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.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: google, youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

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

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Rob Michael (user link) says:

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.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

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.

Slicerwizard says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...