YouTube changes it's Community Guidelines strike system

[STEMgrh]

YouTube just announced that they are changing their copyright strike system, but is it better than the old system? I thought that it would be appropriate to post this article, because Linus has, reasonably been so heated over the system.

 

Source:

YouTube creator blog post: https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/02/making-our-strikes-system-clear-and.html

 

Secondary source:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/19/youtube-new-strikes-system/

 

Edit: Sorry for my bad formatting. It is my first time posting a news article.

[givingtnt]

Idk if I would trust The Verge as a reliable source on this thought

Edit : Thanks for the change !

[STEMgrh]

Go to second link to see YouTube’s post

[Rex_G]

I just read official Youtube creator post, Verge is not going to get my click on their website 

[YaBoiWill]

Just now, Rex_G said:

Verge is not going to get my click on their website 

Nope I'm staying away from them. Bastards can rot and slowly die like they should do

[Spotty]

7 minutes ago, STEMgrh said:

Source: The Verge

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/19/18231382/youtube-strike-system-warning-punishment-community-guidelines

Nope

[rcmaehl]

1st strike is guaranteed 1 week upload ban now.

 

OOF

 

Also here's the video since it can be embedded in the forums:
 

 

[poochyena]

Quote

The first strike will result in a one-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube, including live streaming, and other channel activities. Strikes will expire after 90 days.

wow, thats harsh. most strikes happen on accident, its stupid to punish people for it.

[DesolationGod]

seems like youtube still hasn't learned, anything past the warning strike seems more harsh then before....plus no mention on handling situations like the verge abusing the system, any better

[LukeSavenije]

it was needed. hope it's better now, for me, for creators, for youtube, for everyone

[HarryNyquist]

Quote

The first strike will result in a one-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube, including live streaming, and other channel activities.

Good LORD that's harsh. That's way worse than it was. Small Youtubers without an MCN are gonna get fucked by this.

[justpoet]

According to their video, the first one is just a warning, not a freeze, but then all infractions are a freeze.

[Tsuki]

honestly i think this is good.

remember, its for actual strikes, like legal DMCA takedown requests.  not related to the content ID system.

while yes, its more harsh, its also more black and white.  a much clearer line drawn, which is much more important than the severity

 

plus, now you get a warning. which will be enough for most people

[Tech_Dreamer]

at this point any change to it is a welcomed one .

[justpoet]

As a small youtube channel, that used to be monetized before they made it so only larger channels can be, this really doesn't bother me.  I've only had a Content ID hit me once, and it was because part of a song was on a radio in public while I made all the content (filming out in public space), so that claim went away.  Hopefully it removes a bit more of the click bait crap.

 

The concern is that people will get herd mentality stupid and find ways to silence and remove any content they don't agree with.  But, abuse of the prior system was rampant to, so I don't think it'll get worse in that aspect, just different.

[Lathlaer]

12 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

at this point any change to it is a welcomed one

 

13 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

honestly i think this is good.

remember, its for actual strikes, like legal DMCA takedown requests.  not related to the content ID system.

while yes, its more harsh, its also more black and white.  a much clearer line drawn, which is much more important than the severity

 

17 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

it was needed. hope it's better now, for me, for creators, for youtube, for everyone

One of you guys needs to explain how is this addressing the glaring issue of lack of human touch to the strikes. You know, talking about situations where a musician got copyright striked for his own song and whatnot. 

 

I may be missing something but not enough harshness was not the thing people were complaining about when discussing strikes.

[Spotty]

Quote

As mentioned, everyone who uploads content to YouTube will now receive a warning the first time their content crosses the line. Although the content will be removed, there will be no other penalty on the channel. There will be only one warning and unlike strikes, the warning will not reset after 90 days.
 

• The first strike will result in a one-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube, including live streaming, and other channel activities. Strikes will expire after 90 days.
• The second strike in any 90-day period will result in a two-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube.
• The third strike in any 90-day period will result in channel termination.

_{https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/02/making-our-strikes-system-clear-and.html}

 

All this means is you no longer lose your ability to live stream the first time you receive a DMCA copyright notice/takedown notice (not to be confused with Copyright Claim which does not issue a strike). After that it's pretty much the same old system. This is purely just a change to the way punishment is handed out. It appears to me that YouTube is still acting with the approach that anyone who receives a DMCA takedown notice must be guilty of copyright infringement, and that now they're simply being more forgiving when people do break the rules by giving them a one-time warning before issuing community strikes and limiting their features.

Unfortunately this doesn't actually address one of the biggest issues of the system, and that is intentional abuse or misuse of the system. None of these changes will deter someone from intentionally filing a false claim. These changes offer absolutely no changes to the dispute resolution system to allow creators to protect themselves against false or malicious attacks via the copyright strike system, or even just if the creator wants to argue against a copyright notice because they felt that they met the criteria for Fair Use and are thus permitted to use the content in question. There's also no deterrent to prevent people from intentionally making false claims. As an example, these changes do absolutely nothing to prevent what happened between The Verge and Bitwit/ReviewTechUSA.
 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Spotty
structuring, added stuff... x2

[peanuts104]

19 minutes ago, poochyena said:

wow, thats harsh. most strikes happen on accident, its stupid to punish people for it.

I mean that's not necessarily true.  In fact, it's probable that most strikes are in fact legitimate.  The problem is that when they are not legitimate, like in the case with Kyle, there is not much recourse.  Fortunately, he has a big enough channel and the community rallied hard enough (or that the strike was withdrawn by the verge, though I still have doubt about that) that it was reversed quickly. There are smaller channels that these strikes happen to, for either no reason or for illegitimate reasons (like extortion) that this can absolutely cripple.  While it would be very difficult to manually go through all the copyright stricken material, you would think YT would have the man power to at least respond to reasonable protest in a timely manner with an explanation that makes sense. 

[Lathlaer]

8 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Unfortunately this doesn't actually address one of the biggest issues of the system, and that is intentional abuse or misuse of the system. There's no mention of changes to the way disputed notices are reviewed, and no mention of punishing those who repeatedly file false takedown notices. None of these changes will deter someone from intentionally filing a false claim. As an example this does absolutely nothing to prevent what happened between The Verge and Bitwit/ReviewTechUSA, and offers absolutely no changes to the dispute resolution system to allow creators to protect themselves against false or malicious attacks via the copyright strike system.

Not to mention that I bet it would be a PITA to get that never-expiring warning to be removed and saved for a real situation if it turns out that you got it because someone abused the system.

[ZacoAttaco]

But the old system worked so well...

 

\s

[Tech_Dreamer]

7 hours ago, Lathlaer said:

One of you guys needs to explain how is this addressing the glaring issue of lack of human touch to the strikes. You know, talking about situations where a musician got copyright striked for his own song and whatnot. 

 

I may be missing something but not enough harshness was not the thing people were complaining about when discussing strikes.

human touch is good but it's complex & takes a lot of hours to review , content ID is efficient tho bad it gets the job done for literal thousands of videos being uploaded every second & the original creator don't have to wait till his content is unfairly monetized to the max and abused by a "stealing" 3rd party that is unfairly using his work,  then having it go through a lengthy review after it's been abused,  it replaces the headache , but this is a very broad range issue , either ways 100% human intervention system review would most likely end up being too affiliated & influential when it comes to outcome, it's depended on politics mixed in with personal opinions majority of the time, this is not just a single case, it expands into various territories of review,  it can influence outcome in an unfair manner, people will be caught up in content policing excessively rather than being fair,  it'd be a good thing with content ID doing all the heavy lifting for now & later analyzed manually when it is challenged, we've already seen it , we need it to be more efficient.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Unfortunately this doesn't actually address one of the biggest issues of the system, and that is intentional abuse or misuse of the system. 

Nor the issue with timing: as far as I understood from the discussion these days, the 90-day window refers to the strikes, not the dates of the videos. Which means that sweeping through a channel's history may burn the warning and all three strikes at once if a (self-proclaimed) copyright holder suddenly takes issue with a type of content you produce regularly.

[suits]

I think Linus was definitely right. This really does seem like a reaction to the stuff going on in the EU. Their talk about consistency across the platform and such.

[Chett_Manly]

I'm not seeing the part where they ban people/companies from YouTube for filing false claims. 

[Tsuki]

21 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

One of you guys needs to explain how is this addressing the glaring issue of lack of human touch to the strikes. You know, talking about situations where a musician got copyright striked for his own song and whatnot. 

 

I may be missing something but not enough harshness was not the thing people were complaining about when discussing strikes.

You're not wrong. it doesnt address the lack of a human touch.

However, it gives a warning now, so the first strike doesnt even give you a strike instead of shutting you out of your channel.  which should be more than enough in most cases.   

 

its not a perfect system. and its near impossible to get a perfect system, they dont have the manpower. too many requests to be handled by real people.   but its a step in the right direction, which is a good start