Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikeboy | Hacker News Reader

>YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

>YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed.

>Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_...

View on HN

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of "Content owners" who have lost their Content ID access due to "erroneous claims", but I get the feeling that this list simple does not exist. Hell, I would be surprised if the "guidelines" for Content ID use even exist.

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

Of course the users are to take all this on good faith.. you know because YouTube is such a reputably moral and ethical company.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2605065

Here's guidelines for content ID.

And they update policy often - here's a major update from last year: https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-m...

Ah they do exist. Interesting:

"You must have exclusive copyright rights to the material in the reference file for the territories where you claim ownership."

apparently not..

"The following examples are ineligible for use in or as a reference:

    Karaoke recordings, remasters, sound-alike recordings, and some dubbed content
    Sound effects, soundbeds, or production loops

Pretty sure a guy replicating music on a keyboard counts as a "sound-alike recording".

"You must provide individual references for each piece of intellectual property."

Warner has provided no references to speak of. I am no lawyer but it doesn't sound to me like Warner did their due diligence in following the rules here...

The reference is what Warner would have to upload to YouTube to show the original content being infringed.

You would think they would have to upload that prior to making the claim.

Which they presumably did - uploaded Dark Horse to the content ID system.

and we are back to square one...

I would bet that this list would have only small content creators that flagged videos.

There's no way that the big media companies would be in it, and they are probably the biggest offenders.

Most of the issues I've seen with big companies are through automated content ID. The relevant comparison is how many valid manual claims someone makes vs invalid. If there's millions of valid claims and, say, hundreds of invalid claims, I don't think they'd take action.

Note that this issue was not flagged by content ID, but manually.

There's only two kinds of claims, content ID (both automatic and manual) and DMCA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com