YouTube's copyright system isn't broken; the world's is | Tom Scott

Ever had any questions about copyright and fair use? Chances are this video will answer them (and, depressingly, chances are the answer is "No, that isn't fair use; yes, you need to pay a license fee"). It certainly helped clear up a number of things for me, whilst (as ever with anything Tom does) being clear about what is/isn't a grey area – and why those grey areas maybe don't matter.

I think Tom makes an extremely well-reasoned argument for why the current system is fundamentally broken, how YouTube's Content ID system is a pretty excellent bandaid that cannot and should not be relied on (but also shouldn't be trashed), and what we can do about. Chiefly, reduce copyright to a maximum of 50 years 👍

There is one thread throughout all these examples: under the current system it often doesn't matter who is actually in the right. Even if the answer to "Is it fair use?" is clear, it's actually about whether you can afford to defend a case. You could be 100% sure it's fair use, but unless you're prepared to spend the time and money to actually fight that in court? It. Doesn't. Matter.

Explore Other Notes

  • <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <p>Ever had any questions about copyright and fair use? Chances are this video will answer them (and, depressingly, chances are the answer is "No, that isn't fair use; yes, you need to pay a license …</p> </body> </html>
  • Murray Adcock.
Journal permalink