YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is. this video Edit: Oh someone already posted it here, sorry.

That is absolutely the battle YouTube fought that lead to Content ID and the claims system that doesn’t have the leniency you wish that it did. It’s not even ambiguous; this is the system that we got. In fact, the system actually improved vastly since it was initially implemented. Really. It was all a direct reaction to the lawsuits: link When I say it has improved, I mean it genuinely has. Back in 2008 the usual outcome of copyright strikes were deleted videos and deleted channels. Copyright cartels monetizing videos they didn’t make due to dubious Content ID matches may seem like an unreasonable response, but it is still a better compromise than content flying down blackholes. And yes. It would be great if all of these problems could just be solved. I’m sure they’ve heard every idea imaginable. There is no one obvious way to solve everything. So asking “why don’t they just do this?” is not productive. What we could ask is “how did we get here?” And the answer to that is that copyright is broken. And if we could fix that, or at least make it less broken, some of these problems would literally disappear. And if you don’t believe me, there’s tons of backup from people more persuasive who have perspectives of being in the direct line of fire. Like Tom Scott: this video And yeah YouTube could do better, but all too often you get the perspective that this is all their fault because they could solve it with one easy trick. It’s easy to say that when none of the competition managed

The remedy isn’t (currently) to punish the issuer. It’s to file a counter notice. I’ve been through this process against Meta. It sucked, and killed my project’s early momentum. But it was restored within a week or two after we filed. It may seem like this system isn’t fair. It certainly isn’t. But it’s the best we have, because the system was not designed for the modern era. this video It’s lucky we even have a recourse like filing a counter notice. I’ve wanted to make a non profit that offers up counter notices as a service. Basically, let people donate, and whenever someone’s project (like this unfortunate web browser) gets issued a DMCA claim, they’d be able to get a counter notice drafted and filed. It’s not cheap to hire a lawyer to do it, but you pretty much have to, which was the most unfair part. The companies filing the takedowns have lots of resources, but the targets often have substantially none. That idea is probably too much work, but someone should do it. We need an organization to go to bat for creators. Or at least an organization that gives the creator enough legal rope to hang themselves if the entity making the claim decides to file a lawsuit, which is sometimes a real possibility. But the creator should get to decide whether to take on that risk without having to pay thousands of dollars first.

I'm not a lawyer, and most of my knowledge of copyright law comes from Tom Scott's video on the subject [1], but it's worth noting that it's not universally agreed on that Weird Al's parodies fall under fair use. Again, I am not a lawyer, at best I'm a novice when it comes to copyright law, but what I do know, I agree with what Tom says: I wouldn't expect Weird Al to win if he was taken to court (if he didn't ask permission). [1] this video

Copyright law in general, including online-oriented parts such as DMCA 512 (17 U.S. Code § 512 [1])), needs meaningful penalties for false copyright infringement claims (including automated mass reports with negligent/no human review) that are no more than one magnitude smaller than what would be the corresponding penalties for infringement. (Equal magnitude might intimidate too many lower-wealth authors from filing rightful infringement suits.) Currently, successfully fighting an infringement lawsuit with a fair use defense will still ruin you because of the attorney fees and court fees. A DMCA infringement notice requires only good faith from the rightsholder even if the claim turns out to be patently false, yet someone filing a counter notice against a false infringement claim does so under penalty of perjury [2]. Meanwhile, the current safe harbor standard requires service providers with user-uploaded content to remove material as soon as possible solely based on a claim of infringement with respect to that material [1]: > upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. Again, these infringement notices can be automated or BS [3] (whether intentional or not), but the service provider has to comply to avoid third-party liability. The obvious result is overblocking. The safe harbor standard should be modi

> I vaguely remember Tom Scott saying something similar as an example of the one time he used a small claims court? Tom Scott said two things about himself in YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is. [0] 1. "A TV channel from Thailand took one of my videos, played it out without permission in one of their big television shows, and then put that entire television show into Content ID. I got a Content ID hit on my original video from them, and that took a long time to sort out." 2. "The UK has [...] the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court [1][...] and that court has a small claims track. If you're an individual photographer or video maker, you can [...] issue a claim as a "litigant in person", which is the fancy British term for "without a lawyer". I've done it, because a major company ripped off one of my videos. [...] And there I was, walking in, no lawyer, thinking I had a case, thinking I had a grip on reality. Statistically, the odds weren't in my favour, but I filed successfully. And the company settled with me, they paid me to drop the claim, because they were in the wrong, and they knew they were in the wrong, and they knew I could actually get it to a judge in exchange for a bit of work and a court fee of just over £100." He did not say these two incidents were related. He did not say he used a court to resolve a Content ID claim. [0] this video [1] link

Now you've got me doubting myself. It was covered in a Tom Scott video. I'll have a look for it. this video