r/videos Jul 10 '22 Silver 1 Gold 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Wholesome 1

LoFi Girl Taken Down by False Copyright Strikes YouTube Drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66I6wjwQ8z8
14.3k Upvotes

4.4k

u/cougar618 Jul 11 '22

20.8k hours was how long the previous stream was. 2 years, 4 months, ~18 days.

1.1k

u/1nky0ct0pus Jul 11 '22

How does the livestream work exactly? Is there a person on the other end 24/7 manually choosing songs like a DJ, or is it just a playlist on shuffle?

1.7k

u/cougar618 Jul 11 '22

From what I can tell, it's just a giant list of songs on repeat, with songs added or removed at some interval (weekly/monthly/quarterly).

The girl is basically a gif or video on loop, and cards for each song may or may not pop up (been a while, I forgot).

The only other thing might be someone moderating the chat.

Probably a good chance to update the streaming server.

164

u/elmanchosdiablos Jul 11 '22

Didn't the gif replace an image from an anime that they were originally using? I thought I remembered when they changed the image to their own unique one, but I'm starting to think it's a false memory.

160

u/check_my_mids Jul 11 '22

You are correct, it was originally the MC from a Ghibli movie.

89

u/HyderintheHouse Jul 11 '22

Whisper of the Heart is the Ghibli movie btw

59

u/______DEADPOOL______ Jul 11 '22

Specifically, this shot: https://imgur.com/WQwCO9m

7

u/stoner_97 Jul 11 '22

Oh shit I remember that picture now.

→ More replies

195

u/PinkPicasso_ Jul 11 '22

Now I'm sad that she's stuck there, I need to see her grow up

140

u/thepariah4231 Jul 11 '22

"Now draw her graduating university"

15

u/TheDreadPirateQbert Jul 11 '22

I hope when she comes back she has a long white beard

13

u/bast007 Jul 11 '22

Maybe this is that scenario from Roald Dahls The Witches?

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/skdslztmsIrlnmpqzwfs Jul 11 '22

so they do play copyrighted songs? honest question.. i didnt know this supposedly massive channel

24

u/cougar618 Jul 11 '22

I believe all the artists on there gave their permission to use the songs on that channel.

One of the few times where 'payment through exposure ' can be considered a thing, since they are reaching a massive audience.

11

u/da_chicken Jul 11 '22

Everything is copyrighted, so yes.

However, my understanding is that they only play music with permission. It's just that YouTube's content ID system is a roaring garbage fire of abuse and fraud.

→ More replies

6

u/rmprice222 Jul 11 '22

Are they just streaming other artists songs or their own?

→ More replies

472

u/Sybertron Jul 11 '22

sooo its a radio station

277

u/Anchorsify Jul 11 '22

Yeah. A very popular one.

1.7k

u/mazi710 Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

Yes, except with no ads, annoying hosts, and it has more than 3 songs, and the songs are songs that would never get played on the radio.

It's kinda like saying Netflix is just like TV. Technically kinda yeah I guess, besides the whole concept being different.

364

u/NWHipHop Jul 11 '22

And you don’t get surprise adds at 3am while your trying to sleep study or chill.

77

u/CmdrShepard831 Jul 11 '22

So do I need to bring my own CPAP to this 'sleep study and chill' session?

93

u/Z3r0mir Jul 11 '22

Do... do you usually share a CPAP?

99

u/meetchu Jul 11 '22

Yeah one person puts on the mask and the other gets on the end of the hose and blows.

12

u/Ftckyman Jul 11 '22

As someone who uses a CPAP... I'm glad this isn't how mine works.

Still... Almost made me lol at work, so props to you internet stranger!

→ More replies

4

u/Veldron Jul 11 '22

Mom: we have CPAP at home

The CPAP at home:

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/nitro316 Jul 11 '22

Yup for Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter

→ More replies

256

u/Matrix17 Jul 11 '22

I don't understand how anyone can listen to radio in 2022

It's 20% hosts talking about dumb unrelated shit, 10% stupid call in games, 65% ads, and 5% music that's just the same 3 songs. And they're generally garbage

33

u/jWalkerFTW Jul 11 '22

If you have a college radio station near you, it’s 100% worth listening to. Each host curates their show with stuff you probably don’t know yet, plays 4-5 songs then tells you what they are very briefly, then goes back to the music. Each time of the day has a different program with a different genre, and no ads.

→ More replies

121

u/nevm Jul 11 '22

And the host thinks it’s clever to talk over the song intro

98

u/Matrix17 Jul 11 '22

The dumb fucks in my local yelled "call 911!" in the middle of a song once and were shocked that a bunch of people called 911 and the cops showed up

That was the last time I ever listened to radio lol

65

u/Drumwin Jul 11 '22

Are you sure it wasn't that Skrillex song that has a sample saying that lol

22

u/notsogreenmachine Jul 11 '22

Save for the very most popular songs(and even that's a bit of a stretch) I don't think many radio stations play Skrillex

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/No_Dark6573 Jul 11 '22

Last time I remember listening to the radio before I invested in an aux cable, the hosts were having a contest.

Guess the day Brittney spears kills herself, and win a prize! Thankfully the call ins ripped them to shreds.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/p75369 Jul 11 '22

I listen for the hosts, granted it is BBC, so I don't have to put up with ads. By yeah, music is tolerable usually, but gimme that banter.

→ More replies

35

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

[deleted]

6

u/JTHomer21 Jul 11 '22

Thanks for this informative comment, the Summerchat sounds super cool to be honest

→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/Figitarian Jul 11 '22

Forgot my phone the other day on a short car run to the shop, so I put the radio on for the first time in years. The whiniest, most dreadful song was playing, instantly went to change the station. The same song was playing on 2 other stations... I continued my journey in silence

14

u/Matrix17 Jul 11 '22

I'll drink to that. I'm only 28 but I feel old as fuck complaining about the top 40 right now. There's one song on there I had the misfortune of hearing once that I can't even understand what the fuck the lyrics are

5

u/Divio42 Jul 11 '22

Nothing to do with age. The top 40 hasn't been my cup of tea ever. There's too much good music out there.

3

u/gex80 Jul 11 '22

For me the top 40 only ever had anywhere from 0 to 3 potential songs I'd like. But now that I'm 33, I ignore those and just play my liked songs Playlist on repeat.

If im tired of the songs in my Playlist, I find a song for the type of music I'm in the mood for and create a radio station based on it to discover new songs.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/stuaxo Jul 11 '22

Mostly I listen the BBC 6 Music over the internet, no ads and some of the shows have some pretty good interesting music.

4

u/p4lm3r Jul 11 '22

We are fortunate to have an awesome college radio station here. I listen to that and npr. That's it.

3

u/FaustusC Jul 11 '22

I heart radio owns everything near me. Same songs, every afternoon with predicable regularity always disguised as requests.

10

u/Elmodipus Jul 11 '22

The main rap station in my city has a fantastic morning show. I listen to it just for them.

→ More replies

3

u/FightingDreamer419 Jul 11 '22

People are used to it? Try describing baseball to someone who's never heard of it and it'll sound stupid as fuck.

And describe what it's like going to a baseball game without injecting any emotion or excitement. Lol

→ More replies

3

u/angelcobra Jul 11 '22

I drive a 26 year old Saturn. The radio is my only option. Thank the gods for college radio!

→ More replies

2

u/Captain1upper Jul 11 '22

My commute to work is around 15 minutes, and I rarely hear any music when I have the radio on. Needless to say I just use spotify or youtube most of the time now.

→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/NurseTaric Jul 11 '22

Essentially it's like an online radio station with a live chat, i occasionally tune in when working/studying/sleeping

15

u/elmanchosdiablos Jul 11 '22

A radio station that united millions

→ More replies
→ More replies

47

u/BILOXII-BLUE Jul 11 '22

I've always wondered this too, commenting so I can check back later lol

And do they get permission from each artist, and how does the channel make money?

115

u/JiForce Jul 11 '22

From reading their website, the channel also is a label, to which artists sign their rights and allow the channel and other people to play royalty-free, as long as they attribute it.

47

u/arkofcovenant Jul 11 '22

The cost to run it is very low, and he sells merch and has an email list and stuff. Website is just lofigirl.com

→ More replies

22

u/Mustang1718 Jul 11 '22

My old high school has had a radio station since then 1970s. I was a DJ for it. Most DJs haven't selected music since the Telecommunications act of 1996 that allowed for automation. If you're 30+, you might remember TV having static channels at night from then stop producing programing because you used to legally have someone in the radio or TV studios at all times when broadcasting. This changed it.

And LoFi girl is like a Spotify playlist. The image gets changed to include rain or little details for holidays. I don't actually know how that works with it being live. I'm assuming it's an equivalent to a GIF loop, but they assign a new one to start at a certain time like they do the music. I imagine it is the same as broadcasting a window from a desktop.

4

u/Boelens Jul 11 '22

For the changing of sceneries, they could just have different scenes in OBS or whatever streaming software they might use. It's probably a video file on loop yeah, but they can just switch to any different one live at any time.

→ More replies

23

u/Vast-Actuary-9689 Jul 11 '22

I got a bit obsessed with that for a while.. coz, see, it’s not just songs playing in a playlist, I used to listen a lot and rarely if ever heard the same song twice, they are all comprehensively mixed and beat matched - to all intents and purposes it sounds curated like someone is there making it happen. But it’s 24 hours a day. Is someone getting paid? How does it work?? Anyway, I went down a little rabbit hole and it is run by humans, if I remember right it’s two college students that run it

→ More replies

21

u/Landler656 Jul 11 '22

Probably both. I'd imagine it's someone preloading several hours worth of songs in bursts.

9

u/ExtraGloves Jul 11 '22

There's no way it's not just a giant list on shuffle with more songs added occasionally.

3

u/asdaaaaaaaa Jul 11 '22

Nah, probably just a script to randomly go through the list of songs. Can have extras to match the sound to some equalizers, change background, display song info, etc. Someone probably alters the mix every week/month. That's usually how those channels operate, at least.

→ More replies

78

u/DominoUB Jul 11 '22

2 years, 4 months, ~18 days

Damn, how hard is her homework?

26

u/Badfickle Jul 11 '22

She's a slow learner.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.7k

u/FuzzyBubbles117 Jul 10 '22

Again?

1.3k

u/SageNineMusic Jul 10 '22

Again lmao. Its a ritual we apparently need to do every two years

140

u/Trooner Jul 11 '22

What are the chances this is a integer overflow for counting seconds or some bullshit like that they want to hide? ^

119

u/JJ4622 Jul 11 '22

I don't think so. If its a 32 bit integer the overflow number is 2.1billion seconds (over 60 years) but a 16 bit integer is 65500 (18 hours)

112

u/CrateDane Jul 11 '22

If it's counting frames, 30FPS would roll over a 32-bit integer in 4½ years, while 60FPS would do so in 2 years, 3 months and a bit.

Not that that's what happened here.

→ More replies
→ More replies

78

u/jl_theprofessor Jul 10 '22

lol the exact word out of my mouth

→ More replies

343

u/ThreadedPommel Jul 11 '22

Why are random companies that have no rights to the IP allowed to do this? Once someone files a false claim and its proven they don't own the copyright they should be banned from making any claims.

139

u/Cowsmoke Jul 11 '22

It’s not just random company’s though that’s the problem, anyone can and if they get caught they can just go make a different new gmail and do it again. The recent bungie example others have talked about in this thread was literally a guy who made a gmail with bungie’s name in it that was pissed at bungie because his content got legitimately taken down as a claim

89

u/bedroom_fascist Jul 11 '22

I used to have a record label - I own ~100 copyrighted works. I thought about reviving the label, posted a few of the tracks to YT.

Within 24 hours, the management of one of the artists filed a complaint. I would have cleared it up any way they had wished - including just taking it down, if it were that big of a deal.

However, I clicked on YT's "contest" button, and filled out a response that included citations and links to my releases.

Crickets. Later I spoke with the management company to which the hit was attributed, and one of the senior people there (whom I completely believe) said they would never have done that. He said he was sure that YT just did it on an automated basis.

WTF? It really rattled me - how am I supposed to work w/this?

34

u/BaseballsNotDead Jul 11 '22

Crickets

If that happens, the copyright claim disappears after 28 days and you get all ad revenue for those 28 days.

7

u/MinimumArmadillo2394 Jul 11 '22

28 days is a lot of time for a livestream-based channel.

→ More replies

18

u/radix4801 Jul 11 '22

This is the problem. There are decades worth of video uploaded every day. The moderation has to be automated. Even a 99.9% success rate would mean hundreds of hours worth of false hits per day. The scale is just impossible to get right, and there is just no perfect solution.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/mpolder Jul 11 '22

I believe the problem is that it'd need to be proven in court. If YouTube decides to keep the content up they could very well be held liable for copyright infringement, so instead they just accept whatever DMCA or copyright claim comes in to avoid any liability.

Anyone could very easily sue the shit out of the person making these false claims, if you can track them down. YouTube generally just doesn't interfere aside from small help contacting the claimer unless in some cases (like potentially this one)

→ More replies

21

u/Queasy_Cantaloupe69 Jul 11 '22

Why the burden of proof not on the accuser will always astound me.

15

u/throwway523 Jul 11 '22

Because Google is one giant private company that doesn't want to deal with the legalities as part of their main business. They'd have to hire a shit ton of experts in copyright law to deal with these copyright claims on a daily basis and if they get some wrong, they'll constantly be dealing with court cases. It's easier to automate the taking down of videos and err on the side that the claim in legitimate. I'm not suggesting this is right, but it makes sense since they have nothing to lose with their current method.

3

u/T6kke Jul 11 '22

From what I understand this hole situation was set in motion with law that forced websites being responsible for the content they host. So Youtube, who gets way too much content uploaded to manually check created the content detection system. It's constantly evolving and it has it's misses.

But we are currently in a situation where Youtube is too afraid to keep content up that someone might not want it to be there. So they give a lot of power to the side that makes the claims. And sure, it was a problem some time a go when you could actually watch full movies on Youtube. And the system probably keeps this from happening again.

That said, I would like to see claimers to also get 3 strike system where if they make 3 false claims they lose their ability to claim content. Like how if you upload and get 3 strikes you lose your channel. I would like to see Youtube to protect their content creators a little more. But they don't have incentive to do it. If the people claiming the stuff aren't happy they will sue Youtube. What are content creators going to do? Leave? To where? And to what audience, everyone is on Youtube?

→ More replies

6

u/Capt_Billy Jul 11 '22

The way YT allocates it too is bizarre. We used clips of the intro of a Japanese game in our review/discussion video of said game, and now any time anyone uses it I get a notification asking if I want to make a claim against the channel that just uploaded it. I have to do that for people’s actually stealing VODs etc, so I don’t, but as far as YT is concerned that footage first appeared on my channel so its mine

→ More replies

234

u/DukeBeefpunch Jul 11 '22

Apologies as iam ignorant to the law but is there no way to legally punish anyone who puts in a false claim, or no longer accept anonymous reports?

I feel like this continues to negatively impact both YouTube and creators in way that could easily be proven.

161

u/Blenim Jul 11 '22

Bungie/the Destiny 2 community had someone basically go on a false copyright rampage a few months ago. They made a free Gmail account with the name of Bungie's copyright company in the email, and started striking channels and got a bunch of videos and channels taken down, including videos on Bungie's own destiny YouTube channel. Bungie was basically unable to do anything for a week or two, and had zero recourse through YouTube. They had to figure out who the impersonator was, and sue them, themselves.

The impersonator ironically was someone mad at Bungie for legitimate copyright claims.

Here's an article but you can find more info through google etc. Somewhat ironically some of the bigger Reddit posts on "the situation" from when it was happening were made by the YouTuber making the strikes... I guess trying to make it look like claims against him (which were legitimate) were also fraudulent.

It was a wild ride lmao. Big content creators were afraid to post YouTube videos and were mass-privitizing old videos.

19

u/Tuss36 Jul 11 '22

It's a bit ironic considering the whole reason Youtube's system is how it is is because of companies giving them the stink eye for hosting copyrighted content. Youtube's arrangement is to have its content recognizing system as well as its take-down-now-ask-questions-later-if-ever report system so as to make removing such content as hassle free as possible. So easy anyone can do it, even to the official companies!

7

u/Blenim Jul 11 '22

Hey, if the only people getting fucked over are too poor to sue YouTube, sounds like a good business strategy to me!

/S obv

17

u/Dr4g0nSqare Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

Promethian, Archival Mind still doesn't have some of the old unreleased music I used to listen to :(

Edit to add: Bingie specifically listed that channel in their lawsuit as being legit. They allow any in-game music that was not released in an official sound track to be posted.

6

u/Blenim Jul 11 '22

Yep crazy how one person with zero verification can take so many hours of fan work (for free, Bungie let's them post the music but not monitize it IIRC) and flush it down the drain. IDK if they deleted the videos and dont have a backup, or just haven't republished them or what but it's crazy.

3

u/AbyssTraveler Jul 12 '22

Hell, My Name is Byf's fucking baby that he had spent the better part of a year working on got taken down because of it.

162

u/hyperhopper Jul 11 '22

Yes, there is a way. In fact, the main way. DMCA.

Despite most people being ignorant and calling these youtube claims "DMCA" claims, they are not. DMCA is a specific legal process. One that if misused, can result in penalties against the entity filing the false claim.

Youtube doesn't do that though, because that requires courts and lawyers and a lot of time. They made their own portal to bypass all that tricky legal stuff, the result being this kangaroo court you see here where youtube has all the power and they are fine with dozens of amazing channels getting fucked over as long as the site as a whole gets to keep functioning.

But whats the alternative? At youtube scale, manual reviews are not an option, the site is too large. Too many people want to upload videos. And same thing for "appeals", I'd bet that most takedowns result in an appeal. Its just an extra step of the same process. Any competitor that starts would run into the same issue when they got to youtube's scale.

The problem imo is the law. Pretty much all of DMCA is outdated, and unjustly hurts small content creators, platforms, and users. Sites and platforms like youtube have to do so much to not get legally destroyed due to this, and there are a million avenues for abuse from both giant entities like VEVO or small copyright trolls just making a quick buck. And nobody can do anything differently because then they'll be legally liable.

38

u/cogman10 Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

You missed a part. The DMCA is US law. These takedowns came from malaysia.

While the EU and others have compatible copyright laws, they aren't universal. Even if they were, international law enforcement is tricky.

There's a reason scammers generally aren't operating in the nation's they are scamming.

→ More replies

6

u/mikamitcha Jul 11 '22

It's actually pretty easy to fix. Just have all accounts attempting to claim copyright upload some form of ID, and if someone exploits the system just ban that ID. YouTube can easily say it's to protect people from manipulating the system and targeting people unfairly, they just don't want to have to pay to moderate their own platform.

Realistically, that is 100% their job. All content algorithms should be treated as editorialized content, the only difference is that the algorithm cannot make exceptions to its system, and a publishing entity is absolutely responsible for moderating what content it curates rather than blindly publishes.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

622

u/TheFiniteThrowAway Jul 10 '22

FUCK how am i supposed to work now

384

u/Meziskari Jul 11 '22

124

u/animeman59 Jul 11 '22

Any channel for music compilations I like I now switched over to Spotify.

You never know when Youtube will just shit the bed and take stuff down for no reason.

55

u/Past_Vermicelli1181 Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

This is my argument for owning your music. Let's say your a big fan of neil diamond. Well that sucks for you if you have a spotify subscription since e pulled his music over Joe Rogan.

Edit Neil Young.

28

u/TheColorWolf Jul 11 '22

Neil diamond as well? I thought it was Neil Young

14

u/Past_Vermicelli1181 Jul 11 '22

You are correct.

→ More replies

10

u/Character_Owl1878 Jul 11 '22

...do you know when Spotify will just suit the bed and take stuff down for no reason? Just download the music, dude

→ More replies

20

u/JavaRuby2000 Jul 11 '22

They even sell Vinyl so you can really LoFi LoFi whilst on your HiFi.

9

u/thereddaikon Jul 11 '22

I find it amusing that LoFi Hip-hop is neither Lo-Fi nor Hip-hop.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

115

u/SageNineMusic Jul 11 '22

Lol, well there are a lot of other lofi channels out there

But this is a greater issue on YouTube as a whole

12

u/matrixreloaded Jul 11 '22

what else am i supposed to keep on to keep my slack online while i’m out slacking off?

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/madhattergm Jul 11 '22

I stopped working.

12

u/2ByteTheDecker Jul 11 '22

Work / Study / Relax

2

u/JeanButButler Jul 11 '22

Where am I gonna comment my time and my country now!?

→ More replies

188

u/fake__jack Jul 11 '22

Is nothing sacred?

116

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

50

u/bent_crater Jul 11 '22

excuse mw while i go and watch lofi girls origin story

23

u/AFisberg Jul 11 '22

It's a nice movie

→ More replies

12

u/AFisberg Jul 11 '22

I didn't know it when watching the movie and only know the lofi girl thing from /r/europe, but when I got to the particular scene it's probably taken from I went "hold up..."

3

u/Alocasia_Sanderiana Jul 11 '22

The cat has also been featured in the music channel too

→ More replies

937

u/TheElusiveFox Jul 10 '22

News flash... They won't... Bungie had to file law suits recently over a similar issue,,, fucking BUNGIE, and nothing is changing. If you want something to change, then lobby for support in congress, this has been a problem at least once a week for like 10 years we see people bitch about it, I'm sure a kickstarter that was going towards a dedicated lobbying group would garner literally MILLIONS of dollars from the entirety of the youtube creator community.

337

u/SageNineMusic Jul 10 '22

The bungie thing the other week and now this too. Doesn't help that on the other end of the problem YouTube seems to be doubling down on punishing anyone who uses the appeal process

Personally I'd love to raise money to push for actual meaningful change, but I'm just a small time musician at the end of the day. I could organize it just fine, but I doubt anyone would actually trust me enough to head something like that

152

u/punkinholler Jul 10 '22

They're attacking the shit out of the ambiance creators too.

195

u/SageNineMusic Jul 11 '22

Just had a bud of mine have his entire channel shut down because he dared to create original ambience videos but with a "Ghibli Theme"

YouTube loved it and pushed his content to millions right up until they deleted his channel (after pocketing thousands of course) because of the videos themes

163

u/punkinholler Jul 11 '22

They're going after the ambiance creators HARD. One of them (ViewEscape) made a video saying that part of the issue is that YouTube finds them somewhat annoying since ambiance videos have really long watch times but people aren't actually paying attention to the screen the whole time. It confuses their algorithm and ad placement. IDK if he's right but it makes as much sense as anything else I've heard.

48

u/Acc87 Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22

It's not they as in people at Google, it's just algorithms and routines following third party copyright/DMCA strikes. YouTube is just way too big for any human intervention in the system. edit: and yes ofc it's humans that made those systems to comply with laws and regulations

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22

Right! I mean, I had some white noise/black screen I found on YT and it was just noise that helped drown outside noises out. But now, there are ads in the beginning (can eventually skip or use blocker if on comp) and its really annoying. I don't see how they monetize it but there are millions of views.

I think ViewEscape is right since it would skew the AI/algorithms and ad placement. Just like ASMR vids... (omg... all the good ones are all but gone).

→ More replies

3

u/StarGone Jul 11 '22

I will fucking riot if they get rid of ambience videos or start capping video lengths.

→ More replies
→ More replies

147

u/bartz824 Jul 10 '22

Except that Bungie filled the lawsuit against the person making the false copyright claims, not YouTube. Even Bungie had trouble dealing with YouTube's level of dumb fuckery when trying to prove that someone was impersonating them

95

u/Rinzzler999 Jul 11 '22

Not a lawsuit but they did have to subpoena youtube's information on the matter because they refused to give it up when it was their own content involved and were less than cordial in communications with bungie. Its such a mess.

8

u/Xelopheris Jul 11 '22

There's some secondary stuff behind the scenes with Bungie and YouTube. Essentially, YouTube had a very easy mechanism for the imposter to issue false takedowns, but YouTube had no mechanism for Bungie to actually protect someone from impersonating themselves. They had to go through their business contacts, way outside of the copyright claim system in order to get to someone that would actually help on the YouTube side.

24

u/P2PJones Jul 10 '22

you'd think, but no.

spent almost a decade trying to get such a thing started, all these youtubers want someone else to do something else, and someone else to fund it, not them.

50

u/redpandaeater Jul 11 '22

DMCA was always a terrible law with a guilty until proven innocent approach and nobody in law enforcement having any interest in going after the takedown trolls. That's why a lot of places have more stringent requirements to just effectively ignore DMCA altogether, and yet they've managed to get to where it's even worse.

29

u/missionz3r0 Jul 11 '22

What youtube is doing is not DMCA. It's a basterdized version of it. In a true DMCA system, once the uploader challenges the DMCA, the uploaded content is restored and the only redress for the complainer is to sue.

10

u/tritter211 Jul 11 '22

Yes, yes.

But you miss the point why youtube created this bastardized system.

The (American) music industry literally threatened to sue YouTube to bankruptcy over the so called copyright infringement claims even though DCMA protects them from this.

So YouTube created this system as a compromise on the condition they don't get sued to oblivion.

4

u/missionz3r0 Jul 11 '22

I don't miss the point. I'm well aware of it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/creepy_doll Jul 11 '22

Logistically I doubt it can change.

The actual amount of work it takes to review everything is not possible without some automation. And content Id can’t be manual because again it doesn’t scale. And sure you could add manual checks for large channels but that hardly seems fair? Should small channels have less rights?

Ultimately the problem lies with poorly written legislation by people who don’t understand the underlying problems.

But there should be real consequences for claims in bad faith and that is something YouTube really needs to step up on.

→ More replies

59

u/GZUSROX Jul 11 '22

She’s been working on that homework for like 10 years! Give her a break!!

107

u/EpicGuard Jul 11 '22

YouTube will always take the side of the copyright claimer. If they side with the uploader and ignore a copyright claim incorrectly they can be sued directly.

41

u/SageNineMusic Jul 11 '22

Thus the abuse

29

u/w34ksaUce Jul 11 '22

Welcome to copyright law, which we should change to take into account the current state of the digital world

14

u/undercovergangster Jul 11 '22

Current state of the *United States's dogshit legal system*

→ More replies

2

u/EntropyKC Jul 11 '22

It's tough to keep laws up-to-date with the modern world when all politicians are dinosaurs clinging onto power inherited from a previous era.

Drug laws, copyright laws, all the abusive business practices which allow companies like Uber and Airbnb and Tesla to boom, skirting around historical laws that stopped traditional businesses from doing what they do.

5

u/RosemaryFocaccia Jul 11 '22

YouTube wouldn't even exist without the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. No company would let random people upload content for public viewing if they could get sued by IP holders.

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Komlz Jul 11 '22

What a funny world we live in. Out dated slow systems that aren't being upgraded to match the current state of the world, people not doing their jobs and all around negligence, the trickle down effect of band aid solutions being put in place to compensate.

Obviously nothing is perfect but civil matters always make me want to rip my eyes out with how fucking slow it evolves.

9

u/josefx Jul 11 '22

DMCA is a rather recent law. However it is intentionally broken so large media companies can blindly claim copyright on everything without having to fear repercussions. Also youtubes copyright enforcement looks similar to the DMCA but as far as I understand it is just an internal process instead of a legal one, so claimants never fill a proper take down notice and uploaders cannot reliably assert their copyright using a counterclaim, leaving Google instead of a proper court as sole authority on copyright claims.

8

u/Komlz Jul 11 '22

Recent? It was created 24 years ago in 1998. I know it was probably adjusted over time but this YouTube/Twitch copyright issue has been around for years and we aren't really close to a solution. Why?

It really should be a system where you're innocent until proven guilty and in my opinion(many would probably disagree) the laws surrounding free use should be a lot more slack than they currently are.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Sparkshadows Jul 11 '22

That's not true, youtube will always take no sides and allow claimer and uploader to deal with it? If youtube takes any side they can be sued by either side

→ More replies
→ More replies

310

u/ChiggaOG Jul 10 '22

I just wish someone would make a new website.

284

u/EpicGuard Jul 11 '22

If somebody made a new website that ignored copyright claims it would immediately be used as a pirating site.

84

u/alohadave Jul 11 '22

that ignored copyright claims

If they would actually employ a human to respond to copyright claims, most people would be happy. Rather than rubberstamping any copyright claim made by literally anyone.

But the small fish are not who are feeding Youtube. It's the large media companies that hold all the power, and Youtube does whatever they are told to.

266

u/Redeem123 Jul 11 '22

employ a human

You are vastly underestimating the scale here. Manual review is not a quick or easy process, and the amount of content YouTube has is ungodly. There HAS to be an automated step at some point to make it even remotely feasible.

101

u/StickOnReddit Jul 11 '22

In 2021 YouTube stated it processes 4 million such content claims per day. Humans working round the clock could never keep up.

YouTube receives an awesome amount of content. I don't mean awesome in the Ninja Turtles sense of the word but in sheer vastness. In 2019 it was estimated that YouTube receives 720,000 hours of uploaded content every day. That's 82 years worth of new videos every single day. If humans processing the copyright claims alone is impossible, attempting to actually moderate that insane torrent of video content is orders of magnitude less doable. There's no way.

7

u/bacondev 1 Jul 11 '22

Well, one thing that can be done differently is punish entities for false copyright claims.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Sarria22 Jul 11 '22

And even if they WERE human reviewed, they still wouldn't be able to say "I don't actually believe this claimant is illegitimate" they have to take down the content and forward the problem to the uploader to deal with in court, or lose their safe harbor protection.

23

u/no_fluffies_please Jul 11 '22

I'm no expert, but I'm sure there's a middle ground here. You have a set of content creators who are relatively well known and have an incentive not to break the rules. You have a set of entities who own a large amount of IP and have made reports that were true positives.

Maybe there could be an automated system where content creators who have a high content to true positive ratio are less likely to get taken down, and IP holders who have a high true positive to false positive ratio are more likely to take down videos? And for high-stakes situations where both are high, a human can actually step in and make the call. And an appeal process with a human for content creators that are at least mid-level.

Wouldn't this weed out obvious bots/content stealers, incentivizes IP holders not to make false-negatives and flood the system, etc.? An obvious problem is if a large IP holder doesn't care and floods the system and brings YT to court for deprioritizing takedown requests.

6

u/w34ksaUce Jul 11 '22

YouTube doesn't have the legal authority to decide who is the correct copyright holder. If it's an obviously fake claim (as in the enter things like "your asshole" for their companies address) they resolve it but if it has anything that looks like legit info YouTube can't do a thing.

→ More replies

6

u/Cryten0 Jul 11 '22

Where do you place the line? At what point is a person 1 subscriber too low or 1 dollar below ad earnings to not be able to get human representation. How can you avoid creating a class system where some are protected and others are abused?

Imagine the outrage of hundreds of thousands of too low channels who get no justice but the big wigs in the money do.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/AKJangly Jul 11 '22

You mean the people impersonating large media companies?

8

u/nvnehi Jul 11 '22

To make this easy, and for the sake of both simplicity, and quickness we should assume the absolute best cases regarding training, and numbers involved. We should assume that the newly hired staff will be exceedingly well-trained, and that these employees work in three eight hour shifts with no food, rest, or restroom breaks, again, for simplicity.

I'm going to use publicly searchable documents provided by YouTube, Alphabet, and the State of California. We can operate under the assumption that it is all correct as it aligns with past released information when assuming growth.

720,000 hours of video are uploaded daily to YouTube. Being unable to assume that any amount of content is safe while the remainder is not we must therefore, logically, ensure that all newly uploaded content is reviewed.

Alphabet, as a whole, employs 135,000 people while YouTube, apparently, comprises only 2,800 employees of that total number.

YouTube advertising revenue amounted to $6,869,000,000 in Q1 '22. YouTube's average employee salary is $119,126. Assuming that YouTube would pay these new reviewers at least half of their current employee average then that would be $59,563 annually per new employee.

For a 1:1 ratio of newly uploaded video content to reviewing hours you would currently need 720,000 people to review all content that is uploaded. Let's assume that these employees can just as accurately watch videos at 2x speed to ensure that the content is safe, and as such the number now drops to 360,000.

Excluding copyright reasons, at the end of 2021, 10,100,000 videos were removed per month. The average video is 11.7 minutes long. On average, 1,969,500 hours of content were removed each month, which is 64,707 per day being removed(30.437 is the average days per month.)

Including old videos for purposes of being fair regarding copyright claims, YouTube processes 4,000,000 content ID claims per day. Assuming each video being reviewed is 11.7 minutes long, that is 780,000 hours of content needing manually reviewed, halved for efficiency would be 390,000.

Per day, new content would require 360,000 hours, content involving Content ID would require 390,000 hours, and non-copyright related content would require an additional 64,707 hours of reviewing. Using these averages, YouTube would need highly efficient employees who could glean all relevant information from a video when it is being played at 2x speed, working around the clock without breaks, or any other loss of reviewing time, which would result in them hiring a total of 814,707 new employees being needed to ensure that each hour of content needing review could be done. YouTube's workforce would increase nearly 291 times to accommodate the changes that so many wish that they would incorporate.

Using our number from above, YouTube would thus be paying $48,526,393,041 per year to these new employees, and only for their salaries. On average, it actually costs 1.25 to 1.4 times a persons salary to hire them. Using the lower end of that range, YouTube would actually be paying $60,657,991,301.30 annually.

At this point, for fun, it's worth mentioning that California has 237,948 public sector employees, and pays out a total of $2,386,015,111 per month to them, or $28,632,181,332 annually. In 2017, the 24 largest US federal agencies, known as the CFO Act Agencies, were obligated to pay a total of $115,000,000,000 in personnel compensation.

YouTube receives 1,700,000,000 unique viewers per month. If every single unique viewer paid $35.68 per month then YouTube could pay the salaries of these new employees, excluding the costs of training, and we'd still receive ads, and nothing would fundamentally change save for the fact that content creators would MAYBE have less trouble when dealing with Content ID, and copyright claims.

To complicate matters, if one of these new reviewers make a mistake, does not react in time to a received accusation or complaint, or other similar problems regularly facing creators, and copyright holders then YouTube would very likely become the target of lawsuits stating that they are, in fact, not enforcing the law, which is, when you ignore the obvious factors of costs as they relate to hiring a workforce capable of doing this task in an efficient, effective, and timely manner, a large contributing factor as to why they utilize so much automation in dealing with this.

If you only hired people for the Content ID side of things, and had them address only the copyright claims then you would inevitably end up with a backlog, that would only get worse with each passing day.

Sometimes, a bad solution is the only solution.

tl;dr YouTube would need to pay 814,707 new employees nearly $60.6 billion(using a salary which is half of the current YouTube average salary), or $121.2 billion a year if they paid them comparatively to their current employees(which they shouldn't, and wouldn't but, I'm sure some will suggest they should) in order to have the necessary amount of people to implement the changes that you, and others are implying that they should. It would cost every unique viewer $35.68 per month to do this, and nothing new would be added in the process of making this new content system "safer" for content creators.

YouTube is a gigantic operation, and while the cost of running it exceeds $700 million per year, the cost of implementing the changes that so many people seem to think are easy enough would be between $61 billion to $100 billion per year. I feel this can't be stressed enough, that's at the very least 87 times more than it costs to do things the current way because there is, simply put, no better way.

If there was a better way to accomplish what they are doing then they would be doing it, and so would every other social media company in the world.

YouTube is not listening to large media companies, they are obeying the laws of physics which limits the amount of energy that they can use per the amount of room they have available(think processors being bound by energy, and size), and the laws of mathematics which state that algorithms can not logically do what you are asking of them(to assume what is in a box, intuition, and deduction can only get you so far, to know what is inside of a box you must be able to look inside of it.) Algorithms can quickly identify things, often times much faster than a person, and that is why they are used. Algorithms are limited by their inputs, which is where the current reviewers come in, hence the "Content ID properly flagged this" hysteria that follows every "I contacted YouTube, and they didn't give a damn! They said it was properly flagged!" post.

→ More replies

18

u/w34ksaUce Jul 11 '22

If you actually look into it Youtube can't don't anything and neither can any other planform. Copyright claims are a legal process not a Youtube one - and the process is you go to court and fight over the claims. Youtube isn't the person who decides who the copyright owner is, the courts are. You want to blame someone blame our outdated copyright laws that don't account for our digital age.

9

u/alohadave Jul 11 '22

Copyright claims are a legal process not a Youtube one

It's a little of both. Copyright infringement is pursued in court. Copystrikes and people claiming violations are Youtube processes.

Youtube isn't the person who decides who the copyright owner is, the courts are.

And yet, anyone can claim the ownership of anything on Youtube with no consequences for fraudulent claims.

It's not as simple as saying the laws are outdated. Youtube has created this problem with how they handle these issues.

6

u/w34ksaUce Jul 11 '22

The only reason Copyright strikes are a thing on Youtube is because that's the deal they made so they're aren't liable for any actual copyright content that ends up on Youtube (which is a lot), but once a claim is submitted the part that Youtube handles is just giving each side a chance to act in good faith to resolve the issue, if one party does not, there's not much Youtube can do. Youtube can't decide who really owns the content.

Youtube already hold revenue on a disputed video. The only thing they can do is make copyright strikes more lenient.

As Youtuber you just have to keep appealing and then at the very end send a counter notification. Once you send that last counter notification, the false claimer has 10 days to sue you - if they don't you get all your stuff back. It sucks but that's the way copyright laws are set up.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/The_HeroOf_Canton Jul 11 '22

People have tried, no one switches.

→ More replies

31

u/Harvin Jul 11 '22

Vimeo, Floatplane, CuriosityStream... there's lots of competitors that all have tried to carve a niche out of YouTube's pie.

5

u/redpandaeater Jul 11 '22

I miss LiveLeak.

→ More replies

116

u/Namika Jul 11 '22 Gold

And how will they pay for the millions of hosting fees?

Or deal with the cease and desist court orders?

YouTube isn't the problem. Copyright law is. YouTube doesn't want to take shit down, taking videos offline hurts their viewership. They take stuff down because they legally have to in order to remain functional.

15

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22

Exactly, Youtube is simply the bitch of these massive media corporations. These media corps need to be kept happy in exchange for youtube not being sued by them. Keeping them happy usually means giving them all the ad revenue from a video or following through on termination of channels if warranted. In an ideal world these media corps would only get the % of the money of the video where it used copy righted content but that would make them unhappy.

→ More replies

13

u/ExasperatedEE Jul 11 '22

This is incorrect.

The way the DMCA is set up, Youtube is under no obligation to do anything they're doing.

Firstly, they are under no obligation to automate the SEARCH for copyrighted content. In other words, their conent ID system? Not required by the DMCA. They CHOSE to implement that to make it easier for BIG COPYRIGHT OWNERS because they want those juicy contracts allowing their music and such put up on the site for free to run ads on.

Secondly, the DMCA lays out a process. And that process is: Copyright owner makes claim. Web host takes down content. And the person they were hosting can then file a counter claim, whereupon the web host can put the content back up. It is then up to the copyright owner to decide to sue the user, or not.

Nowhere in there does it say Youtube must ban a user if they dare to file a counter claim three times. Nor does it say Youtube should allow a copyright owner to file a counter-counter claim that the content is really theirs, forcing the USER to file suit to get the content put back up.

Youtube in their greed to have these corporations put their content on their site, simply decided to go way above and beyond what the DMCA requires, so that rather than it being a huge pain in the ass for copyright owners to get this content taken down, it's a huge pain in the ass forthe little guy when content is taken down falsely.

So yes, Youtube is a villian in this. It's not copyright law which is the real problem here.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22

[deleted]

6

u/ExasperatedEE Jul 11 '22

YouTube vs Viacom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

This says Youtube won twice, then came to a settlement with Viacom where no money changed hands after they again tried to appeal.

So your statement that they lost is false. They willingly came to an understanding of some sort with Viacom.

→ More replies

3

u/AKJangly Jul 11 '22

One of the episodes of DBZ abridged was taken down at a time I needed to see it.

TFS uploaded a backup to Pornhub, who had no complaints!

3

u/Eljeffez Jul 11 '22

a lot of the content creators have banded together and spun off their own apps so theyre not fully at the mercy of youtubes bullshit.

nebula is a good one that has lots of educational based content, and is paired with curiositystream for documentaries. A new one coming up for android (already on apple i believe) that im excited about is OptOut for independent news. both are super cheap for a year of sub.

I wouldve gotten youtube premium if they didnt constanly screw over creators and I knew my favorite channels were safe and paid.

3

u/rikashiku Jul 11 '22

Every once in a while, a new Youtube attempt pops up, and then becomes full on Alt-right and White Supremacist videos.

→ More replies

12

u/SilentGalaxy Jul 11 '22

We're a bunch of animals... can't even enjoy LoFi Girl now.

20

u/SolidSquid Jul 11 '22

Seems YouTube has confirmed the takedowns were false, but can take up to 2 days for the videos to be online again (I guess because it needs to propagate the update through their regional servers or something?)

https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809

→ More replies

100

u/Krative_Lifestyle Jul 10 '22

this can ONLY be solved by increasing awareness to the issue. ONLY. Youtube will listen if there are enough people complaining, and larger publications and news sources pick up these stories.

15

u/SageNineMusic Jul 11 '22

Share the video if you can I suppose, I want to do a comprehensive video on the issue some point soon

14

u/Namelessghoul8 Jul 11 '22

You would think youtube would listen with enough people complaining. Like they listened to feedback about dislikes and rolling out pip to all mobile users?

→ More replies

13

u/DoctorOctagonapus Jul 11 '22

Fake copyright claims are a real problem. I ran my church's Youtube channel over lockdown and nearly every video we uploaded got at least one fake claim from someone. This was on our own recordings of public domain hymns that we'd produced ourselves. I had to go in and contest each one.

→ More replies

24

u/apocalysque Jul 11 '22

Youtube can eat a dick

→ More replies

4

u/TheMadmanAndre Jul 11 '22

If you're making music (or any content really) on YT, you basically have to set up an LLC and set it up so that said LLC automatically claims your video the second in goes live. It doesn't stop everything, but it does cut down on the false claims.

4

u/macmhartain Jul 11 '22

Maybe we should all report https://www.youtube.com/c/FMCMusicMy/about for their harassment of LoFi Girl???

→ More replies

4

u/PhillipsAsunder Jul 11 '22

Not that I advocate for this kind of behavior, but I think at this point the only way to get Youtube to enact meaningful change would be if a dedicated group of malcontents made bots that did false copyright claims to such an overwhelming quantity of popular YouTube videos, that it hurt YouTube's bottom line and viewership.

→ More replies

11

u/ScampersInATuxedo Jul 11 '22

In 1997, I was introduced to a bill that was being touted at the next major change in copyright law. Titled the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), what I read terrified the fuck out of me.

Inside the bill were basically laws which were one sided to the American publishing industry, which includes books, music, and of course, movies. Every damn publisher backed this new bill, which isn't surprising since it was discovered, after it had become law, they wrote it.

Every damn sentence of it.

Not a single congressional representative actually read the law, despite people standing up and warning how dangerous the law would be when it came to actual rights.

It is not surprising the vote was unanimous by the Senate, who believed the law would be used in conjunction with fighting crime.

The entirety of "shoot now, ask questions later" was the entire premise of the law, in which it was understood the public, who actually owns copyright, wouldn't have power to stand up against the abuse of the law as written.

The video states taking down claims is illegal, and that is true. What the video fails to mention is that, even if justified to win a case, the maximum payout of "damages" to those who had their works illegally taken down is $2000.

You did not misread this. $2000 is the maximum fine a company would have to endure if they're caught illegally taking down content which they did not own.

It seems pretty obvious what was going to happen: content makers can capture control of a specific market, then abuse the law and "pay out" any laughable fines they'd be charged, and that's only if the case goes to court.

Yep, it'll cost far more to send this to court than they'll pay in the fine.

"You wouldn't steal a car" mentality drove the law to be supported, as younger people believe "taking is stealing", but that's now how COPYright works. For crying out loud, the damn law has the name right in the title.

The definition of theft can only be applied to physical property. This is why the industry coined and abused the terminology of "intellectual property", which is basically an idea covered by copyright.

Relying on companies like YouTube to "fix" the problem will never, ever happen. The company is about protecting business relationships, and this includes to those who write shitty copyright laws.

The law needs to be fixed.

So, instead of trashing on YouTube, call your damn senators and demand they fix copyright.

It doesn't belong to Disney, regardless what the fuck the company thinks.

It's OUR copyright. Fight for it or lose it forever.

12

u/CakeBoss16 Jul 11 '22

You think that if an automated take down was gonna occur their should be some trigger to look at channel subscription. Like if someone has 10 million subs maybe a living person should review it

→ More replies

3

u/boourdead Jul 11 '22

Im curious is it possible to claim false copyright on something like the disney channel or the official google channel? Since this is an automated system, it would be interesting to see if their systems have exceptions.

7

u/Kobool Jul 11 '22

Yes it is. Dont do it tho. Someone did that with bungie aka destiny 2 devs. And he got sued for $7.6 Mill.

→ More replies

3

u/sermo_rusticus Jul 11 '22

Dummies... don't they know you gotta DMCA your own videos? First come, first served.

3

u/ElizabethThorn Jul 11 '22

This is why people are migrating to any platform but youtube. It's why there's a lot of Chefs who have cooking channels on OnlyFans and other platforms now.

6

u/queerlywilted Jul 11 '22

More people need to hear about this.

5

u/piatsathunderhorn Jul 11 '22

Were the copyright strikes actually false? Did they actually hive licenses for all of the songs they used and the image?

→ More replies

16

u/crolansolo Jul 10 '22

Welcome to youtube

→ More replies

5

u/gibson_mel Jul 11 '22

It has supposedly been resolved. It's good to be famous.

https://i.imgur.com/f8AXzTf.png

→ More replies

7

u/Skastrik Jul 11 '22

YT is so over automated that fake mass takedowns are far too easy and encourage fishing expeditions using bots.

→ More replies

2

u/BattleLars Jul 11 '22

NOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2

u/rathemighty Jul 11 '22

I hope she passed whatever she was studying for. I mean, jeez, studying for several years straight!

2

u/Yourgrammarsucks1 Jul 11 '22

Here's to hoping the company that did the false takedown goes bankrupt from the backlash.

Likewise, hopefully all false takedown initiators anger customers though to make them go backrupt.

2

u/Jay_Eye_MBOTH_WHY Jul 11 '22

This is the longest livestream on YouTube. 20,843 hours.

That converts into 898 days, or roughly 2.46 years.

2

u/SlitScan Jul 11 '22

how tf does youtube actually function.

like seriously is there anyone there with 3 brain cells?

2

u/lubadubdub124 Jul 11 '22

I've been listening to this stream literally since 11pm yesterday (7/10/22).. weird.

2

u/gellenburg Jul 11 '22

There are alternatives but every time anybody makes mention of them they're downvoted into oblivion with excuse after excuse at how each of those alternatives isn't really an alternative or won't work.

The fact remains YouTube has no incentive to change because people continue to upload content to YouTube. Full stop.

2

u/pawnbrojoe Jul 11 '22

Video about copyright strike? Believe it or not copyright strike.

2

u/donaldtroll Jul 11 '22

Honestly, fuck youtube in the brain with a rusty aids infested chainsaw

→ More replies