So I got my first copyright strike…

I don’t think of myself as a YouTuber. From the perspective of Words About Books, YouTube is just one of a dozen directories that this podcast is listed in. Despite this, it is by far the most time consuming directory to engage with.

YouTube represents a unique problem and opportunity. It is not well-suited to podcast content, but other platforms that are better suited to podcast content lack YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. Podcasters have a reputation for being annoying self-promoters. Which, of course, we are. But not by choice. Most podcasting platforms lack any real discovery mechanism to put your podcast in front of listeners who might like it. This is where YouTube becomes worth the effort.

Even though we are forced to add a video element to an audio only program, the digital equivalent of overpackaging a product, it is worth it because YouTube will put that video in front of hundreds more people than other platforms. Subscribers to the YouTube channel will notice that we have played with various methods of making our videos more visually appealing. We were preparing to increase the effort we put into growing the podcast on the platform. We are now rethinking that.

We have dealt with numerous copyright claims during our time on YouTube. Usually, these were related to audio that we had specifically purchased a license to use. Copyright claims were relatively straight forward and easily dealt with. Upon demonstrating we had a license, the claim was lifted and everything was fine. I understand the need to utilize automated processes to fight piracy, and I understand that those algorithms will make mistakes from time to time. I am actually very happy with the copyright claim system implemented by YouTube and the responsiveness of the rights holders who utilize it. I am less happy with the copyright strike system.

For those who are not aware, there is a difference between a copyright “claim” and a copyright “strike.” A copyright claim is much less severe. It enables a rights holder to claim that your video uses their intellectual property and it can prevent monetization or take the monetization for the rights holder. I can understand why larger channels find fault with this system as well, but we do not qualify for YouTube’s Partner Program and therefore I don’t really care. A copyright strike, on the other hand, is a formal takedown notice. If you receive three strikes, your channel will be deleted, and the smaller the channel the less likely you are to get the attention of a human being at YouTube to help you reinstate correct any mistakes or false takedowns.

What surprised me the most about receiving my first copyright strike is that, considering the severity of the action taken, there was absolutely no evidence provided that copyright infringement had even occurred. The representative of the rights holder simply claimed that two of our videos contained “CATCHING FIRE” and that the content was in “The entire video.” Based on that, we were 33% of the way to having our channel removed and there was nothing stopping them from filing more strikes on more videos with similarly flimsy justification. For comparison, copyright claims often highlight the specific portion of the video that uses the protected content and provides detail about which protected content is being claimed.

We reached out to the authorized representatives of the rights holder who filed the takedown notice. They sent us a form letter listing the various things we did not have permission to do with their client’s intellectual property. The only problem was that we had not done any of those things. Summary, analysis, and review of a book are well within the bounds of fair use. The letter acknowledged this. We are allowed to discuss and review books publicly. It seemed to me that an algorithm had incorrectly flagged our discussion of the book as a reading of the book. We reached out to the authorized representative of the rights holder, again, and said as much and asked, again, that they point out specifically what we were accused to have used inappropriately, and if that could not be done, to please remove the strike. This was met with silence.

YouTube gives channels one further option. You may counter-claim. You must give your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address so that the claimant may proceed with legal action against you if they so choose. You must then provide a justification under penalty of perjury for why you believe this strike to be in error. YouTube will forward this information to the claimant who then has 10 business days to reply with evidence of legal action against you, or the video is reinstated and the copyright strike is dropped.

That’s fair enough, I suppose. Copyright infringement must be taken seriously. My only issue is that this seems to be a one way street. I was not provided with a name, address, and phone number for my accuser in the event that I wanted to pursue legal action for damages caused by their filing of a false DMCA takedown notice. I was provided only with an e-mail address and the words “CATCHING FIRE” and “entire video.” I was not given 10 business days to file a counter claim prior to the application of a potentially channel-destroying strike to my account. I understand the need to cease hosting a video that a company alleges infringes on their copyright while it is sorted out, but surely the punishments could wait until we’ve determined there actually is a violation?

I suspect that I have agreed to this process when I accepted YouTube’s terms of service, but I still feel compelled to point out that YouTube is unfairly advantaging accusers over the accused. There is no check from YouTube on accusers filing false strikes, but there is a check from YouTube on the accused. The strike will be removed if no legal action is taken, but the channel is on its own to seek any kind of justice. Whereas the effects of a strike are immediate. Having been on the receiving end of what is clearly an algorithmically-generated false strike, I don’t think very highly of this process.

We are an utterly insignificant presence on YouTube. I’m aware that my opinion of the process does not matter. I imagine larger channels are given some sort of preferential treatment that allows them to feel confidence operating valuable businesses on a platform where any random entity can file three strikes and automatically knock a channel offline for at least 10 days. As it stands though, I’m grateful that YouTube has not dominated the podcast market the way it has dominated the streaming video market.

And for what it’s worth, after 10 business days our videos were restored and our strike was removed. A certain “Bespoke” British Antipiracy firm decided not to pursue legal action. Who’d have thought…