Analysis of YouTube’s Content ID System Through Two Different Perspectives

  • Liliana P. SalasEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12051)


Computer engineering and law seem to be two distant disciplines that go in opposite directions. In fact, most lawyers and IT-engineers tend to consider that their fields do not have much in common, but today’s reality requires much more collaboration between the two. This paper presents an analysis of YouTube’s Content ID system from two different perspectives: Lex Informatica and Legal Risk Management, in order to determine the link between technology and law. Therefore, by highlighting the importance of this relationship, this paper aims to assess the weaknesses, benefits, and challenges that professionals in these scientific fields face today and invites them to collaborate in a more efficient manner to avoid the violation of users’ rights.


YouTube Content ID Lex Informatica Legal Risk Management Law Technology 


  1. 1.
    Vraalsen, F., Lund, M.S., Mahler, T., Parent, X., Stølen, K.: Specifying legal risk scenarios using the CORAS threat modelling language. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 45–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, E.C.: YouTube: testing the safe harbors of digital copyright law. S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ 17, 139 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartholomew, T.B.: The death of fair use in cyberspace: YouTube and the problem with content ID. Duke L. Tech. Rev. 13, 66 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frey, A.: To sue or not to sue: video-sharing web sites, copyright infringement, and the inevitability of corporate control. Brook. J. Corp. Fin. Com. L. 2, 167 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Peguera, M.: Secondary liability for copyright infringement in the web 2.0 environment: some reflections on Viacom v. Youtube. J. Int. Commer. Law Technol. 6(1) (2011).
  7. 7.
    Google Statement. Accessed 01 Feb 2019
  8. 8.
    Patrikios, A.: Resolution of cross-border e-business disputes by arbitration tribunals on the basis of transnational substantive rules of law and e-business usages: the emergence of the lex informatica. U. Tol. L. Rev. 38, 271 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reidenberg, J.: The rule of intellectual property law in the internet economy. Hous. L. Rev. 44, 1073 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lessig, L.: Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (2009).
  11. 11.
    Reidenberg, J.R.: Lex informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Tex. L. Rev. 76, 553 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walden, I., Hörnle, J. (eds.): E-Commerce Law and Practice in Europe. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan, C.: Lawrence Lessig v Liberation Music Pty Ltd: YouTube’s hand (or bots) in the over-zealous enforcement of copyright. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 36(6), 347–351 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    YouTube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant. Accessed 16 Dec 2019
  15. 15.
    O’Donnell, K.: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. and the potential effect of fair use analysis under the takedown procedures of section 512 of the DMCA. Duke L. Tech. Rev. 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Timkovich, E.T.: The new significance of the four fair use factors as applied to parody: interpreting the court’s analysis in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Tul. J. Tech. Intell. Prop. 5, 61 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leitch, M.: ISO 31000: 2009—the new international standard on risk management. Risk Anal. Int. J. 30(6), 887–892 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moorhead, R., Vaughan, S.: Legal risk: definition, management and ethics, 31 March 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stern, R.: Napster: a walking copyright infringement? IEEE Micro 20(6), 4–5 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peguera, M.: Secondary liability for copyright infringement in the web 2.0 environment: some reflections on Viacom v. Youtube. J. Int. Com. L. Tech. 6, 18 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    YouTube Terms of ServiceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kulk, S., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.: Filtering for copyright enforcement in Europe after the Sabam cases. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 34(11), 791–794 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marino, G.: YouTube is not GEMA’s main offender. J. Intellect. Prop. Law Pract. 7(9), 644–646 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark, C.: The answer to the machine is in the machine. In: The Future of Copyright in a Digital Environment. Information Law Series, vol. 4, pp. 139–145. Kluwer Law International (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations