[topynate]

I do admire just how perverse YouTube's solution for copyright law is. If they were accepting DMCA notices, they'd have the obligation to take note of counter-notices. If they were giving control of claimed videos to the claimants, then if someone filed a false claim against you, taking control of your video, you could then file a DMCA notice against the claimaint. But YouTube does neither of these things. Instead, they leave the video in your ostensible control, and just decide to give advertising revenue to someone who isn't you – which, as far as I can tell, doesn't mean that either YouTube or the claimant is technically infringing your copyright. It's brilliant bastardy.

[blihp]

It's not, and never was, a solution for copyright law. Remember that the whole content id / revenue redirection scheme was only created so that the major media companies (mainly 'Hollywood') didn't obliterate YouTube with lawsuits. Everything about the system is designed to keep them happy. The majority of other (i.e. small) publishers on YouTube accept it because they can't afford a real legal fight for copyright violations, which at least part of would likely include going after YouTube to even get the information about the other party since YouTube is effectively shielding the identity of the other party. And YouTube remains safe from damages because... safe harbor.

[grecy]

> It's not, and never was, a solution for copyright law

Of course you're right. But it's a solution for YouTube because it means they have to do absolutely nothing, and don't get in trouble.

[infinitesoup]

But YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law. Their Content ID system provides an automated way to detect potential infringement by large copyright holders and redirect ad revenue to them, but if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA claim to take down the video, and the uploader can respond with a counter notice to put the video back up. Of course, the copyright holder can choose to jump ahead to filing a DMCA notice at any point, bypassing some or all of the Content ID process. I'm guessing that most wouldn't do that, though, because the DMCA process is not automated, has strict timelines built in, and only allows for takedown (whereas Content ID allows for videos to stay up but make ad revenue for them). Without Content ID system, I'm guessing we'd be back in the days where the big copyright holders would just spam DMCA notices and end up with a lot more videos taken down.

(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).

[jjoonathan]

> if uploaders dispute the claim and appeal decision to uphold the claim, then the copyright holder is required to send a full DMCA

I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."

Is this true?

[infinitesoup]

Looking at copyright claims I have on my channel (these are valid music claims, for what it's worth), I see a dispute option labeled "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it", which I think covers the case you're describing.

[slavik81]

That's not quite the same thing. For example, a work may be public domain, in which case it is not your original content, but nobody else owns the rights to it either.

[jjoonathan]

Yes, and if there is official lawyerly language about certifying the truth of your choices, the distinction is important. Sounds like a dark pattern.

[infinitesoup]

There's a different option for if the video is public domain or otherwise not copyrightable to handle this case. I assume that that "lawyerly language" is to dissuade users from abusing the process and choosing an option when it's not really true.

[0xcde4c3db]

> YouTube does accept DMCA claims, of course, as it's required by law.

As far as I know, it's not required. Rather, if a provider doesn't do it, they can be found liable for contributory infringement when a user posts infringing content.

[infinitesoup]

Yes, sorry, you're right -- they do it to keep the safe harbor protection (which is the only sane option when running a video sharing website).

[annadane]

Thanks for actually explaining this. The defenders of Youtube - I'm convinced a few on r/youtube are shills at this point - will say this is all necessary due to copyright law, Viacom lawsuit, etc etc. One day it will emerge the Google leadership is as crooked as it comes.

[walterbell]

They would now clarify that as YouTube leadership within the Alphabet holding company, at least until they may be separated by antitrust policy or otherwise.

[j-c-hewitt]

You can file a counterclaim, though.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en

If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.

He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever. When dealing with these kinds of issues you have to realize that it's not personal. It is like getting mad at a voice chat app for misunderstanding you. There is nothing personal about it.

There are a few things that could help to improve this process: force people making claims to verify their identity positively (he does bring this up in his video), improve the technology at the Copyright office to provide both platform owners and copyright owners some method to generate keys that verify that claims are accurate and authorized, and for more people who are victims of false claims to sue the people who are making them.

I think ideally copyright owners would have to go to Copyright.gov, enter the registration number(s) that they own that they want to enforce using the account that made the registration, generate a time-limited key using the system, and then enter that key into their copyright complaint on the platform that they want to police their IP on. When GooFaceZon processes the complaint, they would check with the copyright.gov server to verify that an authorized copyright owner made that complaint within the timeframe provided by the system. That way even if there is some kind of account compromise at some point the damage can be limited.

I don't actually know if that'd be the best system, but something like that would be a great improvement over the current system of being able to make any kind of fake claim with no verification.

[fenomas]

From your link:

> The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled ... It should not be pursued under any other circumstances.

GP's whole point is that counterclaims don't work here, because the content hasn't been removed, just re-monetized.

[j-c-hewitt]

I understand I just thought that he was saying no counterclaims are possible through Youtube's system. In this case it's kind of YT specific because someone else made a false claim to copyright ownership.

[j-c-hewitt]

You can file a counterclaim, though.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en

If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.

He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever.

There are a few things that can help to police this process:

[jjoonathan]

> after 10 days, Google will reinstate

Wait just a second, isn't the revenue half-life of a youtube video like 2 days or something? 10 days sounds like way, way too long.

[j45]

I wonder if DMCAing your own videos is still a viable strategy.

[baylisscg]

No but some people, who just want their video to stay up and don't care about the ad revenue, will purposefully add a snippets of content to trigger multiple copyright bots into filing competing claims. When this happens the video stays up until the claims are resolved and since there's no actual people involved and it's covered by fair use anyway they just time out eventually.

[edit: grammar]

[j45]

Interesting. If you don't care about ad revenue, there's certain options.

General question: if one did care about ad revenue.. are there some up to date resources to learn what current best practices are?