YouTube’s Content ID is not just pretty bloody awful. It’s an absolute piece of rancid fucking shit. not fit for purpose. It has snatched original material and claimed it as someone else’s property more than once in my own experience.
2 Likes
It looks like that $1bn has been the price they were willing to pay to destroy a competitor completely.
“Don’t be evil”
1 Like
Be Super Evil!!!
2 Likes
This is the “pouring salt into the wound” portion. It is bad enough that some of my videos are hit with ContentID matches for music that is in the game, but surely it is possible to build a system that mutes just the period where the music appears and not completely mute a video for 30 minutes (or in Youtube’s case, hours) just because of a very brief appearance of copyrighted music.
One of the things here is that as the RIAA continues to piss off content creators and the costs of hosting and serving video continues to decline, they’re only going to create more and more of an incentive for something like a federated independent video network that might actually stand up for fair use (or at the very least, make the costs of pursuing some of the sillier such take downs much more expensive).
It’s already been noted but bears repeating: Twitch isn’t muting live content, just VOD’s, which are the saved recordings of live content that not many people watch anyway.
If they can definitively prove that some audio is close enough to something in their corpus for government work, why don’t they invert the waveform and remove JUST THAT PART OF THE AUDIO from the stream in real time? I mean, they’re muting it in real time, and it’s not that much processing (only done once, not per-user).
If they don’t have something in the corpus close enough to turn the waveform into an unrecognizable whisper or hum when they merge it with an inverted waveform, they are being overzealous in matching. Keep in mind that there’s no legal basis for this: there’s a legal basis for occasionally going through the archives and removing content, but not really (they are allowed to wait for a complaint to come in and then remove it, which would probably piss off fewer users); safe harbor provision means that any preemptive attempts at removing copyrighted material is purely optional, and the nature of copyright law means that any given work can only have its copyrightability or derivative nature determined in retrospect by a court (so anything using partial samples that is being removed ostensibly on copyright grounds is not being removed on legitimate copyright grounds – it might later be ruled fair use).
Sites like Youtube and Twitch should stick to having a formal DMCA process…adding policies and practices that are more stringent than the DMCA is ridiculous.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
