YouTube has added the ability to give 7 days notice for a DMCA takedown

[Master Disaster]

They're calling it Scheduled Takedown Notices and once a claimant files one the recipient has 7 days to respond before automatically getting a channel strike.

Quote

If a copyright owner identifies that you've posted their copyright-protected work on YouTube without authorisation, they may schedule a takedown request for your video. If the copyright owner issues a delayed copyright takedown request, you'll have seven days before the targeted content is removed.

The recipient has several options, do nothing, delete the offending video or contact the claimant to try to come to an agreement over the dispute.

Quote

During this seven-day period, there are a few different actions that you can take:

• Do nothing. You can wait for the takedown request to take effect in seven days. At that point, the video will be removed and a copyright strike will be applied to your account. A video can receive multiple Content ID claims or takedown requests, but can only receive one copyright strike at a time.
• Delete your video. If you remove your video before seven days are up, your video will be off the site, but your channel won't get a copyright strike.
• Contact the content owner who requested the removal of your video. Learn more about retractions of copyright infringement claims.
• If the delayed takedown request was a result of your appeal of a Content ID claim, you can cancel your appeal within seven days. This prevents the takedown and keeps the claim active on your video. Learn more about disputing a Content ID claim.

If you choose to do nothing and wait then after the 7 days passes the video will be removed and you'll get a strike but at that point normal rules apply and you can file an official counter claim to dispute under fair use or a misidentification.

Quote

After seven days, when YouTube removes the video, your channel will get a copyright strike. Deleting the video at that point will not resolve the strike. Strikes expire after 90 days, but your video won't be reinstated after the strike expires. If it's your first strike, you'll need to complete Copyright School.

 

At this point, you may also choose to submit a counter notification if you believe that your video was mistakenly removed because it was misidentified as infringing, or qualifies as fair use.

Source - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9167045

 

I don't know what to say about this, this seems like a genuinely positive thing from YouTube that will hopefully protect smaller channels from getting strikes unfairly and ultimately keep more people making content for the platform.

 

Did Google finally do something right by YouTube?

[JamesTheFolf]

12 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

They're calling it Scheduled Takedown Notices and once a claimant files one the recipient has 7 days to respond before automatically getting a channel strike.

The recipient has several options, do nothing, delete the offending video or contact the claimant to try to come to an agreement over the dispute.

If you choose to do nothing and wait then after the 7 days passes the video will be removed and you'll get a strike but at that point normal rules apply and you can file an official counter claim to dispute under fair use or a misidentification.

Source - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9167045

 

I don't know what to say about this, this seems like a genuinely positive thing from YouTube that will hopefully protect smaller channels from getting strikes unfairly and ultimately keep more people making content for the platform.

 

Did Google finally do something right by YouTube?

This is such a good thing. I'm glad YouTube is going to protect people from getting strikes without a warning first. Hopefully this will make the YouTube community more positive. However I feel that large companies aren't going to be too happy cause of this.

[small guy64]

So if you delete it and your off scot free? Only to reupload it later? How will they prevent that?

[lewdicrous]

23 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

If it's your first strike, you'll need to complete Copyright School.

Hopefully those who file false claims will need to go through a mandatory copyright course before they get the ability to file another claim.

Edited March 19, 2021 by lewdicrous

[AndreiArgeanu]

Cool, but they added the ability to give a 7 days notice for a take down, but that doesn't mean that a copyright holder has to use it, there's still the option to take the video down and give a strike in an instant(to my knowledge), and chances are, most corporations won't be nice enough to give a 7 day notice. Additionally, the options offered for a scheduled take down don't seem to allow a creator to appeal in case of a take down notice on a video where the content used falls under fair use, the closest thing to it seems to be this

Quote

After submitting a copyright takedown request, a copyright owner may change their mind or realise that they've misidentified content. When this happens, the copyright owner can retract their claim of copyright infringement.

but from the looks of it basically leaves you at the mercy of the copyright holder, which is unlikely to retract a notice, knowing that you probably won't take them to court. So you'll probably have to wait for those 7 days to pass and then appeal?

[trag1c]

I didn't read through the entire thing but at a glance this looks the it the exact same system they have now except you have 7 days before the strike goes through anyways. I fail to see how this is an improvement since it's still up to the copyright troll to remove the claim.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Did Google finally do something right by YouTube?

This implies its their choice. Considering how copyright laws work, i'm shocked they can even go a full 7 days of recognizing copyrighted work on their platform before removing it.

[Arika]

I dont really get the point of this. If it's just an "option" to wait the 7 days, claim trolls and companies with a stick up their ass won't ever select this new option, they will do what they always have and try to get it taken down immediately.

[Mark Kaine]

47 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I dont really get the point of this. If it's just an "option" to wait the 7 days, claim trolls and companies with a stick up their ass won't ever select this new option, they will do what they always have and try to get it taken down immediately.

But this sounds they can't,  they *have* to wait 7 (well 6) days... that's good as it's gives the "copyright strikers" some breathing room to make counter arguments, or, simply delete the "offending" content after 6... days. 

 

This actually goes a bit against the "cancel culture" that Google (and others) created as it gives the victims of so called "trolls" more options. 

Previously they had none, in this specific case, only *after* the fact.

 

 

 

[TetraSky]

Nice thing for creators, to not get a copyright strike right away...
But if this is just a system that goes alongside the regular strike that hits at once, who will use that?
Sure hope their automated system will automatically switch to this.

 

But you need to get the strike, to even be able to argue that it's fair use if they don't want to listen/care? Does the person who issued the strike, still get all your info if you appeal it with them within that 7 days?

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

 

 

I don't know what to say about this, this seems like a genuinely positive thing from YouTube that will hopefully protect smaller channels from getting strikes unfairly and ultimately keep more people making content for the platform.

 

Did Google finally do something right by YouTube?

Nope. First, it's optional for the one filing the manual claim.

 

And second, this easily turns copyright claims into blackmail. While I applaud that this is now at least an option, unless it becomes the default option and "no strikes for CID alone" becomes the norm, it just turns things into more drawn out fights.

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, small guy64 said:

So if you delete it and your off scot free? Only to reupload it later? How will they prevent that?

Presumably that is the expected behavior when someone is uploading something and doesn't know that that 4 second clip smack in the middle of the video triggers a content id claim.

 

The desired outcome is that "legitimate" claims should be licensable, and illegitimate claims should be contested, with illegitimate rights agencies being blocked from making any claims without actually viewing the content in question.

[Master Disaster]

To clear up a few misconceptions/answer a few questions

 

1) You can file a counter however this can only be done after a strike has been issued, this is because DMCA is a legal procedure and the claim must be active before you can counter it. Once the strike has happened normal rules apply.

2) Its unknown how they intend to deal with repeat offenders.

3) Since the option to choose to wait or strike immediately is in the hands of the claimant YouTube has no responsibility in copyrighted content being live for up to 7 days. The copyright owner chose to give the uploader 7 days to resolve the matter.

4) The rumour is that bot strikes will eventually all be converted to 7 day notices with only a human being able to issue an immediate takedown. Its also worth remembering that its in everyones best interest to resolve a DMCA without making it official, if it ends in court a Judge may take into account how flexible both parties were during the proceeding when making a ruling.

5) Given how reliant YouTube is on advertising I'd very much doubt this change hasn't already been vetted by the industry before going live.

 

I agree its not a perfect solution, heck a perfect solution is probably impossible but its MUCH better than the current system.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

A semi-positive potential improvement to a deeply broken system on YouTube? This is one of those either "what's the catch?" or "I'll believe it when I see it" scenarios. 

 

I do need to note that the system probably won't be fixed until someone does the extremely obvious set of "Black Knight" moves on really big livestream or announcement. That'll still be hilarious when it happens.

[Sauron]

17 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Did Google finally do something right by YouTube?

I don't see this making a meaningful difference if you can't counter the claim during the 7 day period

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I don't see this making a meaningful difference if you can't counter the claim during the 7 day period

You can't counter the claim because it technically doesn't exist yet. Its simply a way of them saying "here's a grace period to remove our content without penalty". If you want to argue misidentification or fair use then you can do that as normal after the 7 days or you can message the claimant and explain you have permission.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

A semi-positive potential improvement to a deeply broken system on YouTube? This is one of those either "what's the catch?" or "I'll believe it when I see it" scenarios. 

 

I do need to note that the system probably won't be fixed until someone does the extremely obvious set of "Black Knight" moves on really big livestream or announcement. That'll still be hilarious when it happens.

 

The right way to balance creative interests is to not "automatically" use content ID or DMCA's to weaponize it. That's the entire problem.

 

Phase I

Content ID should go "hey, are you aware that you used (title) in your video?"

 

and you go "yes, this was intentional" or "no, I have never heard of (title)"

 

If you click "yes" it moves to "negotiate a license" phase, and if you click "no", it's kicked back to the "claimant" to match the exact audio/video being claimed.

 

The video is automatically made private until you answer the question. By being honest here, you save yourself from a copyright strike in the first place.

 

Phase II, initial 7 days

"(copyright holder)" wishes to negotiate a license for (your video)

a. Accept this license without conditions (eg split revenue % on this portion of the video, track-only, full-claim, one-time payment)

b. Counter-offer this license (select from "no revenue to be earned on video", "split revenue %", "track only", "full claim in lieu of payment", one-time payment, I already have one/it's PD .)

 

 

If you answered no in Phase I, you also get a third option that expires after 30 days

c. Deny offer (proceed to phase III)

or if the "ip holder" doesn't want you using it at all, proceed to phase III

 

Phase III

For each rights agency/claimant, the video uploader selects:

a) Make video private-only - You will only be able to view this video while logged into this youtube account. No revenue will be generated on it, and nobody else will be able to view it (useful if you just wanted to keep a private video archive, and not deal with this at all.) It can not be made public/unlisted without a license from Phase II. Only one device can view this video at a time.

b) Cut claimed portion from video - the video just jump cuts past the claimed portion

c) Mute claimed portion - the audio or video portion is muted/blanked

d) Block from region - the entire video will be blocked from rights-claimant's region

e) Delete entire video - This deletes this video only, and all claims against it

f) Delete channel - this deletes everything from this channel, and all claims against it.

g) ignore everything - Call the rights owner's bluff and have them send an actual DMCA (and strike your channel)

 

Like ultimately the missing middle every time copyright conflicts come up is the lack of the uploader being able to negotiate a fair license at all. So now there is rampant "rights agency" theft.

 

 

 

And people fighting back. 

 

Like, to the furthest extent possible, when you don't offer people a way to negotiate fairly, they will just go "challenge accepted" and use the weapons being used against them, in the same way.

 

Like there is no way or reason for a video to have multiple claims on the same piece of the video, which is why the entire "ad revenue" aspect of youtube is just death-spiraling the site itself.

 

 

[Sauron]

47 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You can't counter the claim because it technically doesn't exist yet. Its simply a way of them saying "here's a grace period to remove our content without penalty". If you want to argue misidentification or fair use then you can do that as normal after the 7 days or you can message the claimant and explain you have permission.

Yeah, so if the claim is spurious you still can't do anything about it without getting a strike first. I guess a warning is welcome if it's actual illegal content you posted by accident but if it isn't (as is often the case) then it doesn't change anything.

[Lurick]

19 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

Hopefully those who file false claims with need to go through a mandatory copyright course before they get the ability to file another claim.

False claims go brrrrrr

[dalekphalm]

This definitely seems like an improvement.

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yeah, so if the claim is spurious you still can't do anything about it without getting a strike first. I guess a warning is welcome if it's actual illegal content you posted by accident but if it isn't (as is often the case) then it doesn't change anything.

You have the option to negotiate with the claimant. If they're a troll, they're not going to negotiate with you - but if you have a good counter claim you might scare them off.

 

Either way, as pointed out, the reason you can't do a proper counter claim before the strike, is that that is how the system works. You can't counter claim a claim that isn't official yet (and the claim isn't official until the end of the 7 days).

 

Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. But this is heading in the right direction.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You have the option to negotiate with the claimant. If they're a troll, they're not going to negotiate with you - but if you have a good counter claim you might scare them off.

I guess, but until there are real consequences for spurious claims it's inevitable the claimaints will overwhelmingly choose to ignore you, especially if they are a large company that autoclaims hundreds of videos every day and won't bother manually looking into each one. At worst your claim will get reverted later at no cost to you.

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Either way, as pointed out, the reason you can't do a proper counter claim before the strike, is that that is how the system works. You can't counter claim a claim that isn't official yet (and the claim isn't official until the end of the 7 days).

Seems to me they could make the claim official right away but delay the strike and video takedown..?

[Master Disaster]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I guess, but until there are real consequences for spurious claims it's inevitable the claimaints will overwhelmingly choose to ignore you, especially if they are a large company that autoclaims hundreds of videos every day and won't bother manually looking into each one. At worst your claim will get reverted later at no cost to you.

Seems to me they could make the claim official right away but delay the strike and video takedown..?

They can't do that, a DMCA claim is a legal thing, once the claim is made its the same as making a testimony to a court. The entire point of this is to avoid that.

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I guess, but until there are real consequences for spurious claims it's inevitable the claimaints will overwhelmingly choose to ignore you, especially if they are a large company that autoclaims hundreds of videos every day and won't bother manually looking into each one.

I agree - but that's not something YouTube can do. That needs to be legislated at the Government level.

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

At worst your claim will get reverted later at no cost to you.

 

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Seems to me they could make the claim official right away but delay the strike and video takedown..?

They could, maybe - but there are likely strong legal considerations for doing so. I don't think it's as simple as "YouTube could do it this way" - YouTube has to cover their asses and make sure they don't get sued into oblivion or fined by the US Government.

 

Ultimately, most of the problems with the system are problems that YouTube can't change without new law.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

They can't do that, a DMCA claim is a legal thing, once the claim is made its the same as making a testimony to a court. The entire point of this is to avoid that.

 

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I agree - but that's not something YouTube can do. That needs to be legislated at the Government level.

 

They could, maybe - but there are likely strong legal considerations for doing so. I don't think it's as simple as "YouTube could do it this way" - YouTube has to cover their asses and make sure they don't get sued into oblivion or fined by the US Government.

 

Ultimately, most of the problems with the system are problems that YouTube can't change without new law.

It's just really weird to me that youtube can arbitrarily choose to delay the effect of the claim AND arbitrate on whether it's spurious or not after the fact without getting into legal trouble, but they can't delay their in-site reaction once the claim is fully filed... I'm sure most creators wouldn't care about the claim being on record if they could counter-claim it immediately and get to keep their video up in the meantime.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Sauron said:

It's just really weird to me that youtube can arbitrarily choose to delay the effect of the claim

I mean, they're not arbitrarily doing that - they're offering it as a choice when you file your claim.

Just now, Sauron said:

AND arbitrate on whether it's spurious or not after the fact without getting into legal trouble,

Unless there's some law in the DMCA specifically regarding this, they probably CAN get into legal trouble if they make the "wrong" decision, and a claimant decides to take them to court over it.

Just now, Sauron said:

but they can't delay their in-site reaction once the claim is fully filed...

I'm not super well read on this subject, but according to @Master Disaster, they legally cannot do that. Once a claim has been filed, the DMCA requires you to take it down as soon as possible - for YouTube, "as soon as possible" is "immediately" given the way their system works and their capabilities.

Just now, Sauron said:

I'm sure most creators wouldn't care about the claim being on record if they could counter-claim it immediately and get to keep their video up in the meantime.

Maybe so, but that's what the 7-day negotiation period is for. If you cannot negotiate it, it becomes a real DMCA take down request (along with Copyright strike), etc.

 

You're asking for YouTube to change the DMCA. They can't. You should lobby the US Government to make changes.