[Orangeair]

There is no reason this kind of glitch should even be happening. There should be some kind of date attribute that gets attached to the ContentID data that Fox submits, and YouTube should reject takedowns for which that date is later than the date the video in question was uploaded. This is just ridiculous.

[pflats]

I agree that this should not be happening. But your solution is unworkable.

Upload priority is not proof of ownership or creation. If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.

[the8472]

It's a plausibility check that could be used to flag things for human review.

[jkot]

Original clip was uploaded 8 years before Fox published their version.

[delecti]

Many TV shows are not on Youtube at all except as unauthorized uploads. Should Fox be unable to issue a takedown on an episode of the Simpsons that's been uploaded since before they uploaded a copy into ContentID?

[jkrems]

It's not about the upload timestamp but about the time of creation. Fox could have said "we created this episode three month ago" when that's the time the episode was first pitched and it would still be fine.

[RIMR]

>If you upload one of Fox's movie trailers before they do, they should still definitely be able to take you down.

This seems like a special case deserving of special attention. It doesn't seem like something that should be sloppily addressed by an algorithm.

[Orangeair]

I'm not sure if I understand the problem here. So either Fox will want to remove the trailer manually, or they will want to remove it automatically with ContentID. If they remove it manuallly, then there's no problem since what I'm talking about only applies to the automated approach. If they want to remove it with ContentID, then presumably they have already uploaded the ContentID data, in which case their upload date is still earlier, and they can take it down.

The only time this would be a problem is if the bootleg trailer were uploaded before they uploaded the ContentID data, and Fox wanted to then upload the ContentID data and have it removed automatically. I can't see why they would do this, however, since presumably they are reacting to the bootleg upload in this case, and can then simpply issue a manual takedown request.

[pflats]

A number of people are saying the same thing, but I'll just respond here.

>The only time this would be a problem is if the bootleg trailer were uploaded before they uploaded the ContentID data, and Fox wanted to then upload the ContentID data and have it removed automatically. I can't see why they would do this, however, since presumably they are reacting to the bootleg upload in this case, and can then simpply issue a manual takedown request.

Fox can issue a manual takedown, but they shouldn't need to. That's the entire point of the deal Youtube cut with the major studios that created ContentID. Fox uploads the videos they own, and then Youtube/ContentID finds all the infringers so that Fox doesn't have to pay a person to do it themselves.

This issue is obviously a special case where a clip from a video game, apparently sourced from Youtube, was excerpted in a network TV show. The network TV show - which is obviously protected - set off ContentID flags. Fox didn't set out to upload a Double Dribble clip to ContentID. This is an edge case.

The article then spuriously goes on to about the DMCA, but there's no evidence presented any DMCA takedown whatsoever. I don't even see any evidence of human intervention at all. If I had to guess, there's a setting in Fox's ContentID: If from Family Guy, block entirely.

It's unfortunate that this happened. It shouldn't have happened, but this is what inevitably happens when a technical solution (ContentID) is used to solve a social problem (piracy).

There should be an easy remedy for the video creator, and he is free to pursue copyright charges against Family Guy for using his video game clip in a TV show, if he thinks he has the rights to that clip. (I have no clue on that one.)

But this is a mountain being made of a molehill. Nobody's rights are being infringed. This is the deal you make when you sign on with Youtube: the big studios have the most power. They're only one player; if this deal irks you (and there are definitely legitimate reasons it would) there are plenty of other ways to host video.

[witty_username]

Then there could be a time delay of X months after which automated take downs aren't done.

[Zikes]

Their proposal wouldn't ban Fox from taking down legitimate infringements as you suggest. It would simply not automatically take down videos which appear to violate the laws of time and space.

[krapp]

I don't believe it is a glitch. Youtube's takedown system seems designed to allow media companies to exercise arbitrary power over any content they want, probably to keep them from suing Youtube into oblivion for hosting copyrighted content.

And now that Youtube is moving into licensed, subscription-based streaming with Youtube Red, channels using third party content under fair use are interfering with Google's potential future revenue, regardless of their actual legality. I still believe "hiccups" like the recent wave of let's play and reviewer channels disappearing mysteriously are an attempt by Google to drive those channels away, to make the site look more attractive for media companies and their IP.

[devy]

Yeah, if all said were true, YouTube is as much at fault as Fox is.