Google: That Thing We Said About Manually Reviewing Borderline YouTube Takedowns? We Didn't Mean It That Way

from the ooops dept

Earlier this week, YouTube made some news for changing the way its ContentID program works, including improving the appeals process. Among the improvements was one in which more "borderline" cases that ContentID matched, but without as high confidence that it was definitely infringing, would go through a slightly different process:
“We’ve improved the algorithms that identify potentially invalid claims. We stop these claims from automatically affecting user videos and place them in a queue to be manually reviewed.”
I, and many others, believed this meant that Google would have people manually review those borderline cases. Some people in our comments even interpreted this to be an admission that Google could pre-check videos for infringement -- a mathematical impossibility. However, Google has since clarified the statement to note that it wouldn't be Google doing the manual review.
But what he meant to say was that some of the automatic matches will be sent to be reviewed “by the content owner” — not by Google
Of course, we've seen content owners have little qualms about overclaiming their rights at times, but perhaps this isn't a terrible idea. One of the real problems with ContentID was that it does these blocks completely automatically -- meaning that they could even be against the copyright holder's own real wishes. Pushing borderline cases to content holders to manually review is a step in the right direction, though still one that is likely to be abused.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 1:40pm

    From context within the announcement, that's exactly what I thought they meant.

    I'm still happy that the presumptive rights-holders will be subject to rules for DMCA perjury. I'm almost as happy about that as I am angry that no one will ever face any real consequences for filing a false DMCA claim.

    (I used "presumptive" as a compromise from my initial choice of "alleged". Trolls are free to replace that word with "poor besieged" if it makes them feel better.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

    If lying about it was perjury, it would make an excellent step. If you're willing to perjure yourself to be an asshole, you get what you deserve, and an incentive for the manual reviewers to get it right. Sadly, without a serious legal reprucussion, this is just a tool of abuse :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lennart Regebro, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

    From my experience of this (with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY-AS5wlfwc ) I don't think the content "owner" reviews it manually even if you dispute it. They just claim they have copyright anyway. There is no drawback to it for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    By the content owners yes that's smart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Corby (profile), Oct 5th, 2012 @ 2:50pm

    ""But what he meant to say was that some of the automatic matches will be sent to be reviewed “by the content owner” — not by Google""

    And what is to stop this so called "the content owner" lying with stating that the copyright belongs to them when it doesn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 3:22pm

      Re:

      Nothing, but the important thing about it is that Google will not have to decide a case like a judge. By handing that honour to the "content owner" we are back to youtube not having to defend takedown-requests and the blame in case of a court-case will be on the "content owner". The system is, however, still turned the wrong way in terms of consumer-protection.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rob Michael, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

    Content ID may have improved?

    About 10 days ago, I uploaded a video of myself performing a JS Bach composition (The Little Fugue un Gm) that is clearly in the Public domain.

    As soon as the upload finished, I was slapped with a copyright notice from Youtube. There was also a small form that I could fill-out to dispute the claim if I felt the claim was invalid. I filled it out immediately and sent it in. This was around 1am. Within 5minutes, the copyright claim was withdrawn.

    Should that claim ever have been filed against me? No.

    Was it straightened-out in a timely, efficient manner. Yes.

    For that, IMO, Youtube deserves kudos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 5th, 2012 @ 11:07pm

      Re: Content ID may have improved?

      This one time NASA put up the video from Mars, and it was taken down because a news service claimed ownership.
      And until people were mocking them on the web, they didn't back down.

      This one time a dude uploaded video in a forest and a bird sang, and some company claimed ownership he filled out the form contesting it and the company doubled down and claimed they had reviewed in and it was totally theirs.

      So I've got 2 idiotic moves vs your 1 good outcome, so I think its still screwed up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Slicerwizard, Oct 7th, 2012 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re: Content ID may have improved?

        "So I've got 2 idiotic moves vs your 1 good outcome, so I think its still screwed up."

        But now those two idiotic moves will have to be real DMCA notices.

        If the idiots cave and back down - win.

        If the idiots double down and actually file a bogus DMCA notice - big win - nail their asses to the wall.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jeff, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 3:11pm

    ContentID sucks

    Google needs to start supporting its community more. Without it, they are nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 4:49pm

      Re: ContentID sucks

      By doing what? Hiring actual people to do the work? Think of all the poor robots that will end up on the street.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 5th, 2012 @ 11:09pm

        Re: Re: ContentID sucks

        They could use that army of lawyers and sue content holders for perjury claims on behalf of the users targeted with bogus notices.
        If there was an actual penalty the system might work as intended and Google would look better in the users eyes.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave Nelson, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 3:17pm

    Something about the fox running the hen house.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    JustMe (profile), Oct 7th, 2012 @ 5:47am

    3 strikes

    Each 'content owner' or parent company gets three chances to file bogus claims. After that they aren't allowed to file any additional claims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Oct 8th, 2012 @ 4:55am

    One more reason to start questioning takedowns en masse. Maybe the MAFIAA morons will actually pay attention to how much fair use there is and how people define copyright differently from them...

    We should watch how this thing goes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This