YouTube reveals millions of videos (<1%) get hit with incorrect copyright claims

[Kisai]

On 12/7/2021 at 8:55 PM, Beskamir said:

This entire problem would go away overnight if falsely claiming someone's video was a punishable offense. Aren't there already laws against falsity, lying, or defamation? Like you're obviously not supposed to lie about evidence in a courtroom so maybe those types of laws should be extended to also include falsely accusing someone of crimes that they obviously did not commit? The guilty until proven innocent model that content claims currently operate under is utterly broken and needs to be changed to be innocent until proven guilty like the rest of the legal system is.

The problem is ContentID is not DMCA.

 

ContentID is supposed to "prevent needless legal process", but it's unfairly tilted in both directions with no middle ground.

 

Let me demonstrate:

Who the f is LatinAutorPerf, and why are they claiming content they do not own. Take a very close look at the name of the song. My assumption it's some fake identity with the intent of doxxing people and stealing revenue made on the video. The actual creator of the song is Jonathan Coulton, and Valve is not mentioned anywhere on the Youtube claim.

 

YouTube then presents this absolutely blatant "You are an idiot" page if you try to dispute it.

 

So let's look at the options presented:

 

"Original Content", this only applies is you use absolutely NOTHING third party, no games, no trailers, no screenshots, no sound bites, etc. This is what you select when you upload videos of your cats and babies.

 

"License", this is the correct option https://store.steampowered.com/video_policy

 

"Copyright Exception" is only valid in the United States https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 , and is dilibertly vauge, but generally the idea is that if you don't rip the heart out of the media use, there is possibly a fair use exception. 

 

"Public Domain" is never the correct option, because the creation of the media and the recording are two separate copyrights. So unless you are producing classical music live, this is not the correct option.

 

Ok. So what happens when you hit the correct option?

 

So what happens when you fill this out? It's sent to the "owner", not YouTube.

 

YouTube makes the assumption that the claimed owner, is the owner, even if they are in fact not. There is no way to see what the "owner" has actually submitted as a ContentID claim. Which is the difference between this, and this:

Notice that for Portal 2, it's Sony ATV Publishing. An actual real company with real lawyers. https://www.sonymusicpub.com/en/services , so if you dispute, the worst that comes out is they say no. If they say no, then cut the thing in question, and everyone's happy. This is why I always upload to Private first, because there's the potential for some copyright troll to claim the video, and I'm going to deny them any money to steal. I would rather cut/mute the portion of the video, then allow a thief to even get 1 cent.

 

But what's the common problem here? There isn't a "ContentID is wrong" option, because that certainly has happened. Especially with the portal 1 claim. And there also isn't a "copyright owner is wrong/fake/fraud" option. With games, if that copyright claim is not from the Game Publisher, or not in the credits of the game as being licensed from a third party, then it's wrong. 

 

YouTube needs a way for copyright owners to submit their own recordings to YouTube and what license they belong under, eg:

a) This track is released to the public domain or cc0, and ContentID claims will only track the use, nothing more.

b) This track is released under a "NC" CC license (which means if it appears in monetized videos, an automatic ContentID claim will be made making it ineligible for monetization, and to request a monetization license thru YouTube. Not just "dispute it")

c) This track is released under a Commercial license (which means if it appears in ANY video, an automatic ContentID claim will be made and point towards this video/auto, with an option for the uploaded video to receive the appropriate sync license thru YouTube automatically.)

d) This track is released under a No-use license. (Which means any use of this video or audio work will be blocked or muted automatically. The copyright holder must make allowance for fair-use, and not revoke previously granted licenses. If a claim is made, the copyright will spell out exactly who owns the copyrighted work, and where it appears in the "source" material. No "rights agency" bulk nonsense.) 

e) This track is released under "Limited No-claim" license. This is where game, tv show, and film music belongs. What is expected here is that if the video is about or has sampled X media from where the music or video came from, then no claim will be made, and the copyright holder will be permitted to track the use, not monetize it. If however someone just uploads the soundtrack CD to YouTube, then yes it will get claimed or even taken down. So people playing Nintendo games don't get claims from Nintendo, but do get claimed for playing the Nintendo soundtrack on non-Nintendo properties. (eg playing Mario music while playing Diablo.)

f) This track is a cover or reproduction using no pre-recorded music, and only exact matches to this track can be ContentID tracked. ContentID claims can not be made automatically.

 

The problem with music in general is that music has two or more licenses in order to use it, and simply having the right to the music recording is not enough to use it with a visual work.  Why this bizarre carveout exists at all, goes back to "piano roll" recordings, from a time before it was possible to record the actual "sound".  A Piano Roll, is essentially the same as a midi file or sheet music. As long as you make the recording yourself, you only really only need the license to the music instructions. This is why "cover" music is such a thing. And it's those "covers" that generate the vast majority of "wrong" contentID claims.

 

One of the early claims I "won" was disputing the use of the "ghostbusters" theme from a PC video game, because the claim came from one of these screwy cover-music-only compilations. The game produced music via midi. When I came back and played the game again, I got a different claim.

Now, I don't know who these non-english companies are, and I don't care, I saw the Sony ATV and was like "that's close enough to correct to me" and just didn't bother with a dispute. Chances are the music company doesn't even know this licensed game exists.

 

 

[Kilrah]

Ridiculous that it takes that long and has to become that big before anything is done, but at least some are getting sued for the abuse...

 

 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Ridiculous that it takes that long and has to become that big before anything is done, but at least some are getting sued for the abuse...

 

 

I mentioned this already in the 5th post in this thread.

 

I hope there's more ContentID scammers having the book thrown at them, but Youtube just lacks any way to report this fraud.