NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Saving YouTube From the Choking Web of Rights
Saving YouTube From the Choking Web of Rights
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000986.html
Exactly a month ago, in "Mars vs. Copyright vs. YouTube,"
I discussed at some length the increasingly complicated issues
surrounding automated takedowns and third-party monetization of
YouTube videos, specifically relating to YouTube's "Copyright Strikes"
and "Content ID" systems ( http://j.mp/NdE1k4 [Lauren's Blog] ).
I've been flooded with messages from upset YouTube users since then,
many of whom took the time to write up -- sometimes in extremely
lengthy detail -- their battles with YouTube relating to this area.
Since my posting last month, there have been a couple of other high
profile events relating to the issues of automated video takedowns as
well.
The science fiction Hugo Awards live stream on Ustream was suddenly
cut off when Ustream's third-party content scanner, Vobile, claimed to
have found "forbidden" content. Since then, Ustream and Vobile have
been pointing fingers of blame at each other. Clearly this situation
hit a nerve at Ustream. Their blog posting attempting to apologize
for the disruption attracted a large number of comments -- mostly
polite but many angry -- which Ustream unceremoniously and suddenly
deleted en masse -- and they then blocked further comments on that
posting. I fully support the right of blog authors to determine their
comments policies and whether they want to support comments at all --
but to delete such a large quantity of on-topic, already posted
comments without explanation does seem to smell of censorship, not
reasonable moderation.
Then a few days ago, YouTube's live stream of the Democratic National
Convention ended with a copyright warning claiming that a whole long
list of Content ID partners had filed a claim against the stream.
Google says (and there's no reason to disbelieve) that this was an
error that occurred when the stream ended normally, but it's
understandable that people already sensitized to takedowns became
immediately concerned.
Overall, it's these higher profile cases that are usually going to be
the most straightforward to resolve going forward.
Not necessarily so for the sorts of situations that ordinary YouTube
uploaders described in their missives filling my inbox for the last
month.
By and large, most of their complaints fell into the kinds of
categories I described in my August posting as noted above. Public
domain audio and/or video clips being pulled down. Their own original
clips being pulled down when they were incorporated into Content ID
partner clips without permission. Completely off-the-wall, obviously
erroneous takedowns from unscrupulous YouTube exploiters. You name
it -- it happens -- and apparently in large numbers. It has happened to
me, too.
Then there are the folks who cannot understand why a recording of
Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" that was played at their wedding results
in ads appearing on their wedding video, or the entire audio track
deleted, or even the video being blocked in various locales or
globally.
There is also the sense that many YouTube users faced with
notifications of Copyright Strikes or Content ID "hits" are very
confused about whether or not they have any real recourse.
YouTube has made great strides in improving their notification dispute
forms related to these events, but they are still apparently confusing
many people, who just throw up their arms and give up in resignation.
And for people who do submit the dispute forms, often they simply
result in a "dispute denied" return with no obvious path for appeal.
To YouTube's credit, when a dispute is filed against a takedown, the
usual procedure is for the video to be provisionally returned to
viewable status, until the dispute is "answered" by the claiming
party.
Yet unless or until a takedown dispute claim is filed, it's also the
case that when a Content ID or Copyright claim is made, videos are
immediately subjected to sanctions -- third party ads, audio
deletions, geographically limited or global takedowns, etc.
More confusing is the fact that even when a video uploader has gone
through this entire process once, claimants can change their minds at
any time, resulting in new or altered sanctions against the same
uploaded videos later!
I have previously discussed the legal. logistical, and practical
reasons why systems like Content ID have become necessary, especially
in the context of their being desirable alternatives to the untenable,
impractical, and dangerous concept of requiring all uploaded videos to
be pre-screened by humans before becoming publicly available (see my
posting from last month at the link above for more).
Yet the ongoing status quo is also increasingly untenable. As the
quantity of video uploaded rapidly expands, and use of systems like
Content ID greatly accelerates, we're weaving a net of restrictions so
tightly that ever more legitimate content will be erroneously caught
in its grasp, and given the "guilty until proven innocent" nature of
these takedown systems, the results aren't going to be pretty.
Can we do better?
Yes, I believe that we can.
I have no knowledge about the internal workings of Content ID beyond
publicly available information, but here are some thoughts for
consideration.
A database of public domain video clips and related materials needs to
be established, and used as a counter-signal to help prevent erroneous
takedowns to the greatest extent practicable. It is unreasonable for
Content ID partner videos that include PD materials to trigger the
takedowns of other YouTube users who have included the same PD visual
footage or audio.
Ordinary YouTube users need some mechanism to protect their own
original video materials from incorporation into Content ID partner
videos in ways that will later be used to takedown the original clips.
Ordinary users may seem like specks in the wind to the MPAA and RIAA
giants, but these ordinary users have content ownership rights as
well -- and also deserve protection.
In instances where video blocking would currently immediately take
place based on a Content ID claim, there should be more "friction" in
the system, at least when relatively low numbers of video views have
been involved. In such a case, the video uploader could be notified
and file their dispute, but the video would not be proactively taken
down during this period. Delaying the video takedown may arguably be
less appropriate when large numbers of video views have quickly
occurred, since this may be a signal of "gaming" the system. And when
only third-party ads are involved, not takedowns, the situation is
overall less urgent in most cases.
Content ID hits that involve relatively constrained segments of video
or audio should not typically result in knocking out the entire audio
tracks or blocking the entire involved videos. If a short segment of
video is claimed to be offending, that segment could be blacked out
with an appropriate visible note -- without blocking the entire video.
Similarly, music-related Content ID hits could mute only that section
of audio, rather than the entire audio track.
Not everything I've suggested above may be practical within the
current mechanisms of YouTube's Content ID and related systems. Nor
does every YouTube user with a supposedly "offending" video receive
exactly the same treatment even now. The details of how Content ID
makes its determinations are not publicly known, and inconsistencies
in deployed penalties are also frequently mentioned in the notes I've
received on these topics.
That said, as noted I've faced erroneous Content ID claims myself, and
I've run various ... experiments ... on both YouTube and via Google's
"Hangouts On Air" (which appears to feed content through the Content
ID system) to try get a feel for what it takes to trigger the alarms.
I have some pretty good data from these tests -- but for now let's
just say that inconsistency is indeed a matter of considerable quite
relevant concern.
Even if we choose to ignore my specific points and conceptual
suggestions above, it is still undeniable that continuing down the
current path appears to be heading toward something of a slow speed
train wreck.
The combination of expansive content rights with automated content
analysis systems -- unable to really deal appropriately with public
domain materials and fair use -- has created a tightening noose that
could ultimately squeeze much of the life out of ordinary user-created
video content. Even if we stipulate that the current apparent skewing
of these systems toward the powerful content giants is the result of
practical and technical considerations, rather than any particular
policy imperatives, such a viewpoint doesn't help us escape from this
rapidly coagulating, stultifying dilemma.
We can do better. We must do better. And the sooner that open
dialogue really gets going toward dealing with these issues in the
name of all stakeholders, from the teenager creating their own video
masterpiece in their bedroom, to the largest of the studios here in
L.A., the greater the chances that we'll be able to avoid the
nightmarish day that "This video is no longer available." becomes the
standard-bearer of what were once our technological dreams.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad