HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Here is a long-ish Tom Scott video related to YouTube's (or rather the Internet's) broken copyright system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

There's a canned response to the Content ID rants: https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

Tom Scott has a great video on Copyright:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ libertine

It always comes down to Youtube size and automation, and no one wants to address this.

Youtube is so big they can't give proper customer support.

I'll rephrase this, they only give propper customer support to one of the parties, copyright strikers (probably not even all of them), and not for content creators.

It's unbalanced.

And Google gets away with this. "Oh you have problem? Talk to bots and auto replies! Good luck :)"

Unless you're a celebrity that has massive reach on Twitter, or if you happen to get caught randomly by a wave of upvotes that get you enough attention social media. Then there's an uproar and some high level pushes the damage control button and finally a human being actually looks at what's happening.

So it's Youtube Customer Support that's broken.

I'm reaching the point that I believe automatic customer support shouldn't be allowed AT ALL. Just like robot calls.

That is absolutely the battle YouTube fought that lead to Content ID and the claims system that doesn’t have the leniency you wish that it did. It’s not even ambiguous; this is the system that we got. In fact, the system actually improved vastly since it was initially implemented.

Really. It was all a direct reaction to the lawsuits: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114

When I say it has improved, I mean it genuinely has. Back in 2008 the usual outcome of copyright strikes were deleted videos and deleted channels. Copyright cartels monetizing videos they didn’t make due to dubious Content ID matches may seem like an unreasonable response, but it is still a better compromise than content flying down blackholes.

And yes. It would be great if all of these problems could just be solved. I’m sure they’ve heard every idea imaginable. There is no one obvious way to solve everything. So asking “why don’t they just do this?” is not productive. What we could ask is “how did we get here?”

And the answer to that is that copyright is broken. And if we could fix that, or at least make it less broken, some of these problems would literally disappear.

And if you don’t believe me, there’s tons of backup from people more persuasive who have perspectives of being in the direct line of fire. Like Tom Scott: https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

And yeah YouTube could do better, but all too often you get the perspective that this is all their fault because they could solve it with one easy trick. It’s easy to say that when none of the competition managed to stick around to prove it.

Instead, the opposite happened instead, when Twitch had its own copyright reckoning.

We knew copyright on the internet was fundamentally broken in the Napster days. Did we forget?

⬐ howaboutnope

> I’m sure they’ve heard every idea imaginable.

And they didn't try the one that is the actual subject of this subthread.

> asking “why don’t they just do this?” is not productive

That doesn't make your answer to it valid.

> the answer to that is that copyright is broken

Why not go further back? Why is there greed? Why aren't all humans brothers? If only we could fix that, some of these problems would literally disappear!

⬐ jchw

This is going nowhere. At this point, I can only conclude that you willfully don’t want to admit that the principle actor causing this mess is probably not YouTube.

For what it’s worth, Twitch has not implemented this idea either.

Only if the comment is about the screenshot itself though. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU has some sad explanation.

⬐ vletal

I was thinking along the lines of not being OK to scrape YouTube rather then breaking copyright or intellectual property.

⬐ lrem

Oh sure, YouTube forbids that. Once there's enough traffic to care, it'll get cut off. But YouTube is somewhat unlikely to try to sue one's socks off for breaking the ToS. Copyright owners though...

For anyone is interested, Tom Scott has a great video about YouTube copyright system: https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU.

I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems with Youtube specific problems.

Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.

⬐ mod50ack

Oh, Tom is right. I've seen his video (actually a fan of his stuff), and I know that there's a real problem here for Google. They need to cover their asses here, and with good reason. And in many cases the problem is with the global copyright system.

But this isn't such a case --- nobody should get flagged for performing Sullivan or Mozart. It's absurd and a much easier problem to solve than the ones involving fair use which Tom discusses.

⬐ jrochkind1

I think you are probably basically right, but it seems notable that what YouTube does is not just a DMCA by-the-books implementation, but their own policy/structure, right?

That is, they give copyright claimants more flexibilty/power than the DMCA strictly requires; the DCMA "counter-claim" process would let them put the material back up in response to a counter claim the end without the original claimant needing to approve or agree with your counter-claim, which is not how YouTube operates.

Youtube's system resembles the DMCA, but is not the DMCA, and is much more pro-claimant than the actual DMCA.

Woudln't an actual DMCA proess be sufficient to avoiding "suing out of oblivion"?

My guess is that part of is YouTube's current business model, they make money by enforcing copyright, they have no business/profit incentive to let you file a DMCA counter-notice, and plenty to make it even easier than the DMCA specifies to file a claim.

⬐ hnick

DMCA doesn't protect someone who makes money directly from the content. Let the lawyers decide what that means, but I guess it could cover advertising and subscriptions if you prove there's a big chunk of copyrighted content. Hence their pseudo-DMCA appeasement process.

There seems to be a gap though. If I make something independently and am not covered by Content ID and want nothing to do with it, they will need to abide by the DMCA. They have been sued over this and I think it's a fair argument. Setup a system and force me to use it without any contractual agreements, waiving my legal rights? Doesn't really seem proper.

⬐ colejohnson66

YouTube’s “ContentID” system came about at roughly the same time as Vevo (music videos on demand) became a thing. My guess is that it was implemented to appease the rights holders so they’d put their videos on YouTube.

⬐ esjeon

> a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.

That will only harm small businesses and individuals. It doesn't take a huge sum of imagination to draw the situation in the brain. A lawyer hired by a big corporation on one side, and a poor artist on another side, both standing in the same courtroom. You already get the drama about to happen. Lawyers will happily bully those poor souls that they are fully capable of introducing more misery to their opponents, so you should just sign this paper and f** off. A few may resist, and few will survive, but the majority won't even take the case to the court out of fear.

So, no, that's not a solution.

⬐ marcus_holmes

No, I don't get it. When a large corp steals music from a small musician, they already get all this, and copyright doesn't help with the situation. Disney has been ripping off independent artists and musicians for decades with no consequences. Ffs even Robin Williams struggled to get paid by them.

I'm not sure what situation you're describing?

⬐ esjeon

At least, for now, people can resist by suing, without fearing unfairly being punished. However, punishing for making false claims will suppress only the weaks by making it harder to sue powerful entities, as they'll get doubly punished for failing to prove their own rights.

⬐ marcus_holmes

OK. But this is a problem with the legal system then. If you give people legal rights to sue that they can't actually exercise because it costs too much, then that's a different problem from giving them the legal right to sue in the first place.

You're basically saying "no-one should get any legal rights at all because rich people will always win any legal dispute". I'm not saying you're wrong. But it's a different problem.

⬐ kevingadd

The DMCA (federal law) already provides a way to punish claimants, both small and large alike. A false claim under the DMCA is perjury (a felony in many locales). YouTube's system isn't the DMCA, which is why it's worse for creators and more generous to fraudulent claimants.

⬐ bccdee

The way to punish someone for a false claim (both for claims filed on youtube and claims filed elsewhere) is to file an expensive lawsuit against the original claimant. It's very burdensome.

⬐ HWR_14

If the copyright owners were punished (monetarily) for broad overreach, then the poor artist's lawyers would take the cases on contingency.

⬐ izacus

No it's not, but it's what DMCA is. And EU is following USA with building broad and abusive copyright protection legislation.

And everytime there's a proposal to make copyright law less abusive and ridiculous, there's a huge pushback from both authors, giant content megacorps and even people on HN who should know better.

I bet Warner/Disney/etc. lawyers are laughing their ass off when Google - due to their crazy incompetence and use of AI - gets blamed for the law they lobbied to accept.

⬐ pkilgore

Last I checked DCMA did not require proactive removal like contintID, but to be responsive to claims. Did that change?

⬐ izacus

No, but the claims are automated as well (there are APIs between content publishers and big content silos which make this distinction pretty unimportant).

Ideally, the law would defend you against content providers and Googles/YouTubes and protect you from frivoulous claims. Instead DMCA codifies this approach (even if it's a bit different than what Google is doing right now).

⬐ kevingadd

The codified counter-notice approach in the DMCA is different from YouTube's approach in a very significant way. The difference is clearly felt by creators.

⬐ pkilgore

The corporate bullies have been trotting out this argument forever to keep the status quo. But it is not as if it is impossible to craft a law that carves out protections for this exact harm, like fee shifting provisions or a cheaper administrative proceeding available to small business and non-corporate ownership. We are, as a society, capable of changing and writing creative laws.

Specifically here, how do you imagine a punishment for overreach hurting small owners? They are the plaintiffs here, assuming they bring meritorious casee, they are in the driver's seat with no downside over the status quo.

⬐ swiley

I hated that video. I think he's absolutely wrong.

If that's really the case then how come people on /gif/ and /wsg/ on 4chan haven't been sued? There's tons of copyrighted music on there (the ygyl threads are almost all just commercial music with anime.)

By removing the legal system Google has short circuited the law. There is a protection for individuals here, it's called perjury. If the claimants here pulled the same shit they do on 4chan that they do on youtube they would be perjured and that's why they haven't deployed bots to go suing people.

⬐ voakbasda

Sue 4chan and members? And garner the focused attention of one of the most vile communities of trolls the world has ever seen? Let me get my popcorn, because that will be an epic shitshow to watch.

⬐ swiley

>4chan and members

4chan has no members?

⬐ Forbo

Users that bought a 4chan pass could be considered "members" of a sort. Regardless of whatever you choose to call them, be it "users", "members", or "shitposters", I think the point you're trying to make is overly pedantic.

⬐ swiley

My point is that every other website doesn't appear to have this problem, it's definitely one Google created.

⬐ nitwit005

How would you know who to sue? It's not as if 4chan lists real name and address. Past efforts to sue people based on IP address information haven't exactly gone well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_fi...

Google has a lot of information on monetized YouTube accounts, as that's a fairly involved process.

⬐ nine_k

They probably could have sued 4can if they wanted.

But they understand that the audience of 4chan is much smaller than YT's, and brings incomparably less money to the 4chan that YT's audience brings to Google.

Please note, their failure to assert their rights does not void their rights. They are free to assert their rights where it makes financial sense. Let's remember that recording industry is not about music, it's about making money on selling music. They are where the money are, or where they think their money may be bleeding, or where a lawsuit can bring in more money. 4chan is not such a place, YT very much is.

⬐ gnopgnip

The big difference here is 4chan threads are ephemeral, they rarely show on on search engines. Youtube vidoes often rank highly

⬐ plantsbeans

I don’t understand how perjury applies here.

⬐ _0ffh

If you make a false copyright infringemenet claim, you commit perjury.

https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_a...

⬐ antiterra

The DMCA has a (de facto toothless) perjury clause for knowingly submitting a takedown for content that doesn’t violate the copyright of the claimant. That doesn’t apply to YouTube claims that are handled via their internal tools outside of the DMCA process.

⬐ swiley

>de facto toothless

On YouTube, it appears to work just fine on other sites like GitHub.

⬐ loeg

When has a corporation been punished for perjury for false DMCA takedown notices on Github?

⬐ antiterra

YouTube was sued by Viacom, and Paramount I believe, with some support given by Universal. Mind you this happened after content ID was in place, but was limited to content that came before. Viacom ended up settling while appealing the decision from the Court of Appeals.

It seems clear from the opinion that Content ID itself was evidence YouTube was actively collaborating with content creators. The court believed creation of that collaboration was the intent of the DMCA takedown process. It doesn’t seem like something they could remove without serious repercussion.

⬐ Popegaf

Isn't the solution to this already there? Creative Commons ( https://creativecommons.org/ )

> One goal of Creative Commons is to increase the amount of openly licensed creativity in “the commons” — the body of work freely available for legal use, sharing, repurposing, and remixing. Through the use of CC licenses, millions of people around the world have made their photos, videos, writing, music, and other creative content available for any member of the public to use.

Choosing a license is easy https://creativecommons.org/choose/ or you can have a look at the entirety of existing 7 CC licenses ( https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ )

It's possible to allow people to use things for free with attribution (CC-BY), shared under the same license / share alike (CC-BY-SA), no commercial uses (CC-BY-NC), no derivatives (CC-BY-ND), and public domain (CC0). There are a mix of those to make up the total 7.

IANAL so I'm not sure about commercial use.

⬐ makeitdouble

This is as usual a very well done video, and as Tom Scott mentions, there is a gap between the law and what’s happening online.

He argues for how the small guy is protected by the status quo, but glosses over how the big players also massively get away with behaviors that would be prohibitively expensive/labor intensive/turned against them to do without youtube’s system.

> a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching

That critically is covered by the law, and removed from the start from Youtube’s system.

⬐ HWR_14

ContentID is far beyond what YT needs to do to prevent themselves from being sued by copyright holders. It's a proactive difficult (or impossible) to appeal system. The DMCA requires much less involvement on their part.

⬐ sneak

> Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints.

That's false, the DMCA's safe harbor provision for content hosts has a mechanism in place for handling this.

⬐ twirlock

No, it's not a problem of the copyright system that Google the corporation doesn't care about the concept of public domain. That's a "quasi-government monopoly that benefits from gestapo apologetics whenever the public critiques the obvious issues any imbecile could otherwise identify" problem.

⬐ leeter

I personally think the better solution is going back to how copyright worked pre 1976, where copyright had to be positively asserted to exist and everything else went into the public domain. I'm also of the position that a 'make available' clause needs to be added to ensure that a work is constantly available during its period of copyright; moreover if the rightsholder should fail to make it available for longer than a set period of time it reverts to the public domain permanently. Finally I think the default period for copyright should be 23years (in line with patents) with progressively more expensive renewals based on the annual income of the property, the goal being to encourage people to let things go into the public domain unless they are extremely profitable.

⬐ shadilay

I wholly agree with this but the extension period should be forever with exponentially increasing fees not based on the profit of the work which can be gamed like movies are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

⬐ BeFlatXIII

Why forever and not terminated at the author’s funeral (or 20 years after publication, whichever is later)?

⬐ redflagsTA

This is tougher when the work is produced by a team and the copyright is owned by the company.

There also needs to be logic to handle this other case.

⬐ not2b

Wouldn't help; with Content ID the big companies are positively asserting copyright to things they don't own.

⬐ grishka

IMO copyright for creative works should last a year, maybe two or three, but no more. The most income something generates is usually when it just gets released. Movies, for example, usually don't even count their revenue from outside of movie theaters.

This is the only way to make copyright mostly work, and make people respect it. Right now it's so long it could as well never expire. On the other hand, if it only lasts several years, many people would have the choice of paying right now or waiting for the copyright to expire and getting it for free. It's also very unfortunate that the entirety of our pop culture is covered by copyright right now.

And second thing to make it work even better: copyright should not be transferable. It should not be possible to sign something to forfeit your exclusive rights to your own work.

⬐ hnick

So if I release a book as a small time author, and it is recognised as being good but doesn't do too well commercially, a major publisher with distribution and marketing reach can just republish it a year later when copyright lapses? I'm not sure I enjoy that idea.

Like many things in our society there is a disjoint between small and enormous entities. Yes, Disney can make a lot of money off Frozen in the first year or two. I probably couldn't even if you handed it to me.

I agree lifetime-plus is too much and we need to own our culture, but I think a few years is too little. 5 years, maybe 10, seems more reasonable as it captures the cultural zeitgeist but we all move on. And for smaller creators, it's similar to a change in job role or career every 5-10 years which is fairly typical.

⬐ sverhagen

>The most income something generates is usually when it just gets released.

YouTube is still making me pay to see movies (again) that I saw decades ago. Meanwhile, didn't Bob Dylan sell his entire catalogue for $300 million, just last year? David Guetta, $100 million? Paul Simon? I am not saying this is how I want things to work. Just that your statement seems factually... troublesome?

⬐ giantrobot

The GP parent said "most" while you're listing obvious outliers.

⬐ sverhagen

"Most income." They said the "most income for something" (presumably "anything"), not: "income for most things".

⬐ jfim

Would moral rights have a longer period in this case? In the current US copyright regime with a long forward, moral rights aren't really considered too much, but with a shorter covered period it might actually happen during the author's lifetime that their art is used in a way that they don't approve.

⬐ chrismcb

One or a few years is to short. 25 is about right. Most movies are based on books that are several years old.

⬐ dijksterhuis

> IMO copyright for creative works should last a year, maybe two or three, but no more. The most income something generates is usually when it just gets released.

Errrrrr. No. Not in my experience in music copyright.

A whole bunch of musical works for a specific "group" currently earn waaaaaaay more in copyright royalties than they used to 60 years ago (I shall neither confirm neither deny the name of the band due to the many lawyers they have).

Then there's the musicians who make way more on their works being used in television/film five years after the initial release.

Of course there's the entire library/background music industry, where a random television producer can choose some five year old sting for their hit show. Also see previous point.

Not to mention when a musician samples an old track, accurately credits them in the royalty share (props to you folks) and it turns out the song is a massive hit.

Plus the many myriad of other weird and wonderful things that happen in the imperfect, non narrow thing we call the world.

> This is the only way to make copyright mostly work, and make people respect it. Right now it's so long it could as well never expire.

Most businesses/companies tend to go with the current system (begrudgingly or not) or they get taken to court.

The law is on the copyright holder's side. There is inherent value behind these "works" which society has deemed important enough to require copyright to become law. I can disagree with a law as much as I want, but I'm sure as shit gonna toe the line when the police are walking past.

Hence why YouTube gets cagey about copyright. They don't wanna be sued and go through the whole GEMA takedowns/potential fines/potential jail time thing again [0]. They have a lot more to lose than in 2012.

On a more personal note -- people can choose whether or not they respect copyright. I buy all my music. All of it. I respect musicians and want them to be fairly paid for the valuable work they do for our culture, society and for myself.

If you don't, then go and torrent some stuff. Vote with your wallet.

> On the other hand, if it only lasts several years, many people would have the choice of paying right now or waiting for the copyright to expire and getting it for free.

You're basically asking to make everything free 5 years later.

Totally. Not. Going. To. Happen.

You will have a lot of musicians shouting at UK members of parliament. At a time when they're already having hearings/committees on making royalty payments fairer for musicians and the prime minister is personally getting called out on it [1].

> It's also very unfortunate that the entirety of our pop culture is covered by copyright right now.

I see literally zero copyright happening on Facebook posts, where I assume most of pop culture is still happening (it's still 2013 right?).

> And second thing to make it work even better: copyright should not be transferable. It should not be possible to sign something to forfeit your exclusive rights to your own work.

It's my asset. I should be able to do what I damned well want with my asset.

Maybe I want to sell the rights and go on a 3 week drugs and hookers bender?

Or maybe I need to pay off some debts? People go bankrupt and stuff and have to sell off assets. Copyright is an asset.

Much like anyone who owns a house owns an asset. Again, this comes back to the value that society has placed in musical works.

--

Reason I'm posting this comment -- every so often I see some "enlightened" person on HN claiming how to fix copyright.

You can't. It's like democracy, it ain't perfect but it's the best we've got right now.

Could it be better? Sure. But don't try and do a full rewrite, cos that's how you completely and utterly destroy s good thing [2].

Source: used to work for the only music PRO in the UK.

Caveat: it was a few years ago and I was drinking a lot at the time, mind

[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/20/2962194/youtube-gema-copy...

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57382459

[2]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

⬐ jonny_eh

> usually don't even count their revenue from outside of movie theaters

I assure you, people are counting revenue. They're not releasing Blurays as a charity.

⬐ grishka

I meant in publicly available "box office" figures and all that. Box office earnings alone usually cover all the expenses already, many times over.

⬐ tehwebguy

I'm fairly sure the only reason for this is to minimize backend payments to actors & directors.

⬐ jonny_eh

Exactly, it's to not pay anyone that has terms in their contracts that say something like "earns 1% of the film's profits". If all the revenue is paid out to the studio in the form of "consulting fees" then voila: no profits.

⬐ jkrems

> I meant in publicly available "box office" figures and all that. Box office earnings alone usually cover all the expenses already, many times over.

Maybe it covers the expenses for the studio but it's not necessarily sufficient for all artists involved in the creation. Movie tickets (and/or other short term revenue streams) would have to be more expensive if artists (actors, writers, directors, ...) wouldn't be able to get a cut of streaming- and other secondary exhibition revenue for a while after release.

⬐ akiselev

The industry doesn't exist in a vacuum - movies and TV shows are all financed with the expectation of long tail revenue and the people financing them are the ones who invented Hollywood accounting. A lot of the big budget stuff would be too risky without that revenue and it effects everything from the actor-SAG-studio relationship to licensing deals between major studios.

⬐ dalore

So we would get smaller but more movies, about real stuff and not generic stuff that can be mass marketed.

I recommended checking out Tom Scott’s video on DMCA (0). It’s 40 minutes long and rather YouTube centric however it paints a very clear picture as to why these companies are engaging in a seemingly broken practice. It’s not because they want to, it’s because they are legally required to do so.

(0) - https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ kelnos

YouTube goes very much above and beyond what the DMCA requires, and favors the interests of the big corporate copyright holders over smaller creators.

I imagine they do this because of their settlement with Viacom[0] where they likely bent over backwards to avoid further appeals and lawsuits. Viacom likely said "regardless of how this goes, we and other copyright holders will sue YouTube off the internet unless you build a system that proactively takes down everything even remotely potentially infringing without us having to notify you of anything". And Google caved.

Don't get me wrong, the DMCA is still overall a bad law (though, to be honest, I think the copyright takedown process is the least bad part of it), but Google is not doing what they do because of the DMCA.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... -- notably, no money changed hands as a part of the settlement, but other terms were not disclosed.

⬐ NaturalPhallacy

The DMCA was written by lawyers for lawyers.

And you know who can afford lawyers? Big corporate copyright holders.

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ manquer

As much I love tom scott, he is ignoring the choices that YouTube made along the way were that precisely that choices. They didn't have to become this kind of platform.

Tom himself is owning/promoting nebula an alternative platform with quality curated content.

Youtube either could have become a pure user generated platform not engaging with big biz, and strictly following DMCA only : counter notice is not for Google's to review merit , claims like above are penalized, you have to take it court if there is a counter notice, no three strikes nonsense, no flawed content ID system - all of this is placate big biz.

Alternatively they could have become a curated content platform (like nebula) them wanting to do everything is why we are here.

Every other user content platform in video or otherwise is working perfectly fine with DMCA framework, they all have considerably less resources than Google.

P.S. Google's inability to put people to support content creators and this dispute process even for creators with 100' of millions of views is simply about Google culture of not believing in user/creater support (product) , big biz sure gets human support.

A really great video (if you're willing to spend the better part of an hour watching it) about this is YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.[1] by Tom Scott.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ avereveard

DMCA is bad but the undisputable claim and three strike systems is all of Google own doing

⬐ Sebb767

The video covers this aspect. Yes, the current system is bad, but it replaces a scary letter demanding cease and desists plus high damage payments and a resolution between extremely expensive lawyers. It surely is not optimal, but I doubt your common YouTuber could afford to fight claims in court.

⬐ BlueTemplar

That's a US-specific issue. Yet people all over the world are affected by ContentID (though at least in the EU AFAIK you can now get a third party to mediate this dispute).

⬐ avereveard

DMCA replaces the scary letters. YouTube only responsibility is to collect claims and counterclaims. Common YouTubers can just accept the claim and mute content. Youtuber wanting a fight or that know the other party would never risk their frivolous challenge to go to court with the threat of perjury hanging on their head have a right to counterclaim and put the ball in the other party field.

YouTube instead decide to act as jury and will allow claimant to counter the counterclaim, and here lies the crux of the issue.

YouTube isn't protecting poor youtubers anymore than what DMCA already allows; YouTube is instead actively removing youtuber right to challenge the claim, putting all the power in the claimant, far above what DMCA mandates or requires.

And that decision to act as jury and judge and final unappealable authority in the claim process lies squarely on YouTube shoulders.

⬐ zaphar

I don't think the DMCA replaces the scary letters. The scary letters existed because they were more effective than the DMCA. Threatening to sue someone is always and always has been totally an option. The reason scary letters don't get sent right now is because it's easier to just have Youtube remove the video.

If that went away the next easiest option (scary letters) would happen again. DMCA or not.

I'm sure Metallica doesn't really care, but it's ironic given that a large part of the mess we're in today (with the large platforms fearing copyrighted works showing up for 1/10th of a second) stems directly from Metallica.

I did however see a video by Tom Scott recently about how the copyright system is broken; and it's not the platforms fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

Tom Scott has a great video on this topic. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ dredmorbius

Quite good. Submitted to HN but no traction:

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=YouTube%27s+Copyright+System+Isn%2....

⬐ harshitaneja

Ah. Would have loved to participate in a nuanced discussion on this topic.

⬐ dredmorbius

You could submit it again yourself ;-)

https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

Tom Scott explains the situation and the solution best. Just shorten copyright to 20 years (instead of life + 70 years).

.......that said, we did just strong-arm the world into matching US copyright law and I’m not sure we could do that now even if we wanted to.

⬐ tptacek

It's pretty funny, because, as a solution, it simultaneously

(a) doesn't actually address the problem, because the content that DRM protects and that people want is stuff released within the last few months, and

(b) can't happen, as it sets copyright length back below what it was in 1909, before Disney even existed. In fact: the 1970s extension to copyright (the one predating "Sonny Bono" was done to bring the US into compliance with Europe.

People have weird thoughts about copyright.

⬐ est31

Re b), it's the berne convention which puts the minimum copyright term limit to 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

A first step would probably be to prevent the 70 years from entering international treaties (there are attempts for inclusion to put it mildly), and then revert the duration back to 50 years. That'd be a good start already.

I think in general the public pressure on wanting content to enter the public domain sooner is constantly growing, so I think generally it'll get increasingly harder for extensions. Eventually we might be getting there.

⬐ Thorrez

How does shortening copyright length solve the DRM problem? Companies could still put DRM on 50 year old content, and it would still be illegal to break the DRM because breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted.

⬐ jimbob45

Copyright exists to motivate artists (and others) to extraordinary levels of effort by rewarding them extremely handsomely for their struggles (life copyright + 70 years for their kids). It’s arguable that 20 years still provides most of that same motivation and disallows huge corporations to profit off of artists who have been dead for 40+ years. What motivation to new artists does anyone owning the rights to Mickey Mouse do other than enrich people who had no hand in creating it?

Shortening copyright would allow DRM to focus on a very small subset of works and allow everyone to use and enjoy older works.

Yes, DRM may be arbitrarily placed on anything but if the work can be freely acquired elsewhere without fear of retribution, then no one will seek out the DRM version anyway.

⬐ Thorrez

Hmm, good point. One single person can bypass the DRM, and then everyone else can copy that file indiscriminately.

⬐ zozbot234

> breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted

This is not the case actually; the problem is that while breaking "protection measures" on a non-copyrighted work may be legal per se, DMCA 1201 will still hinder development of tools to break such protection, as long as these same measures are being used to provide effective protection on copyrighted works.

⬐ est31

A much better solution IMO would be to extend the first sale doctrine and bring it into the streaming age.

If you have proof of subscription to provider A that allows lawful access to some content C, you should be allowed to access C from some different provider B as well without provider B having to obtain a license or permission from the original copyright owners. As there is no requirement to obtain permission from the copyright owners, they can't require any DRM restrictions or similar, and thus the content can be accessed without DRM restrictions or privacy invasions.

Of course, you can just outlaw DRM altogether, but it's harder to define in law what DRM is.

⬐ zerocrates

DMCA 1201 is a whole different can of worms, one which isn't really affected by the copyright term. 1201's whole purpose is "anticircumvention": to ban tools for breaking DRM, not to actually punish infringement.

That is, The Matrix being out of copyright tomorrow wouldn't change anything for DeCSS under 1201.

The linked blog post here is actually quite strange: the post is talking about 1201 abuse, but the proposal is about copyright infringement and 512 takedown, neither of which are really related to 1201. So its hard to see how this would "blunt" 1201 at all.

The recent high-profile situations have blurred the lines between the takedown provisions and the anticircumvention ones, especially as they just get listed in a "dmca" repository on Github, and the post even mentions this in the case of the Widevine takedowns, but the little technicalities do in fact matter here.

⬐ josephcsible

> That is, The Matrix being out of copyright tomorrow wouldn't change anything for DeCSS under 1201.

Are you sure? I thought the DMCA only applies to copyrighted material, so you can break DRM all day long on anything in the public domain.

Absolutely, especially with all the mess on Twitch recently, and with Youtube for the past few years, it's very clear that DMCA needs to be updated.

I do like Tom Scott's comprehensive video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

an interesting take on YouTube's Copyright System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ londons_explore

Remember YouTube and its staff will never make decisions on the validity of copyright claims. They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Instead they consider every copyright claim as valid unless legal proceedings tell them otherwise.

⬐ moefh

> They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so.

Only if they don't comply with a DMCA takedown notice, which allows the supposed violator to claim responsibility. That is, whoever posted the video can say to Youtube "This video doesn't infringe on anyone's copyright, let them sue me if they disagree" and Youtube would be in the clear according to the DMCA.

From what we can see in this case, Youtube didn't receive a DMCA takedown notice, since they didn't make it available for the channel owner. Youtube has other internal processes (like Content ID[1]) to detect and remove copyright content, it looks like one of these processes is what triggered the copyright strikes.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276

⬐ daedalus_f

In the video the guy running the channel states the claims were applied manually and this forms part of his complaint - Google’s automated content ID system will provide time stamps so you can look at what it is flagging, while with the manual claim there is no way to know exactly what is being claimed.

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ dalbasal

Possibly, but the Google copyright system is a large part of the world's copyright system... and more broken then the actual legal one.

⬐ jandrese

Both are broken.

⬐ avianlyric

I think if you watch OPs video you would agree that in this case YouTubes systems is also broken.

It’s kind of ridiculous that YouTube accept claims against an entire video without _any_ evidence, or even a description of what copyrighted material is being infringed on.

Instead it seems that YouTube will simply let someone claim that a video has copyrighted content without explanation (and in violation of the DMCA), and delete creators based on that.

⬐ izacus

Americans have setup the DMCA law in a way that content must be taken off without evidence (with widespread support on HN no less), so this one really isn't on YouTube.

⬐ avianlyric

If you read the DMCA you would know that at a minimum a DMCA notice needs to describe the copyrighted work being infringed upon (i.e. explain what has been stolen).

You can’t just go and claim that a video or other content infringes on a copyright somewhere. You must state which copyright is being infringed upon.

> (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. [1]

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

Edit: Oh someone already posted it here, sorry.

For everyone asking "Why is YouTube's copyright system like it is? When is it going to change?", I suggest watching Tom Scott's video "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ carapace

(Who is this guy? The youtube comments on that video don't suck.)

⬐ enzanki_ars

Tom Scott is an educational YouTuber that teaches people about a wide range of interesting topics, and there is a reason why his main series is called "Things You Might Not Know." He always ensures that his content is short and to the point, all while maximizing the amount of thoroughly researched information. Funny enough, the video linked regarding copyright is actually one of his more unique projects with a much longer run time and higher production value. Tom Scott is one YouTuber in a small set that I would recommend everybody checkout to learn something cool.

⬐ iso947

Like Nigel Farage he stood for parliament and failed to get in - in Tom’s case it was due to a split in the pirate vote, as “Mad Capn Tom” was ip against the Pirate Party

⬐ newacct583

Exactly. Also, it's worth pointing out the fraction of people outraged about Google's process for administrating copyright takedown requests and demanding justice vs. the number who apparently aren't concerned about Gameloft's ability to tell the difference between their own IP and Sony's.

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.

> youtube algo's screwing up content creator

A slightly different problem, but Tom Scott did an excellent video on the automation of the copyright system on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

In summary, auto copyright checking solves Most copyright issues, to a degree that no other solution can really provide. And while there are a small (yet very unfair) number of false positives, the benefit that the system as a whole allows far outpaces that downtrend: for YouTube to exist!

With regards to fact checking, I'd be more interested to hear how many people who read those kind of "fact flags" actually change their opinion in an easy case (flat earth, climate change, etc.). Honestly, the problem of "true truth" might never be solved, but so will the cause of incompetence never disappear.

I don't remember the specific arguments that he laid out, but after watching this (42 minute, worthwhile) video by Tom Scott about copyright my understanding changed. Now I assume that most things don't fit some narrow requirements regarding what parodies are allowed and what aren't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

⬐ elliekelly

I can’t help but laugh that the opening story about music rights could have been avoided if the original Pied Piper search existed.

Yes but an imitation is not necessary and usually a parody. There is a good Tom Scott's video about this distinction and other common misconceptions about copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU (42 interesting minutes)

Relevant - Tom Scott explains the copyright situation and YouTube's Content ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU (42 minutes)

> many unintuitive parts

I think a more concrete term for unintuitive is outdated. The use cases for Copyright law were defined a century ago when society and technology was different. It is difficult for current citizens to understand copyright law because has nothing to do with their own day to day experiences and needs.

Great video about Copyright by Tom Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

Too long didn't see: Copyright is broken needs to be fixed in a way that fits the current situation and needs, but, it is going to be damn hard to do.

Related Tom Scott video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

tl;dr ContentID is a workaround for a broken copyright system. It's not perfect, but it's better for everyone than falling back to the default of copyright through court.

⬐ garyng

Scott explains the current state, the problems, and the possible solutions of the copyright laws really well. This definitely gives me a new perspective behind all those "copyright claim" headline news.

⬐ CaliforniaKarl

I have always liked Tom Scott videos. I think this is the first long-form one that he's done. Very nice!