Gameloft took down Marvel's SpiderMan trailer (11M views) with a copyright claim
reddit.com
reddit.com
This will likely get fixed quickly, but it highlights the stupidity of Youtube's copyright system and how leaving it up to the algorithms generates new problems that can only be fixed by humans. The humans will obviously be quick to react when it is a video uploaded by Sony with 11M views. How quickly will they react when your or my videos are inappropriately taken down?
https://blog.playstation.com/2020/06/11/playstation-studios-...
On a similar note : Why is it so hard to license music for small use, especially if you are willing to pay for small audiences use / non-commercial use?
Retaining such arrangements might be in YouTube's best interests even if laws are changed, because it doesn't want to pick expensive legal fights with rightsholders, so it may be beneficial to offer the big players a relatively simple way to take down content they don't like even if this isn't strictly a legal requirement.
The only reason this story is entertaining is that for once it was one of the big rightsholders that got hit by a mistake. But that will get fixed very quickly, and since rightsholders like Marvel probably benefit greatly from YouTube's takedown systems, I think it is extremely unlikely that anything else will change because of this.
Actually, EUCD17 is a bit more insidious: it's a sliding scale of "best practices", which means that when content companies demand a better system of one licensee, every other player in the space (regardless of if they do business with that licensee) loses their liability protection until they meet that licensee's standard. That's how they were able to get away with claiming it didn't have upload filters: they just made it so that a court could point to YouTube and say "why aren't you as good as YouTube in taking things down"?
If Google wants to continue with Content ID, the fix is easy: hold ad money in escrow until their entire dispute process is complete (from the initial flag). This will prevent the ad money piracy that is so rampant on the platform right now.
You are misinformed. YT System has nothing to do with the EUCD17 which is not yet active. CID was built 12 years ago to get out of the Viacom lawsuit.
EUCD17 (or more precisely its implementations) are laws that you can actually sue under. They have concrete obligations (licensing, alternative dispute resolution, ...) and concrete penalties for misbehavior.
In fact, as it stands, YouTube's Content ID is not going to be complaint with the requirements of the EUCD17.
Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that it was more in alignment with European legislature.
Your comment is not correct though.
1) licensing doesn't require them to have the system in place. In fact, YouTube created the system to avoid lawsuits and is imposing it on rightsholders.
2) EUCD is not yet active. It will start 6/7/2021. CID works this way for last 12 years.
Also what you call "best practices" is called "best effort" and is related to licensing not technology. In fact the law explicitly states that filtering technology is not required.
99% of problems on YouTube are caused by the way their system is setup not by the technology itself. For instance, if single rightsholder claims 10s of content in 19 hour video, they get 100% of all money generated by the content. That has nothing to do with any deal nor the technology.
YouTube doesn't want to be in middle of the disputes, so gives the responsibility in hands of rightsholders. That's changing with the EUCD which explicitly requires the platforms to be the arbiter.
YouTube also allows only 9,000 companies and individuals to have access to what they call manual claiming, which allows them manually "overwrite" the system and produces situations like these.
There is so much more. But the problem is truly with YouTube's setup, not the technology they developed, which is quite ok.
The music industry has shown exactly how unwilling they are to change with the times. I know of no examples of where any of their decisions have shown forward thinking.
It’s one of the dwindling number of ways for the actual creatives to make some decent money. They don’t have interest in earning $500 (or $50) for a YouTube video if it waters their work down so much that a studio is no longer willing to license it for a national commercial or feature film.
Generally speaking the content ID / claim process works as a de facto licensing agreement (without giving up any right to sue, I believe)
Don't kid yourself, any other commercially successful VOD platform will have the exact same problem. A startup might squeak by under the radar for a while, but as soon as it gets critical mass, it won't be long before it gets encumbered by all this regulatory "fun".
Youtube's takedown process goes WAY beyond what the DMCA requires. Youtube is the bitch of / in bed with the big media companies.
Edit: Oh someone already posted it here, sorry.
Maybe also some blockchain based system where uploads are physically impossible to take down. That's going to be interesting to see the results for court case wise, just like it'll be if illegal content ends up on the Bitcoin one.
Both are mistakes. Why is it Google's job to not make mistakes and not Gameloft's? The system is just broken, agreed. But it's the legal system that is at fault here. We aren't going to fix it with outrage at our favorite tech demon.