Content ID Options

After quite a delay, I’m back to discuss the third of my possible solutions for the problem: changing the options for content owners (what they can do with videos containing their copyrighted audio). Let’s take a look at all the options that Content ID provides, and I’ll mention the pros and cons of them. For reference, this information is on the Content ID page, under the section “What options are available to copyright owners?”

1) Mute the video – Users may still watch the video, but the audio is muted. For instances where the entire audio is copyrighted, this is fine. The problem arises when only a small portion of the audio is copyrighted. This can be a bit overboard: as an extreme example, consider an hour long class project where you play a 3 minute song in the middle. That small segment causes your entire video to be muted, ruining it. Yes, this is a necessary option. However, consider implementing selective muting, so the precision of the flags is increased. If you can mute just that 3 minute song, both parties would be happy.

2) Block the video – This is similar but more extreme than muting. Essentially, this should only be done when copyrighted video is used (for example, video game content). As with muting, there is the problem of precision, but if selective blocking could be implemented, this option is not a problem.

3) Monetize the video – This is the problematic option. Essentially, YouTube has a partner program, through which it runs ads on videos and gives a portion of the ad revenue to the uploader. The more ads are watched, the more the uploader gets. With the monetization, content holders can run ads and get ad revenue on videos flagged by Content ID. Admittedly, this replaces the mechanical license in the music industry (I explain music licenses in more detail here, for those of you interested in the music aspect of this blog). However, this option opens up the possibility for fraud: instead of just stopping uploaders from gaining money, the content holder earns money in their place. Any false flag which is monetized results in fraud: the content holder earns money from another person’s material, which is exactly what Content ID is supposed to prevent.

Now, this sounds bad, and it potentially is. However, as long as the content holders are policed or verified, this option shouldn’t be a problem. Still, perhaps it would be better to have a period of time during which neither uploader nor content holder gets the money, until the ownership can be settled. It worries me that money can change hands so quickly at just the words of an imperfect, automated system… I will admit that this has not become a big problem, and I believe that Content ID’s verification process is to congratulate for that. However, any new system should be careful concerning monetization of copyrighted material…

4) Track the video’s statistics – The last in the list, this is the mildest and least problematic. Simply put, it doesn’t create a problem for the uploader, but it allows the content holder to see how that video compares with their own. For any allowed use of copyrighted materials, this is the option that will probably be chosen.

---

All in all, the options for Content ID are pretty good. Two problems exist, however. The first is one of precision: copyrighted content anywhere in a video causes the entire video to be affected. The second is one of potential fraud: monetization is based on an imperfect system and trust in the integrity of the content holders. The first can be fixed with other solutions. The second, however, might require changing the options and removing monetization.

What are your thoughts on these options? Is there anything I’ve missed? Are these problems as bad as I think they are? Do you have an idea of an option to add? Whatever you have to offer, I look forward to hearing!