Also interviewed was his producer, Kat Lo.
Harry Brewis, known online as “hbomberguy.” Brewis is a video essayist covering a variety of topics, with over 600,000 YouTube subscribers.For each creator, it is clear that Content ID dominates their creative experience, as does the belief that they have no choice but to be on YouTube. To illustrate the issues raised, this paper includes three case studies of long-time video creators who were interviewed about their experiences with Content ID, filters, and YouTube as a platform. Finally, it will explain how Content ID leverages fear of the law, large media companies, and YouTube’s dominance to prevent creators from changing the system, either by challenging it from within or leaving. Then it will discuss fair use and how Content ID restricts creators far beyond what the law allows. This white paper will first lay out how YouTube’s Content ID works and how it interacts with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For simplicity, this paper is always going to refer to those making videos on YouTube as “video creators” and those claiming matches as “rightsholders.”) (Most parties involved in Content ID can be content creators, rightsholders, and/or YouTube partners. And creators would truly be stuck, with no alternatives that might prioritize their needs over those of major rightsholders. For one thing, YouTube’s dominance would be assured, as no competitor could afford to pay out to rightsholders the way YouTube does under Content ID, not to mention the costs of creating a similar system. Lawmakers must also understand that the collateral damage of filters would only worsen if they are mandated by law. Understanding these consequences has never been more pressing, given how many are succumbing to the siren song of automated systems to “fight” online copyright infringement-from the European Union’s Copyright Directive to recent media industry calls for a discussion about “standard technical measures.” In this environment, it is important for lawmakers to understand exactly what such a regime has already wrought. Money is taken away from independent artists who happen to use parts of copyrighted material, and deposited into the pockets of major media companies, despite the fact that they would never be able to claim that money in court. The filter changes constantly, so videos that passed muster once (and always were fair use) constantly need to be re-edited. The rules only care about how much is being used, so reviewers and educators do not use the “best” examples of what they are discussing, they use the shortest ones, sacrificing clarity. Music criticism that includes the parts of songs being analyzed is rare. Classical musicians worry about playing public domain music. These rules disproportionately affect audio, making virtually any use of music risky. Through its automatic copyright filter, Content ID, YouTube has effectively replaced legal fair use of copyrighted material with its own rules.
#YOUTUBE STRIKES FREE#
And unfortunately for independent creators, YouTube has proven to be more interested in appeasing large copyright holders than protecting free speech or promoting creativity. Because YouTube is the dominant player in the online video market, its choices dictate the norms of the whole industry. That dependence has real consequences for online creativity. And in the case of those who make videos, they are largely dependent on just one platform: YouTube. However, that promise is fading once again, because while these independent creators need not rely on Hollywood, they are bound to another oligopoly-the few Internet platforms that can help them reach a broad audience.
#YOUTUBE STRIKES MOVIE#
And it worked- spurring, among other things, the emergence of a new type and generation of art and criticism: the online creator-independent from major labels, movie studios, or TV networks. Anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection could share their creativity with the world. The Internet promised to lower barriers to expression. How Content ID Dictates Expression on YouTube: Practically, Fair Use Has No EffectĬreators Cannot Leave or Meaningfully Challenge the System: Where Am I Supposed to Go?
0 kommentar(er)
