I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay.

- If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers.

- If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers.

So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.

Content ID’s problem is that it’s unbalanced: the power to terminate your Google account (not just your YouTube channel!) is given to any unscrupulous actor. (I dunno, maybe they have some checks in place, but I’ve heard enough of nobodies managing completely fraudulent claims that I’m confident that if they intend such checks, they’re fallible.)

There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices.

The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly).

And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse.

—⁂—

¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.

Youtube has to follow the DMCA, yes. And much of the problem is the fault of the law, not of Youtube.

But nothing in law requires them to implement Content ID at all, let alone to allow big corporations to claim any content they want, or for users who dispute Content ID claims to have their claims adjudicated by the corporation who made the claim, or to allow those corporations to retain their access to the system after repeatedly making wrong claims.

But there's the law and then there's a company's ability to make another's life miserable by way of lawsuit. So even if you're right, getting sued by Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal and every other player in the media world on a regular basis will cost you a staggering amount of time and money and will generate a lot of bad press. Just taking content down on the other hand costs you very little.

And since copyright and fair use law is very much decided on a case-by-case basis, there wouldn't be the one big victory which ensures they're being left alone - just an endless string of costly litigation.

Youtube isn't a public interest group or a civil rights movement that's in it for a legal or ideological goal. They're a business looking to make money. I know it sucks for the creators, but I think that's what it comes down to.

The criticisms against Content ID aren't that it can't predict fair use judgements. The worst instances of copyright abuse involve people claiming copyright that they don't own. Either against the original source material in or against works in the public domain.

By following the DMCA, and adhering to the rules, Google would be protected. Instead Google has implemented a system that is even more broken to than the DMCA and somehow has even fewer consequences to incorrect or bad faith claims.

Being a "business looking to make money" is not a moral or ethical justification for any kind of bad behavior.

On what grounds would they file suit? If YouTube complies with the DMCA §512 requirements, it’s a safe harbour, granted immunity from copyright liability.

Even if the takedown process is followed, the DMCA §512 safe harbor doesn't apply if the service provider has "actual knowledge" of specific infringing content. Content ID was (probably) first developed in response to lawsuit by Viacom on those grounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....), although it's not clear if their arguments would have ultimately been successful.

Thanks for this valuable information! Didn’t know about that suit.

Hmm. I can see a sort of a connection there. I wish there was some way for the Little Man (collectively) to object to Content ID’s undue process. DMCA takedowns say that in the case of a counternotice, platform must reinstate the content “within 10–14 business days” unless the copyright owner files suit. Content ID, on the other hand, gives no recourse—all you can do is file a dispute which is adjudicated exclusively by the claimer, who by your action initiating a dispute is granted power to Strike you with fire and brimstone (where the third strike will probably cause the termination of your Google account).

The DMCA states that YouTube must respond immediately to claims. They have no option but to take action. This puts them in a precarious situation. They can either a) initially assume all claims are valid and handle arbitration while the video is unavailable or b) attempt to become experts at evaluating claims from the onset and open themselves up for liability. Given that the law is NEVER black and white, it's no surprise they chose option 1.

Design is driven by incentives.