Also please make content id available to all rights holders.
I made the mistake of signing up with an advertising company with content id access, simply because i was curious as to who was using my CC licensed music (non-commercial) in their videos.
At first it all worked very well and the ad company compiled a list of videos using my songs some with millions of views which was very gratifying regardless of the (in some cases) liberal interpretation of the content licensing.
Over the next few weeks however most of the video makers took down my music in response to the correspondence they were receiving from youtube viz. complying with compulsory advertising.
I tried to contact some of the video makers via their channels and eventually succeeded in one case. The person in question forwarded me some of the content id compliance literature and to be fair it was very heavy handed. In their position I would likely have reacted as they did.
As my music continued to be removed / taken-down I attempted successfully to extricate myself from the ad platform but the damage had been done and to my knowledge none of the content-creators who complied with the take-down notices are using my music now.
Afterwards I attempted to sign up for content id myself and also contacted youtube's customer service but received no response in either case.
Content id could be of huge benefit to music producers, like myself, if (a) it was available (!) and (b) it had more nuanced controls. I would be happy to pay an annual subs, for example, to identify my music on youtube so I could contact and possibly negotiate with a video-maker over the rights to use my music in a commercial setting.
Forced advertising, which lets be honest is a pretty abhorrent concept anyway, simply does not work, at least in my experience.
I don't believe that is going to happen. That's why we started https://pexe.so where we are offering content id to every content creator, go outside of YouTube (still included though) and focus way more on analytics than just rights enforcement
> Also please make content id available to all rights holders.
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.
In my case I would be happy to supply whatever legal evidence is required to satisfy youtube that I own the full rights to all the music I've written.
Perhaps your point is that even running checks like that require manpower that google/youtube simply aren't willing to commit to.
In that case what about a simple transparency type report? Assuming all videos are analyzed by content id, couldn't youtube publish or maintain an archive of songs used in video that would be searchable by any interested party.
This happened about a year ago and since I'm not dependent on music for my livelihood, disappointed as I was with the outcome, I just moved on and forgot about it.
I can't exactly recall the correspondence with the advertising company but they assured me that they would immediately cease issuing compliance notices on my behalf.
Beyond that I never again tried to engage youtube / content-id myself to see what's what.
I know there is a mechanism for those affected by the takedown notices to challenge them, which I guess in my case they should win, but the easier thing is just get another piece of CC music for the video.
Sucks for me but easy solution for the video-maker.
> I know there is a mechanism for those affected by the takedown notices to challenge them, which I guess in my case they should win
You would think that, but YouTube's Content ID system does not work that way.
It should work the same way the DMCA does: if you get a notice, you post a counter-notice, your content goes right back up without question, and if the purported content owner wants to escalate further they have to sue you.
Instead, with Content ID, if you "appeal", the appeal goes to the purported content owner, who then has complete discretion to say "no, you're still infringing", with no third-party review or ability to appeal further. Because of course the content owner would never deny Fair Use or claim a piece of content that they don't actually own...
> Instead, with Content ID, if you "appeal", the appeal goes to the purported content owner, who then has complete discretion to say "no, you're still infringing", with no third-party review or ability to appeal further.
This hadn't been true for a couple of years now, as covered in the article. At the appeal either the content owner has to let the content go back up or file an actual DMCA takedown notice.
My comment was based on the reports of several different channels I've followed that have had to deal with spurious Content ID claims. According to those reports, there was no mechanism for further appeal if the Content ID claimant denied the initial appeal. In particular, there was no apparent mechanism to file a DMCA counterclaim and have the content restored despite the Content ID claim. The "DMCA Notice" box in the article's flowchart appears to be a terminal state.
On top of that, according to the article, you can only have so many appeals in progress at any given time, and Content ID claimants can delay responding to such appeals for 30 days.
That would be my immediate and rapid reaction to receiving a Content ID claim that wanted to do anything more than link to the original content (which I'd normally do anyway): "well, time to move to a different video hosting site".
This article seems a bit misguided to me. Fair Use is something that YouTube cannot really judge for itself; instead, it's something that a court must decide, because it's often not clear cut. The courts must think about the context and how exactly the content is being used. This must be done on a case-by-case basis. Fair use is effectively a legal defense that one could use if they were sued for copyright infringement. With or without Content ID, content owners could file DMCA takedown requests against people who upload their content, fair use or not. And in those cases, it's still up to the courts to decide if a particular usage is fair use or not.
Ultimately, if the EFF wants this stuff fixed, I think it should focus its attention more on the laws themselves, and not the companies who are required to implement them.
The only way to 'fix' Content ID is to kill it. It isn't necessary; it only helps a few gigantic media companies, and they already have effective ways of getting relief by sending automated takedowns.
I made the mistake of signing up with an advertising company with content id access, simply because i was curious as to who was using my CC licensed music (non-commercial) in their videos.
At first it all worked very well and the ad company compiled a list of videos using my songs some with millions of views which was very gratifying regardless of the (in some cases) liberal interpretation of the content licensing.
Over the next few weeks however most of the video makers took down my music in response to the correspondence they were receiving from youtube viz. complying with compulsory advertising.
I tried to contact some of the video makers via their channels and eventually succeeded in one case. The person in question forwarded me some of the content id compliance literature and to be fair it was very heavy handed. In their position I would likely have reacted as they did.
As my music continued to be removed / taken-down I attempted successfully to extricate myself from the ad platform but the damage had been done and to my knowledge none of the content-creators who complied with the take-down notices are using my music now.
Afterwards I attempted to sign up for content id myself and also contacted youtube's customer service but received no response in either case.
Content id could be of huge benefit to music producers, like myself, if (a) it was available (!) and (b) it had more nuanced controls. I would be happy to pay an annual subs, for example, to identify my music on youtube so I could contact and possibly negotiate with a video-maker over the rights to use my music in a commercial setting.
Forced advertising, which lets be honest is a pretty abhorrent concept anyway, simply does not work, at least in my experience.