Comment by pooper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pooper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Content ID exists so YouTube can ease big partners. I am not sure about the three strikes being a part of DMCA. Are you sure? This YouTube help page does not elaborate whether YouTube is legally required to terminate an account three strikes. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000

> If you receive three copyright strikes, your account will be terminated. All the videos uploaded to your account will be removed. Users with terminated accounts aren’t able to create new accounts.

An possibly unrelated side note about automated complaints: I have a video created using YouTube Video Editor. The video includes song "1812 Op. 49: Overture" by Philharmonia Slavonica, Henry Adolph using YouTube's audio mixer. Someone made a claim that on a video. Being a video created on YouTube, it should be obvious that the claim is frivolous. Yet, the claim went through. Automated copyright complaints whether content id or not is bad because they place a burden on people who upload videos and it seems there is no penalty for being indiscriminate.

> Content ID exists so YouTube can ease big partners.

It's probably more to ease their own burden. YouTube likely receives a huge number of takedown requests daily, but with Content ID a lot more can be automated. Also, without Content ID, there would probably be a lot more companies just doing poorly-scripted takedown requests, which would make the experience of everyone on YouTube a lot worse. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/absurd-automated-notic...

> I am not sure about the three strikes being a part of DMCA. Are you sure?

The DMCA includes a clause about the termination of "repeat infringers"; I assume that YouTube's strike system is their easy-to-understand-and-apply way of addressing that. From the DMCA:

"The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers"

(source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)

As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?

> As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?

Can one revoke a copyright license like that? If one did, would that song still be available on YouTube Video Creator for new videos? Also, how does one be certain in the case of classical music whether one owns performance copyright to it without introducing a certain deviation from the score (defect or flaw if you will) in the musical piece as a fingerprint? I'd imagine if YouTube used an audio score in its tool, it has obtained some sort of a global, perpetual, irrevocable blah blah license don't you think?

It seems like a missed opportunity that leaves money on the table. ContentID should be implemented so that anybody can use anything as long as it's IDed, then the rightsowner gets a sliver of the ad revenue along with anybody else used in the video, if any. Just a list of assets in the video that receive some chunk of the pie. NC is NC and OK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com