I think the best part is: "Under the new rules announced Wednesday, however, if the uploader challenges the [Content ID] match, the alleged rights holder must abandon I'D [copyright] claim or file an official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.",
as this will probably lead to content owners more carefully reviewing videos and also gives users a much better way to appeal a copyright claim.
It also thankfully gets rid of companies claiming they can't be punished for illegitimate takedowns because they weren't done through the DMCA. Until they find some other loophole to hide behind, of course.
The improvements to the content ID algorithm and occasional manual review of those is all well and good, but the far more important change here (as TimNN says) is to the counterclaim process. Before, you had the situation where the only person judging whether or not your counterclaim was valid was the very company that lodged the claim, which is ridiculous (and even if a company is not malicious, they could very well be lazy and just issue blanket denials of counterclaims).
A counterclaim now no longer goes into a black hole, but actually reinstates the video. If a company wants to counter your counterclaim, they then have to file a real DMCA takedown notice, with the normal DMCA process after that.
YouTube has a "three strikes" policy with respect to DMCA takedown notices (which doesn't seem to take the result of the takedown into account), so if you dispute too many bogus ContentID claims you could lose your YouTube account.
So I guess the next change to push for is that users should only get a "strike" if the claimant actually sues after a counter-notification (or something like that).
There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
Ever since my favorite Youtube Channel, SFDebris, moved to another video site after having been wrongfully flagged twice for copyright violation, I've been hoping that 'fair use' would be included.
But isn't it still without consequence to file a false claim? I feel like there should be some sort of "punishment" to filing a false claim, whether done out of stupidity or malice.
The DMCA stipulates punishments for malicious claims, but not stupid ones. Proving malice would be pretty hard.
Super downside? YouTube's takedown process is a precursor to official DMCA takedowns, so the DMCA punishment doesn't apply until a formal DMCA takedown is lodged.
12 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 30.6 ms ] threadhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...
The improvements to the content ID algorithm and occasional manual review of those is all well and good, but the far more important change here (as TimNN says) is to the counterclaim process. Before, you had the situation where the only person judging whether or not your counterclaim was valid was the very company that lodged the claim, which is ridiculous (and even if a company is not malicious, they could very well be lazy and just issue blanket denials of counterclaims).
A counterclaim now no longer goes into a black hole, but actually reinstates the video. If a company wants to counter your counterclaim, they then have to file a real DMCA takedown notice, with the normal DMCA process after that.
YouTube has a "three strikes" policy with respect to DMCA takedown notices (which doesn't seem to take the result of the takedown into account), so if you dispute too many bogus ContentID claims you could lose your YouTube account.
So I guess the next change to push for is that users should only get a "strike" if the claimant actually sues after a counter-notification (or something like that).
No it wasn't.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_...
There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
Super downside? YouTube's takedown process is a precursor to official DMCA takedowns, so the DMCA punishment doesn't apply until a formal DMCA takedown is lodged.
Be interesting to see how such situations improve.