What About All That Copyright Takedown Abuse, YouTube?

youtube1

In a bid to improve the way in which YouTube deals with takedown complaints, the company has decided to commit a dedicated workforce to deal with the issue of bogus video takedowns.

The tech giant has been reportedly taking users’ feedback into consideration, and is using this feedback in a constructive way to improve its service to copyright holders.  In a statement released on YouTube’s help forum by a member of YouTube’s policy team, the company promised to ”create a team dedicated to minimizing mistakes,” as well as deliver ”improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims.”

The ongoing problem of mistaken video takedowns can often be blamed on YouTube’s automated copyright system, or ContentID.  That system allows copyright owners to track any content on YouTube that they believe matches work of their own.  Sounds like a good idea and a solution for controlling copyright, except that content owners seem to be playing judge, jury and executioner while abusing their privileges. 

Indeed, the current system allows the copyright holder to decide what happens, including immediate removal.  In a typical scenario, a content ID claim is issued, most often followed by a takedown.

Unfortunately, that ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ is creating lots of complications and can invite abuse, especially for videos that aren’t copying content or using that content within fair use parameters.  But even if the uploader is in the clear, the incident can inflict a negative rating, deprive the uploader from receiving ad revenue (ie, ‘demonetization’), and alienate sponsor support.

At this stage, the system is simply not working in an effective way, and it has been ultimately failing content creators as their work is being removed without justifiable reason.  However, that’s not to say YouTube isn’t listening, and the sheer number of complaints has prompted YouTube to take action.  The statement released by YouTube goes on to say that they ”monitor video takedowns very closely” and  that they ”strive to do better by you, our community.”

Some are hopeful that this move will improve the current irritation with the system, however many have responded to the statement with skepticism.  And this isn’t the first time YouTube has promised action on this.  “We want results not promises,” one user demanded.  “Your promises are meaningless.”

 

“There needs to be harsh penalties for people who file false (fraudulent) claims and strikes.  AT LEAST as harsh as the penalties levied on the content creators that have been unjustly subjected to. Preferably there should be HARSHER penalties for those who abuse the system.”

17 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    “the automated copyright system, which allows copyright owners to track any content on YouTube that they believe matches work of their own”

    As mentioned before, ContentID does not allow the majority of music copyright owners to track content on YouTube.

    Most artists use samples in their records, either from legitimate sample libraries like Kontakt, BFD, etc. or from common keyboards.

    When they do that, they can’t monetize UGC on YouTube via Audiam, Tunecore or similar companies.

    So the only option is to sign up for ContentID directly.

    And you can’t do that anymore, unless you’re a company…

    Reply
    • oneplusone

      Sorry but what you said is bull*t. Anybody can sign up now for ContentID on YouTube! And I also doubt about Audiam, Tunecore etc also because that’s how music is made in these days (label or independent released). There are a few Kontakt sample libraries that you can’t use comercially indeed but plugins like BFD, Toontrack etc or patches from synths are used in almost every music production that has been released in the last decade.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Anybody can sign up now for ContentID on YouTube!”
        Sorry, but that’s simply not true. You need to own the exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

        “I also doubt about Audiam, Tunecore etc also because that’s how music is made in these days”
        I have to disappoint you again then:

        You can not use Audiam, Tunecore or any other company to monetize UGC on YouTube if your music contains samples from the kind of legitimate libraries or keyboards we mention here. Go ahead — ask Audiam or any similar company if you don’t trust me.

        “plugins like BFD, Toontrack etc or patches from synths are used in almost every music production that has been released in the last decade.”
        Indeed! That’s why it’s completely absurd that you can’t use Audiam, Tunecore and CDBaby to monetize user generated versions of this type of YouTube content…

        Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Totally off-topic & unsolicited advice regarding your new message to adblock users:

    Please
    a) close the comment section or
    b) pay commenters or
    c) lose your adblock message.

    Some sites can afford to take the anti-adblocking road — YouTube for instance, since it pays its users and doesn’t have any competition.

    But don’t expect people to provide content and eyeballs.

    Reply
    • Noah
      Noah

      Youtube actually does use ad revenue to pay its content creators. That’s one of the primary ‘fair use’ issue’s that the recent controversy was centered around because anyone was being allowed to go into a video, claim ownership of a video based on copy written material being used, and then start taking the ad revenue from that video.

      I’m not really sure what your correlation between having a participatory comment section and our company needing to earn money because DMN is a business but I’ll try to address that as well.
      Have you contributed any gems of knowledge via comments that you think you should get paid for? If so, I’d like to see them Mr. Anonymous.

      Oh, also… YouTube has competitors, they just are substantially smaller than themselves. Check out Vimeo and DailyMotion for some quick examples, though I’m sure others exist.

      I hope that clears things up for you.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Youtube actually does use ad revenue to pay its content creators”
        Certainly, not sure what you’re getting at…

        “copy written material”
        Uh, how is copywritten material related to this conversation?

        “Have you contributed any gems of knowledge via comments that you think you should get paid for? If so, I’d like to see them Mr. Anonymous. “
        I believe you’re addressing one of them as of right now.

        “YouTube has competitors”
        Nope.

        Reply
  3. Dogu

    Mr. Anonymour there is nothing more than a big ego in your comments. Please do us the favor and leave DMN if you don’t like it and do not get paid (ahaha).

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “Mr. Anonymour there is nothing more than a big ego in your comments”

      Hm, they may have been useful though — the adblocker message’s gone. 🙂

      Reply
  4. Jordan Wood

    [this message from House of Marley has been deleted because it was spam]

    Reply
  5. Donald Duck

    FYI – Your ads are taking over the reader content on left and right sides.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I got the “please turn off adblocker” message, and I’m a good sport, so I decided to give this site a try without adblocker…. and this site is so obnoxious without ad blocker that it’s unusable.

    How much am I worth, in terms of ad revenue generated from my accessing this page without adblocker? I’ll gladly pay you that amount. $0.05 should more than cover it, right?

    The funny thing though is that if you offered a subscription to your site, you’d charge me WAY more than you could make off me through ad revenue – effectively a penalty because I’d rather pay you than be annoyed with your advertising.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “I got the “please turn off adblocker” message”

      Did you get it today? I got it once, yesterday, but that’s it…

      Reply
      • Robert Jensen
        Robert Jensen

        DMN’s message is currently very mild and it will not ask you every time you visit the site to turn off your ad-blocker.

        Many other websites are now going the more extreme route of ‘pay a subscription or deal with the ads’. I expect in the next year or two this sort of thing will be commonplace .

        If anyone, over 8 yrs old, ever really believed that people could start blocking the only source of revenue for a content provider and that it would be able to sustain itself over time is, quite frankly, obnoxiously self-entitled, highly delusional, or they are really just ok with paying a subscription fee. I believe the former groups here are inadvertently destroying the free internet, and it will happen much quicker than most will think.

        Reply
  7. Ellen

    Actually YouTube would do well to offer up a better means of communicating when there’s an issue. The way Content ID currently works, if there’s a question there’s no way the two parties involved can actually communicate with one another. Sometimes one can find a “contact” email on a Channel, but often times a challenge to a takedown comes and there’s no way to respond except to reinstate a claim. Often times folks misunderstand monetization vs. takedowns and I’ve had instances where they’ve claimed the work in question is “in the public domain” when it’s clearly NOT. These types of disputes could be easily worked through to the satisfaction of both parties if only YouTube allowed for more transparency and required that accurate contact info be available to both parties. For now it’s a patchwork that leads to misunderstanding and frustration for everyone.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “if only YouTube allowed for more transparency and required that accurate contact info be available to both parties”

      That would be a nightmare, making it even easier for scammers and stalkers to harass you.

      Reply
      • Ellen

        So, if you upload something that is copyrighted and its removed and you file a “dispute” you shouldn’t have to reveal WHO you are? What if the owner of the copyright wants to allow you to leave the content up, but simply monetize it? It seems that at some point in the process uploaders should have to identify themselves if they want to make a valid claim to their upload? The copyright owner certainly does.

        How would scammers stalk you if this involved a copyright claim/dispute…it’s not as though anyone would have access to the information, only the parties working out the issue.

        Reply
  8. David

    This article is thoroughly misleading, particularly the call for stiffer penalties for abusing the system. A wrongful takedown is addressed with a counter-notice, which automatically restores the video, and that is final word unless the copyright owner takes legal action. This article typically overstates the “abuse” of takedown, which is dramatically outweighed by the volume of legitimate infringement claims.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *