Meme Girls - Ch. 60 - Copystriked
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Sadly no joke. Many youtubers making a living out of this platform get striked for the dumbest reason or false claims. In a bad case their vid gets demonetized or removed, worst case their channel gets taken down and they have to pay fines. This UB represents exactly the character of people, who report vids all the time.
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 882
I had 86 "walkthrough" videos copyright striked. The same thing strangely happened even to my first channel, but this time I dropped a very short email to the email contact provided. They were actually kind enough to remove the strikes (perhaps because it was not monetized?). Now I wish I had done the same when my first channel got taken down. It had videos I uploaded from long ago like 2010.. it feels like someone robbed me of my childhood memories or something. Back then I used to upload poor bitrate 30fps videos at 64kB/s UL.
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2020
- Messages
- 267
Youtuber: Breathes.
Random music company: So you have chosen. . . copy-strike.
Random music company: So you have chosen. . . copy-strike.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 1,267
@eng1
That is the thing though. It isn't exactly broken. Like it or not, copyrights are copyrights. There is not much wiggle room unless your name is associated with the worlds most famous mouse not named Jerry. The issue is that it is an automated process for most large websites like Youtube, which determines whether something breaches one or not.
Automated processes like this only act to punish those who do wrong, but not to protect those who do not. And that is likely intentionally done by design. It isn't going to be little Timmy hounding Youtube about all the people copying his 30 sub channel's mindcraft series. It will be record label who hire entire teams to protect their content, and the like who will be making the fuss. And it is all because of the $$.
Sadly, this kind of thing falls under the guilty until proven innocent. The thing which needs an overhaul, it the claiming process. In other words, remake from the ground up, a system to determine if something is in violation. Make it publicly accessible, so you can't just say, "but the system said so" and thats that.
These kind of issues should always be monitored by a person, not a computer. Unless the program is given very strict specifications as to what to look for. Youtube does not do that.
It has a simple reporting peocess, which is very easy to do. But a hard appeal system due to staffing constraints, and quantity of work. No one really cares about a 3 year old video with under 10k views. It really isn't making money anymore. They will strike it, but more so out of principle, than $ reasons.
But when a channels with 100k+ subs, releases a new video, they get on that in seconds. It is gonna make them money for simply filling out a form. And they do not have to do shit because it is up to the channel, and Youtube to prove they aren't right. There is no repercussion to filimg a claim that is revoked. So why not just do it for everything? It is free money.
And the big reason it is like that is because Youtube is held responsible for hosting "illegal" content. They can be sued, so they heavily pander to those who have the money and resources to sue them.
That is the problem.
What should happen, is that demonitization should only happen for inappropriate content. Not DMCA claims. Keep the video making money, but hold it until the video clears any claim discrepancies, then credit the winner. Not demonitize the video, then resolve claim issues, then remonitize it. That ONLY hurts content creators, but it also saves youtube a lot of money by not having to pay them even close to as much for their work.
That is the thing though. It isn't exactly broken. Like it or not, copyrights are copyrights. There is not much wiggle room unless your name is associated with the worlds most famous mouse not named Jerry. The issue is that it is an automated process for most large websites like Youtube, which determines whether something breaches one or not.
Automated processes like this only act to punish those who do wrong, but not to protect those who do not. And that is likely intentionally done by design. It isn't going to be little Timmy hounding Youtube about all the people copying his 30 sub channel's mindcraft series. It will be record label who hire entire teams to protect their content, and the like who will be making the fuss. And it is all because of the $$.
Sadly, this kind of thing falls under the guilty until proven innocent. The thing which needs an overhaul, it the claiming process. In other words, remake from the ground up, a system to determine if something is in violation. Make it publicly accessible, so you can't just say, "but the system said so" and thats that.
These kind of issues should always be monitored by a person, not a computer. Unless the program is given very strict specifications as to what to look for. Youtube does not do that.
It has a simple reporting peocess, which is very easy to do. But a hard appeal system due to staffing constraints, and quantity of work. No one really cares about a 3 year old video with under 10k views. It really isn't making money anymore. They will strike it, but more so out of principle, than $ reasons.
But when a channels with 100k+ subs, releases a new video, they get on that in seconds. It is gonna make them money for simply filling out a form. And they do not have to do shit because it is up to the channel, and Youtube to prove they aren't right. There is no repercussion to filimg a claim that is revoked. So why not just do it for everything? It is free money.
And the big reason it is like that is because Youtube is held responsible for hosting "illegal" content. They can be sued, so they heavily pander to those who have the money and resources to sue them.
That is the problem.
What should happen, is that demonitization should only happen for inappropriate content. Not DMCA claims. Keep the video making money, but hold it until the video clears any claim discrepancies, then credit the winner. Not demonitize the video, then resolve claim issues, then remonitize it. That ONLY hurts content creators, but it also saves youtube a lot of money by not having to pay them even close to as much for their work.
@javelinjoe The issue of the DMCA claim process predates even youtube. Even when people were involved in the process, no one is gonna investigate the legitemacy of the DMCA claim. So hosting providers would simply lock you out, ask questions later.
Even if making fake DMCA claims is a crime, being the internet no one is gonna track the person making the claim. And even if you know who it is most people dont have lawyers on staff. There have been plenty of cases of RIAA harassing self published creators and sites who promote them with the DMCA
The copyright isnt the problem, the real life implementation is the problem. Maybe a simpler solution would be that if you want to publish you put 100 bucks in an escrow. And anyone who wants to make a claim puts 100 bucks in an escrow, then a trained in the field arbitor would first fake evidence from the person and if he cant prove it, he is ou 100 bucks. If he can prove it they contact the host or publisher and get thier take, if they cant defend themselves they are out 100 bucks and hosting takes them down. Effectively, only the party in the wrong has to pay for the person who checks
Even if making fake DMCA claims is a crime, being the internet no one is gonna track the person making the claim. And even if you know who it is most people dont have lawyers on staff. There have been plenty of cases of RIAA harassing self published creators and sites who promote them with the DMCA
The copyright isnt the problem, the real life implementation is the problem. Maybe a simpler solution would be that if you want to publish you put 100 bucks in an escrow. And anyone who wants to make a claim puts 100 bucks in an escrow, then a trained in the field arbitor would first fake evidence from the person and if he cant prove it, he is ou 100 bucks. If he can prove it they contact the host or publisher and get thier take, if they cant defend themselves they are out 100 bucks and hosting takes them down. Effectively, only the party in the wrong has to pay for the person who checks
@Beregorn That's funny you would say that because clearly, it go both ways. Merry even was victime of this not farther than 2 or 3 weeks ago. Some random dude copystriked the minecraft videos, saying he owned the creeper-girl design because he allegedly made an oc with green hair and red eyes like 7 years ago and used it as pfp for years.
Merry talked to him and he retracted his claims not too long after.
Then he proceeded to reiterate his claims as soon as a new video came.
Pretty sure things are fixed now though. (you can find all the story somewhere on Merry's twitter if you're curious)
Merry talked to him and he retracted his claims not too long after.
Then he proceeded to reiterate his claims as soon as a new video came.
Pretty sure things are fixed now though. (you can find all the story somewhere on Merry's twitter if you're curious)
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,466
Fuck Youtube's copyright strike system. It is complete and total bullshit.
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Messages
- 273
This is sadly true to a point, yt is doing absolutely trashing their rep.
Similar threads
