Public Policy Blog

Updates on technology policy issues

Content ID and Fair Use

Friday, April 23, 2010
Share on Google+ Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google
Labels: Public Policy Blog

16 comments :

  1. UnknownApril 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

    It is an interesting spin. Here is the reality I see:

    1] Company files DMCA claim against your video.
    2] YouTube removes video.
    3] YouTube asks you to file a DMCA counter-claim.

    -- vs --

    1] Company has automated tool with hooks into YouTube that disables videos.
    2] YouTube will put it back up if you claim it is fair use.
    3] Company files DMCA claim against your video.
    4] YouTube removes video.
    5] YouTube asks you to file a DMCA counter-claim.

    So this is just a front-end buffer for the DMCA process, which remains unchanged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  2. UnknownApril 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

    @mantari yes, but that's not trivial. The button makes it 10 times easier to counterclaim, which makes it 10 times more expensive for copyright holders to do this in the first place. I think we'll see a lot more signal and less noise in these claims as a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  3. BusterApril 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM

    So what happens if you already have a video in dispute? I posted videos that are squarely in the public domain, but MegaRichCorp is asserting a copyright claim they cannot possibly uphold for many reasons.

    Without finding out what those reasons are, Google/YouTube sided with MegaRichCorp, thereby enabling the theft of public domain video. So what then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  4. UnknownApril 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

    @Cory
    Its made simple for the copyright holders too . They can make these easy claims with almost no cost that I at least can see and rely on most casual posters of video to be apathetic about it to effectively remove public domain videos from view . You don't have to look further than the recent spate of 'Downfall' based videos being removed . It'd be instructive to see how many of the posters counterclaim and how many get back though in this case there is a bit of public momentum .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  5. scragarApril 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

    If we are going to have a say in how youtube handles copyright can we please have some form of indicators as to the blocked content, if I upload a video containing snippets of other videos from multiple sources I don't want to have to defend the claim that i'm infringing on "audio/visual content"

    It's a video, of course it's audio/visual content, the infringement notice tells me nothing, as a result I'm forced to either be very general or cover multiple areas, why is this an issue?


    A timeframe or keyframes of the offending content would make it almost impossible to confuse the content, and if I know where the content comes from and can assess the section of my video infringing then I know what I'm defending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  6. Hugo ChavezApril 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

    No doubt Hitler could have used this help as the Soviets were encircling Berlin. But it looks as though Stalin has already won.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  7. Travis McCreaApril 23, 2010 at 7:42 PM

    I, for one, would like to say THANK YOU GOOGLE.

    You guys have been on a roll defending the rights of your users. Really grabbing hold of the "don't be evil" motto you go by. By showing us how many requests by different countries you get, by not bending to the will of big business... and of COURSE for offering us our favorite products for free (in exchange for us sharing small amounts of anonymous information).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  8. Paul HarrisonApril 23, 2010 at 8:26 PM

    "Rights holders are the only ones in a position to know what is and is not an authorized use of their content, and we require them to enforce their policies in a manner that complies with the law."

    My congratulations on this extremely carefully worded sentence. "Fair use" is a somewhat broader concept than "authorized use", but I read this as saying that you require rights holders to authorize anything that is fair use (which is part of "the law"). It's certainly an interesting approach, and might work if rights holders were sufficiently penalized where they refused to grant authorization of things that are truly fair use... which, I must say, I doubt to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  9. UnknownApril 24, 2010 at 1:47 AM

    this is the mpa's dream come true they had to do absolutely no work to achieve it besides whine and complain and now someone else with the brain power has come up with a a system they can point to when they sue isps I really do not like this move i don't understand why a company that is not a content creator is making itself responsible for protecting other peoples property that is the job of the property owner first and the police second. I really feel like Google is enabling the content industries instead of making them adapt and solve their own problems. I also feel that they are abandoning other isps and forcing there cooperation with the MPA i would rather be on the ISP computer science/engineering side than the MPAs sue happy whine to the goverment lobby lobby lobby side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  10. Dr. StrangeloveApril 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM

    I discuss YouTube, fair rights, and the DMCA in Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary People (University of Toronto Press, 2010).

    Dr. Strangelove
    University of Ottawa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  11. RecordTVApril 25, 2010 at 10:49 AM

    @Cory

    Regardless of how you frame this issue, it favors rights holders. Companies can use any tools they like to identify "likely infringing videos", but taking down a video can only (and should only) happen when a human employee of the rights holder determines it is infringing *after* analyzing whether it could be fair use. "Taking down" should always require a formal takedown notice. Then, and only then should the user be required to take any action. Of course, the rights holder can independently sue the user if they so desired, regardless of whether they decide to issue a takedown notice. When the rights holder issues an erroneous takedown notice, they hurt the public and should have to face legal liability towards the user. To me, this seems like a pacifist approach because of the ongoing litigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  12. jpzagalApril 26, 2010 at 1:07 PM

    Is there some way to claim fair use when uploading a video in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  13. searchenginemanApril 29, 2010 at 9:32 AM

    Read the excellent comments on
    You tube vs the Fuhrer on slate

    http://www.slate.com/id/2252140

    I think this is a win/win situation, lets get to the point. This is about money. Publishers win because User Generated content allows the content owners exclusive advertising on the properties, if they so choose (DUH?).

    B) Users win because there is a system in place to allow expression and a course of action if they feel wronged.

    C) The Lawyers lose because everybody is served by this solution. Read the example Chris Browns "Forever" sound track which
    sold even more after "Jill Peterson Kevein Heinz Dance Music Wedding March" 48,000,000 views later. Not bad for a defunct song which spiked back onto the charts
    everbody wins.

    D) Did I mention the Lawyers lose!

    Searchengineman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  14. cnansenApril 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM

    I have a different issue that I would like Google to respond to. Google's TOS prohibits downloading of videos using 3rd party tools. Even though I can use a video clip under fair use, many schools block YouTube and the teachers do not have access to these resources. I wish Google would make an exception to it's TOS allowing educators to download YouTube videos for use in an instructional setting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  15. Ken B.May 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM

    I wish the dispute process had some way to identify the media the claimant was claiming rights in. I recently had a video taken down which I recorded, produced, edited and narrated, and at no time during the dispute process was I informed what part of my video was infringing. As far as I know, I copied nothing. The only information I was given was that a copyright holder claimed an infringement on some visual media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  16. Nerd42September 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

    Yeah basically any POPULAR video gets auto-tagged as copyright infringing whether it actually is or not.

    I do mashups of popular music and am fine with the record companies getting to display ads next to my videos but not when this ContentID thing stops me from sharing the stuff I've made. You're always rolling the dice whenever you upload anything that you aren't going to piss any big company off somehow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
Add comment
Load more...

The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.

  

Labels


  • Accessibility 5
  • Ad 2
  • Advertising 11
  • AdWords 2
  • Anti-defamation league 1
  • Book Search 16
  • Broadband 11
  • Business Issues 26
  • Buzz 1
  • buzzemail 1
  • Canada 1
  • Child Safety 18
  • Chrome 1
  • Cloud Computing 2
  • Competition 19
  • Congress 10
  • Constitute 1
  • copyright 7
  • Cuba 1
  • Cybersecurity 9
  • D.C. Talks 16
  • Digital Due Process 1
  • Digital Playbook 1
  • Economic Impact 5
  • Economy 13
  • ECPA 4
  • Elections 24
  • email 1
  • Energy Efficiency 29
  • Europe 2
  • FCC 7
  • fellowship 2
  • Fighting Human Trafficking 1
  • Free Expression 54
  • Geo 1
  • Gmail 1
  • GNI 2
  • Good to Know 5
  • Google Fellow 2
  • Google for Entrepreneurs 1
  • Google Ideas 2
  • Google Maps 1
  • Google Policy Fellowship 1
  • Google Tools 78
  • Government Transparency 33
  • Hate Speech 1
  • Health 5
  • How Google Fights Piracy 1
  • Human trafficking 1
  • Identity theft 1
  • Immigration 1
  • Intellectual Property 19
  • International 46
  • Journalists 1
  • Malware 1
  • Maps 1
  • National Consumer Protection Week 1
  • Net Neutrality 24
  • Patents 5
  • piracy. ad networks 2
  • Politicians at Google 11
  • Politics 23
  • Privacy 93
  • Public Policy 1
  • Public Policy Blog 806
  • Safe Browsing 3
  • scams 1
  • search 3
  • Security 17
  • Small Businesses 3
  • spectrum 4
  • State Issues 5
  • Surveillance 6
  • Technology for Good 1
  • Telecom 71
  • Trade 3
  • Transparency Report 4
  • White Spaces 23
  • WiFi Network 1
  • Workforce 5
  • Yahoo-Google Deal 5
  • YouTube 4
  • YouTube for Government 1


Archive


  •     2016
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
  •     2015
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2014
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2013
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2012
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2011
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2010
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2009
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2008
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2007
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr

Feed

Give us feedback in our Product Forums.

Company-wide

  • Official Google Blog
  • Europe Blog
  • Student Blog

Products

  • Android Blog
  • Chrome Blog
  • Lat Long Blog

Developers

  • Developers Blog
  • Ads Developer Blog
  • Android Developers Blog
  • Google
  • Privacy
  • Terms