>>15760290>ContentID is a good systemNo it's fucking not. ContentID is the system Viacom (and other behemots of the industry) forced on Youtube so they wouldn't crush them.
Here is how DMCA is supposed to work
1) Some streamer uses something that a company considers infringing on their copyright
2) Said company sends a letter (or a Fax) to Youtube signed by the responsible for the copyright claiming which video is infringing, which work of theirs is being infringed and demand (under DMCA) it to be taken down
3) Youtube, under DMCA, *must* notify the person that upload the video of all of that information and take the video down
4) The person that uploaded the video has the option to send a counter notice saying "this is not infringing, here is my personal information, forward to the complainant".
If he does Youtube *must* reinstate the video immediately, send the info to the company complaining and wash their hands off.
The company then can take the person to court or suck it up.
That's is a good system because it balances three things
1) Youtube doesn't have to decide if the work infringes or not, it is a matter for the courts
2) If the company has a claim and the other party decides to contest they can easily take them to court and win
3) When the infringement falls into "fair use" it means the party does *not* have a claim and, knowing that they would not win the case in court, they usually won't proceed
4) As the system is manual, companies can't just claim everything ever made by mankind belongs to them (as some company did with FUCKING BIRDS SINGING), they workload means they won't bother going after small infringements
With ContentID the equation changed: companies just submit everything they own, some things they **don't** own and Youtube enforce their claim on anyone uploading it, and usually without recourse (because unless it is a strike you can't even send a counter claim)
ContentID is a dumb system and anyone defending it is a retard including whoever made that video.
