Author Topic: Youtube Copyright  (Read 2767 times)

Zephlar

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 341
  • Genuine Bullshitter
    • View Profile
    • Ranalli Photography & Design, LLC
Youtube Copyright
« on: September 15, 2017, 01:14:36 PM »
I know it's been a hot topic the last couple years but I'm so sick of YT's nazi regime that is content ID. Deadlocking Jim Sterling style doesn't even work anymore.

Yesterday I was live streaming a workout video so others could follow along and it got claimed halfway in the stream (which, how the hell does shows like Family Guy, South Park etc etc not get hit mid live stream?) and they just had a YT logo in place of the video. I didn't see that coming because of all the live streaming of shows I see all the time.

Then this morning I uploaded a wedding video I filmed a few months back. I sent the link to my client and she comes back that it's been removed. Apparently Aretha Franklin's Respect when claimed is not viewable in the US and 4 other countries. Wtf....

Is creative commons even a thing anymore? I feel like the internet stifles creativity these days more than ever before. I really miss the days when big money was still internet retarded and didn't have their greasy grubby hands in everything we do.

So irritating.

Spectere

  • \m/ (-_-) \m/
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5716
  • printf("%s\n", "Hi!");
    • View Profile
    • spectere.net
Re: Youtube Copyright
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2017, 03:48:20 PM »
Creative Commons is definitely still a thing (I'm rather fond of the CC by-sa license), but it's a license type--the creator has to explicitly choose to distribute their content using that license.

Deadlocking does still work, but it's highly dependent on the material you use. That's why Jim is very specific about what content he uses when he does a copyright deadlock--he uses content that he explicitly knows has conflicting terms (together we'll break these chains of love!). It's a bit risky to rely on, however, as the landscape can change very unexpectedly. The video of me playing a step chart for Scatman's World, for example, was originally only blocked in Germany (thanks ObaGEMA), but since then it was outright blocked worldwide.

And yeah, it's a complete clusterfuck, and there are two huge underlying problems here: the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach that is legally required to main DMCA safe harbor protection and the cost (and potential risk) of a fair use trial.

With the former, Google's hands are tied. If they didn't respond to takedown notices and Content ID flags, they could be held liable for copyright lawsuits as a result of their users' actions. Content ID, specifically, was the result of Viacom v. Google, and was probably the first big step towards the situation we're currently in.

The latter is always going to be a problem. The copyright holder is supposed to take fair use into account prior to submitting takedowns, but that's exceedingly rare (and, when Content ID is in play, impossible). The thing is that actually taking that to court is a long, difficult, and ultimately expensive process. If that weren't the case you'd probably see a lot more cases like Lenz v. Universal Music popping up. Spoiler alert: that case didn't end in Universal's favor. However, your average person isn't going to have the time, money, or inclination to fight that sort of battle. It's not feasible--it's easier for them to just edit the song out of their video.

As far as what happened to you, if I had to guess I'd say the workout video was either manually flagged in mid-stream or it hit a problematic chunk of audio. It does seem like clips from Family Guy and South Park in particular tend to stick in perpetuity, and I suspect that it's simply due to the fact that the handlers of those properties are a bit more Internet-savvy than most--they realize that having mind share nowadays is as important, if not more important, than having a respectable Nielsen rating.

The music industry is another matter entirely, as you've determined. While buying digital music has gotten soooo much better over the years (no more DRM!) they come down hard on even a few seconds of usage. It's ridiculous.

And yeah, I also miss when the Internet was kinda like the Wild West as far as that stuff goes. Even just little stuff, like seeing James Rolfe splice in little clips from Back to the Future to react to the corresponding AVGN game review, was a lot of fun. But, alas, even though it certainly doesn't threaten the original work, it probably wouldn't even qualify as fair use.

I can't wait until the YouTube generation starts operating the major media outlets.
"This is a machine for making cows."

Zephlar

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 341
  • Genuine Bullshitter
    • View Profile
    • Ranalli Photography & Design, LLC
Re: Youtube Copyright
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2017, 05:25:43 PM »
Well, that was a very informative answer.

Do you think the internet is better now than the days of the "Wild West"? Just curious what you think.

Spectere

  • \m/ (-_-) \m/
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5716
  • printf("%s\n", "Hi!");
    • View Profile
    • spectere.net
Re: Youtube Copyright
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2017, 11:45:44 PM »
Disclaimer: Sorry if this is a bit scatterbrained. I'm getting ready for bed, so this is basically a bunch of stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

Kind of a tricky question, really. I'd say "yes" because it makes the Internet more legitimized and..."no," because it makes the Internet more legitimized.

It's a two-sided coin. On one hand, legitimately acquiring and consuming media has become cheaper, easier, and more convenient than ever thanks to companies taking it seriously. These distribution models are equally useful for larger companies and indies. If there were major barriers to entry with regards to media creation and distribution, people like Gavin Dunne (Miracle of Sound) would have had a much harder time making a livelihood from their creative pursuits. Instead, he stands shoulder to shoulder with bands like Metallica on the iTunes sales charts. At one point, he literally topped the metal charts.

If we were still in the Wild West era, sure, he might have gotten some word of mouth exposure. But, given his niche (video game inspired music, primarily), what are the odds that a label would have picked him up? Odds are he would have just been another name on mp3.com with a small, dedicated following and dozens of people sharing his music freely on file sharing sites. Bear in mind that popular bands weren't the only music being spread on Napster, KaZaA, Limewire, Morpheus, Soulseek, et al--the indies were, too. Streaming music services made it so easy to just pick a song--while still allowing the artist to be compensated--that there's really not much of a need for peer-to-peer file sharing anymore. It's become a pretty niche thing once again.

Movie services aren't quite up to that level of maturity yet, but for a while YouTube was a bastion of light for independent creators. While there's a lot of garbage on there, there is plenty of extremely high quality content. Take a peek at just about anything on Ahoy's channel. You'd swear some of that stuff was professional content. Even post-adgate, with the amount of exposure and quality content that channels like that have received, they can make a decent living through crowd funding. In 2006 you'd have to be picked up by a network to even have a chance, and even then a lot of content creators were forced to work full-time jobs on top of making regular videos. Again, without having that air of legitimacy, ad networks would have never taken a chance on YouTube.

As far as why the olden days were better, there are two big reasons: with everyone and their grandmother (literally!) being online, the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely high. Without a solid hook it's difficult to break into those markets.

In addition to that, large companies (as previous discussed) have gotten overzealous when it comes to enforcing their copyrights. While I totally get sending takedown notices to channels that upload entire, full-length episodes (and, really, that's what the system was intended for, but you know what they say about the road to Hell), it's become a weapon that copyright holders gleefully use. Why should they consider fair use? What's some nobody with 200 subscribers going to throw at them? Even if it looks like the YouTuber is going to win, all they have to do is throw a token settlement their way so as to keep from setting a precedent. Throw in a gag clause as one of the settlement conditions and all of a sudden the bad press goes away, too.

The problem with legitimacy in that aspect is that there are rules that need to be followed from both sides, and only one side readily has the power to issue a challenge. The rest of us have to bow our heads and fall in line. While Viacom was somewhat in the right to file that suit (though that doesn't excuse the extremely shady shit that they did--apparently they thought that Google retained a staff of two-bit lawyers that weren't going to actually do any investigation)--because, let's face it, wholesale copyright infringement was a huge problem on YouTube back then--the impact of that case has resulted in the ContentID leash getting pulled tighter and tighter as time goes on, to the point where one of the cornerstones of gaming content on YouTube, gameplay videos, are in serious danger. Nintendo's already proven that they aren't interested in that pesky "fair use" business with their sham of a "Creator's Program," and even indies like Campo Santo (god, I wish I could refund Firewatch after their recent bullshit) are abusing the DMCA to silence someone because they didn't like something they said, nullifying the implied consent clause that they have on their site.

It's a fucking mess, and I have a feeling as a result of this strife we're going to be seeing a crash of sorts in due time. It probably won't be a huge financial crash, but it could lead to YouTube itself ceasing to be financially viable for Google to continue operating if ad revenue keeps plummeting.

I guess the best way I can sum up my thoughts is that yes, the modern Internet is a resounding improvement for certain tasks (most notable anything related with music and general information) and a resounding "NO" for anything that's commonly impacted, illegally, by the DMCA. That piece of legislation was designed for the Internet of the late 90s and early 2000s, not 2017. For a hosting company to retain their safe harbor status they must pull the content immediate when contacted, otherwise they can be held liable. If the claim is spurious, the claimant becomes liable for perjury. Great. But that brings us right back to the lawyer argument. Are you going to hire a lawyer and sue Atlantic Records despite you more than likely being in the right to use it under fair use? No. Why would you? How could you? They're well aware of this, so they can send out fraudulent claim after fraudulent claim without punishment.

The only real punishment that big corporations received in that regard is the result of Lenz v. Universal Music, where they were told that they must consider fair use when submitting takedown requests. But that leads us back to Content ID. It's an automated system, so how, pray tell, can it possibly consider something that even lawyers can't fully agree upon? Again, IANAL, and I haven't read the relevant ruling in full, but it seems to me like Content ID could possibly be illegal as a result of that. But, again, who's going to sue Google because their cat video got taken down? Not many people would even consider it.

Sorry I can't really give you a more straightforward answer. I'm kind of a centrist. :)
"This is a machine for making cows."