Comment by AkBKukU | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AkBKukU | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I also make my living from Youtube and I would strongly disagree that it is fair.

On the absolute most simple basis, false claims can be damaging to the creator but the same false claims are completely risk free to the issuers.

The problem shown in the OP is an additional layer of complexity where another company is contacting the creator on behalf of Disney which muddies the waters on who exactly is filing the claim and whether they have the right to.

The only thing in the Content ID system that is built in favor of the creator is if the claim issuer doesn't progress the counter claim and it is automatically dismissed.

This doesn't even get into the likely diminished recommendations the video will get after being flagged, the time wasted by the creator to manual fight things that can be spammed with the API (0), and the unfair revenue splits that can result if the creator did make an honest mistake.

(0) https://developers.google.com/youtube/partner/identify_conte...

>I also make my living from Youtube and I would strongly disagree that it is fair

>The only thing in the Content ID system that is built in favor of the creator is if the claim issuer doesn't progress the counter claim and it is automatically dismissed.

Fairness doesn’t mean that the system should be stacked in favor of anyone who uploads a video. I get that copyright is a controversial subject, but both Content ID and the DMCA have mechanisms that are intended to balance the rights of copyright holders against the rights of people who create content using others’ works.

>This doesn't even get into the likely diminished recommendations the video will get after being flagged

My personal experience is that Content ID claims have no impact on video performance. Do you have any evidence that a claim negatively impacts search and discovery?

>the unfair revenue splits that can result if the creator did make an honest mistake

If the result of unintentional copyright infringement is a revenue split, that sounds to me like a very pro-creator outcome. They could take the video down. Or even sue you.

> Fairness doesn’t mean that the system should be stacked in favor of anyone who uploads a video.

Agreed, however if a creator repeatedly violates copyright and gets the three Copyright strikes (which I recognize are distinct while will related to claims) it is deleted. For the the issuer though. there is no penalty for invalid copyright removal requests. This is the type of unfairness that is an issue. Additionally, the claim issuer needs zero proof they even have the right to file a claim. The DMCA is mostly unfair to the companies that host the content forcing them act against the uploader and have zero ability to push back against bad faith actors. So the system Google has implemented can only legally pass the problem onto the content creators.

> Do you have any evidence that a claim negatively impacts search and discovery?

No. Can anyone truly have a confident stance that X == Y when it comes to how Youtube presents videos to potential viewers through its black box "algorithm"? I've seen plenty of inexplicable things happen with video recommendations as both a creator and viewer that both make me question what can/can't influence and never make an absolute statement about it, hence the "likely".

> that sounds to me like a very pro-creator outcome

You glanced over the unfair part there. Having 10s of music audio in a 10m video because you walked past a restaurant while filming a conversation can cause drastically disproportionate amounts of revenue to go to the claimant. This part is Google's fault and is an overreaction erring on the side of caution to appease the claim issuers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com