In the end, the YouTubers suffered. Even whenthey moved through the dispute and appeal system8 or renegotiated theagreement, YouTubers lost viewers and profits they need to continuecreating for the public.
This is on of the YouTubers previously mentioned who had to stop their playthrough of a game because their videos kept getting claimed because of copyright.
In the end, the YouTubers suffered. Even whenthey moved through the dispute and appeal system8 or renegotiated theagreement, YouTubers lost viewers and profits they need to continuecreating for the public.
This is something I have seen first-hand with YouTubers that I follow and subscribe to. For the really big channels, a video or two being demonetized, while of course an inconvenience, doesn't really affect their livelihood and well-being. On the other hand, I have seen several of the YouTubers I watch have one or two of their videos demonetized and it forces them unhealthily increase their workload and/or edit their video to the point that it substantially diminishes the quality of their content.
Content ID Monetization Unjustly EnrichesCopyright Holders and Punishes YouTubers
Again, this is something I think has to change in order to balance the relationship between copyright holders and YouTubers.
As for copyright holders, if they “repeatedly makeerroneous claims” YouTube can disable their Content ID access andterminate their partnership with YouTube.
This is something that has come up recently on YouTube with the user Quantum TV. The video is long but it is vrey informative and funny.
Harms of Content ID
I think this article demonstrates how widespread Content ID issues are and the fact that it unjustly affects smaller channels who rely on the revenue from their videos much more heavily than bigger Youtubers who have other sources of revenue from sponsorships and merchandise sales.
Additionally, Content ID’s current monetization schemeunjustly enriches claimants and harms YouTubers because a claimautomatically disables the YouTuber’s monetization and the copyrightholder can take all ad revenue from the YouTuber.
This, I think, is a major flaw in the Content ID system. I feel like even if a YouTuber's video is demonetized, the claimant should not be able to take all the revenue from that video. I feel like having it the way it is incentivizes claimants to claim videos unjustly and cause undue harm to the YouTuber, especially to those who use the allegedly infringing material with malicious or mischievous intent.
A copyright holder may choose to tolerate a usebecause it may not want to expend costs for enforcement or because itmay want to create goodwill in the community.
This is an idea I have had for a long time, and I wish more big name companies held this mindset.
Content ID is not requiredby the DMCA.
This was interesting to me. It seems that YouTube developed Content ID to distinguish themselves from their competitors and enhance their product, and while it has been marginally successful, Content ID has also had negative effects on its own community, making it a kind of double-edged sword.
Although YouTube has become a popular platform for uploadingand sharing videos containing infringing material, it has escaped liabilitybecause it falls under the DMCA safe harbor.28 The DMCA was enactedby Congress to balance the copyright holder’s demands for greater onlineprotection and the online service provider’s demands that they not be heldliable for the infringing content uploaded on their sites.29 Because “thepurpose of the safe harbor is to promote the means of sharing anddistribution,” the burden for policing online infringement is on thecopyright holder.30 Online service providers, like YouTube, need to “onlycooperate when necessary to eliminate copyright infringement.”31
This section really hits on the fact that, because YouTube is not held liable for infringing content, they "'only cooperate when necessary.'" YouTube has become a sort of middle man between copyright holders and YouTubers and because of this, there is a lot of disconnect which causes confusion and frustration on the part of both the copyright holders and the YouTubers.
YouTube’s insistence on using Content ID to clamp down on allegedlyinfringing content is threatening YouTube’s cherished role in advancingsociety and creativity.
I think this reinforces the idea in Lessig's "Creators" reading that "we have become so concerned with protecting the instrument that we are losing sight of the value."
The Internet has become an integral part of people’s lives.Countries are beginning to recognize it as a powerful medium forexpression,21 one that “is a vital tool in today's world for sharing originalworks,” discussing existing works, and participating in cultural andpolitical movements.
In my opinion, this is one of the most important realizations of the past decade.
“didn’t go as we hoped and we left some of our community feeling
From everything I have seen over the years regarding the YouTube community, it seems that it has remained at odds with YouTube and continues to be "frustrated and confused."
Even though YouTube will disablemonetization for all parties of a disputed video
This was surprising to me as this is something I had never considered.