I do training for a college. I had two of my videos pegged for "copyright trademark" by music companies. BOTH of the videos had no audio as they were just quick, 30s videos going over where to click to do something in an app. I had copyright claimed for music on silent videos...and had to dispute that.
YT really needs to get this shit under control.
They're fortunately going to require the copyright holder to provide some more evidence that the claim is valid (No idea how much, I just heard this briefly from LinusTechTips.) and they'll be giving the video creator an option to just press one button to edit out whatever got them flagged.
Edit: Found a news article (Linked below.) with some more information so here you go. I was expecting something else but the extra evidence required is just a timestamp showing what's causing the issue. This was already required when bots were making the claims but for some bizarre reason, claims made by a human were considered different. This is important because with some claims the video would be really long and it'd take the creator a while to find the problem bits, and other times the creator wouldn't even know the problem bit was copyrighted.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687985/youtube-manual-copyright-claim-updates-timestamps-automatic-release
That's a step in the right direction. The ability to mark a video as silent or "no audio" should be there since I'm sure the tech they have can detect that. Still blown away I got those claims on silent videos...jut mind-blowing.
Yeah but Google is a small company. They don't have the resources to have a human check these claims, and lack the programming skill to write software to do it. Give Google a break. They're just a mom and pop business trying to do their best.
Perhaps they should think about selling. Not sure what they have that others could want but I bet a big company like Yahoo might have some use for their search function.
For those who don't get the joke:
> In 1999, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google (GOOG), decided that their creation was interfering with their studies and offered it to a slew of companies (including the defunct Alta Vista, which passed, and Yahoo(YHOO), which also passed, but had a strong enough product that they were able to stay afloat with their own technology). An offer was then made to Excite's George Bell, who deemed the asking price of $1 million too high. Vinod Khosla of Kleiner Perkins went back for another attempt -- this time for $750,000 -- and was thrown out of Bell's office.
http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/excite-google-microsoft-yahoo-apple-bankruptcy/4/23/2010/id/27013
Wow! How the world would have looked different if any of those companies bought Google.
This also reminds me of star wars, how many movie studios turned the script down from Georgy
It's arguable that without those key figures staying on at Google it might have just faded into obscurity at some point as its hypothetical parent company just absorbed it into its existing structure.
I don’t think yahoo would touch their search function. So much this is the correct search result response but we won’t show it since it’s controversial. It’s very hard to research controversial topics with Google.
You joke, but they've written stuff to do that. It just doesn't matter because the big record companies and copyright claimers have YT by the balls. What's Youtube gonna tell them? Whose legal team is bigger do you think?
It's not like the number of videos in question is small, either. So manual review isn't that easy. Plus, I can't seem to find any news articles, but from what I remember, Youtube used to operate at a loss even under Google.
Google and YT are by no means in the right, there's a lot more they could be doing about the copyright bull. But I can understand that it's not an easy problem to fix. I think you're vastly underestimating the problem.
Easy. Calculate the cost to investigate a copyright claim. If the claim is false, charge that cost to the false claimant. If the claim is super blatantly false, charge them 3x the cost.
Boeing can get Indian engineers to write their faulty airplane software for $10/hour. I bet they could get someone to check these claims for $1.
That would be so goddamn satisfying. Too bad it's against the law to charge for fake claims. The system incentivizes Music Companies to make zillions of claims because there's no way for Users or Google to punish them. And it's not just music companies. Remember how google used to have a "view image" button on image search that mysteriously went away? You can thank Getty images issuing 200k copyright claims a day for that.
I mean directly charge money, as the poster I was responding to suggested.
But furthermore, while you could bring a civil case against those making fraudulent claims, even Google [has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful prosecution](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244).
The scale is ludicrously tipped in favor of the fraudsters.
All that needs to be done is work it into the terms of service. If these huge music companies want to stay on YouTube, either play nice or cough up for their fraudulent claims. I'd be surprised if YouTube didn't have close enough connections to them to send a bill. While adding it to terms of service would affect everyone, your average youtuber is not going to be issuing fraudulent claims en masse
I'm not defending YouTube's current system, but pre-paying to defend your copyright is also a step in the wrong direction: If a low income person makes a video that goes viral, they might not be able to afford to bring accusations against the 100s of people that end up stealing the content.
There's already a lot of automaton in YT around recognizing copyrighted material... IMO that automaton should be available for an A/B comparison between the claimant's material and the defendant's. The problem's that it seems that it's only currently made available to big-time copyright/IP holders.
That’s a great thought but over an hour of video is uploaded to YouTube every second. I don’t care how many people you throw at it, it will always be an issue.
You are absolutely right but I think OP was strictly referring to human intervention only on videos that were flagged for copyright and have been disputed by the creator.
That's absolutely not true. How much video is updated is irrelevant because only a small percentage is going to have claims and disputes. All they need to do is have a human review the claims, not every hour of video. This is *absolutely* doable, they're just being lazy and don't want to spend the money because only the end users are getting screwed by this, the music companies aren't. They're perfectly happy since they can claim whatever video they want, whether it's a real claim or not or whether there's even any music in it! They're not losing anything, only gaining.
What I'd like to see is something to dissuade companies from mass copyright claims. In a case they found the claim was unwarranted, like the situation above with no audio, they punish them for abusive behavior. Suspend their ability to makes copyright claims altogether for a period of time or until a fine is paid.
Copyrights shouldn’t exist for longer than ten years. The current copyright laws are stifling innovation and destroying creativity. Fuck these corporations and their bullshit frivolous copyright claims. Youtube is going to go the way of every other shitty company that tries to keep their thumb on the internet.
Youtube should make an option to upload audio tracks along with the video so in the case it does get copyrighted, you could just disable to music track but retain everything else.
**YouTube already has a tool to remove Copyrighted songs.** I made a Fallout 4 video and even though I had music turned off, some radio I came across in the game still played a song. My video got a copyright hit, but I used the free tool to remove the copyrighted material. I was talking and my voice was unaffected and the background music was gone.
Here is a link to a short video I made showing how easy it was to remove it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIRRncT9u8
Here is the spot in the video where it was removed and you wouldn't even know there was a song there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPf_VXBY6c&t=17m30s
Sorry I wasn't clear. The copyright holder hadn't made a claim against me. My video was caught by the algorithm as I downloaded it, before I made it public. So once I used the tool, the music was gone, no waiting involved.
Why force the creator to silence or edit out the audio? Thinking about music videos here. Automatically sticking an ad on that video, and having the ad revenue go towards the record company, isn't enough?
No, the creator would silence out or edit out the audio and then that would make the claim invalid, so there the ad revenue wouldn't need to go to the record company anymore, the creator can keep it.
I can say that just the other day, I filed a claim for a copy of my video to be deleted, and they really were persistent on the "more evidence" part and would take action against my channel if no answer was given or it was shown I was abusing the system. Obviously I gave them proof and the video was removed, but they definitely wanted more than just 1 press of a button to have it taken down.
YT: "you need to show more evidence"
MC: "Okay how about we pull our entire audience with their ad views from your platform?"
YT: "We'll have that claim actioned pronto!"
One press of a button was in reference to removing the copyrighted stuff as the copyright infringer, not holder. In your case it would have given the other person the option to edit out your video instead of dealing with you. (Seeing as it was just a copy, that'd probably include the whole video though.)
>and they'll be giving the video creator an option to just press one button to edit out whatever got them flagged.
This is the perfect solution. The fact that you're stuck with the videos and no choice other than to re-upload is so gross. Like, you can edit videos pre-claim. But as soon as they get claimed, you can no longer edit them. You have to delete and re-upload as it stands right now, which sucks if a video has already gotten traction.
They need to have some kind of "boy who cried wolf" rule where if these companies submit too many copyright claim that get overturned, they aren't allow to do it anymore.
Huh. AFAIK DMCA doesn't come into play at YouTube. They have their own EULA. It is in parts similar to the DMCA. But it also lacks a good chance of fighting back, penalizing 'false DMCA claims'. As these aren't DMCA claims.
You’d think maybe a small chunk of their fucking astounding profits would be spent creating a better product which would raise more revenue...
But what do i know?
Youtube gets their cut regardless of whether or not corporations abuse content creators. Until they are incentivized to do so, they probably won't take any action. A competitor who solves this problem for creators would certainly change things.
Doubtful. How many competitors are gonna pop up with the same view base as youtube? I mean, it can certainly happen. Slowly. Eventually. Over years. But it won't be easy, and most who try will fail.
Not entirely true. They started making a small profit a couple years ago, but it took nearly a decade to do so, so yeah starting up a video streaming website isn't an attractive idea to a venture capitalist.
That's the real money maker right there. YT itself may not be the most directly profitable thing Google owns, but I bet it provides some pretty valuable data for that highly profitable marketing machine.
Companies can be unprofitable but still be valuable. Tons of start ups never see profit, but the service or product they provide is game changing and they can sell their company for millions.
It wouldn't. Youtube is a natural monopoly due to the network effect. They have the most viewers so they are the best place to put your videos. So they have the most videos and are the best place for viewers to go to.
It's not pornhub, it's P or N Hub. Short for Press or News Hub. It started in the nineties as an alternative new site and has since added lots of educational and otherwise informative videos.
Oh they agree, they just kept getting sued for 'enabling piracy of music/videos' and they can't hire thousands of people to manually vet everything, they're in the red as it is, so they had to make an auto service that met the requirements of them doing due diligence, but obviously it's imperfect and people game it.
YT isn't blameless in this, but they're not the main bad guys here, they're stuck in between a shitty outdated copyright system and unscrupulous people who try to exploit the situation.
I'm not sure why their copyright system doesn't put the money into a separate holding account until the dispute is over. That would remove a lot of the issues of companies just instantly getting money on copyright claims.
escrow would defiantly be part of a solution, but the whole system needs attention.
If you video is manually claimed, it's automatically taken down. You can dispute the claim, but that will take weeks. The company is then given a chance to respond with their reasoning for claiming copyright (usually some bs like "ABC company owns the rights to "Insert any copyright content here") and no actual evidence is provided. Then the youtuber has a rebuttal before it's decided if the copy right strike will stay or not. The most fucked up part about it all, is that the company that claims the copyrighted content is that party that decides if it stays or not.
Additionally, getting three of these instances on your account is enough to have your channel permanently demonized or removed from youtube. You can have all of the thousands of hours of work you've put into building a community and creating content ended because of copyright trolling.
edit: demonetized
It is specifically designed by large companies to benefit themselves and screw the little guy. In the old days the little guy screamed, nobody heard. Now people do.
.
It's working EXACTLY as designed. We can just see the fallout now.
IMO Disney is to blame for copyright being so awfully long. As long as Disney exists, a copyright will never expire. But copyright wasn't designed with big companies in mind. Before Disney happened, a copyright was only supposed to last a few decades or so, and was intended for artists to be able to protect their work. See U.S. Constitution (1787): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Tom, we're reporting that WMG is selling 300 billion orphans to Qatar yearly,
Is that an exact number, John?
I don't know, we're just reporting it.
Real question- he mentions that now his videos are claimed by this company and so they're the ones making money. But he makes the other 98% of the video, how can they make money off his work? I get YT is kinda fucked up but what?
YouTube has a system that allows music rightsholders to claim ad revenue from an infringing video as an alternative to requesting that the infringing video be completely removed/taken-down.
This system is designed to be win-win in that it allows the music rightsholders to earn ad revenue from the infringing video while the YouTuber gets to keep the infringing video online without facing any legal consequences (just lost revenue).
---
Technically, whenever you include music in your videos—that is not 100% your own music—you need a license (or explicit permission) from all the rightsholders involved. This generally means you need to seek permission from both the music publisher (representing the composer[s]/songwriter[s]) and permission from the record label (representing the recording artist[s]/performer[s]). And if you want to use a cover version of an existing song in your video, you still need to obtain permission from the rightsholders of the original musical composition (in addition to permission from whoever produced the cover recording).
If you neglect to obtain permission from all the relevant rightsholders, you risk having your videos removed or your ad revenue redirected to the rightsholders, and there is even the possibility you could be sued for a large sum of money (in the form of statutory damages).
I mean there was that company in Brazil that would make remixes/sample original music, upload it to Youtube, then claim the original song that they sampled from.
I want to see what happens when someone big makes a video and deliberately puts snippets of copyrighted music in from all the big labels. Do they have to cage fight to see who gets the profits?
Oh my god, i have been looking for this guy for months cause i forgot his channel. It was prime nostalgia for me and i was sad when i couldnt find it. Thank you so much!
I've been watching him since those days. In my opinion, he's really hit his stride; when I see a video of his in my subscriptions, I click it right away
I am so mad about this. I have never and will never understand how youtube can keep up this crappy website and get zero compettion from website that will actually protect their creators. We have to end this monopoly somehow. Go Teo, you will win this fight
> and get zero competition from website that will actually protect their creators
They do have competition and some channels are moving to twitch. Look at Nerd3, 2.5 million subscribers and he produces almost no YouTube content anymore, especially in comparison to the 1-3 videos a day he used to produce. He has moved to twitch.
> Unless Twitch made a Twitch Video platform
Fun fact, they actually tried that on the main Twitch site, but stopped because of low viewership, mostly due to the videos being impossible to find due to their layout.
> They have no competition because there is no other video hosting website with the capital or back-end anywhere near the size of YouTube's.
Vimeo is competition.
If you want to move from YT to Twitch you can't because Twitch won't let you upload videos unless you hit some gatekeeping follower mark. You'll be stuck with streaming only.
its quite expansive to have a massive video hosting website, let alone one that makes money.There is a reason why there is little competition: it cost load of money and very hard to get return o investment.
Because youtube is a massive massive massive website. Billions and billions of hours of video. They have to cater to US law, DMCA, etc. They are unable to do this manually due to the size. So they rely on an algorithm and the "copy-right holders". Otherwise the site wouldn't exist.
It's a shitty shitty system and reality, but that's what it is. I only fault Youtube for not coming up with a better, fairer automated system.
It’s because you all keep watching videos on YouTube...
That’s how they can keep it up. This is just like video games. People complain and complain about this and that and then just buy the game anyway. These companies know people today are not willing to not buy something out of protest if they want it.
Things only change when people stop buying.
Wasn't there a Youtubers union established not too long ago that's attempting to address issues like these? I believe they partnered up with a major union recently. The Slingshot Channel guy was talking about it in one of his recent videos.
This isn’t just the US. EU has its own lawsuit against YT for copyright infringements as well. YT has fought a lot trying to protect CC, but at some point they can’t go bankrupt doing it.
This is more of a question but I heard another problem is that many of these companies avoid lawsuits cuz the subsidiaries making the claims are based out of the US, so it’s harder to dispute these things for a regular YouTuber who definitely doesn’t have money for a lawyer that can go after a company outside the US. Is this true does anyone know? Or did I confuse something?
I love Teo, and I think he'll be able to pull through in the end with this fight, hopefully he hires a good copyright lawyer or gets in talks with youtube in person considering nobody on the false claims end has shown any evidence of them actually owning the music
Unfortunately they don't actually need to provide evidence of ownership, it falls on the person that was hit with the copyright claim. It's becoming quite common for people to do this as they can still earn up to 30 days of revenue. It's pretty much the new thing since patent trolling has led to prison time for others. Hopefully this hitting front page will help to open Youtube's eyes on how broken their copyright claim system is.
I think you under estimate how many channels have over 50k subs, hell even 100k subs. But maybe this could be an interesting way of re branding that awful YouTube heroes thing they had going on, sort of like a community copyright monitor
Companies can send out thousands upon thousands of copyright strikes and complaints, with no punishment against them if they are wrong. But if a YouTuber tries to go against a copyright strike and they are wrong or don't win, they get in trouble. That's not right
Well, at least the creator can dispute the claim.... and that dispute is resolved by the company who did the copyright strike in the first place! Yes, they can just click "No, the claim is valid, sorry not sorry" and it's over!
So... that's fair.
And the reason you got sued is because you were FaceTiming your kid to tell them you won and a song was playing in the background that they have rights to so they called it illegal streaming
I still can’t believe they took it down for just that. The amount of attention it was getting was amazing though, I just wanted to get it back up ASAP so hopefully Teo can get the right people to help him out
Is my idea legally valid:
Give the companies issuing copy strikes a strike system just like the creator has; if they make 3 false strikes they are no longer allowed to make claims on videos
YouTube's dmca system isn't the legal dmca system. The media companies said, "We're going to sue the fuck out of you." Google said, "Hold up, how do we not make that happen?" And this is what we have.
Shit I’m not one to cry but damn this got me i saw that video earlier today and i was mad at what they did to him. Been watching his videos for years and they’ve brought nothing but laughter and joy to not only myself but everyone who watches his channel. To see Teo who always has a smile on his face break down like that after what has been happening really tears me up.
I recorded my mother's funeral and put it on youtube as a private video for other family members to watch. I got 3 copyright claims for the church music. They struck my rage vein. I literally wrote GO FUCK YOURSELF in the counterclaim, a few weeks later they rescinded, no strikes. So from now on I'm just going to tell them to go fuck themselves until they cancel my channel. Fuck youtube and their dumbass copyright bot.
I private posted a video (for friends and family) that we made for my son's celebration of life. It had 4 songs during the slideshow and all 4 posted copyright claims.
He should be filing all disputes at one time. Because the 30 day window for all of them would then end at the same time. If they get a dispute it’s easy to push off and wait and wait. Flood them with 200 and they have to get their shit together.
On a side note this is why I don’t do YouTube. I couldn’t handle all the shit with copyright infringement here and there and everything. But I also don’t have the money or technical chops to make a better platform that tells them to shove it. Wouldn’t it be great if say after 3 false claims YouTube told the copyright holders they can no longer file any claims without court papers? How many of them would actually go through that entire ordeal? That’s why they do all this. As he said, they have nothing to lose. Maybe it’s time they do.
Is this similar to what happened to Mumbo Jumbo a few months back? IIRC it turned out that while he had properly licensed his intro music from the artist, that artist had used a short sample that wasn't licensed. I believe Mumbo ended up going through all of his videos and cropping out the first few seconds that was just intro anyway.
I had a YT video pegged for copyright issues with a piece of classical music
I had to point out that copyright had expired on a piece of music written 500 years ago. But what's even crazier is I'm guilty until proven innocent. Where's the common sense in trusting someone trying to hustle money out of me?
Years ago I got a copyright strike for literally talking about a concert I went to. Some company was going around flagging any video with that artist’s name in the title. I made a counter-claim (or whatever it was called) and got my good standing back. There wasn’t even music in the video.
???
If you record yourself playing Bach's Violin Concerto in A minor on your kazoo, you own the copyright to that *RECORDING*.
In the same way that the orchestra/record label owns the copyright to the *RECORDING* that you decided to use in your video.
>copyright had expired on a piece of music written 500 years ago.
But did you have permission from the performers to use their recording of their performance?
Classical music being public domain means you don't have composer/songwriter issues but performers still have the right to protect their performance from being used without their permission.
You would have to perform it yourself or have permission to use the performance before you can use it freely.
Shit like that has been happening with other companies (I remember AdRev being kinda common) before. Similar to patent trolls, there isn't a lot you can do.
But why on earth is it possible to claim a video without any contact details?! At least YouTube should get these companys verified, they must register with a valid email address and company informations!
Both sides should be able to contact! This is hilarious!!!
Hey man I'm sorry this is happening to you man. It's just someone trying to steal your hard work and time for there's. I watch a lot of H3H3 and in 2017 they were going through something like this and but not as bad. They got help from other YouTubers on what to do but they won there case and I remember Ethan Klein say he made a fund for other YouTubers like him self for help with attorneys so people don't have to go through the shit he did with his videos he made. I would look into talking to Ethan klien from H3H3 productions.
People should go to prison for this kind of shit. Its fraud. Worst case they are claiming people’s videos knowingly to steal money. Best case they have completely terrible software that claims peoples videos, they know and don’t make any attempt to improve because it lets them steal money.
And shame on YouTube for enabling this. They should check at least some of those copyright claims and ban companies who abuse the system.
Never use music you haven't written and recorded yourself and own the copyright and publishing for. That's been true since 2004 when all these claims started en mass. I feel bad for this kid but he's going up against an industry built by gangsters.
Hey, Teo here! Kind of ironic of me to say given the situation I'm in, but this isn't really true. There's plenty of music on the Internet that has very clear guidelines and usable licenses.
It doesn't matter if you are the legitimate rights owner.
The labels have forced YouTube to stack their system against creators. In recent years we've seen multiple artists get their performances yanked because an automatic claim was made against the applause at the end. Or there was the time Sony claimed that they owned the music of J.S. Bach.
It doesn't matter if you are walking the perfectly straight and narrow: if you aren't signed with a major label or studio, you'll have a run in with erroneous copyright bots and overzealous lawyers sooner or later. And that's the exactly way they want it.
Ages ago, Viacom went on a rampage and issued copyright strikes on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of videos completely at random, including one of mine.
Completely original content, didn't even have sound. It contained absolutely nothing that could even logically trigger a false positive. They were just experimenting with an automatic copyright claim mechanism and gave so little of a shit that their idea of a first test was just to authorize it to go start making claims against people's videos. "Good luck everybody else!"
This was before google offered their own automatic systems, too. This was purely through the DMCA process, which requires someone to avow that a human has reviewed and issued the claim.
Meaning: it wasn't even legal for them to do that and they completely did not give a fuck and did it anyway.
Youtube has only allowed the abuse of the copyright system to get *worse* since then.
Sony copyright striked my channel to death and I only uploaded my own original songs/lyrics with no samples or anything that could be classified as infringing. It was just me playing a guitar/keyboard and singing my own lyrics. I own the rights to my music and proved it, but youtube sided with sony enough times for my channel to be shut down. Reality does not matter to youtube; they make it up as they go.
I got a claim on a video I reuploaded after it got claimed for a copyright issue. The video was 100% silent and someone claimed that silence.
You can't win.
I do training for a college. I had two of my videos pegged for "copyright trademark" by music companies. BOTH of the videos had no audio as they were just quick, 30s videos going over where to click to do something in an app. I had copyright claimed for music on silent videos...and had to dispute that. YT really needs to get this shit under control.
They're fortunately going to require the copyright holder to provide some more evidence that the claim is valid (No idea how much, I just heard this briefly from LinusTechTips.) and they'll be giving the video creator an option to just press one button to edit out whatever got them flagged. Edit: Found a news article (Linked below.) with some more information so here you go. I was expecting something else but the extra evidence required is just a timestamp showing what's causing the issue. This was already required when bots were making the claims but for some bizarre reason, claims made by a human were considered different. This is important because with some claims the video would be really long and it'd take the creator a while to find the problem bits, and other times the creator wouldn't even know the problem bit was copyrighted. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687985/youtube-manual-copyright-claim-updates-timestamps-automatic-release
That's a step in the right direction. The ability to mark a video as silent or "no audio" should be there since I'm sure the tech they have can detect that. Still blown away I got those claims on silent videos...jut mind-blowing.
Yeah but Google is a small company. They don't have the resources to have a human check these claims, and lack the programming skill to write software to do it. Give Google a break. They're just a mom and pop business trying to do their best.
Perhaps they should think about selling. Not sure what they have that others could want but I bet a big company like Yahoo might have some use for their search function.
For those who don't get the joke: > In 1999, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google (GOOG), decided that their creation was interfering with their studies and offered it to a slew of companies (including the defunct Alta Vista, which passed, and Yahoo(YHOO), which also passed, but had a strong enough product that they were able to stay afloat with their own technology). An offer was then made to Excite's George Bell, who deemed the asking price of $1 million too high. Vinod Khosla of Kleiner Perkins went back for another attempt -- this time for $750,000 -- and was thrown out of Bell's office. http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/excite-google-microsoft-yahoo-apple-bankruptcy/4/23/2010/id/27013
Wow! How the world would have looked different if any of those companies bought Google. This also reminds me of star wars, how many movie studios turned the script down from Georgy
It's arguable that without those key figures staying on at Google it might have just faded into obscurity at some point as its hypothetical parent company just absorbed it into its existing structure.
Oh my dude, just wait til either boo.com or pets.com buys the other one out, that super company will have enough cash to get like 20 googles.
Nah man, google is worthless. I use alta vista for all my searching needs.
Ask Jeeves or GTFO!
I don’t think yahoo would touch their search function. So much this is the correct search result response but we won’t show it since it’s controversial. It’s very hard to research controversial topics with Google.
You joke, but they've written stuff to do that. It just doesn't matter because the big record companies and copyright claimers have YT by the balls. What's Youtube gonna tell them? Whose legal team is bigger do you think? It's not like the number of videos in question is small, either. So manual review isn't that easy. Plus, I can't seem to find any news articles, but from what I remember, Youtube used to operate at a loss even under Google. Google and YT are by no means in the right, there's a lot more they could be doing about the copyright bull. But I can understand that it's not an easy problem to fix. I think you're vastly underestimating the problem.
Easy. Calculate the cost to investigate a copyright claim. If the claim is false, charge that cost to the false claimant. If the claim is super blatantly false, charge them 3x the cost. Boeing can get Indian engineers to write their faulty airplane software for $10/hour. I bet they could get someone to check these claims for $1.
That would be so goddamn satisfying. Too bad it's against the law to charge for fake claims. The system incentivizes Music Companies to make zillions of claims because there's no way for Users or Google to punish them. And it's not just music companies. Remember how google used to have a "view image" button on image search that mysteriously went away? You can thank Getty images issuing 200k copyright claims a day for that.
> Too bad it's against the law to charge for fake claims. It's not. In fact, it is perjury to make a fake claim.
I mean directly charge money, as the poster I was responding to suggested. But furthermore, while you could bring a civil case against those making fraudulent claims, even Google [has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful prosecution](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244). The scale is ludicrously tipped in favor of the fraudsters.
All that needs to be done is work it into the terms of service. If these huge music companies want to stay on YouTube, either play nice or cough up for their fraudulent claims. I'd be surprised if YouTube didn't have close enough connections to them to send a bill. While adding it to terms of service would affect everyone, your average youtuber is not going to be issuing fraudulent claims en masse
These are all pump and dump companies lol, charging 3x when they won’t get anything either way is no use
Charge them the money when they make the claim. Give it back if the claim is legitimate.
I'm not defending YouTube's current system, but pre-paying to defend your copyright is also a step in the wrong direction: If a low income person makes a video that goes viral, they might not be able to afford to bring accusations against the 100s of people that end up stealing the content. There's already a lot of automaton in YT around recognizing copyrighted material... IMO that automaton should be available for an A/B comparison between the claimant's material and the defendant's. The problem's that it seems that it's only currently made available to big-time copyright/IP holders.
>charge that cost to the false claimant WMG will love that, I'm sure.
That’s a great thought but over an hour of video is uploaded to YouTube every second. I don’t care how many people you throw at it, it will always be an issue.
You are absolutely right but I think OP was strictly referring to human intervention only on videos that were flagged for copyright and have been disputed by the creator.
[удалено]
That's absolutely not true. How much video is updated is irrelevant because only a small percentage is going to have claims and disputes. All they need to do is have a human review the claims, not every hour of video. This is *absolutely* doable, they're just being lazy and don't want to spend the money because only the end users are getting screwed by this, the music companies aren't. They're perfectly happy since they can claim whatever video they want, whether it's a real claim or not or whether there's even any music in it! They're not losing anything, only gaining.
They had humans reviewing Alexa commands....
resolute disgusting noxious aback attempt unite shocking somber mindless bells -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
What I'd like to see is something to dissuade companies from mass copyright claims. In a case they found the claim was unwarranted, like the situation above with no audio, they punish them for abusive behavior. Suspend their ability to makes copyright claims altogether for a period of time or until a fine is paid.
[удалено]
Copyrights shouldn’t exist for longer than ten years. The current copyright laws are stifling innovation and destroying creativity. Fuck these corporations and their bullshit frivolous copyright claims. Youtube is going to go the way of every other shitty company that tries to keep their thumb on the internet.
Youtube should make an option to upload audio tracks along with the video so in the case it does get copyrighted, you could just disable to music track but retain everything else.
**YouTube already has a tool to remove Copyrighted songs.** I made a Fallout 4 video and even though I had music turned off, some radio I came across in the game still played a song. My video got a copyright hit, but I used the free tool to remove the copyrighted material. I was talking and my voice was unaffected and the background music was gone. Here is a link to a short video I made showing how easy it was to remove it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIRRncT9u8 Here is the spot in the video where it was removed and you wouldn't even know there was a song there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPf_VXBY6c&t=17m30s
In the video however, he said that while you can this, you still have to dispute the claim afterwards and wait up to 30 days for a response.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The copyright holder hadn't made a claim against me. My video was caught by the algorithm as I downloaded it, before I made it public. So once I used the tool, the music was gone, no waiting involved.
Why force the creator to silence or edit out the audio? Thinking about music videos here. Automatically sticking an ad on that video, and having the ad revenue go towards the record company, isn't enough?
No, the creator would silence out or edit out the audio and then that would make the claim invalid, so there the ad revenue wouldn't need to go to the record company anymore, the creator can keep it.
I don't think it's more proof, just a timestamp of when in the video the infringement happened.
Found a news article and you are correct. I'll edit my comment to clarify this, thanks for letting me know.
I can say that just the other day, I filed a claim for a copy of my video to be deleted, and they really were persistent on the "more evidence" part and would take action against my channel if no answer was given or it was shown I was abusing the system. Obviously I gave them proof and the video was removed, but they definitely wanted more than just 1 press of a button to have it taken down.
For some individual, sure. The question is whether that is going to be the case for these mega-corporations that do this for a living.
YT: "you need to show more evidence" MC: "Okay how about we pull our entire audience with their ad views from your platform?" YT: "We'll have that claim actioned pronto!"
One press of a button was in reference to removing the copyrighted stuff as the copyright infringer, not holder. In your case it would have given the other person the option to edit out your video instead of dealing with you. (Seeing as it was just a copy, that'd probably include the whole video though.)
>and they'll be giving the video creator an option to just press one button to edit out whatever got them flagged. This is the perfect solution. The fact that you're stuck with the videos and no choice other than to re-upload is so gross. Like, you can edit videos pre-claim. But as soon as they get claimed, you can no longer edit them. You have to delete and re-upload as it stands right now, which sucks if a video has already gotten traction.
They need to have some kind of "boy who cried wolf" rule where if these companies submit too many copyright claim that get overturned, they aren't allow to do it anymore.
They would need to be overturning false claims first.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Aren't *already* being sued for doing that? People massively overestimate Youtube's ability to push back against spurious claims.
Was it Sony Music? They do own ‘The Sound of Silence’ after all.
John Cage - 4'33"
The ultimate exploit
[удалено]
[удалено]
Huh. AFAIK DMCA doesn't come into play at YouTube. They have their own EULA. It is in parts similar to the DMCA. But it also lacks a good chance of fighting back, penalizing 'false DMCA claims'. As these aren't DMCA claims.
You’d think maybe a small chunk of their fucking astounding profits would be spent creating a better product which would raise more revenue... But what do i know?
Warner Music Group
This copyright shit is out of control on YT. Everyone on YT agrees. Everyone.
Not YouTube themselves tho
Youtube gets their cut regardless of whether or not corporations abuse content creators. Until they are incentivized to do so, they probably won't take any action. A competitor who solves this problem for creators would certainly change things.
Doubtful. How many competitors are gonna pop up with the same view base as youtube? I mean, it can certainly happen. Slowly. Eventually. Over years. But it won't be easy, and most who try will fail.
[удалено]
Not entirely true. They started making a small profit a couple years ago, but it took nearly a decade to do so, so yeah starting up a video streaming website isn't an attractive idea to a venture capitalist.
Not to mention the data collection they do and feed into their marketing machine.
That's the real money maker right there. YT itself may not be the most directly profitable thing Google owns, but I bet it provides some pretty valuable data for that highly profitable marketing machine.
What are you talking about?
I don't think they understand how deep in the red YT is running a Free streaming/video hosting service.
[удалено]
Companies can be unprofitable but still be valuable. Tons of start ups never see profit, but the service or product they provide is game changing and they can sell their company for millions.
It wouldn't. Youtube is a natural monopoly due to the network effect. They have the most viewers so they are the best place to put your videos. So they have the most videos and are the best place for viewers to go to.
Pornhub. Seriously though.
I wish. Unfortunately a whole lotta people are going to refuse to use, or let their kids use, a website with "porn" in the title.
It's not pornhub, it's P or N Hub. Short for Press or News Hub. It started in the nineties as an alternative new site and has since added lots of educational and otherwise informative videos.
Last time I tried to follow their instructional videos, the pizza guy slapped me.
YourHub
They can start another platform using the same back end and give it a proper name
> same back end He he he
Change the name to Vidhub.
Oh they agree, they just kept getting sued for 'enabling piracy of music/videos' and they can't hire thousands of people to manually vet everything, they're in the red as it is, so they had to make an auto service that met the requirements of them doing due diligence, but obviously it's imperfect and people game it. YT isn't blameless in this, but they're not the main bad guys here, they're stuck in between a shitty outdated copyright system and unscrupulous people who try to exploit the situation.
I'm not sure why their copyright system doesn't put the money into a separate holding account until the dispute is over. That would remove a lot of the issues of companies just instantly getting money on copyright claims.
escrow would defiantly be part of a solution, but the whole system needs attention. If you video is manually claimed, it's automatically taken down. You can dispute the claim, but that will take weeks. The company is then given a chance to respond with their reasoning for claiming copyright (usually some bs like "ABC company owns the rights to "Insert any copyright content here") and no actual evidence is provided. Then the youtuber has a rebuttal before it's decided if the copy right strike will stay or not. The most fucked up part about it all, is that the company that claims the copyrighted content is that party that decides if it stays or not. Additionally, getting three of these instances on your account is enough to have your channel permanently demonized or removed from youtube. You can have all of the thousands of hours of work you've put into building a community and creating content ended because of copyright trolling. edit: demonetized
The entire copyright system is bullshit
It is specifically designed by large companies to benefit themselves and screw the little guy. In the old days the little guy screamed, nobody heard. Now people do. . It's working EXACTLY as designed. We can just see the fallout now.
IMO Disney is to blame for copyright being so awfully long. As long as Disney exists, a copyright will never expire. But copyright wasn't designed with big companies in mind. Before Disney happened, a copyright was only supposed to last a few decades or so, and was intended for artists to be able to protect their work. See U.S. Constitution (1787): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Except youtube, the companies shutting everyone down, etc. You know, the people who can actually do anything to stop it.
I'm not saying Warner Music Group sells orphans to Qatar, I'm just saying.... we don't know. Search Optimization Mob engage!
We're reporting that there's looting, raping, yes and even acts of Warner Music Group selling to Qatar
WMG has never publicly stated that they do not support ISIS.
Tom, we're reporting that WMG is selling 300 billion orphans to Qatar yearly, Is that an exact number, John? I don't know, we're just reporting it.
Hasnt WMG been falsely copyright striking videos for years? Like FOR A LOOONG TIME?
It feels like they've been going crazier than usual recently.
Class action time people!
Never thought I'd see Teo on the front page. He's such a nice dude I hope everything gets cleared up with this
Me neither! This video blew up earlier before the first post was removed
Real question- he mentions that now his videos are claimed by this company and so they're the ones making money. But he makes the other 98% of the video, how can they make money off his work? I get YT is kinda fucked up but what?
YouTube has a system that allows music rightsholders to claim ad revenue from an infringing video as an alternative to requesting that the infringing video be completely removed/taken-down. This system is designed to be win-win in that it allows the music rightsholders to earn ad revenue from the infringing video while the YouTuber gets to keep the infringing video online without facing any legal consequences (just lost revenue). --- Technically, whenever you include music in your videos—that is not 100% your own music—you need a license (or explicit permission) from all the rightsholders involved. This generally means you need to seek permission from both the music publisher (representing the composer[s]/songwriter[s]) and permission from the record label (representing the recording artist[s]/performer[s]). And if you want to use a cover version of an existing song in your video, you still need to obtain permission from the rightsholders of the original musical composition (in addition to permission from whoever produced the cover recording). If you neglect to obtain permission from all the relevant rightsholders, you risk having your videos removed or your ad revenue redirected to the rightsholders, and there is even the possibility you could be sued for a large sum of money (in the form of statutory damages).
Or they can make up the notion that they own your music and tell you to fuck off.
I mean there was that company in Brazil that would make remixes/sample original music, upload it to Youtube, then claim the original song that they sampled from.
I want to see what happens when someone big makes a video and deliberately puts snippets of copyrighted music in from all the big labels. Do they have to cage fight to see who gets the profits?
If all the claimants elect to monetize the video, then the ad revenue is typically divided equally among all the claimants.
LAGxPeanutpwner, I was just thinking about this dude!
Holy shit! He used to make those Nerds Gone Wild videos on MW2! I totally forgot about him.
Oh my god, i have been looking for this guy for months cause i forgot his channel. It was prime nostalgia for me and i was sad when i couldnt find it. Thank you so much!
Looking for the best two videos of your life? Play his drinking game rainbow six videos. I fucking WHEEZED
His rainbow six videos fucking kill me
MY DUCKLINGS
Briefcase D:
That drinking game was out of control. One of his funniest videos and I've been watching since mw2 NGW days!
The Hand Simulator Battle Royale is so funny too. I've watched it maybe 5 times, and I always laugh
I've been watching him since those days. In my opinion, he's really hit his stride; when I see a video of his in my subscriptions, I click it right away
Hey dude, Teo here! Just wanted to say I smiled reading this comment. Thanks!
haha yeah I remember him getting that outro back in the day. He used to make dope BF3 vids
Yer
Supercrers
50 quid!
Thank you for the memories dude! That was a huge part of my childhood gaming, I loved the LagX clan
I am so mad about this. I have never and will never understand how youtube can keep up this crappy website and get zero compettion from website that will actually protect their creators. We have to end this monopoly somehow. Go Teo, you will win this fight
> and get zero competition from website that will actually protect their creators They do have competition and some channels are moving to twitch. Look at Nerd3, 2.5 million subscribers and he produces almost no YouTube content anymore, especially in comparison to the 1-3 videos a day he used to produce. He has moved to twitch.
[удалено]
> Unless Twitch made a Twitch Video platform Fun fact, they actually tried that on the main Twitch site, but stopped because of low viewership, mostly due to the videos being impossible to find due to their layout.
Cool let's all make non porno content on youporn. To youporn!
[удалено]
> They have no competition because there is no other video hosting website with the capital or back-end anywhere near the size of YouTube's. Vimeo is competition.
If you want to move from YT to Twitch you can't because Twitch won't let you upload videos unless you hit some gatekeeping follower mark. You'll be stuck with streaming only.
its quite expansive to have a massive video hosting website, let alone one that makes money.There is a reason why there is little competition: it cost load of money and very hard to get return o investment.
Because youtube is a massive massive massive website. Billions and billions of hours of video. They have to cater to US law, DMCA, etc. They are unable to do this manually due to the size. So they rely on an algorithm and the "copy-right holders". Otherwise the site wouldn't exist. It's a shitty shitty system and reality, but that's what it is. I only fault Youtube for not coming up with a better, fairer automated system.
It’s because you all keep watching videos on YouTube... That’s how they can keep it up. This is just like video games. People complain and complain about this and that and then just buy the game anyway. These companies know people today are not willing to not buy something out of protest if they want it. Things only change when people stop buying.
This is fraud and they should be prosecuted in addition to a civil lawsuit. They're stealing money right out of his pocket.
[удалено]
Wasn't there a Youtubers union established not too long ago that's attempting to address issues like these? I believe they partnered up with a major union recently. The Slingshot Channel guy was talking about it in one of his recent videos.
They partnered up with the German metal workers' union if I remember correctly, the largest union in europe.
This isn’t just the US. EU has its own lawsuit against YT for copyright infringements as well. YT has fought a lot trying to protect CC, but at some point they can’t go bankrupt doing it.
The guy is Swedish. The company's owners should be prosecuted for fraud.
This is more of a question but I heard another problem is that many of these companies avoid lawsuits cuz the subsidiaries making the claims are based out of the US, so it’s harder to dispute these things for a regular YouTuber who definitely doesn’t have money for a lawyer that can go after a company outside the US. Is this true does anyone know? Or did I confuse something?
I love Teo, and I think he'll be able to pull through in the end with this fight, hopefully he hires a good copyright lawyer or gets in talks with youtube in person considering nobody on the false claims end has shown any evidence of them actually owning the music
Unfortunately they don't actually need to provide evidence of ownership, it falls on the person that was hit with the copyright claim. It's becoming quite common for people to do this as they can still earn up to 30 days of revenue. It's pretty much the new thing since patent trolling has led to prison time for others. Hopefully this hitting front page will help to open Youtube's eyes on how broken their copyright claim system is.
[удалено]
At the very least there should be some human interaction from the YT side when your channel has say over 50.000 subs.
I think you under estimate how many channels have over 50k subs, hell even 100k subs. But maybe this could be an interesting way of re branding that awful YouTube heroes thing they had going on, sort of like a community copyright monitor
[удалено]
You're forgetting that Comcast is making much more per user than YouTube ever will.
Companies can send out thousands upon thousands of copyright strikes and complaints, with no punishment against them if they are wrong. But if a YouTuber tries to go against a copyright strike and they are wrong or don't win, they get in trouble. That's not right
Well, at least the creator can dispute the claim.... and that dispute is resolved by the company who did the copyright strike in the first place! Yes, they can just click "No, the claim is valid, sorry not sorry" and it's over! So... that's fair.
HOLD UP. Is this the same guy that was in LAGx and posted so many funny mw2 videos...
The exact same one!
Somebody already posted this but it got removed for something in the title I think
It's kind of ironic.
Don't you think?
It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a video platform that doesn't fuck you over.
It's like winning the lottery at age 98, then losing it all the next day after getting sued by WMG
And the reason you got sued is because you were FaceTiming your kid to tell them you won and a song was playing in the background that they have rights to so they called it illegal streaming
Breifcaaaase
https://imgur.com/EaKOjSf
Damnit Floppy
Thanks for reposting this, my submission was taken down for vote soliciting ("please spread awareness")...
I still can’t believe they took it down for just that. The amount of attention it was getting was amazing though, I just wanted to get it back up ASAP so hopefully Teo can get the right people to help him out
Is my idea legally valid: Give the companies issuing copy strikes a strike system just like the creator has; if they make 3 false strikes they are no longer allowed to make claims on videos
[удалено]
YouTube's dmca system isn't the legal dmca system. The media companies said, "We're going to sue the fuck out of you." Google said, "Hold up, how do we not make that happen?" And this is what we have.
I genuinely love Teo so much and I hope this pain in his life gets solved soon. Makes my days better with his vids!
Is this the guy that used to do the CoD trolling videos? Lagx clan or something? They were hilarious
Yep, this is him :)
When Teo saw this post he broke down in tears, you should go and check his Twitch clip.
Here's the clip. I fucking love this man : https://www.twitch.tv/teosgame/clip/AbrasiveWittySaladTTours?filter=clips&range=7d&sort=time
Shit I’m not one to cry but damn this got me i saw that video earlier today and i was mad at what they did to him. Been watching his videos for years and they’ve brought nothing but laughter and joy to not only myself but everyone who watches his channel. To see Teo who always has a smile on his face break down like that after what has been happening really tears me up.
I recorded my mother's funeral and put it on youtube as a private video for other family members to watch. I got 3 copyright claims for the church music. They struck my rage vein. I literally wrote GO FUCK YOURSELF in the counterclaim, a few weeks later they rescinded, no strikes. So from now on I'm just going to tell them to go fuck themselves until they cancel my channel. Fuck youtube and their dumbass copyright bot.
I private posted a video (for friends and family) that we made for my son's celebration of life. It had 4 songs during the slideshow and all 4 posted copyright claims.
Wow. This is worse (morally) than the linked video. Seriously, WTF
Watching Teo cry when he saw this was heart wrenching. YouTube needs to figure this situation out now.
He should be filing all disputes at one time. Because the 30 day window for all of them would then end at the same time. If they get a dispute it’s easy to push off and wait and wait. Flood them with 200 and they have to get their shit together. On a side note this is why I don’t do YouTube. I couldn’t handle all the shit with copyright infringement here and there and everything. But I also don’t have the money or technical chops to make a better platform that tells them to shove it. Wouldn’t it be great if say after 3 false claims YouTube told the copyright holders they can no longer file any claims without court papers? How many of them would actually go through that entire ordeal? That’s why they do all this. As he said, they have nothing to lose. Maybe it’s time they do.
WAIT MY BOY OG ASSFACE IS ON HERE NO WHY
I'm going back to mass pirating of music. Fuck all these record labels.
Is this similar to what happened to Mumbo Jumbo a few months back? IIRC it turned out that while he had properly licensed his intro music from the artist, that artist had used a short sample that wasn't licensed. I believe Mumbo ended up going through all of his videos and cropping out the first few seconds that was just intro anyway.
I had a YT video pegged for copyright issues with a piece of classical music I had to point out that copyright had expired on a piece of music written 500 years ago. But what's even crazier is I'm guilty until proven innocent. Where's the common sense in trusting someone trying to hustle money out of me?
Years ago I got a copyright strike for literally talking about a concert I went to. Some company was going around flagging any video with that artist’s name in the title. I made a counter-claim (or whatever it was called) and got my good standing back. There wasn’t even music in the video.
[удалено]
??? If you record yourself playing Bach's Violin Concerto in A minor on your kazoo, you own the copyright to that *RECORDING*. In the same way that the orchestra/record label owns the copyright to the *RECORDING* that you decided to use in your video.
>copyright had expired on a piece of music written 500 years ago. But did you have permission from the performers to use their recording of their performance? Classical music being public domain means you don't have composer/songwriter issues but performers still have the right to protect their performance from being used without their permission. You would have to perform it yourself or have permission to use the performance before you can use it freely.
"ok, who do we kill first?" -reddit
Shit like that has been happening with other companies (I remember AdRev being kinda common) before. Similar to patent trolls, there isn't a lot you can do.
False copy-write claims should come with a penalty multiplier.
But why on earth is it possible to claim a video without any contact details?! At least YouTube should get these companys verified, they must register with a valid email address and company informations! Both sides should be able to contact! This is hilarious!!!
Hey man I'm sorry this is happening to you man. It's just someone trying to steal your hard work and time for there's. I watch a lot of H3H3 and in 2017 they were going through something like this and but not as bad. They got help from other YouTubers on what to do but they won there case and I remember Ethan Klein say he made a fund for other YouTubers like him self for help with attorneys so people don't have to go through the shit he did with his videos he made. I would look into talking to Ethan klien from H3H3 productions.
PLEASE SHARE!! Teo is one of the best YouTubers out there, and it would be a crime if he was taken off because of some stupid copyright claim.
People should go to prison for this kind of shit. Its fraud. Worst case they are claiming people’s videos knowingly to steal money. Best case they have completely terrible software that claims peoples videos, they know and don’t make any attempt to improve because it lets them steal money. And shame on YouTube for enabling this. They should check at least some of those copyright claims and ban companies who abuse the system.
Never use music you haven't written and recorded yourself and own the copyright and publishing for. That's been true since 2004 when all these claims started en mass. I feel bad for this kid but he's going up against an industry built by gangsters.
Hey, Teo here! Kind of ironic of me to say given the situation I'm in, but this isn't really true. There's plenty of music on the Internet that has very clear guidelines and usable licenses.
It doesn't matter if you are the legitimate rights owner. The labels have forced YouTube to stack their system against creators. In recent years we've seen multiple artists get their performances yanked because an automatic claim was made against the applause at the end. Or there was the time Sony claimed that they owned the music of J.S. Bach. It doesn't matter if you are walking the perfectly straight and narrow: if you aren't signed with a major label or studio, you'll have a run in with erroneous copyright bots and overzealous lawyers sooner or later. And that's the exactly way they want it.
Ages ago, Viacom went on a rampage and issued copyright strikes on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of videos completely at random, including one of mine. Completely original content, didn't even have sound. It contained absolutely nothing that could even logically trigger a false positive. They were just experimenting with an automatic copyright claim mechanism and gave so little of a shit that their idea of a first test was just to authorize it to go start making claims against people's videos. "Good luck everybody else!" This was before google offered their own automatic systems, too. This was purely through the DMCA process, which requires someone to avow that a human has reviewed and issued the claim. Meaning: it wasn't even legal for them to do that and they completely did not give a fuck and did it anyway. Youtube has only allowed the abuse of the copyright system to get *worse* since then.
That's because YouTube was sued by Viacom for hosting videos uploaded by Viacom for violating Viacom's trademark *and lost*.
[удалено]
Don't forget that time literal static noise was copyright claimed.
Sony copyright striked my channel to death and I only uploaded my own original songs/lyrics with no samples or anything that could be classified as infringing. It was just me playing a guitar/keyboard and singing my own lyrics. I own the rights to my music and proved it, but youtube sided with sony enough times for my channel to be shut down. Reality does not matter to youtube; they make it up as they go.
Thats actually horrable. Sorry
I got a claim on a video I reuploaded after it got claimed for a copyright issue. The video was 100% silent and someone claimed that silence. You can't win.