YouTube changes it's Community Guidelines strike system

[rcmaehl]

3 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

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

Unfortunately they can't, they have to "timely" reply to all DMCA claims.

[Spotty]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

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.

Yes, AFAIK [uncomfirmed] it would still be possible for an entire YouTube channel to be taken down overnight due to copyright strikes (legitimate or otherwise). YouTube *may* have some sort of fail safe in place to prevent a channel from being nuked overnight, but I'm not sure... I do believe that if a channel is terminated, their content and channel will disappear off the platform, but they do have the option of disputing it with YouTube in which case the channel and content will be restored. I do believe this has happened before where a channel was terminated but later restored by YouTube, but my mind is drawing a blank as to who it happened to...

As for the 90 day period, that is applied to the strikes themselves. You receive a strike and that strike is active on your account for a period of 90 days. After 90 days that strike disappears from your account. If you accumulate a total of 3 strikes on your account your channel will be terminated.

You can issue a DMCA takedown notice on any video, regardless of its age, and doing so will result in the channel receiving a warning or strike. As evidenced by Bitwit/ReviewTechUSA's 5 month old videos being taken down and receiving a strike.

So, in theory, and as far as I'm aware, it's still possible for you to nuke a channel by issuing 3 or 4 of its videos with takedown notices within a time period (90 days).

[SpaceGhostC2C]

17 minutes ago, Spotty said:

 I do believe that if a channel is terminated, their content and channel will disappear off the platform, but they do have the option of disputing it with YouTube in which case the channel and content will be restored. I do believe this has happened before where a channel was terminated but later restored by YouTube, but my mind is drawing a blank as to who it happened to...

I know the "Kings of Influence" podcast channel was terminated last October, overnight, with a generic message about one violation of terms of service or another... Being made by two big youtubers, they got it back up the next day, but as far as I know they never got an explanation of what was supposed to be the problem, just a "sorry, there was a mistake, you are back up" (might be mis-remembering). What I do remember is that they had to leverage their profile to get an answer, I don't think it would have been as easy for two random dudes.

I'm not sure it was copyright related, though.

[Spotty]

25 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

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.   

That still assumes that the person receiving the warning has done something wrong and that they need to learn from their mistakes. It doesn't consider that they may have a valid defence for using copyrighted material, such as Fair Use, or that the entire claim may be entirely false.

What's to stop a scammer from sending out a bunch of fake DMCA notices to random channels and demanding 0.5btc in exchange for retracting the notices? If the creator wants to dispute it, guess who they have to resolve the dispute with... The Scammer - who by the way also gets final say in the matter.
Under these new rules instead of losing their ability to live stream for the first offence the creator gets a warning now... But a warning for what? Being the victim of extortion?

https://www.extremetech.com/internet/284916-scamers-use-youtube-copyright-strikes-in-extortion-scheme

Spoiler

ObbyRaidz is a smaller creator who mostly makes Minecraft videos for his channel. All was well until this month when a company called ViperHCF made copyright claims on two of ObbyRaidz’s videos. Under YouTube’s three-strike system, one more violation would lead Google to disable his account. Copyright strikes expire in a few months, but the scammers are threatening to deliver that all-important third strike unless he plays ball.

The alleged scammer reached out to ObbyRaidz on Twitter and offered to remove the strikes, but not for free. Someone going by “VengefulFlame” claimed to represent ViperHCF, saying they would remove the claims on his videos in exchange for $150 on PayPal or $75 in Bitcoin. The Twitter DM goes on to say that ObbyRaidz would get a third strike if he refused to pay.

He’s filed appeals of the strikes, but they have been automatically denied.


https://www.extremetech.com/internet/284916-scamers-use-youtube-copyright-strikes-in-extortion-scheme

None of the changes YouTube have made address the real, serious issues with the system which leave it open for exploitation and abuse.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

None of the changes YouTube have made address the real, serious issues with the system which leave it open for exploitation and abuse.

 

As has been pointed out recently by a number of people. Content ID and the copyright claim system are two seperate things.

 

Content ID is youtube's system and they have a great deal of leeway in how they run it, (it exists to fulfil certain broad legal requirements, anything that fulfills them will do).

 

The copyright strikes system is a function of DMCA, youtube has zero resource for dealing with blatantly false claims under that system because a copyright strike isn't somthing issued by youtube as such. It's a youtube response to a legal court request. And like any legal court request it's backed by the full force of the law and everything that entails Youtube dosen;t have a choice about removing content that they receive a DMCA over.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

As has been pointed out recently by a number of people. Content ID and the copyright claim system are two seperate things.

Most notably, the person you are quoting 

 

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

The copyright strikes system is a function of DMCA, youtube has zero resource for dealing with blatantly false claims under that system because a copyright strike isn't somthing issued by youtube as such. It's a youtube response to a legal court request. And like any legal court request it's backed by the full force of the law and everything that entails Youtube dosen;t have a choice about removing content that they receive a DMCA over.

Not really. Takedown requests based on DMCA are indeed court-like (with no court involved?) orders, but the 3 strikes system and what each of them entails is on Youtube's hands.

[Teddy07]

I rather upload my videos to d tube instead of youtube. Youtube can destroy your channel at any moment

[Syntaxvgm]

So they added one warning strike. Great. Real good change youtube

Quote

We want to give you even more opportunities to learn about our policies, so starting February 25, all channels will receive a one-time warning the first time they post content that crosses the line, with no penalties to their channel except for the removal of that content. This is to make sure everyone takes the time to learn about our Community Guidelines, and then can quickly get back to creating great content and engaging with their audience in a way that complies with our rules.

 

[yian88]

Same garbage different flavor.

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

YouTube *may* have some sort of fail safe in place to prevent a channel from being nuked overnight

YouTube themselves nuke channels overnight, they prevent others from making it so easy to do that but it definitely happens 

[Stroal]

When can I start uploading my content to float plane, @nickmlg? I'm over YouTube. 

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Unfortunately they can't, they have to "timely" reply to all DMCA claims.

They could block them from uploading anything for a while probably, but don't know how that would turn out...

[mr moose]

It's just a mess and there is no easy answer.   We are all becoming slaves to technology.

 

[LukeSavenije]

2 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.

it's, to take your example thefatrat a system with huge flaws, problems and recently a way too sensetive system. it needed a change. @Tech_Dreamer did a great job on explanation, so I'll leave that to him

[DeScruff]

2 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

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

I be careful saying that kinda thing. Cause...
Wait... Did you hear that?
 

Spoiler

 

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, LukeSavenije said:

it's, to take your example thefatrat a system with huge flaws, problems and recently a way too sensetive system. it needed a change. @Tech_Dreamer did a great job on explanation, so I'll leave that to him

You're talking about content ID, he's talking about a manual strike in that case - a person taking down that guys song and uploading it himself for ad revenue, no support from youtube. Also the original artist was left with a channel strike for getting his song stolen. Whatever changes are made to content ID, even the manual DMCA system is fucked anyway, it's used maliciously. 

[LukeSavenije]

24 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

You're talking about content ID, he's talking about a manual strike in that case - a person taking down that guys song and uploading it himself for ad revenue, no support from youtube. Also the original artist was left with a channel strike for getting his song stolen. Whatever changes are made to content ID, even the manual DMCA system is fucked anyway, it's used maliciously. 

i know, and your explanation is great! it's just to show that the whole system if fucked up. not to show to the content id system or strikes.

[Syntaxvgm]

2 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

i know, and your explanation is great! it's just to show that the whole system if fucked up. not to show to the content id system or strikes.

it's fucked to the level that pretty much anyone to come along and compete with youtube will be forced to do the same bullshit or be legally destroyed. 
The internet will never be as good as it once was 10-12 years ago. 

It's like the equivalent of rigging a shotgun to your front door handle to prevent anyone breaking into your home, fuck all innocents shot. 

[Dash Lambda]

If I understand this correctly, it's not a copyright strike specifically, but rather a community guideline strike given because copyright infringement is against community guidelines?

 

Then how about making it against the community guidelines to make a false claim? That way, if you issue a DMCA takedown request, you open yourself up to a strike on your channel if it's reversed. Not a perfect solution, in fact it wouldn't do much for extortion where it's not actually a big channel that's making the claim, but it would introduce potential consequences in cases like the one between The Verge and Bitwit.

 

Some oversight is also very much warranted. The argument that making it automated is the only way to make it work is generous at best. What they're doing is setting a gun on the ground in a crowded room, putting up a sign with their phone number in case something goes wrong, then walking away and setting their phone on silent. That's not a solution. That's not even an honest attempt at a solution.

[Atmos]

8 hours ago, STEMgrh said:

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.

The update has nothing to do with copyright strikes, only community guideline strikes.

 

Now, while they admitted that people wanted most of all consistent application of strikes to channels and creators that appear to be given a golden pass to break rules, they ultimately have done nothing to address their blatant bias and hypocrisy. While the punishments are lighter now, and they actually will give warnings, this still also does nothing to address the biggest issue with guideline strikes, of a channel receiving multiple strikes in a day from community raids that then get the channel shut down without any chance for the creator to defend themselves and their actions or videos. And considering some of the inane and bullshit rules they have in the CG, it can happen to almost anyone who gets a hate mob sent after them, unless they're one of youtubes golden children who can do no wrong, even if it means filming and uploading mockery of a literal suicide victim's corpse.

[Spotty]

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

As has been pointed out recently by a number of people. Content ID and the copyright claim system are two seperate things.

 

Content ID is youtube's system and they have a great deal of leeway in how they run it, (it exists to fulfil certain broad legal requirements, anything that fulfills them will do).

 

The copyright strikes system is a function of DMCA, youtube has zero resource for dealing with blatantly false claims under that system because a copyright strike isn't somthing issued by youtube as such. It's a youtube response to a legal court request. And like any legal court request it's backed by the full force of the law and everything that entails Youtube dosen;t have a choice about removing content that they receive a DMCA over.

While there are some stark differences between Copyright Claims and DMCA Takedown Notices resulting in Copyright Strikes, there is also a lot of overlap between the two. They both serve the same function and that is to protect against copyright infringement.

You do raise a good point in that YouTube is required to act upon a DMCA takedown notice (and in a timely manner). I'm not necessarily saying there's a problem with the content being removed when a DMCA notice is filed against it; it simply just has to be removed per the law and there's no way around it. The problem is, in my opinion, the dispute process that the creators go through after that content has been removed.

However, YouTube do have the ability to review the DMCA takedown notices it receives and can reverse them if they determine they're invalid. As shown by what happened with Kyle vs Verge... (This was a Copyright Strike scenario, if you are unaware of the situation)
The problem is that it appears YouTube only gets involved if there's community backlash and enough people tweeting about it, so if you're a small channel then you're probably out of luck.

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

The copyright strikes system is a function of DMCA, youtube has zero resource for dealing with blatantly false claims under that system because a copyright strike isn't somthing issued by youtube as such.

You may be confusing Copyright Strike with DMCA Takedown Notice. The takedown notice is a legal notice filed to YouTube stating that a video is infringing on your copyright and you request that the video be removed from the platform. YouTube responds to that notice by removing the content in question in order to comply with the DMCA requirements, and on top of that issuing a Copyright Strike to the creator who uploaded the video in question.
Copyright Strikes are issued by YouTube (albeit automatically in response to a DMCA notice). It's a penalty system designed by YouTube to act as a deterrent as a way of minimising the amount of copyright infringing content on its platform.

Quote

A YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.^[1] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system.^[1] For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process.^[1]YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement.^[1] When a YouTube user has three copyright strikes, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel.
_{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_strike}

 

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

If I understand this correctly, it's not a copyright strike specifically, but rather a community guideline strike given because copyright infringement is against community guidelines?

They're separate (though I think I myself have used the two interchangeably by mistake). You can receive a Community Guidelines Strike for things such as uploading pornography or hate speech. As far as I know you do not receive a community guideline strike when you receive a copyright strike - they're completely independent of each other.

 

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

Then how about making it against the community guidelines to make a false claim? That way, if you issue a DMCA takedown request, you open yourself up to a strike on your channel if it's reversed. Not a perfect solution, in fact it wouldn't do much for extortion where it's not actually a big channel that's making the claim, but it would introduce potential consequences in cases like the one between The Verge and Bitwit.

The issue with this is that not all DMCA notices come from other creators on the platform. They can come from anyone who holds copyright, regardless if they have a presence on the platform or not. So it would be rather pointless issuing any form of strike against someone for filing a false claim or limiting their ability to live stream or upload videos, as this simply won't be a concern for many filing the claims.
The claim against Bitwit which you use as your example was filed by The Verge's parent company, Vox Media. So your proposal wouldn't affect "The Verge" YouTube channel as they were not the ones who filed the claim.

[Spotty]

5 minutes ago, Atmos said:

The update has nothing to do with copyright strikes, only community guideline strikes.

Holy shit, you're absolutely right. I feel like a complete moron for missing that

It's even in the first sentence of their blog post.

Quote

We’re updating the way we give Community Guidelines strikes to a new, simpler system.

[Spotty]

16 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

wait there's a section regarding copyright in that link o_o what's the difference between that and copyright strikes and contentID claims?

I'll try and keep this short and sweet.

• Community Guideline Strikes = Breaking the rules. Uploading offensive content, pornography, hate speech, death threats, etc. Video is most likely removed from the platform.
• Copyright Strike = Penalty received when a video you uploaded receives a DMCA copyright takedown notice from the copyright holder. Video is removed from the platform.
• Copyright Claim = Someone claims that a portion of your video contains copyright content, and they claim the ad revenue on the video. Video stays up on the platform (though may be unavailable in some regions due to various laws as well as exclusivity deals the copyright holder has in those regions). In the case of ContentID, it's an automated process that scans for use of protected content and automatically files the copyright claims when it finds something that matches. No form of strike is issued and no other penalties are imposed other than the loss of ad revenue from that video. If the video was previously not monetised (displaying ads), the claimant can monetise the video (put youtube ads on it).

As far as I'm aware YouTube does not double penalise by issuing both a copyright strike and community guideline strike in the event of copyright infringement. You just get the copyright strike without the community guideline strike. While Copyright Infringement is mentioned in the community guidelines, they enforce it independently through the Copyright Strike system (as far as I'm aware, don't quote me on that).

There's more information in YouTube's copyright page if you are interested. Scroll down and click the Learn About Copyright to bring up the other links.
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/copyright/#support-and-troubleshooting

[suicidalfranco]

still sounds like youtube doesn't give two Fs about their content creators

[Shortbread]

These are changes to Community Guidelines Strikes, and NOT Copyright Strikes. Community guidelines strikes and copyright strikes are completely separate and don't overlap. You DO NOT receive community guidelines strikes for uploading copyright content, and you do not receive copyright strikes for breaking the rules. Community guidelines strikes are for when you break the rules unrelated to uploading copyrighted content. Like uploading a video of a dead body in a forest in Japan, for a totally made up from the top of my head example.

 

They even explain this in the article that was originally linked!:

Quote

It’s worth noting that the new system only applies to YouTube’s community guidelines, which remains a separate system from the company’s copyright strike system. Copyright strikes will continue to be issued when YouTube receives legal requests from rights holders, will not offer a warning strike, and follow the company’s separate penalty system detailed on the copyright strike page. Copyright strikes and community guideline strikes also don’t overlap, so a user with one community guidelines strike and two copyright strikes won’t see their channel closed.

 

Come on guys, please don't spread this kind of misinformation.