Content Trolls

[raptor1956]

I just received an email from YouTube that one of my videos where I reviewed the BenQ PV3200PT 32 Inch 4K Monitor and included a short clip of a benchmark to show off the display -- the video is being claimed and that any revenue generated will now go to them.  I'm not playing that game and have deleted the video -- if I can't get compensated they wont either.

So, I did a search on the claimant and it appears they are a notorious content troll know as "Studio71_2_1".

I could go through the process of challenging the claim and likely win but I don't have the energy for that and have decided to delete the video altogether.  Sadly the world is filled with douche nozzles.   


Brian

[EEVblog]

The challenge process is pretty quick and easy, but I understand you you'd just delete it.

[Circlotron]

Make sure your face, for better or worse, appears in the video. Hard for someone to argue with that.

[Mr. Scram]

Make sure your face, for better or worse, appears in the video. Hard for someone to argue with that.

It's not about the full clip, it's about a tiny fraction of the clip.

It sound like this kind of use should be covered by fair use, but both Youtube and content owners don't seem to be very keen on applying that principle.

[raptor1956]

I did have my face in the video and was surprised to be gigged by them.  It looks like this content troll probably has some crawler program that searches videos for matching content and if they find it they automatically generate a report to YT.  The video I posted was about the BenQ monitor but the part of the video referenced was the minute or two of me playing a bench-marking program that came with me nVidia 980TI video card that tests the performance at various settings.  So, there would have been nothing in my video title that would have mentioned the benchmark program so they would either have had to play it to find it or they used an automated crawler.  The benchmark program was the Unigine Valley Benchmark and if I remember correctly it came with the drivers for my video card.  I have since reinstalled my OS and wiped my PC so I no longer of the program -- the video was posted about 2.5 years ago and had about 30K views.

I could have appealed and it looks like I could have won -- I think whomever Studio71_2_1 was representing may well have had the same benchmark sequence on one of there videos but they gave me no pointer to the video it was supposed to have infringed and the channel (jacksepticeye) has way too many videos to go through all of them.

So, I deleted the video and no longer have the rendered file that was uploaded -- not sure what happened to it though I still have the raw files if I wanted to recreate.  But, that review is more than 2.5 year old so there's little point.

For a lighter view of this...




Brian

[wraper]

I did have my face in the video and was surprised to be gigged by them.  It looks like this content troll probably has some crawler program that searches videos for matching content and if they find it they automatically generate a report to YT.

They don't need anything. YouTube has built in content ID system.

[raptor1956]

I did have my face in the video and was surprised to be gigged by them.  It looks like this content troll probably has some crawler program that searches videos for matching content and if they find it they automatically generate a report to YT.

They don't need anything. YouTube has built in content ID system.

This video was uploaded over 2.5 years ago and if some other channel included a similar clip for the Valley Benchmark as I did how would YT determine if either was a violation and if so which one was the violator.  YT was not behind this and are only acting as there policy dictates.  The email from YT reads:

Hi Raptorman0909,

A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.

This is just a heads up
Don’t worry. You’re not in trouble and your account standing is not affected by this.

There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.

Video title: BenQ PV3200PT 32 Inch 4K Monitor
Claimed by: Studio71_2_1
 View claim details

What's next?
If there are no problems, you don’t need to take any action. You don't need to delete your video.

If something went wrong and the copyright owner or our system made a mistake, we have a dispute process. Only use it if you’re confident you have the rights to use all the content in your video.

Need copyright-safe songs?
When choosing music for your next video, you can avoid copyright-related issues by picking a song from the YouTube Audio Library. We're adding new tracks all the time!
- The YouTube Team


So, from this I deduce that  Studio71_2_1, which appears to be a company that represents other content creators, found the video and found that it contained some portion that had similar content as one of the videos from one of there clients, "jacksepticeye".  But, since the video was over 30 minutes and the portion flagged was from 25:54 - 29:07 they would either have had to watch the whole video or they used some automated tool to match fingerprints.  It's my guess they used a crawler and it flagged the video.


Brian

[wraper]

But, since the video was over 30 minutes and the portion flagged was from 25:54 - 29:07 they would either have had to watch the whole video or they used some automated tool to match fingerprints.  It's my guess they used a crawler and it flagged the video.

Do you not understand Content ID is that system which automatically matches video content?  All you need to do is feed it the video/audio and it will do everything by itself.

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

https://youtu.be/9g2U12SsRns

[raptor1956]

But, since the video was over 30 minutes and the portion flagged was from 25:54 - 29:07 they would either have had to watch the whole video or they used some automated tool to match fingerprints.  It's my guess they used a crawler and it flagged the video.

Do you not understand Content ID is that system which automatically matches video content?  All you need to do is feed it the video/audio and it will do everything by itself.

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

https://youtu.be/9g2U12SsRns

OK, so YT automatically scans and THEN:

(From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en)

Copyright owners get to decide what happens when content in a video on YouTube matches a work they own. When this happens, the video gets a Content ID claim.


So, the automated system may well be YT's but the decision to file a claim isn't YT's, its the content provider.

What this suggests is that YT may have flagged the video and sent a message to jacksepticeye or to Studio71_2_1 who then agreed to the violation.  I guess it's still possible the Studio71_2_1 has a bot that handles these things and automatically approves of the claim. 

In the end YT is, once again, merely doing as the policy dictates and on the approval of either Studio71_2_1 or jacksepticeye -- I'd suspect the former.  Neither, however, could have actually reviewed my video because it was original content other than the inclusion of the benchmark clip which, I suspect, was part of one of the videos that jacksepticeye uploaded.  I wish they had provided the name of the video I offended so I could know when it was uploaded and what, exactly, was the offending part though it seems it was the benchmark clip.

The odd thing is if YT was the originating actor is that the video I uploaded was uploaded about April of 2016 so you'd think it would have been flagged a long time ago.  I wonder if the video they posted predates mine, if not how would my video be the one in violation.


Brian

[Brumby]

The odd thing is if YT was the originating actor is that the video I uploaded was uploaded about April of 2016 so you'd think it would have been flagged a long time ago.  I wonder if the video they posted predates mine, if not how would my video be the one in violation.

I don't think dates are going to be a controlling factor - at least not for the algorithm.  There could easily be cases where copyrighted material is uploaded before the copyright holder has registered their material with YouTube.  The consideration of dates is something I can see might be included where a dispute is made.

[Brumby]

Six years ago I took a 23 second clip from BTTF 3 and uploaded it to my own Youtube account.  Some time later I was served with a notice of copyright claim from Universal.  I responded, agreeing that it was theirs and I heard nothing more.  The clip is still there.

I guess once they had acknowledgement they were happy, possibly taking any revenue it may have attracted - not that 1.1K views would give them much.

[Tomorokoshi]

Like a pool of briny water filled with bugs in the hot sun, as the water evaporates it gets more brackish and brutal.

[raptor1956]

The odd thing is if YT was the originating actor is that the video I uploaded was uploaded about April of 2016 so you'd think it would have been flagged a long time ago.  I wonder if the video they posted predates mine, if not how would my video be the one in violation.

I don't think dates are going to be a controlling factor - at least not for the algorithm.  There could easily be cases where copyrighted material is uploaded before the copyright holder has registered their material with YouTube.  The consideration of dates is something I can see might be included where a dispute is made.

This does not appear to be a case involving copyrighted material in the classic sense.  It appears that I shot video of my PC and its new BenQ monitor doing a benchmark and it wasn't the creator of the benchmark that flagged this -- it appears it was another YT creator that happened to include a similar clip from the same benchmark.  So, neither of us own that benchmark program and it wasn't the owner of the benchmark program or anyone representing them that filed the complaint.  It appears that a YT creator who's channel is named "jacksepticeye" has a video that included a similar clip of that benchmark and that creators management/media company, Studio71_2_1, stepped in to claim ownership and probably did so without actually viewing my video.

Looking around on the internet there are many others that have been similarly claimed against by this same media company and some of the talk centers on there using bots.  I have no way to confirm that though it is something I've mentioned as a possibility so I guess I'm not alone in those suspicions. 


Brian

[raptor1956]

Like a pool of briny water filled with bugs in the hot sun, as the water evaporates it gets more brackish and brutal.

I take it you've been to Mono Lake or The Salton Sea then!


Brian

[Kilrah]

Watch Dave's recent video about that and the comments on it.

Some channels / media companies turn on content ID for their uploads. That becomes a statement from them that all rights to anything they upload belongs fully to them. Any upload of something identical or close enough will be flagged by the automatic content ID system. There's no action of any person at this point, and youtube is taking "preventive" measures so they can't be sued by the original creator for not doing anything.

Often the original uploader has no exclusivity on that content unlike what they implicitly stated so an appeal will go through straight, but unfortunately there's no penalty for them misusing the system.

[raptor1956]

Watch Dave's recent video about that and the comments on it.

Some channels / media companies turn on content ID for their uploads. That becomes a statement from them that all rights to anything they upload belongs fully to them. Any upload of something identical or close enough will be flagged by the automatic content ID system. There's no action of any person at this point, and youtube is taking "preventive" measures so they can't be sued by the original creator for not doing anything.

Often the original uploader has no exclusivity on that content unlike what they implicitly stated so an appeal will go through straight, but unfortunately there's no penalty for them misusing the system.

This is getting a little confusing ... I'm told that this fingerprinting is done automatically by YT but you're suggesting that this is a feature that a content provider needs to activate before YT will scan.  If that's so and Studio71_2_1 activated that on all there channels uploads then the fact that I got gigged yesterday for a video that was uploaded over 2.5 years ago suggests that the channel just uploaded there video with the content fingerprint feature active or there's a substantial delay in YT getting around to running the fingerprint.  When I check the channel that filed the complaint I do not see any recent videos that look like they might include the Valley Benchmark and I'm not going to look through hundreds of videos to check.  The channel has over 20M subscribers and countless videos and I don't have the time or patience to check through potentially hundreds of videos to find it.  I also don't want to give the creator any money because I viewed his videos.


Brian

[Mr. Scram]

Watch Dave's recent video about that and the comments on it.

Some channels / media companies turn on content ID for their uploads. That becomes a statement from them that all rights to anything they upload belongs fully to them. Any upload of something identical or close enough will be flagged by the automatic content ID system. There's no action of any person at this point, and youtube is taking "preventive" measures so they can't be sued by the original creator for not doing anything.

Often the original uploader has no exclusivity on that content unlike what they implicitly stated so an appeal will go through straight, but unfortunately there's no penalty for them misusing the system.

That last bit it why we keep having this discussion and also why it's not going to change. There's no penalty for false claims and as such, companies just claim everything and anything. It really is the sensible thing to do. It's simple optimisation.

The funny part is that Youtube warns you when you try to make a copyright claim. "Do not make false claims. Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences."

[Brumby]

There's no penalty for false claims and as such, companies just claim everything and anything. It really is the sensible thing to do. It's simple optimisation.

Even if only 10% of bogus claims don't get challenged, they still make some money.  It's like the email scams these days.  You only need a small percentage of targets to get taken for it to be worth the effort.

The funny part is that Youtube warns you when you try to make a copyright claim. "Do not make false claims. Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences."

Words are cheap.  Following through is something else.

[james_s]

I would challenge every single one of the claims just as a matter of principal. There really should be significant penalties for making false claims, the problem would go away real quick.

[raptor1956]

I would challenge every single one of the claims just as a matter of principal. There really should be significant penalties for making false claims, the problem would go away real quick.

Among the problems is that they make it sound like challenging the claim will risk being suspended with a strike.  Apparently, no matter how many false claims are made there is no penalty for making the false claim.

A wrinkle here is if the content ID fingerprint scanning done by YT is the thing that initiates the claim and how this could perhaps limit the risks to the claimant given they were not the one that flagged the "infringing video" in the first place.  In other words, if the YT scan detects a "match" then the claimant gets a free pass on the claim.

YT could help alleviate this with a few changes:

First they need to provide more information about the video who's content is supposedly being infringed -- at this point the only thing you get to know is the channel name of the claimant and the time in your infringing video that the match occurred at.  By knowing the name of the video that YT implies is the one infringed you can more easily determine what, if any, actual content is a problem and better know how to respond with your dispute.  Second, the dispute system appears pretty half baked with too little comment space to make a comment.  Third, channels that make frequent claims need to be held accountable for there aggressive claims, but as they are often big creators YT appears to protect them while having no desire to protect the small creators that are there most frequent victims.  Perhaps a page listing the top 100 claimants AND the percentage of there claims that hold up, but given what I just said this will never happen.  Lastly, channels that make frequent claims that are false should be suspended for a day on the first offense, a week on the second offense, a month of the third, and banned completely for the fourth false claim within 2 years.  The last one would have the most teeth but is yet another thing YT will never do with the major creators.


Brian


Brian

[james_s]

I suppose you could try playing their game and keep submitting false claims to the videos posted by the entities that are making false claims against you.

[raptor1956]

I suppose you could try playing their game and keep submitting false claims to the videos posted by the entities that are making false claims against you.

I don't have the time to play this game and its not a game I'd want to play even if I had the time.  Frankly, making claims against someone that hasn't actually infringed on anything I've posted seems a bit risky and not at all moral.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

I've posted about 100 videos in the last 3 years or so and this is the first time I've had a claim filed against me so that kind of response would be unwarranted given the singular claim made against me.  What is troubling, though, is that this system is open to huge false claims and since YT is often the initiating party with the content ID scan the channel that's the beneficiary can just sit back and profit with YT taking all the heat. 


Brian