Improving Content ID for creators - AKA YouTube actually doing something about DMCA abuse for once. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]At YouTube, one of our core values is a belief in the freedom of opportunity. We believe anyone should have the opportunity to earn money from the videos they create and turn their channels into successful businesses. That’s why we opened up the YouTube Partner Program nine years ago and why we remain the only platform where anyone with an idea and a camera can turn their videos into full time jobs. We understand just how important revenue is to our creator community, and we’ve been[URL="https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/x3aGmn_MsqI"]listening [/URL]closely to concerns about the loss of monetization during the Content ID dispute process. Currently videos that are claimed and disputed don’t earn revenue for anyone, which is an especially frustrating experience for creators if that claim ends up being incorrect while a video racks up views in its first few days. Today, we’re announcing a major step to help fix that frustrating experience. We’re developing a new solution that will allow videos to earn revenue [I]while a Content ID claim is being disputed. Here’s how it will work: when both a creator and someone making a claim choose to monetize a video, we will continue to run ads on that video and hold the resulting revenue separately. Once the Content ID claim or dispute is resolved, we’ll pay out that revenue to the appropriate party.[/I][/QUOTE] [URL]http://youtubecreator.blogspot.com/2016/04/improving-content-id-for-creators.html[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/GradeAUnderA/status/725736442320801792[/media]

Finally something is being done. Glad to see they're taking steps in the right direction.

Finally. I mean it still sucks that literally anyone can put out a claim against a video, but I'm hoping this means they'll be a lot faster at resolving these things so they can disperse the money appropriately. Youtube still has a lot of shit to improve on, but if they're making a first step then I'm hoping they'll keep going.

[T]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EWqRA5B2drY/VyEFFQlPzPI/AAAAAAAABv4/va3tibyiI04Q9WS_c1scZlGiwnUYmSReQCLcB/s1600/MonetizationDuringDispute%2B-%2BFinal%2Bcopy.png[/T] Well, its something.

Not sure why it took them this long to figure out. I mean, it seems kind of intuitive to me to simply escrow the money until the dispute is resolved and it can be paid out to whichever party is in the right.

Could they do something about people taking down videos critical of them for no legitimate reason? Or is that too much to ask?

Finally we're doing away with that guilty until proven innocent bullshit. Still have to fix the part with companies removing videos that clearly fall under fair use, but still, baby steps

Maybe they could actually hire some employees to deal with this stuff

It's fucking great, compared to the old system, and you won't be getting anything better until we get rid of broken copyrights.

I'm still of the opinion this doesn't actually [b]solve[/b] anything, though. The major problem with YouTube's claims system is that it immediately assumes the accuser is correct and the accused is in the wrong. It is a "guilty until proven innocent" system. I feel that the burden of proof should be on the accuser: if you make a claim against a video, [b]you[/b] have to go through a process making the argument that the video is infringing on your rights and should be flagged. Right now, the [B]accused[/B] has to go through a process making the argument that the video is [b]not[/b] infringing on the accuser's rights, which I feel to be backwards. Of course, I don't expect YouTube to ever do this. They'll surely upset some of their corporate bed-buddies by not giving them instant gratification and complete authority, and God forbid YouTube lose a few of those dolla dolla billz, ya'll.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;50219399]I'm still of the opinion this doesn't actually [b]solve[/b] anything, though. The major problem with YouTube's claims system is that it immediately assumes the accuser is correct and the accused is in the wrong. It is a "guilty until proven innocent" system. I feel that the burden of proof should be on the accuser: if you make a claim against a video, [b]you[/b] have to go through a process making the argument that the video is infringing on your rights and should be flagged. Right now, the [B]accused[/B] has to go through a process making the argument that the video is [b]not[/b] infringing on the accuser's rights, which I feel to be backwards. Of course, I don't expect YouTube to ever do this. They'll surely upset some of their corporate bed-buddies by not giving them instant gratification and complete authority, and God forbid YouTube lose a few of those dolla dolla billz, ya'll.[/QUOTE] Except now, assuming the claim is invalid, once its resolved the content creator gets the money that the video made while it was in dispute. Its not perfect, but its a start.

[QUOTE=Makzu;50219372][T]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EWqRA5B2drY/VyEFFQlPzPI/AAAAAAAABv4/va3tibyiI04Q9WS_c1scZlGiwnUYmSReQCLcB/s1600/MonetizationDuringDispute%2B-%2BFinal%2Bcopy.png[/T] Well, its something.[/QUOTE] "money will be paid to 3rd party unless creator disputes the claim" so the company that places a claim still takes all the cash until the creator files the claim? that means creators need to jump on this shit FAST. I hope youtube gives the creator a window of time to dispute the claim before money is sent to the 3rd party.

[QUOTE=meppers;50219540]"money will be paid to 3rd party unless creator disputes the claim" so the company that places a claim still takes all the cash until the creator files the claim? that means creators need to jump on this shit FAST. I hope youtube gives the creator a window of time to dispute the claim before money is sent to the 3rd party.[/QUOTE] yeah that's my problem with it too, it's still fully abuseable in that people can file claims to skim some cash off the top. If the creator doesn't catch the notice for whatever reason it could be siphoned off indefinitely

[QUOTE=dai;50219662]yeah that's my problem with it too, it's still fully abuseable in that people can file claims to skim some cash off the top. If the creator doesn't catch the notice for whatever reason it could be siphoned off indefinitely[/QUOTE] It would be pretty easy to fix it with a "if the owner of the video doesn't dispute the claim for a month" or some timeframe where the money gets held until step 2 (of the new system).

I want to see people being punished for abusing the system this way content ID trolls get fucked

[QUOTE=Makzu;50219372][T]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EWqRA5B2drY/VyEFFQlPzPI/AAAAAAAABv4/va3tibyiI04Q9WS_c1scZlGiwnUYmSReQCLcB/s1600/MonetizationDuringDispute%2B-%2BFinal%2Bcopy.png[/T] Well, its something.[/QUOTE] Oh, Neat. Now instead someone can just dispute and prevent you from earning income during the lawsuit and meaning you can't pay those legal bills.

[QUOTE=Passing;50219822]Oh, Neat. Now instead someone can just dispute and prevent you from earning income during the lawsuit and meaning you can't pay those legal bills.[/QUOTE] Care to share the numbers on how many DMCA disputes go to court?

This does nothing to stop DMCA abuse. What was news to me was the fact that YouTube had not already escrowed the funds while the dispute was being resolved.

People can still abuse the report system either by impersonation or having a lot of people spam it. It's a start, at least.

Isn't the 'guilty until proven innocent' aspect largely a consequence of how the DMCA works rather than something YouTube came up with?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50219846]Care to share the numbers on how many DMCA disputes go to court?[/QUOTE] I don't know, All i'm saying is the process stops you from earning an income on your videos. Legal fee's, Living, Paying off a car loan.

A good 7/10 claims against my videos are mis ID's by the system itself. I'm not signed up to make money, but it's still an inconvenience to deal with it.

And here I was thinking they were going to keep dragging their feet on the matter for the benefit of corporations, secure in their dominant market position guaranteeing that there aren't really viable alternatives for people to bugger off to. It's not particularly great still, but it's a start.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50219939]Isn't the 'guilty until proven innocent' aspect largely a consequence of how the DMCA works rather than something YouTube came up with?[/QUOTE] Thing is though, as far as I'm aware, youtube Content Claims aren't ACTUAL DMCA Takedown claims, they're different.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;50220064]Thing is though, as far as I'm aware, youtube Content Claims aren't ACTUAL DMCA Takedown claims, they're different.[/QUOTE] Yeah but there's always the DMCA option though, so couldn't YouTube make a big fair dispute resolution system but it could just be subverted by issuing a DMCA takedown instead?

[QUOTE=smurfy;50220314]Yeah but there's always the DMCA option though, so couldn't YouTube make a big fair dispute resolution system but it could just be subverted by issuing a DMCA takedown instead?[/QUOTE] A standard, mail DMCA would also require the content hosting (Youtube) to contact the infringer after making the video unavailable, and then wait for a counter-notification, and all that. Their system is pretty close to the real thing, just streamlined.

I'm not sure if ya'll are confused or something, but this has nothing to do with DMCA. This is the automatic content flagging system that YouTube has, that detects content in your video and matches it up with the original content creator. If someone files a claim on your video, it's getting taken down, not being content matched. After that claim process is done, DMCA comes into play. But that entire process is separate from Content ID.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50220314]Yeah but there's always the DMCA option though, so couldn't YouTube make a big fair dispute resolution system but it could just be subverted by issuing a DMCA takedown instead?[/QUOTE] And if a company filed a DMCA claim you can ignore it, and if you ignore it and they take you to court over it and your work is protected by fair use the company is charged with perjury for intentionally filing a false claim.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;50219399]I'm still of the opinion this doesn't actually [b]solve[/b] anything, though. The major problem with YouTube's claims system is that it immediately assumes the accuser is correct and the accused is in the wrong. It is a "guilty until proven innocent" system. I feel that the burden of proof should be on the accuser: if you make a claim against a video, [b]you[/b] have to go through a process making the argument that the video is infringing on your rights and should be flagged. Right now, the [B]accused[/B] has to go through a process making the argument that the video is [b]not[/b] infringing on the accuser's rights, which I feel to be backwards. Of course, I don't expect YouTube to ever do this. They'll surely upset some of their corporate bed-buddies by not giving them instant gratification and complete authority, and God forbid YouTube lose a few of those dolla dolla billz, ya'll.[/QUOTE] That's how DMCA works though, it was never written to account for bogus claims because it's a useless outdated law from the time when games were sold on a stack of CDs

Well good news in regards to this as well.[video=youtube;oYWNtkls2Jw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYWNtkls2Jw[/video]