Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Doctorow)   How YouTube's broken copyright filters lead to wage theft: "We need a new deal for content removal, one that favors working creators over wage-thieves who have the time and energy to master the private legal systems each platform grows for itself"   (pluralistic.net) divider line
    More: Asinine, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Copyright, Public domain, copyright filters, Filters, automated Youtube filter, Fair use, resulting mess  
•       •       •

713 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 May 2021 at 6:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



30 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-05-08 3:17:18 PM  
This problem will be shortly solved with decentralized self-ownership, control and distribution of individual datapoints
 
2021-05-08 3:35:24 PM  

E.S.Q.: This problem will be shortly solved with decentralized self-ownership, control and distribution of individual datapoints


Have you ever considered being a consultant?
 
2021-05-08 3:53:25 PM  
The Bach family is gonna starve if they don't get a check from everyone who uploads a video of the first Cello Suite.
 
2021-05-08 4:07:14 PM  
My church got the proper license and listed it and yet it's 50/50 that I get a copyright hit.
 
2021-05-08 4:52:58 PM  

Gubbo: E.S.Q.: This problem will be shortly solved with decentralized self-ownership, control and distribution of individual datapoints

Have you ever considered being a consultant?


Subscribe to my channel for more!

/doesn't have a channel
 
2021-05-08 4:55:05 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The Bach family is gonna starve if they don't get a check from everyone who uploads a video of the first Cello Suite.


The estate of Carl Orff would like a word...


Apotheosis - O Fortuna (1992)
Youtube yyKZ0kwIc4Q
 
2021-05-08 5:07:00 PM  

E.S.Q.: AliceBToklasLives: The Bach family is gonna starve if they don't get a check from everyone who uploads a video of the first Cello Suite.

The estate of Carl Orff would like a word...


[YouTube video: Apotheosis - O Fortuna (1992)]


1937 so I'm guessing it is still under copyright in the U.S. Still can do parodies and other kinds of fair use without permission/compensation. But probably not that.
 
2021-05-08 5:40:11 PM  

enry: My church got the proper license and listed it and yet it's 50/50 that I get a copyright hit.


Step one: Don't let the only copy of your church's videos be the ones uploaded to Youtube; make sure to have backups in case The Algorithm™ decides that your church's channel and/or videos are in violation of whatever rules it decides to enforce at whatever particular nanosecond it decides to enforce them
Step two: Also upload to Twitch or some other platform
 
2021-05-08 6:15:55 PM  

King Something: enry: My church got the proper license and listed it and yet it's 50/50 that I get a copyright hit.

Step one: Don't let the only copy of your church's videos be the ones uploaded to Youtube; make sure to have backups in case The Algorithm™ decides that your church's channel and/or videos are in violation of whatever rules it decides to enforce at whatever particular nanosecond it decides to enforce them
Step two: Also upload to Twitch or some other platform


I have originals.  But we do upload to FB as well.
 
2021-05-08 7:09:51 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: E.S.Q.: AliceBToklasLives: The Bach family is gonna starve if they don't get a check from everyone who uploads a video of the first Cello Suite.

The estate of Carl Orff would like a word...


[YouTube video: Apotheosis - O Fortuna (1992)]

1937 so I'm guessing it is still under copyright in the U.S. Still can do parodies and other kinds of fair use without permission/compensation. But probably not that.


Yep.  Schott Music - who also own the copyright on Fark near everything else classical.
 
2021-05-08 7:21:17 PM  
YouTube does not give a shiat.
 
2021-05-08 7:35:51 PM  
Easy, stop allowing any user-submitted content. Everybody wins.

/stop making stupid people famous
 
2021-05-08 7:50:34 PM  
Please like and subscribe.
 
2021-05-08 8:25:44 PM  
"No trackers, no ads. Black type, white background. Privacy policy: we don't collect or retain any data at all ever period."

So powerful.

"Optimized for Netscape Navigator"

Much irony.

Then flip on over to BoingBoing, which is a wall of advertising masquerading as editorial content.

I'm kinda over Cory Doctorow.
 
2021-05-08 8:30:50 PM  
What I don't like is the concept of demonetizing videos for general subjects that YouTube doesn't find progressive. The idea that competitive shooting videos get demonetized is silly if you truly want to have an egalitarian platform that showcases the world's videos.
 
2021-05-08 8:50:52 PM  
DMCA includes perjury penalties for false claims of infringement.  Prosecute a few and see how the creative environment changes

Right now, the problem is that it's apparently risk free to make such claims

/This is not a fix.  Those penalties were in the law when it was written to address these issues.  Don't claim using the law as intended is 'complicating things'
 
2021-05-08 9:17:18 PM  
So, VEVO? We get rid of vevo then?
 
2021-05-08 9:35:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: DMCA includes perjury penalties for false claims of infringement.  Prosecute a few and see how the creative environment changes

Right now, the problem is that it's apparently risk free to make such claims

/This is not a fix.  Those penalties were in the law when it was written to address these issues.  Don't claim using the law as intended is 'complicating things'


Actually, not in the way you might think. It's perjury if you falsely claim to be the holder of the copyright in question, not if you falsely claim that the video infringes on said copyright. This is led to copyright trolls getting a copyright for some arbitrary video and then sending out thousands of bogus copyright claims to several different platforms for completely unrelated videos, and then claiming "bona fide error" with their algorithm when called on it.

It used to be (don't know if it still is) especially egregious on the YouTube platform because you were only allowed to respond to three copyright claims at one time, in a 90-day rolling period, so unless you only release one video a month, someone can easily snipe the others.

Heck, it's only in the last couple years that YouTube even gives you the money generated during the dispute, and gives it to the eventual victor after 90 days. Under the old system, the bogus copyright claimant automatically got all the money from your video for the first 90 days, then when the video reverted to your control after their response time ran out, only then does *future* generated cash go to you, but the money generated for the first 90 days was long gone to the copyright claimant, even if they never responded to your counterclaim to their complaint.

All of this is most of the reason YouTube was hemorrhaging users to twitch when twitch started getting famous, and that was the point YouTube started making changes, when it hit them in the wallet. But it's still terrible now, merely slightly less terrible than before.
 
2021-05-08 11:00:21 PM  

Jclark666: "No trackers, no ads. Black type, white background. Privacy policy: we don't collect or retain any data at all ever period."

So powerful.

"Optimized for Netscape Navigator"

Much irony.

Then flip on over to BoingBoing, which is a wall of advertising masquerading as editorial content.

I'm kinda over Cory Doctorow.



I had to leave BoingBoing after a couple dozen too many lame banana posts over a couple of weeks.
I just couldn't watch them beat that poor, dead horse any longer.
 
2021-05-09 12:08:32 AM  

Sim Tree: This is led to copyright trolls getting a copyright for some arbitrary video and then sending out thousands of bogus copyright claims to several different platforms for completely unrelated videos, and then claiming "bona fide error" with their algorithm when called on it.


Don't care.  The algorithm didn't sign the legal papers.  The person who did sign should have done due diligence and checked.  That's what the signature is supposed to indicate.

There should be penalties on the person who made it official.

consequences
 
2021-05-09 1:54:52 AM  
I'm going to say the same thing I've been telling my clients since I've had clients: don't farking build your entire business on someone else's platform, and if you do, don't whine if you live or die by someone else's whims.
 
2021-05-09 3:26:01 AM  
I just want an ad blocker to work on android, within the YouTube app.
 
2021-05-09 8:37:04 AM  
Eazy way to trigger Youtube NUKE? #shart
Youtube phM7Xadkv68
 
2021-05-09 8:37:07 AM  

Lusiphur: I'm going to say the same thing I've been telling my clients since I've had clients: don't farking build your entire business on someone else's platform, and if you do, don't whine if you live or die by someone else's whims.


This.

The simplest solution is to just not put your videos on youtube. Buy your own domain and host them yourself.
 
2021-05-09 11:33:51 AM  

Sim Tree: Vlad_the_Inaner: DMCA includes perjury penalties for false claims of infringement.  Prosecute a few and see how the creative environment changes

Right now, the problem is that it's apparently risk free to make such claims

/This is not a fix.  Those penalties were in the law when it was written to address these issues.  Don't claim using the law as intended is 'complicating things'

Actually, not in the way you might think. It's perjury if you falsely claim to be the holder of the copyright in question, not if you falsely claim that the video infringes on said copyright. This is led to copyright trolls getting a copyright for some arbitrary video and then sending out thousands of bogus copyright claims to several different platforms for completely unrelated videos, and then claiming "bona fide error" with their algorithm when called on it.

It used to be (don't know if it still is) especially egregious on the YouTube platform because you were only allowed to respond to three copyright claims at one time, in a 90-day rolling period, so unless you only release one video a month, someone can easily snipe the others.

Heck, it's only in the last couple years that YouTube even gives you the money generated during the dispute, and gives it to the eventual victor after 90 days. Under the old system, the bogus copyright claimant automatically got all the money from your video for the first 90 days, then when the video reverted to your control after their response time ran out, only then does *future* generated cash go to you, but the money generated for the first 90 days was long gone to the copyright claimant, even if they never responded to your counterclaim to their complaint.

All of this is most of the reason YouTube was hemorrhaging users to twitch when twitch started getting famous, and that was the point YouTube started making changes, when it hit them in the wallet. But it's still terrible now, merely slightly less terrible than before.


There's probably still money to be made there by suing the big companies (Sony, Comcast/NBC Universal) for both fraudulent claims and too many "bona fide errors" - the article had examples of both.  Even the bona fide errors can probably constitute some legal tort due to lost monetization and time spent fighting the bogus claims, especially if you can show a pattern of "errors" filed without any attempt by the filer to fix their process.  Not from a single YouTube channel, of course, but if enough got together to file a class action suit.  I'm sure some law firm would be willing to take it on under contingency, for 50% of the damages or something.

Wouldn't work against true scammers hiding behind multiple LLCs, of course, but a few multi-million dollar losses might make even Sony consider investing in a better copyright management platform.
 
2021-05-09 1:07:24 PM  
Marina posted a video with a snatch of her performance of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata," published in 1801.


All right; a Resident Evil fan!
 
2021-05-09 7:30:26 PM  
I've been told the 'thing to do' is to make a second youTube account and have that account copyright claim all your own videos before someone else can.
 
2021-05-09 8:08:42 PM  

Sim Tree: I've been told the 'thing to do' is to make a second youTube account and have that account copyright claim all your own videos before someone else can.


It's also a back door way to monetize your content when stingy Google says you're too small to be paid in anything but exposure.
 
2021-05-09 9:37:36 PM  

Sim Tree: I've been told the 'thing to do' is to make a second youTube account and have that account copyright claim all your own videos before someone else can.


It would be extra cool if you can notify google that you've settled with yourself out of court and granted yourself a license, so leave the videos up
 
2021-05-10 3:39:17 AM  
Over in PolTab I've posted several videos by this guy, including one about MTG set to the tune of "Green, Green." Well, it got copyright-struck despite being parody.

So, he did this less than a month ago:
GOT TO PLEASE YOURSELF - A Parody of Garden Party
Youtube yZ-wO2cN4NE
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.