The real question is how would a competitor deal with the immense pressure from the music and film industry bodies? I mean, YouTube has nothing to gain from making life difficult for content creators - they are acting in this way because they have essentially been compelled to. If a competitor became popular enough, the same thing would happen.

For one thing they could require people to submit real DMCA notices. YouTube's system isn't DMCA-based, and as much as I dislike the DMCA, it still provides greater protections than YouTube's system does.

That's how bad YouTube's draconian copyright system is, the DMCA is an "upgrade."

Note that if 'real' DMCA notices were to be the norm, then YouTube, by law, would be unable to give back access to materials before 10 business days expired, and only after receiving a valid DMCA counter-notice[0].

Compare this to the current system where they actually have the ability to evaluate the content ID notice independently and then make adjustments. They may not always use that ability, but at least they have it. With DMCA, their hands are tied.

Specifically, 17 US code 512 (g)(2)(C) (emphasis mine):

"(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network."

That's two full weeks (not including weekends and holidays), where even if the DMCA is clearly bogus, they have no choice but to keep the content offline if they want to keep their safe harbour status.

So it may not be the best system, but the DMCA isn't either.

[0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 section (g)

That's not quite true. YouTube does have to follow the DMCA as required by law, and so they do so accordingly.

They also have a separate automated system ("Content ID"), which can automatically block videos or put ads on them and pay the content owner (the latter being a unique feature not possible with just the DMCA), and because it's controlled by YouTube and is more flexible than the law, it provides a generally better experience to the uploader compared to getting a DMCA takedown notice.

If an uploader gets a Content ID claim, then they can dispute it, and if the person making that claim is forced to file a regular DMCA takedown if they want the video to be taken down. Content ID is just the initial step in some cases, but at any point in the process, the DMCA takedown process can be invoked.

> If an uploader gets a Content ID claim, then they can dispute it, and if the person making that claim is forced to file a regular DMCA takedown if they want the video to be taken down.

I don't believe that's true. The claimant can merely tell YouTube, "no, my claim is legit" and YouTube trusts them implicitly without requiring a DMCA notice. While the claimant could produce a DMCA notice at any point, ContentID doesn't require them to to knock the video offline.

After the uploader disputes an automated claim, the claimant can uphold it as you described, but the user then has the option to appeal that claim. The only way to settle that appeal is for the claimant to either drop the claim or at that point file a DMCA takedown. That's the process I was describing. YouTube has information on the process here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en (look under "What happens after I appeal?")

Agreed, not to mention that to fight any notice in YouTube, you have limited options - as in, you are presented with a form that has radio buttons, of which none of the responses are 'this claim is without merit'.

I've had to battle YT multiple times over music or content which I owned the rights to. In many cases, I was the creator of the content in question.

I just looked on some of the claims I've gotten on my own videos, an one of the options for a dispute is "The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.", which I think sums up the problem you were facing.

It's not to do with what the other options are though, the issue is that they have been forced to operate in the way they currently are. Commercially speaking the benefits to making the system fairer to creators are clear for YouTube - I am sure they are aware of just how unpopular their current systems are.

No, they are not. In fact they are aggressively defending themselves against the music industry (big-time manager Irving Azoff wrote and open letter yesterday) and claiming everything they do is awesome. Azoff points out their approach is actually more of a strong-arm tactic and, in some respects, an abuse of the DMCA, which YouTube chooses to simply shrug off. It's a contentious issue but making it sound like "poor little ol' YouTube is getting bullied!" is simply wrong, as they have serious profit motive to keep their questionable approach going as long as possible.

how does something like that scale to the size of youtube?

It doesn't, not without lots of labor, and that's sort of the crux of the issue...

A YouTube replacement will be better in this respect only as long as they remain small and under the radar of the movie/record industry. :/

At some point, Google might have to hire (gasp!) actual human beings to provide customer support, instead of just relying on their crappy unfriendly automated systems.

> I mean, YouTube has nothing to gain from making life difficult for content creators - they are acting in this way because they have essentially been compelled to.

To be fair to YouTube, their ContentID system is better now than when it was launched. (Now it'll actually tell you where in the video the infringing content supposedly is, and allow you to do automatic audio-replacement in some cases.) And to be fair, they've finally implemented an escrow system that can help for some false ContentID strikes.

But they've still taken no action I can see to reduce the number of fraudulent ContentID strikes. Creators have a "three strikes, you're out" system; ContentID claimants seem to be able to push out millions of false claims with absolutely no response from Google.

If I'm liable to lose access to my account for using someone else copyright without permission, than I see no reason a ContentID claimant should get off scot-free for claiming someone else's copyright (or a public domain work) without permission.

If there was some enforcement of that in place, I'd call the system "fair". As-is, it's grossly unfair.

But even if you kicked them out of ContentID, they'd still be able to send regular DMCA takedown requests, and as far as I know there's no provision that allows Google to ignore those from "problematic claimants".

At least forcing DMCA requests would make it a crime of perjury. Right now, a false ContentID claim is no crime and carries no penalty.

Yes, but nobody ever was convicted of perjury for sending fake DMCA takedown requests, despite evidence of companies using dumb scrapers that auto-send takedowns for anything with the same name as their work, so does it really count as a deterrent?

I don't know. I'd like to see them try it, because screw ContentID scammers.

I'm sure it would scare at least some percentage of them away.

How about by operating in a "fuck you" jurisdiction like Russia (they have really fast internet, rutracker.org users all know this), or Belize (where Redfox is HQ'd, because a WTO dispute settlement over the US blocking online gambling allowed Belize to violate US copyrights without consequence).

If YT was still an independent company, that might work (though they'd probably get blocked along with other "pirate" sites), but as a part of Google, that's simply infeasible.

It seems like the fair way to handle it is to have (small) monetary repercussions on false accusations, and on violations. If you post copyrighted material, you pay the cost of a (human) identification. If you accuse someone of copyright which is legitimate, you pay for the accusation. Algorithms should be targeting scanners, not judge & executioner.

Don't worry, once those other services become popular enough they'll also be subject to a "bonkers copyright complaints system".

What if they're in another part of the world? This sort of copyright abuse makes me think that a video hosting system based in China or Russia could do pretty well here. Kind of like how the Pirate Bay keeps coming back, or how the likes of SciHub seem prepared for any of their domains being lost/hosting wrecked by journal publishers.

The MPAA and RIAA observe no borders. The Pirate Bay may keep popping up, but the founders have all paid a big price courtesy of these 2 organizations.

What about with people from those regions? Most problems with the Pirate Bay involved the founders being in countries friendly to the US, and a lot of problems with other shut down sites like Silk Road had the founders in the US itself.

Imagine if something from the government regime in those countries sponsored such a site. Would the US be willing to get in a massive geopolitical argument with Russia or China over some copyright disputes?

A video service hosted in Russia or China would have it's own problems. No freedom of the press in either country, and lots of issues with free speech. Any video critical of Putin or Xi Jinping would likely be taken down. Hard to operate a service with that kind of restriction.

Serious question: Why? Google might be subject to pressure since they also sell licensed media on the side, but what's to stop an independent from saying something along the lines of

"We're the host here, we're subject to DMCA safe harbor, either file a proper claim (to be evaluated by our counsel to avoid bogus complaints from a Mr. Russel, first name Jimmy) or get lost."

Even with the 10 days wait and counter-notice, this is strictly better than the nonsense system Youtube uses where people can have their content pulled down by trolls with no consequences.

Why couldn't a troll issue a "proper" (if fraudulent) DMCA request claiming to represent the copyright holder? It's just copying a template, filling in the blanks and sending the email.

Google, on the other hand, can't deny the takedown as long as all the requirements are met (AFAIK, IANAL), and besides, good luck paying for enough lawyer time when you're getting hundreds or thousands of requests per day.

Not sure but DMCA seems to affect many obscure download websites that have no part in licensed media sales.