Updated Think Piece:
YouTube vs. Content Creators
YouTube does not help its content creators, the people who made the site what it is today.
Content ID is an automated system that only searches for material that has been submitted by rights holders and issues copyright strikes against channels. However, YouTube does not verify any copyright claims, they simply give channels strikes with any information or notification.
Content ID has been causing issues for content creators on YouTube since its implementation. In an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amul Kalia said: “The problems with Content ID have always been in the news over the years, but lately have become more common, even comically so.”
Un-fair Use
Many creators are having their videos taken down and losing their monetization, which many of these creators rely on, because of copyright strikes. The Content ID system is there to defend YouTube against lawsuits, but at the expense of content creators, as it affects them on a large scale. A few examples of these are the Nostalgia Critic’s and I Hate Everything’s channels who were given false strikes for using footage of movies they were reviewing.
According to Stanford University, “Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.”
Then, by definition, the videos by these channels fall under fair use. However, YouTube allows these videos to be taken down regardless and those who make the claims will suffer no penalty for false claims. The channel, however, will still lose its privileges.
YouTube Support? Ha!
Now, this wouldn’t be an issue if YouTube offered better support that what it currently does. Various channels, such as Your Movie Sucks, and A Dose of Buckley, have made videos on this situation regarding fair use and explaining in detail about the process they go through.
YouTube has a three strikes clause, if a channel has three videos taken down the channel is deleted, regardless of the legitimacy of any claim. If a channel does have a strike, the only help they receive are automated emails and no other means of contacting YouTube; there is no human interaction of any kind.
Creators can, however, issue a counter claim, but must do it in 200 characters or less and attach their contact information in case the rights holder decides to sue them. On top of this, channels can only counter three claims at a time, even if they have over three videos with claims and if they decide to counter three at once and they all come back with takedowns, the channel will be deleted.
In 2013, YouTube issued a statement, which people assumed would be notification of them doing something to rectify the Content ID issue, but YouTube simply defended the program.
As a response to YouTube’s statement made that year, in an article for Kotaku.com, Stephen Totillo said “You won’t see an apology here. You won’t see a change in policy. You’ll see support for the Content ID system that’s been more broadly unleashed on the reviews, features, Let’s Plays and other video pieces created by YouTubers and watched by millions of gamers.”
If anything, YouTube has only allowed for this system to be abused by rights holders.
Community to the Rescue!
Until something is established to defend creators, the YouTube community is doing their best to be active and vocal about the issue in order to help their favorite channels. However, these are channels with thousands or millions of subscribers, smaller channels will have virtually no defense.
Just recently, the Nostalgia Critic uploaded a video regarding the fair use issue on YouTube, where he created, #WTFU. Many other channels have been using that hashtag to be vocal about the struggles they are going through. As for some reason, the system has been issuing strikes much more frequently as of late.
Sooner or later, another website will come along, one that actively defends its user base and YouTube will simply be forgotten.
Works Cited
Kalia, Amul. “Congrats on the 10-Year Anniversary YouTube, Now Please Fix Content ID.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Perez, Sarah. “YouTube Says It Will Offer Legal Protection Of Up To $1 Million For Select Video Creators Facing DMCA Takedowns.” TechCrunch. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Stim, Rich. “What Is Fair Use?” Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center What Is Fair Use Comments. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Totillo, Stephen. “Here’s YouTube’s Reply To Angry YouTubers About This Content ID Mess.” Kotaku. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Original Think Piece:
YouTube vs. Content Creators
YouTube does not help its content creators, the people who made the site what it is today.
Content ID is an automated system that searches for copyrighted material that has been submitted by rights holders and issues copyright strikes against channels. However, YouTube does not verify any copyright strikes.
YouTube simply gives channels strikes with no information or any notification. The system is there to defend YouTube against lawsuits, but at the expense of content creators.
In an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amul Kalia said “The problems with Content ID have always been in the news over the years, but lately have become more common, even comically so.” Content ID has been causing issues for content creators on YouTube since its implementation, mostly in regards to fair use violations.
Un-fair Use
Many videos are being taken down, losing their monetization, which many of these creators rely on, because of copyright strikes. A few examples of these are the Nostalgia Critic’s and I Hate Everything’s channels who were given strikes for using footage of movies they were reviewing. This is affecting various content creators on YouTube on a large scale.
According to Stanford University, “Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.”
By definition, the videos by these channels fall under fair use. However, YouTube allows for these videos to be taken down and those who make the claims will suffer no penalty for false claims; the channel will still lose its privileges however.
YouTube Support? Ha!
Now, this wouldn’t be an issue if YouTube offered better support that what it currently does. Various channels, such as Your Movie Sucks and A Dose of Buckley, have made videos on this situation regarding fair use and explaining in detail about the process they go through.
The only help they receive are automated emails and no other means of contacting YouTube; there is no human interaction of any kind. Â They can however, issue a counter claiming but, must do it in 250 characters or less and the rights holder can now legally sue them. Channels can only counter three claims at a time and if all three are not resolved, the channel will be deleted, meanwhile their videos cannot be monetized.
In 2013, YouTube issued a statement, which people assumed would be notification of them doing something to rectify the Content ID issue, instead YouTube defended the program and that was all.
In an article for Kotaku.com, Stephen Totillo said “You won’t see an apology here. You won’t see a change in policy. You’ll see support for the Content ID system that’s been more broadly unleashed on the reviews, features, Let’s Plays and other video pieces created by YouTubers and watched by millions of gamers,” as a response to YouTube’s statement made that year.
If anything, YouTube has only allowed for this system to be abused by rights holders.
Community to the Rescue!
Creators can resolve the claims themselves but cannot do anything about the larger issue. Thankfully, their fan bases and the YouTube community are very active and vocal about this Content ID system and can push to help the channels.
However, these are channels with a huge following who are willing to help. Smaller channels or those who just starting up will have virtually no defense. Especially against the powerful corporations who file these copyright claims.
YouTube issued another response in 2015, stating they will help certain channels with false claims, however, this would only apply to big name channels and only those situated in the U.S. Again, leaving the little channels to fend for themselves.
Right now, content creators and the community are doing as much as they can to fight against the Content ID system and the website that has turned its back against them. As for some reason, the system has been issuing these strikes much more frequently as of late.
Sooner or later, another website will come along, one that actively defends its user base and YouTube will simply be forgotten.
Works Cited
Kalia, Amul. “Congrats on the 10-Year Anniversary YouTube, Now Please Fix Content ID.”             Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Perez, Sarah. “YouTube Says It Will Offer Legal Protection Of Up To $1 Million For Select Video         Creators Facing DMCA Takedowns.” TechCrunch. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Stim, Rich. “What Is Fair Use?” Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center What Is Fair Use               Comments. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Totillo, Stephen. “Here’s YouTube’s Reply To Angry YouTubers About This Content ID Mess.”          Kotaku. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Reflection
For this think piece, my goal was to reach those who have no idea of the situation on YouTube right now. The issue here is of a much larger scale than simply on YouTube, however, I decided to focus solely on YouTube as I have seen many YouTubers I watch go through this problem with Content ID and fair use law. The only way to combat what is going on YouTube and the issue of creators having their content removed from the web is by being vocal about it and fighting against it. Maybe this can spark someone to get involved and help out these creators.
I can definitely see how blogging can be a useful way of bringing certain issues to the attention of others. Blogging can let us have a chance to get our word across, something that would be much more difficult if you spread it through word of mouth or letters. This is a much more accessible medium. Of course, you would need to build a credible foundation in order to gain a legitimate following.
I went about creating this think piece by focusing mostly on the limitations, as this would shape how much I would be able to write. I did the works cited page first and framed the piece around that. One thing I noticed was how the piece shifted as I wrote it, the initial concept wasn’t what it is now, it went from having no idea, to developing and executing one.
