YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.

Related Tom Scott video [VIDEO] tl;dr ContentID is a workaround for a broken copyright system. It's not perfect, but it's better for everyone than falling back to the default of copyright through court.

> many unintuitive parts I think a more concrete term for unintuitive is outdated. The use cases for Copyright law were defined a century ago when society and technology was different. It is difficult for current citizens to understand copyright law because has nothing to do with their own day to day experiences and needs. Great video about Copyright by Tom Scott: [VIDEO] Too long didn't see: Copyright is broken needs to be fixed in a way that fits the current situation and needs, but, it is going to be damn hard to do.

Relevant - Tom Scott explains the copyright situation and YouTube's Content ID: [VIDEO] (42 minutes)

Yes but an imitation is not necessary and usually a parody. There is a good Tom Scott's video about this distinction and other common misconceptions about copyright: [VIDEO] (42 interesting minutes)

> youtube algo's screwing up content creator A slightly different problem, but Tom Scott did an excellent video on the automation of the copyright system on YouTube: [VIDEO] In summary, auto copyright checking solves Most copyright issues, to a degree that no other solution can really provide. And while there are a small (yet very unfair) number of false positives, the benefit that the system as a whole allows far outpaces that downtrend: for YouTube to exist! With regards to fact checking, I'd be more interested to hear how many people who read those kind of "fact flags" actually change their opinion in an easy case (flat earth, climate change, etc.). Honestly, the problem of "true truth" might never be solved, but so will the cause of incompetence never disappear.

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is. [VIDEO] Edit: Oh someone already posted it here, sorry.

according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case? [1] [VIDEO]

Absolutely, especially with all the mess on Twitch recently, and with Youtube for the past few years, it's very clear that DMCA needs to be updated. I do like Tom Scott's comprehensive video on the subject [VIDEO]

[VIDEO] Tom Scott explains the situation and the solution best. Just shorten copyright to 20 years (instead of life + 70 years). .......that said, we did just strong-arm the world into matching US copyright law and I’m not sure we could do that now even if we wanted to.

A really great video (if you're willing to spend the better part of an hour watching it) about this is YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.[1] by Tom Scott. [1] [VIDEO]

I recommended checking out Tom Scott’s video on DMCA (0). It’s 40 minutes long and rather YouTube centric however it paints a very clear picture as to why these companies are engaging in a seemingly broken practice. It’s not because they want to, it’s because they are legally required to do so. (0) - [VIDEO]

I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." [VIDEO] While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems with Youtube specific problems. Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.

That is absolutely the battle YouTube fought that lead to Content ID and the claims system that doesn’t have the leniency you wish that it did. It’s not even ambiguous; this is the system that we got. In fact, the system actually improved vastly since it was initially implemented. Really. It was all a direct reaction to the lawsuits: [LINK] When I say it has improved, I mean it genuinely has. Back in 2008 the usual outcome of copyright strikes were deleted videos and deleted channels. Copyright cartels monetizing videos they didn’t make due to dubious Content ID matches may seem like an unreasonable response, but it is still a better compromise than content flying down blackholes. And yes. It would be great if all of these problems could just be solved. I’m sure they’ve heard every idea imaginable. There is no one obvious way to solve everything. So asking “why don’t they just do this?” is not productive. What we could ask is “how did we get here?” And the answer to that is that copyright is broken. And if we could fix that, or at least make it less broken, some of these problems would literally disappear. And if you don’t believe me, there’s tons of backup from people more persuasive who have perspectives of being in the direct line of fire. Like Tom Scott: [VIDEO] And yeah YouTube could do better, but all too often you get the perspective that this is all their fault because they could solve it with one easy trick. It’s easy to say that when none of the competition managed

The remedy isn’t (currently) to punish the issuer. It’s to file a counter notice. I’ve been through this process against Meta. It sucked, and killed my project’s early momentum. But it was restored within a week or two after we filed. It may seem like this system isn’t fair. It certainly isn’t. But it’s the best we have, because the system was not designed for the modern era. [VIDEO] It’s lucky we even have a recourse like filing a counter notice. I’ve wanted to make a non profit that offers up counter notices as a service. Basically, let people donate, and whenever someone’s project (like this unfortunate web browser) gets issued a DMCA claim, they’d be able to get a counter notice drafted and filed. It’s not cheap to hire a lawyer to do it, but you pretty much have to, which was the most unfair part. The companies filing the takedowns have lots of resources, but the targets often have substantially none. That idea is probably too much work, but someone should do it. We need an organization to go to bat for creators. Or at least an organization that gives the creator enough legal rope to hang themselves if the entity making the claim decides to file a lawsuit, which is sometimes a real possibility. But the creator should get to decide whether to take on that risk without having to pay thousands of dollars first.

I'm not a lawyer, and most of my knowledge of copyright law comes from Tom Scott's video on the subject [1], but it's worth noting that it's not universally agreed on that Weird Al's parodies fall under fair use. Again, I am not a lawyer, at best I'm a novice when it comes to copyright law, but what I do know, I agree with what Tom says: I wouldn't expect Weird Al to win if he was taken to court (if he didn't ask permission). [1] [VIDEO]

The copyright system has been broken for a long time. AI is just making the system’s inadequacy more obvious. Just look at YouTube copyright strike and understand how screwed up the enforcement of a law like this is going to be. Tom Scott did a piece on it that’s worth watching: [VIDEO]

Copyright law in general, including online-oriented parts such as DMCA 512 (17 U.S. Code § 512 [1])), needs meaningful penalties for false copyright infringement claims (including automated mass reports with negligent/no human review) that are no more than one magnitude smaller than what would be the corresponding penalties for infringement. (Equal magnitude might intimidate too many lower-wealth authors from filing rightful infringement suits.) Currently, successfully fighting an infringement lawsuit with a fair use defense will still ruin you because of the attorney fees and court fees. A DMCA infringement notice requires only good faith from the rightsholder even if the claim turns out to be patently false, yet someone filing a counter notice against a false infringement claim does so under penalty of perjury [2]. Meanwhile, the current safe harbor standard requires service providers with user-uploaded content to remove material as soon as possible solely based on a claim of infringement with respect to that material [1]: > upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. Again, these infringement notices can be automated or BS [3] (whether intentional or not), but the service provider has to comply to avoid third-party liability. The obvious result is overblocking. The safe harbor standard should be modi

> I vaguely remember Tom Scott saying something similar as an example of the one time he used a small claims court? Tom Scott said two things about himself in YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is. [0] 1. "A TV channel from Thailand took one of my videos, played it out without permission in one of their big television shows, and then put that entire television show into Content ID. I got a Content ID hit on my original video from them, and that took a long time to sort out." 2. "The UK has [...] the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court [1][...] and that court has a small claims track. If you're an individual photographer or video maker, you can [...] issue a claim as a "litigant in person", which is the fancy British term for "without a lawyer". I've done it, because a major company ripped off one of my videos. [...] And there I was, walking in, no lawyer, thinking I had a case, thinking I had a grip on reality. Statistically, the odds weren't in my favour, but I filed successfully. And the company settled with me, they paid me to drop the claim, because they were in the wrong, and they knew they were in the wrong, and they knew I could actually get it to a judge in exchange for a bit of work and a court fee of just over £100." He did not say these two incidents were related. He did not say he used a court to resolve a Content ID claim. [0] [VIDEO] [1] [LINK]

Always has been. Tom Scott did a great video on copyright [1] - it's long overdue to revamp. 1 - [VIDEO]

Now you've got me doubting myself. It was covered in a Tom Scott video. I'll have a look for it. [VIDEO]