That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws.
It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws that could substantially damage our payroll spend"
I don't monetise my videos by default but I've have a few videos where I have had 1-2 minutes of copyrighted music. When that happens they will force monetise the whole video for me and send the money made by it to the music copyright holder (BGM in my case). That seems a bit silly to me.
So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet).
Obviously the best solution would be to burden the copyright owners with prooving that they own certain content. So just DMCA pretty much. The copyright system is just so broken really. It only favors big content owners and middle men.
This whole shitty EU law comes down to this: Old media/distributers were asleep at the wheel for 20 years. Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.
Lol no.
It favors people who create original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Nothing more, nothing less.
It does not favor people who feel entitled to steal others' intellectual property, and/or who try to circumvent protections.
I really enjoy making docudramas and people enjoy what I create enough that they pay for it. That only works because of copyright.
I regularly pay the copyright office a $50 fee to register the works I create that I believe are most likely to be infringed. I also send around a dozen DMCA takedown notices once or twice a week. If not for the DMCA I would be sending cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits. This is way better.
(It should be noted that the DMCA does not take away my right to sue infringers (and win). It simply provides a simple way for me to quickly stop unauthorized distribution of my work, which happens to be what I care about most, as without the ability to control the distribution of my creative work I could not even dream of making a living from it. Without the existence of powerful tools to stop people from simply copying my work I wouldn't be making it. Which would suck.)
> Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.
What do you recommend? Fistfights?
Yeah that's true. I'm saying DMCA is better than ContentID and its ilk.
Let's take a piracy example. I completely agree that DMCA-Takedowns directed at Google should be checked and (if the claim is valid) processed. It gets very problematic when you proactively filter uploads. Uploads should generally be allowed by default.
> What do you recommend? Fistfights?
No. Adapt. I realize this is easier said than done. But any company today has to constantly innovate. Never assume any given business model is save for anything more than short to mid-term. This is easier for tech companies because they breathe this kind of culture. But in the not-so-distant future every company will become more like that, or not exist anymore.
Eh, no. Tech companies have, by and large, just ignored existing legislation thus enabling them to host mountains of content at negligible cost.
They opened the floodgates - they should deal with the water (both that which is original & that which is stolen). They are 100% the cause of this issue and should be 100% of the solution.
If they're not able to do that, then they should get out of the business altogether.
Ignoring laws to lower your costs is not innovative in the slightest. Using the excuse that the internet is a new medium is malarky. Existing rules apply.
Google is not a government service, and YouTube (forget about YouTube-As-You-Want-It) is not a constitutional right.
Have you forgotten that you are talking about an advertising company? That's what Google is.
Don't like the business decisions of a private company? Don't patronize it.
And hey, if you think that you can do better (and that people would give a shit) you can start your competing business. There are many alternatives to every one of Google's business lines, and there are very low barriers to entry.
Fundamentally, though: why are you using a company's product that you dislike so much?
No, this could apply equally to all companies, FaceBook and Twitter for example, or Amazon and their counterfeits. If your platform is too big for you to manage in a way that complies with basic consumer protections, you either need to step up your controls, or shrink your platform.
Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.
> That is changing and it's a terrible trend
I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.
Yes, but how would they do this better than YouTube can? I just feel like it's better to deal with copyright after the fact. A big part of YouTube basically runs on fair use for example. Legislation like article 13 could hurt this doctrine.
> I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.
But, it would affect primarily content creators of any kind. Well, the kind that isn't massive and can enter into sweeping deals with rights holders. This might not mean much to a lot of people. But the whole concept or commentary, reaction, memes, etc. and more broadly still, the internet in general relies on people being able to copy and repost and link stuff quickly and without fuss. You would basically change the internet to be even more corporate (i.e. favor big over small creators) than it is today.
An automated filter is fine as long as mistakes can get arbitrated by a human, so the actual amount of human review required is much lower.
Would it? I feel like it would actually spark innovation in the host-your-own space. Which is closer to the original vision of the internet than submitting your content to a third party host that pre-screens it for approval.
Especially if you consider that the EU already explicitly included a ban of purely automated decisions in the GPDR (though "luckily" that is probably not applicable in the context of Article 13, yet).
YouTube doesn't protest the idea of upload filters. YouTube just doesn't want upload filters to be a thing so much that they might end up being regulated and have legal decisions based around them because that means Content ID will be regulated and have legal decisions based around it.