Matt Lowne’s entire channel has been copyright claimed

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jacke said:

You're right, the fundamental problem with advertisement as it started on YouTube was unsustainable.  Something had to change.

But that doesn't excuse the way change happened.  The excessive amounts of screwing around that happened and is happening to small creators.  And the lack of explanations and communication coming from YouTube.

YouTube doesn't want to explain things.  Partly I think because it keeps changing them.  And all this is effectively throwing small creators under a bus.  That's not the way people and organizations should treat each other, even corporations.

Now, if Youtube was a service where you'd have to pay to upload content on or if somehow the creator was a hired employee, I'd agree - however, Youtube is a free service; in essence, the creator is getting something for nothing. Youtube has no obligation to bend backwards to please creators who violate the ToS or that complain about not getting revenue from unmonetizable content whatsoever.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

16 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Now, if Youtube was a service where you'd have to pay to upload content on or if somehow the creator was a hired employee, I'd agree - however, Youtube is a free service; in essence, the creator is getting something for nothing. Youtube has no obligation to bend backwards to please creators who violate the ToS or that complain about not getting revenue from unmonetizable content whatsoever.

I can't remember hearing the phrase "Terms of Service" with respect to these issues.  I've heard "violate community standards".  And in most cases that aren't demonitized, a copyright claim, or a copyright strike, they *don't* even say how the creator violated those standards.  Often it's just kill the whole Google account, get one appeal--to Google--then usually hear back "Nope, still banned, not saying why."  That's what happened to Jim Sterling's podcast side channel.

BTW, considering the 3 that are reported, YouTube has done wonderful things like copyright claim a YouTube creator for their *own* music.

In what world is all that rational and fair treatment?

Edited November 29, 2019 by Jacke

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Jacke said:

I can't remember hearing the phrase "Terms of Service" with respect to these issues.  I've heard "violate community standards".  And in most cases that aren't demonitized, a copyright claim, or a copyright strike, they *don't* even say how the creator violated those standards.  Often it's just kill the whole Google account, get one appeal--to Google--then usually hear back "Nope, still banned, not saying why."  That's what happened to Jim Sterling's podcast side channel.

BTW, considering the 3 that are reported, YouTube has done wonderful things like copyright claim a YouTube creator for their *own* music.

In what world is all that rational and fair treatment?

The terms of service include following the community standards, if it didn't the community standards would have no effect;

There's no explanation because the process is automatized. Why is it automatized? Because given the scale of the platform it's impossible to put humans in the loop. 500 hours of content uploaded per minute.

Like I said previously, if a copyright claim isn't valid (btw it's not youtube that claims it, it's usually a third party), appealing works 99% of the time. The 1% it doesn't work is because a) it is in fact copyright infringement or b) poorly made appeal, as in intentionally bad

 

Youtube doesn't owe you a "rational and fair treatment" (as if the current way wasn't). You've agreed to their terms, you've agreed to the way they said they'll treat you. Nobody has forced you to create a channel, and you're not paying for their service. It's fair game.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

18 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

There's no explanation because the process is automatized. Why is it automatized? Because given the scale of the platform it's impossible to put humans in the loop. 500 hours of content uploaded per minute.

I can understand the automation.  But *internally*, the code has to know what was violated.  So why isn't that reported to the creators?  If someone unknowingly breaks a rule but is never told how they did so, how can anyone ever figure out what-the-frak YouTube means?

And if it's a trained neural network that gives PASS or FAIL without a way of knowing why, well, that's irresponsible, as such neural networks are known to be inconsistent and give high levels of false positives and false negatives.

And you can argue all day that YouTube is free to offer an inconsistent and abusive free service.  But that violates laws in many jurisdictions.  And is just wrong.  That's crazy to use as a business model.

And in the end, YouTube and Google are sowing the wind.  Someday, they will reap the whirlwind.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jacke said:

I can understand the automation.  But *internally*, the code has to know what was violated.  So why isn't that reported to the creators?  If someone unknowingly breaks a rule but is never told how they did so, how can anyone ever figure out what-the-frak YouTube means?

And if it's a trained neural network that gives PASS or FAIL without a way of knowing why, well, that's irresponsible, as such neural networks are known to be inconsistent and give high levels of false positives and false negatives.

And you can argue all day that YouTube is free to offer an inconsistent and abusive free service.  But that violates laws in many jurisdictions.  And is just wrong.  That's crazy to use as a business model.

And in the end, YouTube and Google are sowing the wind.  Someday, they will reap the whirlwind.

Care to mention what laws it's breaking by enforcing its tos?

 

[Jacke]

10 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Care to mention what laws it's breaking by enforcing its tos?

YouTube / Google's unstated policy of gathering information on all its users and tracking them came around and bit them because it broke COPPA.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations

Quote

Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law

FTC, New York Attorney General allege YouTube channels collected kids’ personal information without parental consent

And now YouTube doesn't want this to happen again.  So it's implementing changes to its service effective 2020 January 1.

The problem with this is it will effective kill off what remaining revenue there is for a large chunk of their creators.  And possibly expose other creators because of YouTube being obtuse and not treating their creators properly.

Jingles, a rather major creator, covers the issues with YouTube and the coming changes extensively in the first 31 minutes of this video.

 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Jacke said:

YouTube / Google's unstated policy of gathering information on all its users and tracking them came around and bit them because it broke COPPA.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations

And now YouTube doesn't want this to happen again.  So it's implementing changes to its service effective 2020 January 1.

The problem with this is it will effective kill off what remaining revenue there is for a large chunk of their creators.  And possibly expose other creators because of YouTube being obtuse and not treating their creators properly.

Jingles, a rather major creator, covers the issues with YouTube and the coming changes extensively in the first 31 minutes of this video.

We were discussing monetization and copyright so far, what you present is privacy related?

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest

[Superfluous J]

48 minutes ago, Jacke said:

YouTube and Google are sowing the wind.  Someday, they will reap the whirlwind.

And when that happens other potential providers of free services will be less likely to be so generous.

[Jacke]

10 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

We were discussing monetization and copyright so far, what you present is privacy related?

COPPA has been law since 1998, yet YouTube and Google pursued policies that violated it.  Amongst their other actions, it shows a carelessness in breaking law and regulation when it suits them.  From all the other comments I've seen on YouTube's inconsistent and obtuse behaviour, I believe they would be even more careless with respect to the content creators, who haven't the means of the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate, gather evidence, and accuse.

 

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

And when that happens other potential providers of free services will be less likely to be so generous.

That will likely be a factor in the future.  However, there should be enough knowledge of how this happened to be apparent that a lot of this is down to YouTube and Google's haphazard application of automated policies that shot themselves in their own feet.  There's already subscription services providing alternatives, so there's already movement.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Jacke said:

COPPA has been law since 1998, yet YouTube and Google pursued policies that violated it.  Amongst their other actions, it shows a carelessness in breaking law and regulation when it suits them.  From all the other comments I've seen on YouTube's inconsistent and obtuse behaviour, I believe they would be even more careless with respect to the content creators, who haven't the means of the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate, gather evidence, and accuse.

Right, so you *believe* that their monetization/copyright policy breaks laws.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

Right, so you *believe* that their monetization/copyright policy breaks laws.

I believe their policies are so haphazard, self-centred, and unvoiced that they almost certainly break some laws.  They definitely break the rules of good sense that should guide all businesses.  Like never waste good will on petty things, because some day you'll need it when things get really bad.  They aren't really good corporate citizens of any nation.

Did you watch those videos?  They aren't long and they go into detail how YouTube jerks their content creators around.  These are the people who have made the content that earns YouTube its advertisers and revenue and they are being mistreated.  But YouTube is like many businesses over the years.  Makes a thousand right decisions, then start making wrong ones more and more that slowly destroys all it built.  I've seen it before and I'll see it again.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Jacke

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jacke said:

I believe their policies are so haphazard, self-centred, and unvoiced that they almost certainly break some laws.  They definitely break the rules of good sense that should guide all businesses.  Like never waste good will on petty things, because some day you'll need it when things get really bad.  They aren't really good corporate citizens of any nation.

Did you watch those videos?  They aren't long and they go into detail how YouTube jerks their content creators around.  These are the people who have made the content that earns YouTube its advertisers and revenue and they are being mistreated.  But YouTube is like many businesses over the years.  Makes a thousand right decisions, then start making wrong ones more and more that slowly destroy all it build.  I've seen it before and I'll see it again.

ok

[Lisias]

On 11/28/2019 at 5:38 PM, Aperture Science said:

From previous experiences, if you actually haven't broken any community guidelines the appeals do tend to get accepted. Perhaps there's something he's not telling his audience?

The experiences the channels I watch says exactly the opposite.

 

On 11/28/2019 at 8:19 PM, Aperture Science said:

no, just common sense and statistics

Great. Another A.I. believer.

 

On 11/28/2019 at 10:54 PM, Aperture Science said:

Youtube didn't employ the creator and grant him a secure income, at all. The creator has chosen by himself to upload content, getting money from it is merely a bonus. Google could very well advertise on the content and not share any income with its creator if they wanted to, and legally. 

Still on this line of argument? 

Dude, do you know that making assertion that could be easily denied by a simple Google Search doesn't make your opinions exactly valuable, right? 

Quote

A few things to know

• We won’t tell you what you can create on YouTube, but we do have a responsibility to do right by our viewers, creators and advertisers. If you’re in the YouTube Partner Program, you have the ability to earn money through YouTube, and because of that, we hold you to a higher standard.
• To make sure we’re rewarding good creators, we review your channel before you’re accepted in the YouTube Partner Program. We also constantly review channels to ensure you’re meeting all our policies and guidelines.

Source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72857?hl=en

Google had obliged themselves to pay for content once the youtuber applies for Revenue and it's Accepted. It's a commercial relationship.

I strongly suggest you to better inform yourself, please.

 

On 11/29/2019 at 12:05 AM, Aperture Science said:

Care to mention what laws it's breaking by enforcing its tos?

How about this one on UK? https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/parody-pastiche/

USA has the Fair Use, and even Brazil (with a somewhat draconian copyright law that tries to make amends to a terrible past fro the 70's and 80's) has something like that.

If you are on EU, you may want to read this: https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/ for a full essay.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Lisias
Moar legalese!! — defusing a somewhat strong statements

[richfiles]

On 11/28/2019 at 7:54 PM, Aperture Science said:

So, what do you want Google to do, force the advertisers to pay for adverts on content they don't want to advertise on?

Well no... The issue, is that YouTube/Google has gone out of the way to be very selective in what ads they would even permit. It meant that companies that WOULD have run ads on a particular channels often found themselves equally unable to run their ad content at all. Only a fraction of advertisers pulled ads in the Apocalypse. Youtube/Google has their own ideas of what they want monetized and demonetized, and has used ads as the tool to enforce that. It's why channels that HAVE been demonetized are able to run sponsored ads, in video. The advertisers are there. Youtube and Google are actively choosing to not connect the two, when the video content is not in line with what Youtube wants to promote.

On 11/28/2019 at 8:38 PM, Aperture Science said:

Like I said previously, if a copyright claim isn't valid (btw it's not youtube that claims it, it's usually a third party), appealing works 99% of the time. The 1% it doesn't work is because a) it is in fact copyright infringement or b) poorly made appeal, as in intentionally bad

Tell that the the people who got hit by an anti spam bot on Markiplier's channel. Entire Google accounts. Not just Youtube... Gmail, everything, GONE... cause people typed too many emojis, at the streamer's request. Appeals were denied. A few got successfully appealed, then RE-DENIED... The system is broken, and YES, it has a lot to do with Youtube's bots and algorithms. The fact is, there is a WELL KNOWN and LONGSTANDING issue with Youtube rapidly denying appeals, often in time periods that suggest no human ever looked at it. This is a genuine problem.

In the Markiplier stream situation, it's understood what happened. An anti chat spam bot got very aggressive. In many other situations, were is SIMPLY NO ANSWERS! Writing off failed appeals as invalid appeals is shortsighted, and ignores the level of automation that YOU YOURSELF keep pointing out at Youtube!

Denying the existence of a problem doesn't negate it's existence.

[razark]

5 hours ago, richfiles said:

The issue, is that YouTube/Google has gone out of the way to be very selective in what ads they would even permit. ... Youtube/Google has their own ideas of what they want monetized and demonetized, and has used ads as the tool to enforce that. ... Youtube and Google are actively choosing to not connect the two, when the video content is not in line with what Youtube wants to promote.

It's a private company. Nothing says they have to give a platform to anybody. The business exists for the sole sake of the business, not because it's out to make the world a better place.

If the company wants to make money and promote a certain agenda, then the company is within their rights to do so. The customer/consumer/general public is not within their rights to demand the company do business a certain way. The customer/consumer/general public is free to go find or found another business that does conduct business in the way the customer likes.

And there's still nothing that says Youtube has to give any user a single cent, beyond Youtube's own decisions.  Uploaders are free to make money off their videos in whatever way they can, so long as they don't violate policies, but they are not entitled to money just because they upload things.

[richfiles]

On 12/1/2019 at 1:32 AM, razark said:

It's a private company. Nothing says they have to give a platform to anybody.

But they act as a publisher, curating content. In the US, most of their actions are protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, but this is getting blurry, as the tactical application of demonetization as a dis-incentive is actively altering content creator behavior, due to fear of loss of revenue, and is even driving some creators completely off the platform. Currently, they are safe... Until someone makes the claim that the fear of saying the wrong thing is altering the meaning of what is being said by creators (this is explicitly NOT protected by 230). It's also inevitable that someone will eventually sue and challenges why a publisher of print is liable, but a publisher online, is not... And make no mistake. Youtube is claiming to be a distributor and platform, but is behaving as a publisher. I honestly belive this will result in lawsuits, and I think someone will seek to challenge 230. It's only a matter of time. The big issue is that Youtube does provide a form of public square functionality, and the more this becomes true, the more scrutiny they will see.

Yes, they have the right to do as they please, but they also are pushing right up to the limits of permissible behavior and legality in some areas. If they push too hard, push back will be inevitable. That's really all it comes down to.

Now, moving on to the music issue...

Regarding the copyright system... It's clearly broken. The other day, people were dealing with Content ID claims against reviews of the new Marvel Black Widow trailer as content owned by a Brazilian morning show's channel!?  Clearly, the system is broken... It also entirely ignores legitimate fair use issues... But that's not the point... Moving on, ignoring all of Youtube's chronic brokenness...

Youtube allowed music into a royalty free channel, and failed to copystrike it. Regardless of it it was an official channel or not, it's not like this would suddenly be a new revelation. I think Youtube should have had the capacity to track these things... The music exists. The content ID database has no excuse to not have a popular song that's decades old not be in the database. The source needs to get copyright flagged. Channels that claim to be royalty free need to take serious consideration for submissions. Uploads to such channels need to be scanned by content ID, and denied upfront from being listed if they fail any part of Content ID's scan. Channels that claim to be royalty free need to be held to a higher level of scrutiny, because of the drastic and massive effect their uploads can have on numerous third parties who trust in them. ALL LIABILITY should lie in those who upload royalty free content, mark it as such, while knowingly using unlicensed samples, or who don't vet their uploads. If music is TRULY royalty free, then it should be uploaded to an official standard Youtube Royalty Free Music Library. Since Youtube likes throwing their info notices on select content already, they should automatically throw up a "This content has not been verified royalty free, and is not the official royalty free library of Youtube" on any content that hasn't been fully vetted with a content ID pre-scan, or isn't part of the official library.

I stand by my opinion that if Youtube allows anything to be uploaded with the words royalty free in the title or description, it needs to be vetted immediately, and it needs to be content ID claimed and blocked (if required) before false claims of being royalty free can hurt others, or before 1000 videos can be uploaded by a third party creator, only to be suddenly struck after the fact. I also stand by my opinion, that if something was uploaded as royalty free, AND Content ID failed to claim it initially, but then later claims it, then it is a failure on either Youtube's part, or the Rights Holder's part to take action in a timely manner. Youtube could make a simple rule change to the terms of service for Rights Holders using content ID, and would be able to resolve all of this. The following is merely an example of a basic ToS change that could still grant Rights Holders their full legal rights to claim against any content that they feel violates their copyrights, but also takes the burden off third party content creators that upload content containing what was described as royalty free. It places a burden on the Rights Holder, without taking away ANY of their rights. My example ToS change is as follows:

*This is hypothetical, and not real.

"By you (the Rights Holder) agreeing to have Youtube act as a copyright management client, providing it's Content ID services to match Rights Holder submitted audio samples to allow the content ID service to automatically identify uploads that may potentially be in violation of the Rights Holder's copyrights, Rights Holder agrees to granting Youtube a limited license restricted exclusively to past transformative uses of the Rights Holder's Content ID sample, in relation to the descriptor "royalty free", and not to pursue claims against audio content uploaded prior to the sample upload date, wherein the content in question is transformative (i.e. not the original audio composition, presented unaltered, in part or in full, but rather a sampled component of Rights Holder's audio used as a component within another audio composition), and is also not the primary content of the upload (e.g. background music, intros, outros, interludes, timelapses, credit and information scrolls, or montages), and has previously circulated, uncontested by Rights Holder, on Youtube with the descriptor "Royalty Free", or been previously hosted in a curated "royalty free" audio library. Content identified as having been falsely uploaded as "royalty free" will receive an automatic Content ID claim, and will be either delisted or claimed at the Rights Holder's preference. All content creators that used the content in the previously described ways, prior to the date of the Rights Holder's samples addition to the Content ID system, will not receive claims for the use of the content, but will instead receive a notice that the content has now been claimed by the Rights Holder, and that any future use of the content without negotiating a valid license or a monetization split with the Rights Holder will cause an immediate Content ID claim on it and all future submitted content containing Rights Holder's protected content. These requirements are to protect third party content creators who, in good faith, believed they were using royalty free music for their content creation. By using the Content ID service, the Rights Holder grants Youtube a limited license for the claimed content, retroactively applicable to only the limited uses described under the descriptor for the mislabeled "royalty free" content, from Youtube's inception date, and up to, but not past, the moment the new Content ID samples are integrated into the Content ID service. Youtube may also reserve the right to request a valid license from the Rights Holder for content that it seeks to keep in it's curated royalty free audio library, and encourages negotiation between Rights Holders and content creators to establish a valid license or a fair monetization split, should the content creators wish to continue using audio containing Rights Holder's audio samples in the future. Such license exceptions should be integrated into the Content ID database, to eliminate fall claims against content creators who have succeeded in negotiating with Rights Holder for rights to reproduce the protected sample. If Rights Holder wishes to pursue claims against third party content creators over their use of audio previously listed as royalty free on the platform, wherein the Rights Holder made no prior efforts to claim or strike the offending content source (a creator or channel that uploaded the content containing currently claimed audio samples, but listed with the description of "royalty free"), prior to the date of content ID sample submission or prior to manual claims or strikes on third party content creators, then they will be outside the terms of use for engaging in the Content ID program. All claims will be permitted, as they are within the legal rights of the Rights Holder, however employing Youtube's content ID service to search for potential violators that a Rights Holder has simply failed to take notice of, with intent to retroactively claim all misled parties is not a valid use of the content ID system. Choosing to pursue claims against prior third party content creators over uploads containing content that had been labeled "royalty free", wherein you had previously failed to claim the source, is viewed as a refusal to grant Youtube the limited license, as described, and is thus a violation of the content ID system terms of service. Ignoring the source of the falsely claimed "royalty free" audio might also be potentially viewed as a tactic to permit large numbers of violations by unknowing third party content creators to accumulate, over potentially long spans of time, to garner the largest number of claims at a time, maximizing monetization. Employing this tactic is harmful to content creators. It is also harmful to the trust users have in royalty free libraries. Rights Holder is under no obligation to grant Youtube the limited license to protect these third party content creators from mislabeled or misidentified audio, but also indicates a refusal to abide by the terms of the Content ID service, and will result in the Rights Holder being dropped from the content ID program. Rights Holder has the right to continue to manually claim any content that they have a legal claim over, including older content. They will be allowed to reapply to the content ID program after a duration of time equal to the duration of time that has passed between the date of the manual claim or strike against the oldest upload date of a third party content creator's content using claimed content previously mislabeled as "royalty free" (wherein the listed source of the mislabeled audio was left unclaimed during that period of time). Content ID can be reinstated immediately, if all manual claims or strikes against older uploads containing the aforementioned previously unclaimed content (listed as royalty free) are released, and the Rights Holder agrees to grant Youtube the described limited license."

I'm not a legal professional, and obviously, lawyers would have to scrutinize that wall of words for legality, loopholes, validity, etc.

the TL;DR version is this:

• Youtube offers the Content ID service to Rights Holders. It automatically flags content that it detects might contain matches to copyrighted samples that the Rights Holder provides them.
• There are both official and unofficial "royalty free" audio libraries. Third party content creators often use these sources to stay "good" within copyrights.
• Third party content creators have no way of vetting the truthfulness of whether these royalty free sources are truly royalty free... There needs to be a system of trust involved.
• If a Rights Holder wishes to continue taking advantage of Youtube's Content ID service to automatically monitor for copyright violations, rights holders need to agree to new ToS.
• To use Content ID, The Rights Holder agrees to grant Youtube a limited license granting it's third party content creators permission to use transformative forms of that content, but not in the original form, in all video uploaded BEFORE the Rights Holder added a new Content ID sample.
• The Rights Holder is expected to claim the ORIGINAL upload that claims to be royalty free. It is NOT PROTECTED under this ToS change. They can block or monetize that upload as they see fit, or choose to negotiate a license or monetization sharing.
• If audio that claims to be royalty free is claimed by the Rights Holder, then Youtube's Content ID system performs two different behaviors when it flags a third party video that triggers that match:
• If the upload is from before the Content ID sample is added by the Rights Holder, then they receive a notice that the old videos are okay, but the audio is no longer royalty free, and should not be used in future content, or it will be claimed.
• If the upload is after the Content ID sample is added by the Rights Holder, then they receive an automatic claim, and can delete, edit, or replace the content.
• If the Rights Holder chooses to manually claim a third party's content, they are essentially denying Youtube that limited license for past uses, and are thus in violation of the Content ID Rights Holder ToS.
• The Rights Holder has every legal right to pursue all valid claims, but are prohibited from enjoying the benefits of Content ID, if they choose to do so. No rights are taken from them. They are simply denying Youtube the limited rights they requested in exchange for use of the Content ID system. They are kicked off of Content ID by CHOOSING to deny Youtube the requested license, and lawfully pursuing claims to the fullest extent they are allowed, and Youtube will not stop them.
• The Rights Holder is banned from using the Content ID service until they either release ALL claims on old third party content, or the ban duration matches how old the claimed content was, relative to the claim date.
 

That's still a lot, so the TTL;DR version:

For a Rights Holder to participate in using Content ID, Youtube would require Rights Holders to grant a limited license that permits all third party content creators to keep their old content intact and un-claimed if they used audio that was claimed to be "Royalty Free" in the past, even if that content uses samples (but not whole or partial original songs) that the Rights Holder owns. The Rights Holder is expected to claim the source that claims to be "Royalty Free". Old videos that used that audio will be okay (cause the Rights Holder has granted Youtube that limited license), but NOT new videos. The Rights Holder can CHOSE to claim the old videos (they have the legal right), but by doing so, they are denying Youtube the license they request in exchange for use of Content ID, and thus the Rights Holder is kicked off of the Content ID program. They still can make all the claims or strikes they want, but now have to do is ALL MANUALLY, and search for the videos MANUALLY. They can get back onto content ID by letting the claims go, or waiting for their ban to expire.

I think that would be the best solution to this copyright problem. It keeps everything legal, takes no one's rights away, and forces Rights Holders to actually do the work to ensure their content is identified, but doesn't let them abuse third parties who had no way to know, unless the Rights Holder is willing to greatly increase their own workload to pursue it.

Of course, this is all a hypothetical ToS change. I think it'd work. I think demanding a limited license for all content that is sample matched by Content ID, to make a limited subset of older transformative content, offered inauthentically as royalty free to unknowing masses... I think that's a fair solution. It doesn't grant people any rights to post entire songs, or significant portions. It doesn't grant people the right to use commercial music within their video content. It creates a VERY narrow band of permission for old content to remain in existence, for creators to not be suddenly burdened with these mass claims, and rights holders get the automation of Content ID in exchange for the limited license offering, essentially, forgiveness to these unsuspecting third party creators.

Edited December 5, 2019 by richfiles

[Jacke]

And YouTube strikes again.

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgzBKWoc-FI0M4HBsFJ4AaABCQ

Quote

The Mighty Jingles 10 hours ago

So game developer American McGee is getting hit with copyright claims when uploading Let's Play videos of himself playing the game he actually created. Stay classy, YouTube.

And there's this informative comment.

Quote

Morgenergy 9 hours ago

There’s your culprit: Illustrated Sound Music. They’ve been copyright claiming EVERYTHING, a whole variety of content that sometimes doesn’t even feature any music at all! It wouldn’t surprise me if the videos they’ve claimed are in the millions, now. They claimed hundreds on one channel alone which I’m subbed too. Whoever is behind it, they’ve gotta be running some crazy operation.

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Jacke

[Retro Starship]

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

uploading Let's Play videos of himself playing the game he actually created. Stay classy, YouTube.

Wow, now youtube is just throwing darts! They really need better management!

[kerbiloid]

Youtube protects you from yourself.

[Lapis]

You would not want to steal intellectual property from yourself now would you?

15 hours ago, Jacke said:

Morgenergy 9 hours ago

There’s your culprit: Illustrated Sound Music. They’ve been copyright claiming EVERYTHING, a whole variety of content that sometimes doesn’t even feature any music at all! It wouldn’t surprise me if the videos they’ve claimed are in the millions, now. They claimed hundreds on one channel alone which I’m subbed too. Whoever is behind it, they’ve gotta be running some crazy operation.

Honestly it's probably a 10 line python script

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, Saturn5tony said:

Wow, now youtube is just throwing darts! They really need better management!

They need some management. Whatever they have now, is worse than bad management!

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Lapis said:

Honestly it's probably a 10 line python script

That's how AI will rule the world.

[Jacke]

On 12/6/2019 at 10:11 PM, kerbiloid said:

That's how AI will rule the world.

Not without a lot more debugging.

 

Quote

Morgenergy 9 hours ago

There’s your culprit: Illustrated Sound Music. They’ve been copyright claiming EVERYTHING, a whole variety of content that sometimes doesn’t even feature any music at all! It wouldn’t surprise me if the videos they’ve claimed are in the millions, now. They claimed hundreds on one channel alone which I’m subbed too. Whoever is behind it, they’ve gotta be running some crazy operation.

In today's "Mingles with Jingles" video

Spoiler

 

Jingles spent the first part talking about Illustrated Sound Music putting out a lot more copyright claims, including on some of his videos.  On sections of his videos during which there was no music playing.  He had to waste a lot of time filing copyright claims disputes with YouTube.  Illustrated Sound Music made a statement saying a bug in their algorithm had a bug leading to thousands upon thousands of spurious copyright claims.  They promised to relinquish all the false claims, but have not done so with the ones done to Jingles in the last 5 days.

I don't know how this is going to play out, but with all this going on, I think something's going to break.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Jacke

[StrandedonEarth]

23 minutes ago, Jacke said:

a bug in their algorithm had a bug

A bug that had a bug? That is a seriously bugged algorithm. 

One would think there should be some sort of penalty, so companies make sure their algorithms work properly before they turn them loose in such an environment and cause such havoc. 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Jacke said:

Not without a lot more debugging.

Hmmm.... De-what-ing? Click-click - and into production.