[asveikau]

That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and act like that's the law.

The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.

[DuskStar]

The 'content owner' can always choose to opt out and file DMCA requests instead of using ContentID, though. If they don't like Google's system... They don't have to use it.

But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.

[burfog]

The DMCA may be rough on active content creators, but it is far worse on inactive ones and on the public interest in having that material available. ContentID has the same trouble. Consider:

* creator is in the hospital

* creator is dead, and the heirs know nothing about dealing with copyright claims

* creator is hiking the Appalachian Trail for the next year

* creator is in jail for something unrelated

* creator got deployed on a submarine

* creator now has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember the internet

ContentID becomes a trivial way to steal money, and the DMCA becomes a trivial way to suppress the creator's work.

[sam0x17]

But Google could, say, bury their content in the search algorithm.