WQYU.COM

Is YouTube using the Content ID System to not only find content that’s violating copyrights but as a political weapon?

Is YouTube using the Content ID System that was originally intended to give copyright owner’s an effective way of managing their copyrights by removing content that is allegedly violating their copyrights or engaging in online piracy by distributing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work, to not only be used as the original purpose but also to be used as a political weapon?

I don’t think I really need to go into too much about copyrights and online piracy is, but I feel like I should just cover the tip of the iceberg to give a general idea of what it is.

Copyrights is it legal protection in the United States where when someone creates a piece of work i.e. a movie, song, story, photograph or any other type of publication it give the author protections that protects their work from other people copying or distributing their work without their permission.

The word just piracy usually means or refers to in maritime, it means for someone to take over another ship however the word has definitely changed from maritimes to the digital would.

The digital version of piracy, officially known as online piracy is taking someone’s work and distributing it whether it is for profit or not for profit without their permission in other words making illegal copies and giving it out.

This should not be confused with plagiarism, plagiarism is when you take someone else’s work and pass it on as your own.

The Content ID System was created and developed by YouTube. The original intended purpose was and is still used today to give copyright owner’s an effective way of managing their copyrights by removing content that is allegedly violating their copyrights and also to remove pirated copies off of YouTube.

In the United States we have a law called Digital Copyrights Millennium Act, officially known by the acronym DMCA. In a nutshell basically what this law does is if YouTube for example receives a DMCA notice, YouTube must take action by removing or disabling access to the constant that is in question. If YouTube takes action, sooner the better, YouTube may not be held liable for damages however if YouTube does not take action then YouTube could be held liable.

The DMCA notice is a legal binding document that if the complaining party falsifies false information they could be found guilty under penalty of perjury.

A DMCA notice usually will contain the complaining parties’ contact information, where the work is originally located or who owns the copyrights, where the continent that is in question is, and type of content that is allegedly being used.

When YouTube received a DMCA notice and they remove the content that is in question the person who placed the content on YouTube usually receives a copy of the DMCA notice that has not been edited or redacted. The reason is so the user is noticed that YouTube was legally required to remove or disable access to the content that is in question.

YouTube still receives DMCA notices the traditional way where if somebody does find their copyrighted work being used on YouTube or really any other website they can complete a DMCA notice to have YouTube takedown the content that is in question. With the creation and implementation of the content ID system this in away the DMCA notices have been done away with as more and more copyright owners is using the content ID system.

The constant ID system, the system is meant to protect, is also the same system that allows some to intentionally and willfully abuse the content ID system by claiming copyrights to work that is not theirs, that is in public domain or license under Creative Commons.

While the Content ID System is good for those who want to have their work protected as it scan all content being uploaded and even live feeds for any matches, sadly it is severely flawed as this also allows some to intentionally and willfully abuse the content ID system by claiming copyrights to work that is not theirs, that is in public domain and it seems YouTube has done nothing or very little to stop this.

As I mentioned above about the DMCA notice curtains contact information that is given to the user who uploaded the content. The DMCA notice does not allow the complaining party to have anonymity, the DMCA notice is also a legal document that if any information from the complaining party falsifies with false information they can be found guilty of penalty of perjury.

I have received several content ID matches and I’m sure it won’t be the last either unfortunately, most of them are not valid but here’s where the problem lies is with the content ID system.

Here are some questions to ask yourself, if you were being accused of wrongdoing would you want to be accused of wrongdoing if our court systems operated exactly this way?

• How would you like to be accused of wrongdoing by the accuser and not only is the accuser just the accuser but the accuser is not only the accuser, they are the lawmaker, investigator, police officer, jury, prosecutor and judge?
• How would you like to be accused of wrongdoing and instead of the accuser having the burden to prove you are guilty of what they are accusing you of, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent and even if you prove that you are innocent you’re still guilty?
• How would you like to be accused of wrongdoing and you really don’t know who the actual accuser is?

Doesn’t that sound fair? Well that’s exactly how YouTube has created the content ID system to operate, the accuser is all of those, the accuser doesn’t have to provide any evidence, doesn’t have to provide any proof, the accuser also remains pretty much anonymous and they get the final say even if you, the accused has proven without any doubt that they claim that the accuser is bringing against you is not valid.

Ask yourself this question now; would you voluntarily submit your full legal name, street address, city, state or providence, country, zip code and email address to someone who’s basically anonymous? I would sure hope the answer you answer is NO! Not in 1 million years, but YouTube wants you to do that if you choose to submit a counter dispute.

If the accuser rejects your dispute you do have the option to send a counter dispute however you are required to divulge your full legal name, street address, city, state or providence, country, zip code and email address to a basically a third-party that most of the time it’s essentially anonymous. This third-party that you’re submitting your information basically to doesn’t have to provide really any information about themselves other then a username for example.

The accuser still has thirty (30) days to decide, if they decide to uphold their claim basically rejecting your dispute there is not a single thing you can do plus you risk getting a copyright stake ageist your account. Most of them know most people won’t take them to court if you can find out who they truly are and another one is most people don’t have the means of funds to drag them to court, so they can continue to get away with this.

If you took truly cared about protecting copyrights while at the same time stop allowing accusers to be almost anonymous and start giving the accused the accusers personal contact information it probably would dramatically decrease the amount of fraudulent copyright claims because then those who abuse the system could be held accountable as the FTC, FCC, DOJ or all of them could look into this or a class action lawsuit could be filed.

Content ID system being used as a political weapon?

YouTube seems to have expanded with the content ID system that was originally intended to remove content that is allegedly violating copyrights to now also go after content that they claim is spreading “misinformation”, even though YouTube provides no evidence, no source that YouTube demons to be misinformation.

Take for instance the presidential election of 2020, some people claim that the election was stolen through widespread voter fraud while other people say that there was not enough election fraud to change the outcome of the election and some people say there was no fraud at all. Regardless of how you think or believe about the presidential 2020 election, if I were to go on YouTube right now and I would to say “I believe in the presidential 2020 election there was widespread voter fraud because why else would at a accounting center where they are supposed to be making sure any ballots that were mailed are properly postmarked on or before the deadline to be counted, properly filled out, appropriate signature would they cover-up the windows to stop the public from being able to see what is going on inside, don’t that tell you something is up?”, most likely my video would be removed from YouTube as they would claim that the video is spreading misinformation.

Why is YouTube taking aggressive action against anyone who says that they believe that the presidential election of 2020 had some fraud in it or even widespread voter fraud or even that the election was stolen?

Why does YouTube feel the need to remove videos and issue strikes instead of keeping the videos up perhaps a disclaimer should require the user to agree to some type of notice before the user can watch the video. Maybe it should say something along these lines “The video you are watching has been flagged as spreading misinformation about the election, please see the information box below this video for official election information, you may continue.”

I personally think YouTube’s approach by removing videos that they claim is spreading “misinformation”,  does not help, convince, educate, or inform, instead what I think it does do, it further exacerbates peoples claim(s) about the presidential election of 2020 and finally I think it also makes people very suspicious. Instead shouldn’t YouTube want to give information to allow people to learn more about how the election process works, what safeguards are put in place to prevent voter fraud?

I believe the way that you stop “misinformation“ it’s not by removing the continent that you claim to be is misinformation but your back it up by evidence and sources and you allow people to engage in a civil and peaceful discussion to hear both sides. Who knows, maybe somebody will admit that they helped commit voter fraud, maybe they will admit that they set into motion that there was voter fraud when in fact there was no voter fraud, they created fear and panic to undermine our election to start something. Maybe there is some truth into both sides because doesn’t each side have a story and doesn’t the truth rely somewhere in the middle?

This doesn’t just stop with someone mentioning about the election being stolen this is also expanded to talking about the pandemic, COVID-19 or novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

I think we all should be demanding why are YouTube has decided to take aggressive action when it comes to someone mentioning voter fraud for example, why they cannot really talk about COVID-19? I understand the reason YouTube doesn’t want to have a free-for-all by as some will share medical misinformation as medical misinformation can be dangerous but I also think people should be able to hear what people are saying.

This also can be dangerous in stopping health experts from truly understanding what people truly believe even if you would think are you crazy. If YouTube allow people to share contact that even though its medical misinformation maybe health experts can do a better job at educating the public.

Even though it may be medical misinformation, perhaps a disclaimer should require the user to agree to some type of notice before the user can watch the video. Maybe it should say something along these lines “The video you are watching has been flagged as spreading medical misinformation, please see the information box below this video for official medical information about COVID-19, you may continue.”

The way that you fight fake news, misinformation, conspiracy theories, claims or anything else that has not been proven to be true or not true its though evidence and proof, the more of it, the more your case is harder to disprove.

Why do you think courts require the prosecutor or the accuser with the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they are accusing the accused is guilty? The reason is because anyone can make up a claim and accuse someone of wrongdoing however evidence and proof is what actually ties the accused to the guilt.