A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.
Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match, which it very obviously should.
My experience on public domain English hymns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892.
- If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers.
- If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers.
So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices.
The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly).
And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse.
—⁂—
¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.
But nothing in law requires them to implement Content ID at all, let alone to allow big corporations to claim any content they want, or for users who dispute Content ID claims to have their claims adjudicated by the corporation who made the claim, or to allow those corporations to retain their access to the system after repeatedly making wrong claims.
And since copyright and fair use law is very much decided on a case-by-case basis, there wouldn't be the one big victory which ensures they're being left alone - just an endless string of costly litigation.
Youtube isn't a public interest group or a civil rights movement that's in it for a legal or ideological goal. They're a business looking to make money. I know it sucks for the creators, but I think that's what it comes down to.
By following the DMCA, and adhering to the rules, Google would be protected. Instead Google has implemented a system that is even more broken to than the DMCA and somehow has even fewer consequences to incorrect or bad faith claims.
Being a "business looking to make money" is not a moral or ethical justification for any kind of bad behavior.
Hmm. I can see a sort of a connection there. I wish there was some way for the Little Man (collectively) to object to Content ID’s undue process. DMCA takedowns say that in the case of a counternotice, platform must reinstate the content “within 10–14 business days” unless the copyright owner files suit. Content ID, on the other hand, gives no recourse—all you can do is file a dispute which is adjudicated exclusively by the claimer, who by your action initiating a dispute is granted power to Strike you with fire and brimstone (where the third strike will probably cause the termination of your Google account).
I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.