This is a good example of how AI can go bad.
1. Copyright owner provides written notification of the alleged infringement.
The notification has to provide reasonably sufficient information to allow Google to locate the alleged infringing material; provide contact information for the claimant; include a statement that the claimant has a good faith believe that the use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and a statement that the information the claim is accurate, and that the claimant is authorized to act for the owner.
2. Google then has to remove or disable the material, and take reasonable steps to notify the uploader of the issue.
If the uploader does not make a counter notification, it looks like that's the end of Google's obligations.
If the uploader files a counter notification, Google has to notify the claimant. If the claimant does not file a lawsuit against the uploader within 14 days, Google has to restore the material.
Note that nothing in here seems to require Google to actually look at the material and decide if they think it is infringing. Nor does it require them to proactively seek to find infringing material and notify content providers or block such material. They just have to check that the claimant (and the uploader if they get a counter notice) have included the things in their notice that the law requires. They should be able to automate that for most claims.
The ContentID system seems to be going far beyond what DMCA requires them to do to keep their safe harbor. I wonder why they are doing that? Maybe because they want to also be content sellers, and so want to keep the content providers happy with them?
Right now things are stacked entirely against one class of content creators (video creators). Additionally if I'm a public institution or someone else that's against having ads I can't control what happens during the contest period* (or so I've heard, it's never happened to me).
As someone that has posted a few 'how to do X' in software videos before, who believes that ads should be far more limited (like the old soap operas / PBS sponsors at the end of programs), I'd rather my videos were in 'hold on publishing limbo' while not under my control.
1) Classical music is still being composed today, and there’s a huge volume of post-1927 work that is very much under copyright in the US (excessive though that may be IMO).
2) Even if a composition is PD, the recording is absolutely copyrightable if it’s post-1927, and the arrangement may be as well. This isn’t a matter of confusion; it’s an actual piece of intellectual property.
Not to say that any of this is right; I believe fair use protections need to go much, much farther than they do.
AFAIK the content id system was built to monetise works on YouTube. The system must know where a song or a video is being included to direct advertising money to the original author if s/he wishes to participate in that scheme.
The DMCA was the beginning of the end of a free and open internet, and now it's accelerating. I just hope the next generation understands what they're missing under the spectre of copyright law.
It's been a huge boon to independent content creators that you can just send somebody a DMCA takedown notice and they'll comply. Before the DMCA, you had to pay out the nose for a lawyer, and you'd be in for a long and very, very expensive legal process. Your average photographer can't afford that, so copyright enforcement was solely a privilege of the rich prior to the DMCA.
Here's an example. I know someone who shared pictures of herself in a private women-only group. Someone who ran a really disgusting cyberbullying page on Facebook had a mole in the group and posted the pictures publicly while making fun of her appearance and calling her slurs. Since the photographer was a friend of hers, the photographer simply sent Facebook a bunch of DMCA notices telling the cyberbullying page to take down the pictures. Facebook complied in under an hour. The cyberbullying page tried to post the pictures again; more DMCA notices were sent, and the whole page was unpublished.
Also I do not understand why Google does not use a reputation system, if a channel has a good reputation then take this in consideration in the automatic detection.
If you are only worried about false positives, then the humans only need to review the content flagged by the AI. This has 2 benefits: 1) the "starting number" would be much much lower than 400 hours of content per minute. 2) If a 10 minute video is obviously pirated, you don't need to watch the entire video to decide that.
1. Only a subset of uploaded videos need to be checked by humans, those that were flagged by the automated system.
2. Only a subset of the runtime of each flagged video needs to be checked. In other words, if a human decides within 12 seconds of a video that it is infringing, there is no reason to check the remaining portion of the video.
It's partly using you for free labour to train their next generation of SkyNet.
We've reached a point with CAPTCHAs (originally conceived as a way for humans to exert their will over machines) where the machines are now setting tasks for the humans, and the humans are carrying out the tasks without putting up too much of a fight.
This thread is complaining about the fully automated process used by Google to check for copyright violations, and how infeasible it is to hire someone to check each video.
You're talking about how CAPTCHAs are now being used to get free labour.
> Prove you're human: Does the following video contain Beat It by Michael Jackson?
Recall the goal of Google is to avoid liability via the statement "we are pretty good and have really low false negatives", and have as few false positives as not to make the platform unusable.
Google does not care about content creators or propagation of knowledge (instructive videos) and ideas. Simple statement here. Google engineers might (at least the friends I have), but not as a whole organization.
But yeah crowd-sourcing is a good way to do a second sifting through results. I know it is being used, by Google and others, already to classify video sources.
Because it's free, reasonably hard to beat by bots and reasonably low-effort for the user if they let Google track them (enabling the single-checkbox captcha).
It took longer to confirm I was human than it did to download the software. My partner came through to see if I was alright, after I was shouting abuse at the computer for an extended period. She sat through one of them with me, confirmed that I had it right, then swore and walked away when it decided I was wrong.
If I'd known that it was going to screw me over that much, I would have recorded it and put the video on YouTube.
All sorts of computer applications that are not considered AI have replaced humans. For instance, databases replace clerks having to shuffle papers to and from filing cabinets.
Edit: I think I hit the wrong reply button, meant to reply to parent, haha.