{"id":13328,"date":"2022-02-15T04:33:06","date_gmt":"2022-02-15T04:33:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/15\/youtubes-content-id-system-flags-demonetizes-video-of-cat-purring\/"},"modified":"2022-02-15T04:33:06","modified_gmt":"2022-02-15T04:33:06","slug":"youtubes-content-id-system-flags-demonetizes-video-of-cat-purring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/15\/youtubes-content-id-system-flags-demonetizes-video-of-cat-purring\/","title":{"rendered":"YouTube’s Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the purrrrfect<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nYouTube’s Content ID automated copyright system sucks. There, I said it. Any review of the different posts we’ve done specifically on the topic of Content ID<\/a> can only leave you with one impression: the system doesn’t work. Not that it never<\/em> works, of course, but when you build a system that is designed specifically to allow 3rd parties to take down speech content, that system had damned well better not be wide the hell open for abuse or laughable errors. Well, guess what? You’ve got your music labels getting works taken down that were specifically designed<\/a> <\/em>not to not be infringing, news organizations managed to claim their own live streams<\/em><\/a> as copyright infringing, and music labels being able to demonetize videos of a guy singing public domain Christmas carols<\/a>. It’s all very stupid, very much the tip of the iceberg, and very much an indication that Content ID, in its current state, is broken.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhat’s that, you say? You need more? Fine, a guy uploaded videos of his cat purring and those got claimed by two different labels<\/em><\/a> as infringing on their copyrights.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nYouTube’s automated takedown tool is known for its flaws, but this week it crossed a line by attacking a purring cat. According to YouTube’s Content-ID system both EMI Publishing and PRS own the rights to a 12 second purring loop. Last March, YouTube user Digihaven uploaded one hour of video loops featuring his cat Phantom, purring, as cats do. The video didn\u2019t go viral but appealed to a niche public, and more recently also two major music publishers.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

\nNearly a year after the video was posted Digihaven was informed by YouTube that Phantom is \u201cpirate\u201d purring. Apparently, part of the 12 second loop belongs to EMI Music Publishing and PRS.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nYes, this is sort of funny, but only after you’ve encountered so many Content ID problems just like this that you become dead inside, like me. I’ve made statements like this before, but I’ll repeat it again: your automated copyright system doesn’t have to be perfect, but if your system is so flawed that a 12 second video of a cat purring can be flagged by multiple music labels then your system sucks so badly that you need to completely start from scratch on a new one.\n<\/p>\n

\nNow, I’ve done some haphazard searching for songs entitled “Focus” by artists on the EMI label and, frankly, I gave up. There are a ton of search results for songs that include that word in their titles. That being said, I’m fairly certain that EMI doesn’t have a band with a song that is 12 seconds of a cat purring or, if that in fact is a thing, that such a video would be copyrightable. In other words, either way, EMI and PRS should not be monetizing Phantom the Cat’s musical stylings.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n\u201cI\u2019m sure EMI\/PRS made Phantom a sad kitty. It seems like companies such as EMI are pirating ads on people\u2019s legit videos, so I\u2019m wondering if they apologize to, or reimburse people for those false claims,\u201d he tells TF.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

\nHoping to clear his cat\u2019s name Digihaven decided to file a dispute. This was partially successful, as EMI lifted its claim shortly before publication of this article.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nWhich, absurdly, means now Phantom just has to figure out what PRS’ problem is.\n<\/p>\n

\nOr, hey, maybe we could all just admit together that Content ID in its current form doesn’t work and should be done away with in some organized and planned fashioned. Replace it with a better automated system. Replace it with more humans doing moderation. Admit that content moderation at scale is completely impossible and stop trying.\n<\/p>\n

\nAnything would be better than living under a automated system we all know sucks.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.<\/p>\n

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying\/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: cats<\/a>, contentid<\/a>, copyright<\/a>
Companies: emi<\/a>, google<\/a>, prs<\/a>, youtube<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n