Youtube's Response to Content ID claims

O

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
http://kotaku.com/heres-what-youtube-has-to-say-to-angry-youtubers-1485168478

Hi from YouTube,

You might have heard about, or been impacted by an increase in copyright claims made on videos over the past week. We're getting in touch to explain what's happening and how you can get back to creating and monetizing great videos.

What's happening
Content ID is YouTube's system for scanning videos for copyrighted content and giving content owners choices on what they want us to do with them. Last week, we expanded the system to scan more channels, including those affiliated with a multi-channel network ("MCN"). As a result, some channels, including many gaming channels, saw claims appear against their videos from audio or video copyright holders.

Understanding Content ID claims
Keep in mind one video may contain multiple copyrighted works, any of which could potentially result in a claim. For example a record label may own music playing in the video (even in the background), a music distributor may own a game's soundtrack, or a game publisher may own in-game cinematic content.
Also, online rights are often resold to companies like music labels and aggregators. While you might not recognize the owner, this doesn't necessarily mean their claims are invalid.

Deciding what to do
When a claim is made, you'll see what's been claimed, who's claimed it, what type of claim it is (audio or video), and you can play back the part of your video that it matched. We want to make it as easy as possible for you to act on Content ID claims, and you can find out all your next steps, dispute options, and other troubleshooting resources here.

It's also important to know that most claims won't impact your account standing.

Tips for new videos
If you're creating videos with content from other people, remember that rights ownership can be complicated and different owners have different policies. Be aware of music. Many games allow you to turn off background music, while leaving sound effects enabled. And if you're looking for music you can freely use (and monetize!), check out our Audio Library.

Whether gaming, music or comedy is your passion, know that we love what you do. We've worked hard to design Content ID and other tools to give everyone — from individual creators to media companies — the opportunity to make great videos and earn money. As YouTube grows, we want to make sure we're providing the right product features to ensure that everyone continues to thrive.

Sincerely,
The YouTube team
Click to expand...
TL;DR version:

  • "YOU are responsible with what you put in your videos, NOT Youtube." - Youtube team
  • "YOU have the option of turning off in-game music so it doesn't get flagged." - Youtube team
  • "The Content ID system are only flagging videos that lay claim to copyrighted music used in the background of these videos as well as the in-game cinematics that have copyright claim by the copyright owner. If you are using music owned by a music label, ask them permission to use it before using it in your videos." - Youtube team
  • "We also offer free, public domain music you can use instead of copyrighted music that we feel is more appropriate from our Audio Library." - Youtube team
  • "We're absolving ourselves of any responsibility of copyright issues and laying the responsibility on the Youtube user themselves." - Youtube team
  • "We still love you, but really you can fuck off because we are preventing ourselves from getting sued by these greedy music corporations. Your ass, not mine." - Youtube team
 
It is nice they are making it more transparent and will actually show you the part of the video in question. I have had videos rejected before that had absolutely no music or any violating content. I resubmitted one video and it was still rejected with no reason at all given. Hopefully this fixes stupid things like that.
 
Don't blame them for this. I can't wait until the copyright holders petition Congress to make Google scan the internet with this tool so that they can fine people for having illegal works on their websites. Wait until your 15 y.o. daughter gets you a 20 million dollar bill by posting videos on Instagram with her favorite artist blaring on the car's stereo system. That's when the shit will hit the fan.

:)
 
kid drove by my house with copyrighted audio coming from his car

call the ip police
 
cageymaru said:
Don't blame them for this. I can't wait until the copyright holders petition Congress to make Google scan the internet with this tool so that they can fine people for having illegal works on their websites. Wait until your 15 y.o. daughter gets you a 20 million dollar bill by posting videos on Instagram with her favorite artist blaring on the car's stereo system. That's when the shit will hit the fan.

:)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not the videos (with the exception of in-game cinematics) but the music themselves.

They're asking users to mute the background music to the games or they'll get flagged.

The problem though is that this is going to get a lot of innocent videos flagged.

Filming your cat doing something silly while you have your radio on in the background?
Flagged.

Recording your friend doing this wicked stunt on a skateboard while your car radio is blaring out music?
Flagged.

Doing a Let's Play video of you playing through your favorite game and some orchestral music comes up that's copyrighted by someone like Sony Classical?
Flagged.

And, so on.

What's stopping Google from expanding this to Google Search and flagging websites that have copyrighted music, and in turn reporting them to their respective copyright holders?

There seems to be no limit to this if something as innocent as recording your child singing a copyrighted song in a school choir gets flagged down by the Content ID system after being posted to Youtube.

This is going to turn into some kind of Orwellian nightmare of reality.
 
Americans only care about Fair Use when it affects them personally. People will "LOL" at the guy who is going through the nightmare and mock him. Then when it affects them, they expect others to care. So the system will never get fixed. Just be ready to shell out the big bucks if your kid does something wrong.

Off topic, but did you'll see how wonderful our Fair Use laws are in the Amazon / Disney rental debacle? Amazon was forced to remove movies that they had sold to consumers legitimately because Disney decided that they want those consumers to come to the Disney website to watch them. So these people spent their hard earned money on digital videos, and Disney removed them all from their Amazon library.

That's the type of Congress that we have now. They are getting paid by the Movie / Music/ Fracking/ whatever industry and not by taxes collected from the American people. They don't give a damn about their base salary as they can make a helluva lot more taking kickbacks and campaign donations. We enable them to by not speaking up. By not voicing our opinions. By standing idly by and letting it happen.

I bet that if we were to boycott Youtube for 2 weeks they would rescind this. But everyone will move their lips and agree to do so, then go right back up there 30 minutes later and make them more ad revenue. That's really sad. Same can be said of games that release with bugs out the ass. Everyone buys it in hopes that they will fix it one day instead of expecting it to work in the first place.
 
cageymaru said:
Americans only care about Fair Use when it affects them personally. People will "LOL" at the guy who is going through the nightmare and mock him. Then when it affects them, they expect others to care. So the system will never get fixed. Just be ready to shell out the big bucks if your kid does something wrong.

Off topic, but did you'll see how wonderful our Fair Use laws are in the Amazon / Disney rental debacle? Amazon was forced to remove movies that they had sold to consumers legitimately because Disney decided that they want those consumers to come to the Disney website to watch them. So these people spent their hard earned money on digital videos, and Disney removed them all from their Amazon library.

That's the type of Congress that we have now. They are getting paid by the Movie / Music/ Fracking/ whatever industry and not by taxes collected from the American people. They don't give a damn about their base salary as they can make a helluva lot more taking kickbacks and campaign donations. We enable them to by not speaking up. By not voicing our opinions. By standing idly by and letting it happen.

I bet that if we were to boycott Youtube for 2 weeks they would rescind this. But everyone will move their lips and agree to do so, then go right back up there 30 minutes later and make them more ad revenue. That's really sad. Same can be said of games that release with bugs out the ass. Everyone buys it in hopes that they will fix it one day instead of expecting it to work in the first place.
Click to expand...

exactly
 
I've see Conan mention this on his show about how they have to mute certain sounds (or turn off game music) because they're too cheap to pay to license it (jokingly, they probably just don't want the hassle).

The Lyft ride along skit had this, they had to turn off the radio in the car.

He even does a running skit where they sing hit song covers (with new words) so they don't get sued.

It doesn't seem all that unfair. What Disney did with Amazon is way worse. That was literally like gong to someone's house and revoking their DVDs because you want them to watch your network.
 
cageymaru said:
Americans only care about Fair Use when it affects them personally. People will "LOL" at the guy who is going through the nightmare and mock him. Then when it affects them, they expect others to care. So the system will never get fixed. Just be ready to shell out the big bucks if your kid does something wrong.

Off topic, but did you'll see how wonderful our Fair Use laws are in the Amazon / Disney rental debacle? Amazon was forced to remove movies that they had sold to consumers legitimately because Disney decided that they want those consumers to come to the Disney website to watch them. So these people spent their hard earned money on digital videos, and Disney removed them all from their Amazon library.

That's the type of Congress that we have now. They are getting paid by the Movie / Music/ Fracking/ whatever industry and not by taxes collected from the American people. They don't give a damn about their base salary as they can make a helluva lot more taking kickbacks and campaign donations. We enable them to by not speaking up. By not voicing our opinions. By standing idly by and letting it happen.

I bet that if we were to boycott Youtube for 2 weeks they would rescind this. But everyone will move their lips and agree to do so, then go right back up there 30 minutes later and make them more ad revenue. That's really sad. Same can be said of games that release with bugs out the ass. Everyone buys it in hopes that they will fix it one day instead of expecting it to work in the first place.
Click to expand...

Every now and then I agree with you, this is one of those times.
 
I had the audio pulled from an 80 seconds long clip of my kid hula hooping at summer camp. It had 12 views (private link) and a generic name. The company filing the claim was a Japanese media company with apparently zero claim over the song in the background.

If they can go through the effort of finding an infringement in that, I suspect they can find infringement in damn near anything.

Then they send you shit like this
Your video "Aug 9, 2013", may have content that is owned or licensed by Avex Entertainment, Inc.. As a result, the video’s audio has been muted.

Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team
Click to expand...

I asked for proof that Avex had any claim over the audio and never got a reply.
 
I think it is fine and good for technology companies to help enforce copy right laws and respect art and artists. My problem is when it seems to be way to easy for them to knock you down and way to hard for you to fight back and their doesn't seem to be any penalty for these companies casting huge wide nets that get tons of false results.

If you claim copyright and do not have it their should be a fine.

I also find it hypocritical that youtube/google is suddenly caring now that they are a big company but had no problem with allowing people to infringe on anything they damn well wanted for years while they were taking over market share. When search is the only thing you do, lol you have no problem helping people find those torrents, when you operate only off of ad revenue you have no problem allowing people to upload full copy righted videos and making money off of that. But OH now that we have google play and have implemented a system to allow for renting and pay per view on youtube suddenly we care.
 
YouTube's policy is guilty until proven innocent, with no recourse to prove innocence. It's an unfortunate situation, but note that YouTube isn't the only game in town. It you don't like what they're doing, I advise that you simply take your 'business' elsewhere.
 
A better policy that would make it easier for everyone, including YouTube, would be to notify a user that their content may infringe but give them the opportunity to do something about it. If their content does not infringe, they can just say it doesn't and close the warning. YouTube could then randomly screen those who have said their content does not infringe, and if they are found to infringe, receive warnings and eventual ban for continued abuse.
 
bigdogchris said:
A better policy that would make it easier for everyone, including YouTube, would be to notify a user that their content may infringe but give them the opportunity to do something about it. If their content does not infringe, they can just say it doesn't and close the warning. YouTube could then randomly screen those who have said their content does not infringe, and if they are found to infringe, receive warnings and eventual ban for continued abuse.
Click to expand...

I like that with a few tweaks. Let the copy write holder review it if the up loader desires review after YouTube warns them that it may infringe. If its a child singing a song to be cute and the copy write holder denies the video they are the ones who look like jerks.
 
Ripskin said:
I like that with a few tweaks. Let the copy write holder review it if the up loader desires review after YouTube warns them that it may infringe. If its a child singing a song to be cute and the copy write holder denies the video they are the ones who look like jerks.
Click to expand...

Too much work for them to do so, blanket bans are the bettas! This is the reply you will always get.

Content holders and their representatives like the RIAA and MPAA are just like every one else, they'll bitch and whine, and when a solution comes out that'll require their effort, they'll say it's not good enough, or that it's unfeasible and try to force change til they like it.
 
youtube has gotten too big for its own good. Youtube operates at a loss which means theyre bleeding money, what else great way to raise some funds than to open the gate to the bloodthirsty litigation lawyers banging at the door
 
Content creators: "YouTube, your new content flagging system is automatically removing monetization from videos which are covered under Fair Use, and thus are not valid for copyright claim."

YouTube: "Go fuck yourself."
 
bigdogchris said:
A better policy that would make it easier for everyone, including YouTube, would be to notify a user that their content may infringe but give them the opportunity to do something about it. If their content does not infringe, they can just say it doesn't and close the warning. YouTube could then randomly screen those who have said their content does not infringe, and if they are found to infringe, receive warnings and eventual ban for continued abuse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, problem with that is that YouTube/copyright holders then have to actually do the legwork. The way it is now, both of them can just sit back and rake in the cash while content creators get screwed and have to fight each claim individually.

Realistically it should just be that the system automatically sends a notice to the user, and then they can either remove the content or claim it's not infringing. Then, the copyright holder can decide whether or not they want to investigate further.

Also, if after X number of days passes and the content creator hasn't replied, THEN the video can get automatically claimed.
 
MavericK96 said:
Yeah, problem with that is that YouTube/copyright holders then have to actually do the legwork. The way it is now, both of them can just sit back and rake in the cash while content creators get screwed and have to fight each claim individually.

Realistically it should just be that the system automatically sends a notice to the user, and then they can either remove the content or claim it's not infringing. Then, the copyright holder can decide whether or not they want to investigate further.

Also, if after X number of days passes and the content creator hasn't replied, THEN the video can get automatically claimed.
Click to expand...

or if the creator claims no infringement and x days pass and the alleged copyright holder has not had an actual human review the material the claim is automatically denied
 
MavericK96 said:
Content creators: "YouTube, your new content flagging system is automatically removing monetization from videos which are covered under Fair Use, and thus are not valid for copyright claim."

YouTube: "Go fuck yourself."
Click to expand...

That's not really fair. Youtube HAS to be aggressive. If they don't appear to be doing everything they can to combat "illegal use of copyrighted material" they WILL be sued by every asshole, greedy, media company on the planet. Google may have ass loads of money but if YT gets sued to hell and back they will just shut it down.
 
They don't have to be THIS aggressive. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of these automated claims are not even legitimate.
 
MavericK96 said:
They don't have to be THIS aggressive. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of these automated claims are not even legitimate.
Click to expand...

Unless they investigate every single claim individually (which cost astronomical amounts of money just in terms of the manpower required) that is going to happen. That is why it's up to users to contest the claims. YT does need to figure out something to do to deal with the false claims, but I wonder how far they can go in that direction without risking pissing off people like the RIAA and MPAA.
 
This is why I am now doing the majority of my video viewing on superior services like Dailymotion/Twitch/Viemo/etc. 90% of the "claims" are from NON-copyright holding entities. Just look at the amount of crap Totalbiscuit was flagged for by a company that has ZERO copyright claims. If Youtube actually gave a shit, they would BAN companies/entities that send out this bullshit when they DON'T OWN THE COPYRIGHT or are not paid by the copyright holders. It used to be in this society that if you brought false witness, you would go to fucking JAIL.

I remember when Youtube wasn't owned by google. Those were good days when subhuman corporation's weren't legally "people".

Fucking worthless subhuman congress, fucking worthless subhuman conservative Supreme Court decisions. Gotta love it. This country is getting dumber every day.
 
I presonally think this will be the start of the downfall of youtube if they dont correct or be more friendly too the content creators who actually draw people to there site. There are other options out there now and this may start people too leave sooner then later I think.
 
MavericK96 said:
Content creators: "YouTube, your new content flagging system is automatically removing monetization from videos which are covered under Fair Use, and thus are not valid for copyright claim."

YouTube: "Go fuck yourself."
Click to expand...

Fair Use is a claim only a court can make because it is only useful in retrospect. An individual cannot actually assert Fair Use. If you believe your use of content qualifies under Fair Use and it's not, you simply continue using the content until there's either an injunction against you or the court rules your case wasn't Fair Use and you discontinue said use. Fair Use has no bearing when a 3rd party like Google is hosting the content in question. It's Google's service and they can do whatever they want, including removing your video simply for smelling bad.

If this is something you actually care about, blame all of the idiots who used YouTube as an easy way to pirate music. They are responsible for Google's copyright enforcement policies. YouTube would be a very different place today if Google had banned "lyrics videos" and still photos accompanied by music from the very start. Not because they violated copyright, but because they are a gross misuse of the service that leads in no direction but decay.
 
Well I know of several channels that are moving to their own websites. Classic Gaming Room and Epic Rap Battles of History are two of the bigger ones
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Well I know of several channels that are moving to their own websites. Classic Gaming Room and Epic Rap Battles of History are two of the bigger ones
Click to expand...

Moving to their own site means they will need their own video player and quite frankly they're fucked if copyright holders go after them. They will have absolutely no defense against an army of lawyers. It's a good temporary solution, but I get the feeling it simply is not a viable option for 90% of the people out there.
 
CEpeep said:
If this is something you actually care about, blame all of the idiots who used YouTube as an easy way to pirate music. They are responsible for Google's copyright enforcement policies. YouTube would be a very different place today if Google had banned "lyrics videos" and still photos accompanied by music from the very start. Not because they violated copyright, but because they are a gross misuse of the service that leads in no direction but decay.
Click to expand...

Are you, by any chance, employed by a music record company? If not, this tirade makes no sense.
 
dgz said:
Are you, by any chance, employed by a music record company? If not, this tirade makes no sense.
Click to expand...

No? Those are the users who forced Google's hand. People using YouTube to pirate music ruined it for everyone. I'm a user of YouTube who is pissed that Google feels the need to do this in the first place, and I resent a pool of lazy, spineless users for wrecking a service I like by filling it with useless, illegal junk that can be found in a million other places.
 
I guess some people think it's cool for greedy assholes like the RIAA and MPAA to bully companies like this anyway.
 
CEpeep said:
No? Those are the users who forced Google's hand. People using YouTube to pirate music ruined it for everyone. I'm a user of YouTube who is pissed that Google feels the need to do this in the first place, and I resent a pool of lazy, spineless users for wrecking a service I like by filling it with useless, illegal junk that can be found in a million other places.
Click to expand...

Those lazy, spineless users helped yt grow as it has. Now that the site is big enough, google is trying to test the waters rather aggressively. I hope they fail miserably.

Listening to music on yt is pirating now haha. you're nuts bro
 
Derangel said:
Moving to their own site means they will need their own video player and quite frankly they're fucked if copyright holders go after them. They will have absolutely no defense against an army of lawyers. It's a good temporary solution, but I get the feeling it simply is not a viable option for 90% of the people out there.
Click to expand...

If they aren't using any copyrighted content the copyright holders won't go after them. And they won't have to worry about all the false take-downs because there is no automated system. Getting their own video player is fairly trivial.
 
dgz said:
Listening to music on yt is pirating now haha. you're nuts bro
Click to expand...

This shit right here. People squandered YouTube's flexibility, wrecked it for their own gain, and now those users won't even bear responsibility for ruining a service and don't even associate what they are doing as being detrimental or illegal. YouTube's not supposed to be a place for listening to pirated music. There's a million other places on the internet that allow that and are located in jurisdictions where they don't have to deal with the legal repercussions. If you're the kind of person who uses YouTube for listening to music instead of watching original video content made by users, you are destroying the site for your own laziness. If people just kept using YouTube for making original stuff instead of using it to pirate TV, movies and music this never would have happened.

YouTube is dead. Long live YouTube.
 
So basically its the fucking Youtube bot and its making everything completely fucked up?

So bye bye little youtubers without a giant affiliate to back them up and pretty much the possibility of having a potential career as well from it.

Great job Google. You are a cancer as usual.
 
Godmachine said:
So basically its the fucking Youtube bot and its making everything completely fucked up?

So bye bye little youtubers without a giant affiliate to back them up and pretty much the possibility of having a potential career as well from it.

Great job Google. You are a cancer as usual.
Click to expand...
That's what I got pretty much.

Youtube enhanced the Content ID bot algorithm and it started flagging a lot of videos.

Youtube users not affiliated with an MCN are the ones getting screwed.

Those that are part of an MCN are in the clear.

So, in other words, the little guys are getting screwed over (along with some innocent users who are showcasing their own copyrighted videos of content they own themselves).
 
CEpeep said:
This shit right here. People squandered YouTube's flexibility, wrecked it for their own gain, and now those users won't even bear responsibility for ruining a service and don't even associate what they are doing as being detrimental or illegal. YouTube's not supposed to be a place for listening to pirated music. There's a million other places on the internet that allow that and are located in jurisdictions where they don't have to deal with the legal repercussions. If you're the kind of person who uses YouTube for listening to music instead of watching original video content made by users, you are destroying the site for your own laziness. If people just kept using YouTube for making original stuff instead of using it to pirate TV, movies and music this never would have happened.

YouTube is dead. Long live YouTube.
Click to expand...

You do realize that most record companies upload music to youtube?

Ever hear of Vevo? Emi? Atlantic? Warnerbros?
 
Stiler said:
You do realize that most record companies upload music to youtube?

Ever hear of Vevo? Emi? Atlantic? Warnerbros?
Click to expand...

Yes, music videos. Are any of the labels just posting static images of album art with their songs attached?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top