infinitesoup
Yes it is. YouTube doesn’t magically get to ignore the DMCA, so their process is built around that (along with layering Content ID on top to allow for a middle ground where videos can stay up but redirect some or all monetization to the copyright holder).
If you click through the link I posted above, you’ll get to this page which shows the complete process, including the counter-notification step: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830 Do you have reason to believe 3blue1brown can’t file a counter-notification in this case?
> has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are *repeat infringers*
https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
The differences between these two systems are explained here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106
They do that: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).
As for "people that abuse moderation tools for hateful or trolling purposes": these people won't be given access to the tools. According to the site [0], you only get points and level up for actually flagging things correctly, and you get kicked out if you're abusing it. And the improved flagging tools are only available once you reach a higher level. So it would be pretty hard to abuse (especially since even after all that, there's oversight).
> YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and videos that violate our Community Guidelines are removed from YouTube. Videos that may not be appropriate for all younger audiences are age-restricted.
> Flagged videos are not automatically taken down by the flagging system. If a video doesn't violate our guidelines, no amount of flagging will change that, and the video will stay on the site. [0]
And that documentation is still true for the Hero program:
> As always, the policy team at YouTube makes the final determination of whether content should be removed. [1]
Demonetization happens when a video doesn't meet their "advertiser-friendly" policy, but there is an appeal process where you can have a human look at it to determine if the original assessment was wrong [0]. Do you have data to support your claim that their algorithms are "poorly calibrated"?
Can you provide some examples of "censorship"? They do have policies that things like graphic content or spam is not permitted and will be removed from the site, but I think that's reasonable.
> It seems even the stars of the platform who often share managers and production companies with other stars have difficulty getting in touch with YouTube to resolve issues.
YouTube provides email support with a 1-business day response time to all creators [1], and the bigger channels get their own Partner Managers [2].
[0]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7083671
[1]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3545535?hl=en
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/benefit-levels.html?noap...
"YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and videos that violate our Community Guidelines are removed from YouTube.
...
Flagged videos are not automatically taken down by the flagging system. If a video doesn't violate our guidelines, no amount of flagging will change that, and the video will stay on the site."
Source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802027?hl=en
[0]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3249127?hl=en
YouTube does punishes false claims through their Content ID system, though, as that's a system they control. From their website, "Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."
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.
Do you have evidence to back that up? According to YouTube's Help Center, they do revoke Content ID access from those who abuse the system[0].
It's probably more to ease their own burden. YouTube likely receives a huge number of takedown requests daily, but with Content ID a lot more can be automated. Also, without Content ID, there would probably be a lot more companies just doing poorly-scripted takedown requests, which would make the experience of everyone on YouTube a lot worse. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/absurd-automated-notic...
> I am not sure about the three strikes being a part of DMCA. Are you sure?
The DMCA includes a clause about the termination of "repeat infringers"; I assume that YouTube's strike system is their easy-to-understand-and-apply way of addressing that. From the DMCA:
"The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers"
(source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)
As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?
The "three strikes" system isn't Content ID, that's the DMCA process, which are the laws that YouTube has operate within. One of the great things that about Content ID is that it provides a better appeals system than the DMCA provides, so that things can be fixed before the DMCA process kicks in and the video is taken down.
Content ID is an automated takedown, but if you dispute a content ID claim, then the content owner has to respond with a DMCA takedown request if they want to continue the process.
All other takedowns (including that web form) are DMCA takedowns.
You should be angry at how copyright law works in the U.S., not at the fact that YouTube has to follow it. The way that DMCA works is that when YouTube receives a takedown request, they have to honor it and take down the video as long as the request has all of the required information. Appeals take 10 days, which is also spelled out in the DMCA laws. If they don't follow the the laws, they could lose the safe harbor also provided by DMCA. There's a flowchart here of what the whole process looks like: http://readwrite.com/2012/02/23/how_dmca_takedown_notices_wo...
It's a web form probably to make things easier on their end; they probably get hundreds of thousands [0] of these requests every day, and I can't even imagine trying to process that amount through letter mail or faxes.
And while the web form may look simple, it's still a legal process. You need to sign into your account to use it, and they suggest that they punish people who are abusing the process: "Do not make false claims. Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences." [1]
> YouTube is not an open, or fair platform like it used to strive to be. It is now very much a revenue stream where creators (who bring traffic to the site) are often disregarded and/or considered disposable.
I don't think there's any evidence to back that claim.
[0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121211/16152021352/dmca-...
[1]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en
YouTube presumably has negotiated contracts with the content owners which allow them to stream audiovisual content under a certain set of constraints. Many content owners distribute their content in other ways (e.g., selling music on the iTunes store), so they allow their content for "free" on YouTube only because they know that the audio component will be accompanied by a video of their choice and they will be supported by ads. These content owners wouldn't want YouTube to be used just like an ordinary music streaming service without being compensated properly. In order to hold up their end of the deal, YouTube has to enforce their terms of service, otherwise they risk losing the contracts that they have already negotiated.
If Streamus wanted to keep doing things like they were before these changes, then they would have to go and negotiate contracts with the content owners, just like YouTube had to do. Streamus has to abide by the ToS (which is in turn the terms of the negotiated contracts) if they expect to use the YouTube API.
It also looks like they are planning on releasing some tools to better track how people listen to different artists and songs on YouTube: http://www.billboard.com/articles/events/festivals/6509178/y...
Unfortunately, I don't think that that is feasible for them. Everyone is a potential rights holder, and granting everyone access to that would likely lead to widespread abuse. Individuals would often claim that they own content that they do not (in order to take down or monetize videos). Even with the limited set of groups that can use Content ID, there is still invalid usage - I remember a few years ago seeing a public domain video taken down because a news company had played the public domain video during its broadcast and then had later claimed that it owned that content. Imagine if everyone had the ability to claim that they owned everything and tried to takedown or monetize a lot of things that they don't own.
Instead, I think it's probably better that they limit Content ID to a set of groups that they trust, where they can actually deal with any abuse on a smaller scale.