A malicious law enformement officer or a criminal can exploit copyright laws to prevent criminal activities to be posted on mainstream platforms. Read the article for a real life example.

No matter your stance on copyright laws, I think we can all agree there needs to be an exemption to copyright laws where if a video or audio recording contains copyrighted material but also contains unrelated content (like police violence or other criminal activity), then that should be exempt from copyright laws. Beside, who wants to listen to music that also has a cop screeching in the background, therefore, this wouldn’t affect music subscriptions services in any way.

Even with such law, I don’t have hopes of youtube changing their policies. I’m honestly sad for the future.

    • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that’s a YouTube problem, not a copyright problem, right?

        • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the reason why YouTube overregulates is because of how massive their service is. They couldn’t pay lawyers to check every single video, and they can’t take risks of copyright infringement.

          Do you have any proposed solution? It just seems like Youtube’s nature make this a very hard problem to solve, it’s not a copyright thing itself. I really can’t imagine a solution. Having someone check every claim would be insanely difficult. But removing copyright all together would basically remove all incentive from content creators because anyone can clone their creativity and ideas with zero effort.

          • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            ‘anyone can clone their creativity and ideas with zero effort.’ <- This is already happening.

            I think a better solution would be for copyright claims to have evidence, rather than just immediately presuming guilt for the accused.

            I really have no idea though. There’s smarter people than me who have better ideas how this could work.

      • Bison1911@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The way YouTube moderates copyright is somewhat forced by outdated laws. Tom Scott made an excellent YouTube video or two about this topic which is definitely worth the watch.

        • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just watched the video. He has 2 points:

          1. copyright is hard because it has to go through bureaucracy. But one thing is the law itself and another is the process. If the process is slow is not the content of the law’s fault. This is why YouTube created Content ID, to try to resolve these cases in a more agile way. They are too massive to make every case go through the whole legal expensive path.

          2. the threshold for content to turn into public domain is too large. No idea how this relates to YouTube copyright issues though. Yeha, maybe the threshold is too large, but is that related to the complaints content creators have around Youtube’s Content ID? Nope. That’s just something he wanted to throw in there, which is just opinion.

          Thinking about it… Maybe lowering the threshold could be a relief on the bureaucracy because there would be less open cases. Still, not sure if that would be enough. We’re uploading content exponentially, any justice system would collapse if experts had to check every single case.

          This is a very hard problem to solve. With the HUGE incoming wave of AI generated content and the copyright issues surrounding AI, I’m expecting the shit to hit the fan expectacularly.