been growing for years. Youtube is to video what google is to search.
Yeah. there are competitors but we all know it's a monopoly.
(and tangentially: both are right; the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep, but it had more gratuitous (and cheap looking) martial arts action than several seasons of TNG.)
I don’t understand how you can pass judgment on a series based on one episode.
So yes, watching one episode is enough to dismiss a show.
To the general point there’s so much content out there and I watch relatively little. I have to find a show that at least looks interesting. And then I’ll almost certainly drop it after an episode or two if it doesn’t grab me.
Gone is the attempt to tell good stories and now we are stuck with political preaching which always requires all the canon of the show or movie being used to be trampled if not insulted.
RLM pointed out the defining difference between Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek and all the tripe we have today. When he wanted to deal with race he had the characters blow it off, it was such a non issue then they could not take offense because it did not occur to them. (episode with Abraham Lincoln)
Instead we are served the tripe and hatred that the woke political movement uses to silence those it does not agree with or those who dare call them out.
But this new generation of Trek seems to have completely lost that ability, while at the same time retconning large parts of the universe, and its inhabitants, to serve it's now much more simplistic moral dilemmas.
Which becomes particularly apparent when contrasted with something like The Orville. Sure, MacFarlane's humor can be an acquired taste, but I found that comedy take to be much more relatable, and truer to the "Trek spirit" than recent Trek offerings.
Maybe that has to do with the fact that The Orville also depicts a way more optimistic picture of future humanity, akin to the old Trek, while new Trek seems to be too busy to make Trek as gritty, edgy and actiony as most other media nowadays.
If we don't see the original Star Trek as staking as many firm moral positions on issues where popular opinions are mixed, it says more about who we have become today, and how popular morality has adjusted, than about what was or wasn't radical or confronting at the time.
There doesn't seem to me to be any plausible claim that earlier Trek was previously less "confrontational" or deliberate in promoting its chosen morality.
You might want to (re)watch Star Trek TOS. Glaring in my mind is The Omega Glory where Kirk reads off... well, spoilers: it's absolutely a political episode (as is most of Star Trek) and it rather killed the episode in my opinion.
"Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only by the sentiments the fanbase has for Capt. Picard.
This is why, for instance, In the Pale Moonlight was so good. Sisko's actions went against the entire concept he had of himself as the goodguy Starfleet officer (a paragon of virtue!), and it _tore him up inside_. In any other show (and Star Treks since Enterprise), it would have been yet another "dark moment", probably followed by a torture scene.
DS9 never abandoned the Roddenberry ideal in favor of "dark edgy and xplosions", as RLM kind of alludes to in their video. Instead they showed it as an ideal worth striving for, but complicated in the absolute and in extreme circumstances. Previous Star Trek's did this on occasion too, but never admitted it to themselves, which is something much easier to do when everything is reset after the end of each episode (looking at you Voyager).
Cold war Star Trek intentionally included a Russian crewmember, Civil-Rights-era Trek had a Black crew member as well as an alien race -Klingons- coded with racial tropes pointed at Black people and found ways for the viewer to gradually identify with the alien race. TNG had a Klingon crew member and gave us Ferangi (coded with some Jewish stereotypes), followed by the Borg (the 'looming threat' of Collectivism') and subsequent series are projects that bring sympathetic characters of each of these backgrounds (Quark, Seven of Nine).
Picard's anger at Starfleet in the new series stems from their moral abdication in the face of the largest refugee crisis Starfleet has ever seen. Today, we are in the second largest refugee crisis our planet has ever seen, and Western nations have responded less with sympathy than with rising anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't see how this is in any way "keeping the iconography to tell whatever kind of story they like"
I was mostly talking about continuity and making storylines fit within the established universe. I wasn't talking so much about themes as I was talking about internal consistency. That being said, I fully acknowledge star trek cannon is a big mess.
Hulu has The Orville which I think has proven definitively that anyone can take the Star Trek formula and pump out a watchable show. Who needs CBS?
Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claimable. There is a tendency among people to misjudge their actual risk and whether or not they infringed, so it is unwise to file these counter claims without advice from an attorney.
You can also file in your local jurisdiction for declaratory judgment if you receive a formal cease and desist notice, and if that C&D contains false claims then the plaintiff may be in trouble. A truly false and malicious DMCA claim can be countered with a defamation lawsuit as well.
You can also sue someone for any reason ("It's Tuesday! I hate you! I'm suing you!") at any time, but that doesn't mean that you will win.
Using short clips of the trailer for review purposes is clearly fair use. Often times, however, Youtubers think fair use protects them more than it actually does and do go overboard such as taking entire TV episodes and commenting over them. However different judges have seen the issue differently in different situations. So, if you really did infringe, but think you didn't, and file the counter claim, you are doomed, and copyright law is very generous to victorious plaintiffs.
What about damages to the target of the claim? It doesn't seem like there's a penalty for bad-faith claims that wouldn't ever lead to a suit.
Be funny if that guy sued CBS in some small town court, I doubt they'd even show up though or argue they don't have jurisdiction over them if no offices there, and I doubt an affiliate would count but maybe. Oh looks like Joe is from Austin, Texas so a pretty big city then, so not sure if CBS has anything other than an affiliate owned by third party company, but I know states in the past said having affiliates create Nexus for sales tax purposes. I was part of a fitness related affiliate program but never made any money with it years ago, and my state created one of those click-through nexuses so the company decided just to kick me out of the program based on the state in my profile.
Then if your tortious interference claim could be valid, and since YouTube has some processes (including automated ones) that side steps and goes well beyond what the DMCA requires, I wonder if YouTube along with CBS also would be opening themself up to additional legal liabilities then.
Be nice if people would stand up to legal bullies more, but sadly the justice and the legal system are not blind as they say and costs to access so it seems like unbalanced powers that favor both the government and corporations over individual citizens.
People love to talk about standing up to legal bullies, but lawyers are expensive. Copyright law is extremely friendly to plaintiffs and generous in terms of damages: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
CBS would totally show up in a small town if they knew that they had a good chance of winning. Their lawyers are already on salary. It doesn't cost them anything and they will get a lot of money. They may also just try to get the venue changed. In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in the future. So, it's unwise to do the equivalent of coating yourself in butter and serving yourself up to be devoured by Viacom IP attorneys.
In the 2019 case of Epic Games, Inc. v. Lucas in which a 14 year old boy counter-claimed a copyright claim filed by Epic over the defendant's posting of Youtube footage involving cheats in Fortnite. While the case did not go all the way, Epic did successfully extract a punitive settlement from the defendant. If he had not counter claimed, the lawsuit might have never happened, or they could have settled it before it was filed.
That's true of trademark, but why do you think that is true of copyright?
The main thing with copyright is not like the risk of trademark dilution: it's just that not enforcing it makes it easier for defendants to bargain and argue for lighter penalties.
Not sure what you mean exactly in your last sentence because of the double negative. They would sue the target of the claim for copyright infringement if they believe that they will win.
Why the two are different is beyond me.
Presumably most don't bother, because these are big big companies. They can feel secure in their bad faith claims, auto-rejection of appeals, and general abuse of the system to garnish monetization proceeds.
- Joe had a negative review of the show, and made several valid points about its lackluster writing and dialogue.
- CBS' streaming service, "All Access" is getting hammered by critics on reddit and blogs. Even after gobbling up Nickelodeon kids programming its still underperforming. A week after Picard aired, CBS released the first episode on Youtube free of charge in order to drum up business.
There needs to be a way for these new content startups to allow broadcasting on multiple platforms. If a creator has to "upload" to each site, that going to turn them away from many alternatives.
I toyed with the idea of a portal for crowdfunding clone, with a threaded feed, and other technologies that already exist. Then there are dozen(s) of funding ideas for the Creators and the site.
The technology is there, the knowledge is there. But little interest from investors.
All Reddit would need to do is create creators subs with crowdfunding and paywalled content, subscriptions, etc, and they could easily own the market.
Linus is doing floatplane, so creators do see this big giant hole that is just waiting for someone to drive a truck and smash youtube.
I just can't understand why the biggest problem and the simplest solutions, and nobody has done it yet. Its like fedex\amazon, after its launches, people go, duh, that was a good idea.
Edit: Really, a downvote? How do you expect wide spread adoption 9f an alternative service if the apps for normal-user devices (TVs) don't exist?
If YouTube receives a DMCA request it will take the video down immediately (in accordance to the law). However, you can counter the DMCA claim at which point the other party has to either drop it or sue you.
ContentID is the non-legal system which essentially blocks or transfers monetization (copyright holder's choice) for any detected copyrighted work in YouTube's database. YouTube developed it to avoid fighting studios.
Since there are no objective standards to determine if something is fair use or not, instead it's a bunch of factors that are all supposed to be weighted against each other by a judge, there is no way for YouTube to determine if something is legal infringement of copyright (Fair Use) or illegal infringement of copyright. The solution here for YouTube is to be conservative and not allow any infringement against the rights holder's wishes.
It's not a great system, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I'm not sure how or even if it could be changed.
I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.
Sure, it's fair use, it's what people are talking about etc. Still, it's free publicity.
If not, content creators should be very aware of possible abuses and should add anti-abuse language to their contracts, like this: https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-c...
Then even if you license royalty free music, there's bot's that flag it so you can to dispute even if you paid since they don't know you got a license, they just auto assume that you didn't. Then also sound loops so, like Garageband Loops  you are allowed to use them in a larger project, but not the loops standalone... but some songs use these loops and samples, so say some artist used a Apple Loop in their song and got popular to be part of ContentID, then that artist starts flagging content from Apple they never created in the first place. Sounds like YouTube requires your music doesn't contain third party licensed royal free stuff within them but sounds like they still get submitted to YouTube anyways. And this isn't just a Apple Garage Band problem, happens with other music programs too like FL Studio and a bunch of others. Wouldn't surprise me if two digital drums (I guess music programs call them "virtual instruments" sounded too much alike if it would be flagged either, since remember hearing nothing but white noise got flagged once...
Read more here, from the author Sebastian Tomczak
The footage he took was literally taken from the publicly available trailer. Reactions to trailers are quite common on youtube and generally don't appear to be taken down.
I question what the value of this for CBS is anyway because I doubt the few hundred bucks they theoretically lose from the youtube ad-revenue for the trailer aren't more than compensated by the attention that Angry Joe draws to the show. Not to mention that anyone who watches 40 minutes of star trek analysis has likely clicked on the trailer a while ago.
> especially for a product of this caliber
Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?
You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.
This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged as fair than non-transformative ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses are fair.
(And even putting that aside, using a portion of a copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work commenting on it could be considered transformative of the original.)
I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.
I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible.
I haven't seen this review, but 1% of the total runlength for a review seems quite reasonable.
Apparently it's quite common on youtube for people to take entire pieces of someone elses work (like 30 seconds of a 30 second piece), say "hmm, that was interesting", and post it online. MxR Plays v. Jukin  was a recent case, where they refused to pay the really reasonable license fee for the video, posted the video in full, said "no, not funny" or something, and then sold it for profit. The original video is something like 10% of the entire piece rather than 99%.
The couple of question then posted videos admitting they were breaking the law. My knowledge of this case mainly comes from LegalEagle reviewing it . To me they haven't got a case (unlike this angry joe guy), but apparently they might have.
Why? Isn't that like saying that law enforcement should prioritize the return of stolen diamond to a wealth person over the return of a a stolen car to a middle class person?
Where's the utility in that?
(And, the portion of the work used is only one part of a multi-pronged test of fair use...)
Automation fails to discern fair use. The YouTuber should file a DMCA counterclaim, but many youtubers are unsophisticated enough in copyright law to do so.
Additionally, strikes on accounts appear to be immutable and can seriously threaten a creator's revenue source so, while it sounds nice to encourage people to stand up for their rights, it's almost never in their interests to oppose the claim. Yes this absolutely is an issue where copyright owners can file baseless claims and assume they'll be obeyed anyways but trying to resist it as an individual is futile... honestly YouTubers need to unionize at some point and let their collective power force better enforcement rules for copyright violations.
Who's to say the "person" doing the manual review isn't just a Mechanical Turker?