[wbhart]

It's ironic that a system of rules (DMCA) that was designed to help performers not lose revenue is actually causing a performer to lose revenue. Rousseau is one of the most recognised pianists on YouTube. He works tirelessly to perform a new piece about every week. This must be incredibly tiring, and the skill required to be able to do that week in, week out, is absolutely breathtaking.

If anyone deserves to be made the poster child for the damage the DMCA and YouTube content ID is causing, it is Rousseau.

And how is it that an hour after this is reported, the problem still persists!? A million people are missing scheduled content. If this happened to a television station as often as it happens to YouTube there would be widespread, vocal, public complaints. Their competitors would also be having a field day.

[EvanAnderson]

The DMCA is for publishers, not creators. If Rousseau would just conform to the system and give a publisher a cut everything would be fine. Independent creators have always been the enemy.

Edit: I am being completely sarcastic w/ respect to the second sentence. I believe that there are people (those who are enriched by the current copyright system) who do believe that, though.

[wbhart]

I assume you are being facetious. Rousseau doesn't owe anything to any publisher. Just checking you understood this.

[EvanAnderson]

I am being facetious, but I daresay a lot of people who work in the publishing industry sincerely believe that viewpoint.

I believe we're living in a time when publishers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. They're clawing onto anything they can to retain their position as middlemen and as a tax on commerce.

[Gibbon1]

Years ago read a music exec claim that 'republishing' content should re-extend copyright.

[wbl]

The publisher is not entitled to that cut. In fact this doesnt involve the DCMA at all but YouTube's own process.

[EvanAnderson]

I don't think publishers are entitled to anything, but I bet that publishers do. Content ID exists as a response to the DMCA, which was heavily lobbied-for by publishers. Content ID wouldn't exist if not for that lobbying.

[onli]

Content ID is not the DMCA. Content ID got it wrong here, and that happens all the time. It's not a big deal for the claimer. Which is totally contrary to how DMCA works, if someone makes a wrong claim there it gets very expensive for them.

Youtube could easily copy that aspect of the DMCA and make it very expensive for mis-claimers, and easy to counteract automatic mis-classification. That they don't has nothing directly to do with laws, it's simply Youtube being a bad platform.

[izacus]

> Content ID is not the DMCA. Content ID got it wrong here, and that happens all the time. It's not a big deal for the claimer. Which is totally contrary to how DMCA works, if someone makes a wrong claim there it gets very expensive for them.

That simply is not true. DMCA misclaims are pretty much not punished at all in practice.

[onli]

The provisions are there. If they are not used it's either because the violated party does not sue or because the US justice system again is not working properly. But at least that's how the system ought to work. With Content ID there is no recourse at all against misuse, it all relies on Youtube to care. Which it doesn't seem to do at all.

[tssva]

The provisions don't protect against a wrong claim but a purposefully false claim. Unless you can come up with proof that the claimant knew they were filing a false claim you are out of luck.

[wbhart]

This is everything to do with the DMCA. YouTube claims it is required by law to take down content that receives a takedown notice. That law is the DMCA. Edit: I'm probably wrong. It seems a claimant can also issue a block. They do not have to issue a takedown notice. That seems to be the problem right there!!

(However) I find it really difficult to believe the claimant in this case has no control over what YouTube does, as they have previously claimed. It may have been Content ID that got the identification wrong, but the claimant should not issue a block if it is a false claim.

Anyhow, Rousseau found a way around it by uploading a new version that received a copyright claim from a different company, instead of a block. He'll still have to go through the dispute process, at least we can watch the video because YouTube is not obliged to (and does not) take down the video.

[Karunamon]

Youtube's content ID system is not the DMCA. It stands in front of that system, it never gets invoked. DMCA has a notice/counternotice system with a formal requirement for what a notice requires. Content ID and the monetization nonsense that entails can be whatever Youtube wants it to be.

[dragonwriter]

> Which is totally contrary to how DMCA works, if someone makes a wrong claim there it gets very expensive for them.

No, it doesn't. There is only one part of a DMCA takedown notice that is made under penalty of perjury, and it's not the part that is usually at issue in a false notice.