YouTube Content ID Apocalypse

[lazygecko]

There were rumors floating around last week about some pretty dramatic changes to YouTube policies that would be very harmful to gaming-related channels, and a few days ago this really exploded and has started to affect the livelihoods of several professionals who are part of this new ecosystem of gaming press and promotion.

There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the facts and blame seems to be thrown around all over the place. Some thought all of this was pushed by game publishers, but that seems to be related to a separate policy that is slated for next year.

What has happened this week is an extensive change to YouTube's automated Content ID matching system, which now automaticly flags videos based on a list of supposed copyright holders, removes ownership of video from the uploader, and redirects ad revenues to the company that claims to own the matched content found in the video.

This is where it gets all sorts of messed up from a myriad of factors. For example, most of the reported Content ID matches come from entities that seemingly have no or an extremly vague connection to the content in question. One example given is the game Hotline Miami where many videos are being flagged and getting revenues redirected to CD Baby, simply because some music from its soundtrack also happens to be published under them.

Another example can be Nintendo, who are much more aggressive than other game companies when it comes to their game footage being on YouTube. You could have a video talking about video games in general, and perhaps 10% of it is dedicated to discussing a Nintendo game with a bit of gameplay footage showing simultaneously, and Nintendo can claim ownership of that entire video regardless of the fact that 90% of the other video content has nothing to do with them. This is allegedly what happened to one of TotalBiscuit's videos. There have even been reported cases of game companies' official YouTube channels getting their own promotional game videos flagged by other companies, thanks to this blanket algorithm.

This is getting a lot of coverage everywhere right now, but I think the best source I've come across is

with Adam Sessler, a couple of prominent YouTube personalities who make a living from this, and 2 representatives from publishers Devolver Digital and Deep Silver. It covers a lot of interesting topics and bullshit surrounding all this.

[djpretzel]

Well, look.... obviously this is complete bullshit for the affected content creators who are producing original content that simply happens to be ABOUT or INVOLVE the material in question...

... but - simply as a topic of conversation - for every individual working hard to provide meaningful content on YT, for which compensation in the form of ad revenue is absolutely appropriate, there are dozens if not hundreds who are putting stuff up verbatim, with no modifications whatsoever, and monetizing it. That USED to be fine, because monetization USED to be harder, but since it's become so very easy to monetize pretty much ANYTHING on YouTube, Pandora's Box was opened, and Copyright Holders do have some legitimate objections to people just blatantly using their shit to make money, with zero-to-minimal original contributions of their own.

Divining the degree to which a "substantial original contribution" has been made is something that no algorithm that I'm aware of could BEGIN to handle. And so, in a reversal of their "Don't be evil" mantra from days of yore, they're erring on the side of big money. Shocker! A more interesting question... was this their plan all along? Let the cat wayyyy out of the bag, let the childrens run WILD, then flick the BIG MONEY SWITCH on, then reel it all back in & divert all that cheddar back to Corporate Earth? So devious, if so... and yet, a truly post-Internet business model!

In my mind, the best solution is making it HARDER to monetize videos in the first place - that's the place where human review can & should still be involved...

Edited December 13, 2013 by djpretzel

[zircon]

That's certainly one solution. Another solution would be to allow for dynamic splits of ad revenue. For example, if a gaming commentator uses my music in the background of their video, I've elected not to participate in content ID. As a result, I get $0.00 for that usage. However, it would be nice if I could opt-in to a content ID system that takes, say, 10% of the revenue instead of 100%.

[Sir_NutS]

I do feel sorry for people like Angry Joe and other legitimate content creators who go above the norm to create great content for youtube are getting this slap across the face. Certainly dire times for people trying to make a living out of the medium and striving to make the content of the highest quality possible while also bringing legitimate product reviews, first looks, comments, editorials, etc.

Whats more, this blanket flagging wasn't even requested by the copyright holders in question. Blizzard, Ubisoft, Capcom among others have stated plainly that they haven't asked for content to be flagged like this.

[Mirby]

It's the new algorithm going haywire.

If anything, it probably needs to be reworked to allow for more compromise between the person making the video and the (actual) copyright holder. I say actual because there's many cases of the video being misattributed to the wrong holder. It shouldn't be an "all or nothing" type deal, it should allow for compromise.

The other problem is how the new system doesn't differentiate between outright infringement, fair use, and allowed usages. It just covers them all under the same blanket.

[Modus]

Do zircon's idea. It would open up a whole new media marketplace.

Although huge companies like Nintendo are under no obligation to negotiate, a partnership is better than a parasite. We need middle ground.

[Sir_NutS]

I think TotalBiscuit put it best: people seem to have the idea that copyright holders and content creators should be enemies when in fact they should be working together. There is a huge growing market for the kind of content that AJ, TB and others do, as well as an equally huge and growing market for Let's Players. Hell, Sony and Microsoft are already capitalizing on that by allowing people to stream. They should get their heads out of their asses and get to a middle ground. TotalBiscuit actually mentioned us (OCR) as a good example of content creators, artists and fans working together with publishers to bring out albums like deus ex and mega man.

[Melbu Frahma]

I think TotalBiscuit put it best: people seem to have the idea that copyright holders and content creators should be enemies when in fact they should be working together. There is a huge growing market for the kind of content that AJ, TB and others do, as well as an equally huge and growing market for Let's Players. Hell, Sony and Microsoft are already capitalizing on that by allowing people to stream. They should get their heads out of their asses and get to a middle ground. TotalBiscuit actually mentioned us (OCR) as a good example of content creators, artists and fans working together with publishers to bring out albums like deus ex and mega man.

This, a thousand times over.

.

[Tensei]

I do feel sorry for people like Angry Joe and other legitimate content creators

Me too.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Tensei

[The Legendary Zoltan]

I had a conversation with a friend of mine and he had the exact same idea as Zircon. If the copyright holders could get 10% that would be a good way to go. Then maybe Square would REALLY see how much FF7 is loved. Hahaha. I want them to make a better system as soon as possible.

[Chernabogue]

Both camps have right arguments, but I think the situation should be anaysed almost case by case, in concreto (as some people really abuse the fair use).

[lazygecko]

So Youtube has issued a statement where they completely stand by their decision. They will not even admit that the automated system is making a lot of calls in error.

At the same time I've gotten some worrying information concerning people's music from this video which reports cases where people have used commercial, royalty-free samples in their music. If someone else has used these samples in their music which is allegedly owned by one of these companies listed in the Content ID system, they will claim ownerhip over any other music that happens to use these samples.

So if you just happen to have a Vengeance loop or something playing on your song which is on YouTube, some company with absolutely no affiliation with Vengeance can claim total ownership of your video on the basis of the (royalty-free) sample. Now I am no legal expert, but I am pretty sure that is not even close to legal.

But of course, there couldn't be anything wrong with the algorithm YouTube/Google uses. Nope. It's working absolutely fine!

[The Legendary Zoltan]

This is just horrible. Since they don't want to change their system they should either create some kind of review system where they can wait for copyright claims to be resolved BEFORE the video is viewable by the public (releasing videos privately first could help) or just do what dip suggested and not allow instant monetization for anyone with a click of a button. I'm very worried about all this.

[djpretzel]

So Youtube has issued a statement where they completely stand by their decision. They will not even admit that the automated system is making a lot of calls in error.

...

So if you just happen to have a Vengeance loop or something playing on your song which is on YouTube, some company with absolutely no affiliation with Vengeance can claim total ownership of your video on the basis of the (royalty-free) sample. Now I am no legal expert, but I am pretty sure that is not even close to legal.

But of course, there couldn't be anything wrong with the algorithm YouTube/Google uses. Nope. It's working absolutely fine!

Two thoughts... one, if they continue doubling-down on this decision in spite of clear false-positives and public outcry, perhaps they've done the math and concluded that even with a certain % of attrition on the part of their contributing user base, this is STILL a more profitable path forward for them. I'd actually be surprised if someone HADN'T run some projected numbers that would help explain why they would continue to stand by a policy so clearly unpopular.

Second though, re: legality - I'm pretty sure you sign away enough rights via the YouTube/Google TOS that this isn't likely. Again, they've got the resources, I'm guessing they've crossed the T's and dotted the I's, and that redirection of ad revenue based on automated content ID matching is completely within their legal rights as providers of their service. That's "legal" - from an "ethical" perspective, they're basically giving up on the people who made them huge in the first place, flipping them the bird, and cashing in.

So if they stand by this shift, and the algo doesn't get better.... then imo that potentially opens up a space in the market for a viable competitor. But any would-be challenger might ask themselves... if Google themselves went this route after analyzing the numbers, projecting the costs, calculating the risk, etc... why wouldn't we just end up in the same boat?

I dunno, interested in thoughts on this... at the moment the most logical development would simply be refinement of the algo or some sort of partial system like Andy proposed, although that introduces additional complexity, and if they're not getting this algo right (at all), it's difficult to see how they would get something MORE complex right...

Edited December 20, 2013 by djpretzel