It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner" makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.
The problem is fundamentally that ContentID is done on the cheap.
Things would work better with human interaction on the requests by Google. But bluntly, if you want your video host to do due diligence, hire one that does. Google do a bad job of this because they're a free hosting provider, and as a video uploader you subsequently get what you pay for.
Why do they even need to use ContentID? What’s in it for YouTube?
If someone wants to complain about infringement, they should be required to send a certified letter to YouTube detailing the exact infringement along with providing proof they are in control of the offending work.
These guys send out hundreds of thousands or millions of takedown requests each year. This is why everything is automated, because it would take an army to vet all of the claims.
Legally this make perfect sense to Google, as there are two options:
1. Take down everything requested. Creators get mad but they are a dime a dozen.
2. Don't take down everything because some of it isn't technically a violation. Get sued constantly by the media cartels. Get brought before Congress for "stealing from artists". etc...
One party in the dispute is rich and politically powerful, the other is not. There's really only one choice a large company like Google is going to make.
One party in the dispute is rich and politically powerful, the other is not.
...and ironically, a lot of us are quite worried about the other party also becoming "rich and politically powerful" too (although they do seem to be getting there...)
Manually verifying copyright claims is expensive. Responding to take down notices manually is expensive. The alternatives that are as cheap to implement involve rampant copyright infringement.
The problem is that by the time the victim has fought to have their video re-monetised or reinstated, it's "old". You have a very short time to make money on videos these days. Yes there's rare videos that gain longer term success or get dug up and go viral, but for the most part those first couple days are vital.
I'm not sure. I thought companies uploaded their work and then the claims were basically automated. But admittedly I don't have experience in this area.
Regardless, we need to start seeing punishment for false claims. Under DMCA, wrongful claims could result in the claimants being charged with perjury, but obviously nobody is enforcing this part of it.
To make it equitable in this situation would seem to require allowing those initiating the counter suit to do so with zero risk. And as another poster pointed out, the value of the upload is significantly diminished after it had become "old", so this would all have to be handled before the post was even made public.
Yes, I guess countersuit is the wrong word. I was wondering how the burden of proof could be equitable with contentID as broken as it is. Wouldn't all claims have to be settled before videos are publicized (creating a whole new set of problems).
Either that or allow the perjury clause of the DMCA enforceable against bots?
Google cannot afford to upset content owners. After all almost all YT depends on copyrighted content, so they err against small players. Can you imagine what would happen to YT if Disney, Comcast or major labels cracked down on having their content on YT?
