[HN Gopher] Piano teacher gets copyright claim for Beethoven's M...
___________________________________________________________________
Piano teacher gets copyright claim for Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata
[video]
Author : bitcharmer
Score : 814 points
Date : 2021-05-01 08:55 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| verytrivial wrote:
| I can't be certain, but I think this video might be the
| "original" that the algorithm matched:
| https://youtu.be/-ThyLB6bakk
|
| What is to stop bad actors pumping out a stream of
| interpretations of public domain _melodies_ to prime the matching
| algorithm then using the robotic nature of the appeal process to
| extort ad revenue? Nothing, apparently!
| wazoox wrote:
| This is the evil of monopoly. Monopolies destroy freedom and will
| bring back feudalism. The GAFAM must be broken up.
|
| Yannis Varoufakis discusses this in this (oh the irony) youtube
| video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlkuA1mx0pc
| cronix wrote:
| Rick Beato explains a lot of this very well. He's even testified
| in congress about this subject. Here's a good explanatory video
| of his on this subject:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok
|
| It's slightly different as the music he uses actually has
| existing copyright, but along the same lines.
|
| "You can't teach people music without giving examples. I can't do
| something like, 'well you know, this is _like_ Led Zeppelin, or
| _like_ Bach '...this is something I created and you're going to
| learn from it... No, you have to learn from the actual sources."
| bluesign wrote:
| This is fraud. They claim they have right to something they
| don't, when you dispute, YouTube just directing them the dispute
| and they reject.
|
| As you don't want to risk 3 strike, you agree to share revenue.
|
| Basically Youtube doing nothing.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Have you ever tried to report fraud to authorities? Even if you
| show overwhelming evidence, details of perpetrator, chances are
| LE will laugh you out and say it is a civil matter.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| With law enforcement at least you get to talk to people. With
| YouTube/Google all your complaints go straight to /dev/null
| globular-toast wrote:
| Only if you're a big enough company and/or have to the
| right contacts. Do you think regular people could get the
| police to raid a data centre or something on grounds of
| copyright infringement?
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| LE might also decide they look funny and launch a frivolous
| prosecution against you.
| matsemann wrote:
| At least DMCA has a perjury clause. It seems like there is no
| punishment for spamming frivolous takedown notices on YT.
| cronix wrote:
| > Basically Youtube doing nothing.
|
| Actually, they're hurting an independent content creator over
| something she has every right to do using works in the public
| domain. Youtube is doing that, not the fraudster making the
| false claim. They have no power other than what Youtube gives
| them, and Youtube gives them 100% of the power.
| tsp wrote:
| This is really bad! YouTube should find ways to respond to
| misclaimed tracks as a creator. Also companies / individuals that
| claim public domain music should be banned from the platform.
| paulmd wrote:
| you're fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the
| copyright claim system: it doesn't exist to determine the
| legitimate owner of a work, it exists _to keep youtube from
| being sued_. Since there is no legal penalty for a "false
| positive", even if the creator can prove that it's a false
| positive, while there _is_ a penalty for a false negative, the
| system will always lean to aggressive removal and
| demonetization, because that 's where youtube's interests lie.
|
| the legal answer here is that if you don't like youtube's
| copyright system then distribute your content on another
| platform. Otherwise, push for there to be a penalty for an
| excessive removal of copyright, because that's the only thing
| that's going to tilt youtube's scales back to the center.
| bertil wrote:
| > Since there is no legal penalty for a "false positive",
|
| I'm really confused by that part: YouTube lawyers must know
| that there's a significant risk they'll piss of a someone
| like a law professor and that they'll use all their faculty
| to go after what is essentially fraud: there are provisions
| in the CDMA precisely for that, and the platform is liable
| for indulging those in systematic cases. Even if it's not,
| they are risking a change in law.
|
| Compared that PR nightmare to having an engineer spend a few
| days to hack a "public domain" user that automatically
| accepts re-use, or re-train to distinguish interpretations
| from copies... I feel like I'm missing something -- and I'm
| not missing a cynical take on how Google is too big to care.
|
| God knows that I've been arguing that some problems are
| harder than one expects, but public domain sheet music isn't
| a hard one for YouTube.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > there are provisions in the CDMA precisely for that, and
| the platform is liable for indulging those in systematic
| cases.
|
| (assuming you mean DMCA) Yes, that has provisions, but YT
| copyright claims are explicitly not DMCA claims. This is
| intentional to both protect the content creator (lawsuits
| are expensive!) and YouTube.
|
| > YouTube lawyers must know that there's a significant risk
| they'll piss of a someone like a law professor and that
| they'll use all their faculty to go after what is
| essentially fraud:
|
| YouTube can ban you from the platform at any time for any
| reason. While it's not good publicity, you don't have a
| legal right to be on YouTube or receive money from them.
|
| > Even if it's not, they are risking a change in law.
|
| I doubt Google is happy with the status quo, actually,
| since it is not good for their creators. But with the
| system being as it is, they're doing what's best for them.
|
| > Compared that PR nightmare to having an engineer spend a
| few days to hack a "public domain" user that automatically
| accepts re-use, or re-train to distinguish interpretations
| from copies... I feel like I'm missing something
|
| For one, recognizing this music is not an easy problem.
| You'll need to be accurate in a wide variety of cases,
| lengths and qualities, which in itself is already very
| hard. _But_ , just because it's that piece, it's not
| necessarily free: Recordings of these songs _can_ be copy-
| righted. For example, Beethoven 's music itself is free,
| but the recording performed by the Sydney opera is not. So
| you need to decide whether the uploader has rights to this
| specific recording, which is nearly impossible.
|
| And this is just the easy case. Fair use, for example, is a
| very gray area and something which can take courts years to
| decide. Same on whether a piece is derivative or different
| enough to be its own work. There is no chance for Google to
| automate away any of this.
| eru wrote:
| > There is no chance for Google to automate away any of
| this.
|
| I'm not quite so pessimistic. There is a chance, machine
| learning is pretty good these days.
|
| But: the chance is pretty low and I assume other
| priorities are taking up most of their time, and this
| would be a risky project from a legal point of view.
| naniwaduni wrote:
| There is no chance because copyright is not a data
| problem. It is a provenance problem. Provenance is not a
| function of data.
|
| (Humans can't really solve this problem either.)
| dkarras wrote:
| The nuance with "public domain sheet music" is that while
| the instructions of how to play that music is public
| domain, the recorded performance of such music is not. So
| when you play moonlight sonata, you have the copyright to
| that particular performance (recording) and someone else
| cannot use that without permission. It is somewhat harder
| to distinguish between recordings of thousands of
| performances of the same musical piece.
|
| The thing though is that youtube decided not to care.
| Actually, that is not about caring - the youtube we knew
| when it first launched was killed because it was an
| impossible business model if they themselves had the
| liability for uploaded possibly copyrighted content. So now
| they say "sort it out between yourselves, go to courts if
| you want but I will take it down while you do that to not
| be liable in the worst case".
| withinboredom wrote:
| This particular case is about a copyrighted "melody" and
| not the performance. Sheet music would cover this.
| dkarras wrote:
| The same principle applies though: Youtube has no say in
| deciding what is copyrighted or not. They don't want to
| have a say in it themselves. Someone, somewhere, claims
| that they own the copyright to x and y. Youtube can't and
| won't decide if that is truthful or not. Almost a decade
| ago, youtube gave the keys to claims to people to remove
| themselves from the equation. "Someone says they own this
| stuff so _they_ took it down. Sort it out between
| yourselves. "
| cycomanic wrote:
| How much would you bet that the same wouldn't happen to
| e.g. Warner Bros.. YT is quite definitely taking a
| stance, the problem is they're not taking a stance on
| truthfulness, but simply on how much money does it make
| us.
| dkarras wrote:
| They are taking a stance on how much headache and money
| it will cost them, which is really reasonable. The reason
| old and unsustainable youtube died is _because_ of the
| Warner Bros and alike - because their kind tend to hold
| an enormous amount of copyrights. If they feel they
| benefit from copyrights, then they will feel the most
| attacked. They, with their influence, said youtube cannot
| continue in this fashion back in the day, and it was
| true. They could sue youtube to the ground and they 'd
| have to close down (assuming manual moderation is
| impossible). I am actually amazed that they allowed it to
| continue with this solution, being, "youtube, you give us
| the keys and we do the takedowns when we feel like our
| copyrights are violated, then you may continue" and
| youtube said "fine" and that is where we are. Now if you
| feel like your content is taken down unjustly, you should
| take it up with whoever is claiming ownership over _your_
| content. Which is... impractical actually, but that is
| how it is. This is one of the only ways within the
| current legal framework where you can have a site where
| people post content to freely without being liable for
| aiding and abetting copyright infringement yourself. No
| easy solution to this.
|
| So yes, Warner Bros can be an enormous headache to
| youtube. Legally and financially. "Piano teacher"
| probably can't. Youtube acts accordingly which is pretty
| rational. If you owned a youtube-like service, you'd have
| to do the same.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Well they already managed to piss off the EU, but after
| intense lobbying by Google, it looks like that the
| resulting law hinders more YouTube's competitors?
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Sure, YouTube doesn't want to get sued, but they also don't
| want to lose most of their content creators. Things are
| rarely as simple as assuming a party has a singular
| motivation.
| tomcooks wrote:
| Or creators should promote public domain platforms like
| archive.org instead of complaining that a commercial platform
| is run like that
| qayxc wrote:
| And what exactly would that solve? Now you've shifted the
| problem to a different organisation without addressing the
| actual issue: bad actors and copyright trolls being
| asymmetrically favoured over content creators.
|
| Being a non-profit organisation doesn't make you immune from
| frivolous lawsuits...
| gaius_baltar wrote:
| > And what exactly would that solve?
|
| Google won't get the ad money from these views. That's the
| point.
| disillusioned wrote:
| I used the YouTube studio editor to add a piece from YouTube's
| library of music in the public domain to a small video of no real
| consequence, and then, ten years later, received a copyright
| claim on that audio. The system is really truly fucked.
| trinovantes wrote:
| I don't understand why YouTube doesn't use their content id
| system to detect these obvious public domain disputes.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Probably because it would cost them time and effort, but they
| have no incentive to do so. Why would they? At most, when cases
| such as this come to the public's attention, all that YouTube
| suffers is inconsequential reputational damage. This is easily
| and cheaply mitigated in PR terms if it gets bad enough by just
| handling the incident with a quick _" Oops, sorry, our bad"_
| and reinstating the removed material.
|
| Meanwhile, the uncountable cases of illegitimate copyright
| takedowns which never make the news don't matter. What are the
| victims going to do about it? Sue? Use a YouTube competitor?
| kzrdude wrote:
| The only defender of the rights holders without money would
| be the court system, so a court needs to suspend youtube's
| copyright strike system.
| durnygbur wrote:
| > YouTube suffers is inconsequential reputational damage
|
| No such thing exists. Using "reputation damage" in context of
| YouTube, or any Google service really doesn't make any sense.
| ziftface wrote:
| Even the marketing you mentioned isn't really necessary.
| That's what happened when you're a monopoly, bad reputation
| doesn't really hurt the bottom line.
| banbanbang wrote:
| If you look at Google's (Alphabet's) margins you will know why.
| We are allowing these monopoly tech companies to extract value
| without bare min investments. Google is one of the biggest
| violators. I think all SV companies are at fault to some degree.
| Some still operate with "startup" budget for support. I know
| Paypal does this for example. There's gotta be a wake up moment
| where if you are going to be in the consumer facing business you
| have to invest in minimal support infrastructure or face fines.
| RyJones wrote:
| I used to have a bunch of time lapses on YouTube- my office for a
| few years was above the ferry docks in Seattle. I chose music
| from the YouTube collection of free music for background music. I
| have copyright claims on all of them now; I've taken almost all
| of them down. https://youtu.be/TgzqOvTvWzw As an example
| lovelyviking wrote:
| btw I loved your video and I would prefer to see them even
| without music. I can play guitar while watching or play some
| other music in background.
| RyJones wrote:
| thanks - I appreciate that.
| plmu wrote:
| Google might be doing this to show the negative aspects of the
| current copyright system. Maybe they want to annoy enough people
| so that something might change.
| egao1980 wrote:
| My daughter plays guitar and violin and this is a very common
| issue. Moreover Youtube automatically labels some original
| performances as if they use third-party soundtrack. Both annoying
| and flattering.
| gekkonier wrote:
| It's google. I can live without it. Do you?
| lovelyviking wrote:
| What about copyright it self? If they have manage to abuse it
| even with google what are chances that they would not find a
| way to abuse it on smaller platforms?
| gekkonier wrote:
| In this situation here google is not willing to check if an
| automatism failed. I do not think that problem applies to
| selfhostetd content. But who knows, its a world where
| everything is possible....
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| They would. That's why you should avoid platforms, they go
| against the principles of the decentralized World Wide Web.
| Jyaif wrote:
| I believe this is the video/music that claims the copyright of
| Moonlight Sonata (notice the downvotes):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk
| h0l0cube wrote:
| The 2015 album is on Spotify too:
|
| https://open.spotify.com/album/1eMRlKHhUiVQRncGQRBBmH?si=K3e...
|
| Just seems like the artist played a slowed down Moonlight
| Sonata with some effects on top and the algorithm now thinks
| it's theirs. Hard to know if they know that they are
| blocking/leaching from other content creators.
| shirleyquirk wrote:
| it makes it worse that its a hamfisted, soulless rendition.
| perhaps Mx Molland has other superior tracks but this one is
| particularly egregious.
| croes wrote:
| This will get worse in the EU when the upload filters are in
| place.
| BooneJS wrote:
| My daughter got her first content claim when she was a 7 year old
| violinist. Proud father moment.
|
| Dispute was allowed to lapse.
|
| I'm on day 22 or so of another dispute from my son's violin
| performance. I don't see this going anywhere either.
| jeffwass wrote:
| Summary for those that don't want to watch the video :
|
| - Pianist creates YouTube video demonstrating how to play
| Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata
|
| - part of this video includes her playing Moonlight Sonata (of
| course)
|
| - YouTube has a new 'feature' that scans submitted videos prior
| to publication to identify potentially copyrighted material
|
| - her video is found to include copyrighted material. She is
| certain this is a mistake that will be rectified by disputing the
| copyright claim
|
| - she agrees the only person who's content she is reproducing is
| Beethoven himself
|
| - her copyright dispute is rejected. She is found to be violating
| the copyright of a piece called "Wicca Moonlight"
|
| - she can appeal the dispute but the appeal process is limited,
| and she risks getting a feared "copyright strike" on her account,
| wherein three such strikes would mean permanent closure of the
| account
|
| - she says nearly anyone can file copyright claims against
| published YouTube videos, including bots, and is worried about
| all the time she's putting in to create content being usurped by
| a few bad actors
| de6u99er wrote:
| Strange, that nobody at Google seems to have heard of
| Beethoven.
| guggle wrote:
| Upload videos to her own website. Problem solved.
| Tepix wrote:
| The reasons why ppl go to YT are monetization and visibility.
| igarcia wrote:
| She mentioned that she's not making much money from it.
| People are migrating from this model into sponsorship such
| as patreon, with followers chipping in for their favourite
| creators.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Patreon is also problematic due to centralization.
| gverrilla wrote:
| soon there will be a killer app for that in blockchain
| that will replace patreon
| guggle wrote:
| Yes, I get it and my comment was intended tongue-in-cheek.
| But still... not everyone goes to YT for monetization in
| which case I really think it's just better not to use it.
| I'm probably too old but I remember a time when we had
| plenty of visibility on the web without platforms dictating
| the content.
| qwertox wrote:
| You mean your Geocities homepage which got a fabulous 121
| hits in 1997? ;)
| robobro wrote:
| Why would you assume that videos have to be shared to
| YouTube to get views? I really hope that the majority of
| adults know how to click on or share a hyperlink. If not,
| there is a big problem.
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| Because while i don't have numbers, i'd bet a weeks pay
| that the vast majority of youtube views (especially after
| exluding viral content) come through the youtube
| recommendation system and not external hyperlinks.
| eru wrote:
| Then you get sued instead of youtube.
| ratww wrote:
| I don't think Beethoven is willing to sue her. His lawyers
| will probably remind him that he's been dead for a while.
|
| What happened here is a problem unique to Youtube. Nobody
| will get sued for the _same_ reasons she 's getting taken
| down. For _other_ reasons? Sure, but that 's also can
| happen in Youtube.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| In this case, yes.
|
| In the general case, someone (or some _thing_ ) can sue
| for pretty much any reason whatsoever. One of the
| unappreciated roles of publishers and distributors is
| that they also serve as a legal defence organisation.
| You'll often hear people talk of how the publisher of a
| newspaper, magazine, or books also have lawyers to deal
| with, say, libel or other claims. Copyright isn't the
| only consideration here. For any community-based
| activity, there are also the issues of inter- and intra-
| community disputes.
|
| Peer-based publishing tends to ignore this question.
| qwertox wrote:
| * _That_ problem solved.
|
| And so many more created.
| surfsvammel wrote:
| How? I gave this a shot, but it was such a hassle to get it
| working. Hosting, automatic resampliny of videos to different
| quality, CDN stuff. Is there an easy way to host videos
| yourself?
| tomcooks wrote:
| Peertube, self hosted or upload to a public istance
| robobro wrote:
| Federation is really the answer. I would much rather
| upload content to peertube than bitchute or YouTube.
| Although, invidious is a nice answer to YouTube problems,
| in some aspects
| leephillips wrote:
| The hosting issue is orthogonal: register a domain
| ($4-$15), rent a Linux VPS ($5/month), install Apache.
| Then, learn how to use the video embed tag
| (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/vi...). Use ffmpeg to convert the
| videos to the format and size you want them in, upload with
| rsync. That's it.
| leephillips wrote:
| I forgot: go to https://letsencrypt.org/ to learn how to
| get a (free) certificate so you can do https.
|
| You might be thinking that you don't want to learn about
| all of that just to host some videos, and that's
| reasonable. But there is a tradeoff. Either let someone
| else control your content and live under the threat of
| arbitrary takedowns, or learn what you need to control
| your own stuff.
|
| If you get popular you will have to deal with bandwidth
| issues, because video is huge. That's one reason even
| people who are capable of hosting on their own turn to
| platforms like YouTube.
|
| You can look into Vimeo. For some reason it's not
| mentioned often as an alternative to YouTube, but it
| seems to be better in almost every way.
| jasode wrote:
| _> You can look into Vimeo. For some reason it's not
| mentioned often as an alternative to YouTube, but it
| seems to be better in almost every way._
|
| The _" Vimeo better in almost every way"_ needs to be re-
| calibrated based on the typical reasons that content
| creators' such as this piano teacher use Youtube.
|
| The many ways that Vimeo is _worse_ :
|
| - platform membership fees: Youtube is $0 to upload and
| host, Vimeo used to be $240 and now has some new pricing
| plans[1] with a low-use free tier (too limited for high-
| res 4k uploads)
|
| - smaller audience : Youtube is ~2 billion users, Vimeo
| ~200 million
|
| - no advertising partners : Youtube enables monetization
|
| - less recommendations leading to discovery of your
| videos because less catalog of content _from others_ to
| expose viewers to your video: Youtube has dozens of
| Beethoven Moonlight Sonata piano tutorials, Vimeo has
| none[2]
|
| And btw, Vimeo also removes videos. Previous comment
| about someone following advice of switching from Youtube
| to Vimeo which didn't solve his problem:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20347254
|
| Vimeo is a good platform but it's not mentioned as often
| as alternative to Youtube because it doesn't solve the
| same problems for many Youtubers. Also, self-hosting with
| Apache web server and HTML5 <video> tag also doesn't
| solve the same problem. And Peertube+Patreon doesn't
| solve the same problem.
|
| [1] https://vimeo.com/upgrade
|
| [2]
| https://vimeo.com/search?q=moonlight%20sonata%20tutorial
| falcolas wrote:
| > install Apache
|
| > video embed tags
|
| > ffmpeg
|
| > That's it
|
| You're thinking like an engineer. To a non-technical
| person, that's a lot. I'd even go so far as to say it's
| prohibitively difficult for anyone outside of our
| profession.
|
| I'll even say that it's going to be difficult even for
| folks within our profession. Finding someone who can
| launch and configure Apache properly (i.e. in a way which
| won't get it quickly reconfigured to serve porn or
| illegal files), not to mention keeping everything up to
| date, is getting more and more rare.
| leephillips wrote:
| I mentioned the tradeoff involved in a later comment.
|
| The difference between a technical person and a non-
| technical person is that the former has decided to learn
| what is needed to do what he or she wants to do. It's not
| a secret club. All the information is on the internet.
|
| I never went to Apache engineering school, I have been
| running my own sites and others for many years, and no
| one has taken anything over for porn. There is a lot to
| learn, but it's not like going to medical school. Anyone
| can do it who is motivated.
| falcolas wrote:
| That knowledge is an entire career's worth of knowledge.
| Sure, almost anyone could pick it up, but it's more cost
| effective for them to rely on others to do it for them.
|
| For a musician, the learning and upkeep is a lot of time
| that would better be spent creating; making a living.
| leephillips wrote:
| I don't disagree. But that's the tradeoff I'm talking
| about. Letting others do it for you means giving up
| control; the limiting case is being abused by YouTube. If
| you have money, you can hire people to do this for you.
| But most people can't afford to hire their own
| "engineers". These are the choices.
| guggle wrote:
| Indeed. Convienience vs. freedom. Ignorance vs.
| knowledge.
|
| Way to go...
| grphtrdr wrote:
| Must be a bot. No one with a brain would actually think to
| post this.
| yesenadam wrote:
| That's apparently your first comment on HN. Please read the
| guidelines-your comment breaks quite a few.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html the "In
| Comments" part.
| eru wrote:
| Disagreeing is more than fine, but accusing people of being
| bots or lacking a brain doesn't add to the discussion.
|
| (The parent comment wasn't the best comment, ever, I
| agree.)
| igarcia wrote:
| Great idea. There's also Peertube (joinpeertube.org) which is
| free and open source software. I've seen many content
| creators migrating there and they're now free from this kind
| of abuse. (Note: I have no relationship with them apart from
| just admiring a beautiful work that the people at Framasoft
| do.)
| robobro wrote:
| Activitypub ftw!
| igarcia wrote:
| odysee.com is also a good alternative.
| GordonS wrote:
| IMO the biggest issue with all this is the lack of a suitable
| appeals process, handled by humans.
|
| Would such a process be expensive? Yes, but you can't have it
| both ways, enabling copyright holders to lodge spurious claims
| at will, and not allow content creators - who the entire
| platform is built on! - to disclaim them.
|
| Would such a process be expensive? Yes, of course - but YouTube
| can very well afford it.
| zucker42 wrote:
| I think the biggest issue is that the burden of proof and all
| the risk is on the person who's video is being claimed. False
| DMCA claims are free, practically riskless, and require no
| evidence.
| jedberg wrote:
| > False DMCA claims are free, practically riskless, and
| require no evidence.
|
| This is the crux of the issue. The DMCA needs to be amended
| so that filing an incorrect claim comes with some risk.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Perhaps the copyright holder should have to pay for a human
| review, where the content creator agrees to pay the cost if
| it turns out to indeed be a true copyright infringement.
|
| This would get rid of all bots and most false claims
| amelius wrote:
| That would be too much in favor of the little guy, I'm
| afraid, and probably doesn't align well with preexisting
| deals with the music industry.
| blunte wrote:
| If the little guy is indeed little and is earning little
| or none from their content, then is the copyright holder
| being harmed? Or is the copyrighted material being
| promoted, thereby increasing the potential value of that
| original material?
| adrr wrote:
| Copyright enforcement should be on the copyright holders.
| YouTube shouldn't have to build AI to scan for copyrighted
| material. Copyright holders need to a person verify all
| copyright claims and be liable for the opposite exact same
| amount of damages that would be rewarded for legitimate
| copyright claim.
| zentiggr wrote:
| Talk to the RIAA etc.
|
| They seem to believe that only their own sanctioned
| releases should be allowed, and that they should all be
| paywalled so that every view is paid for.
|
| Or we could fight the whole damn robber baron system and
| return to something resembling common sense.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Actually, I have a better solution...
|
| Disallow the uploading of all content held by RIAA/MPAA-
| affiliated companies from the likes of YouTube, even if
| the owners thereof wish it to be there. Fuck them. Let
| them go build their own platform if they think their work
| is so god damn awesome. Save YouTube/et al. for works
| created by, well... You.
| gwd wrote:
| I think what should happen is this:
|
| Step 1: Someone files a copyright claim (or perhaps this is
| done automatically). This is free.
|
| Step 2: Someone disputes the claim. This is also free, and
| automatically restores the video.
|
| Step 3: The filer can re-submit the claim _but_ they have to
| post a bond for the price of a professional manual review by
| a trained copyright lawyer; maybe $1000.
|
| Step 4: If the video owner can re-dispute the claim; to do so
| they also have to post a bond for the price of a professional
| manual review. The trained copyright lawyer comes to a
| conclusion; whoever "wins" the ruling gets their money back,
| and the other person pays for the whole thing.
|
| If the video owner doesn't go on to step 4, obviously the
| copyright claimant gets their money back.
| robflynn wrote:
| Would this not allow companies with deep pockets to
| continue to abuse the smaller channels who might not have
| $1000 lying around to put in escrow on the off chance of
| losing the $1000 just because some lawyer somewhere made a
| bad decision? Or they just get their video removed because
| they dont have $1000 to begin with.
| gwd wrote:
| Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. Right
| now 1) companies with deep pockets can easily false
| claims with very little consequences 2) small channels
| basically have no recourse.
|
| Obviously the whole system is predicated on the lawyers
| being fair: but assuming the lawyers _usually_ DTRT, then
| 1) there will be consequences for false claims, resulting
| in far fewer of them and 2) small channels can get a real
| human to look at their claims.
|
| No situation is perfect, but I'm pretty sure it would be
| better.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the process can't have payment stipulations
| like that.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's sort of OK for an operating business, but many
| creators don't have $1000 sitting around for every video
| they upload.
| 0xTJ wrote:
| A really great video (if you're willing to spend the better
| part of an hour watching it) about this is YouTube's Copyright
| System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.[1] by Tom Scott.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
| avereveard wrote:
| DMCA is bad but the undisputable claim and three strike
| systems is all of Google own doing
| Sebb767 wrote:
| The video covers this aspect. Yes, the current system is
| bad, but it replaces a scary letter demanding cease and
| desists plus high damage payments and a resolution between
| extremely expensive lawyers. It surely is not optimal, but
| I doubt your common YouTuber could afford to fight claims
| in court.
| avereveard wrote:
| DMCA replaces the scary letters. YouTube only
| responsibility is to collect claims and counterclaims.
| Common YouTubers can just accept the claim and mute
| content. Youtuber wanting a fight or that know the other
| party would never risk their frivolous challenge to go to
| court with the threat of perjury hanging on their head
| have a right to counterclaim and put the ball in the
| other party field.
|
| YouTube instead decide to act as jury and will allow
| claimant to counter the counterclaim, and here lies the
| crux of the issue.
|
| YouTube isn't protecting poor youtubers anymore than what
| DMCA already allows; YouTube is instead actively removing
| youtuber right to challenge the claim, putting all the
| power in the claimant, far above what DMCA mandates or
| requires.
|
| And that decision to act as jury and judge and final
| unappealable authority in the claim process lies squarely
| on YouTube shoulders.
| zaphar wrote:
| I don't think the DMCA replaces the scary letters. The
| scary letters existed because they were _more_ effective
| than the DMCA. Threatening to sue someone is always and
| always has been totally an option. The reason scary
| letters don 't get sent right now is because it's easier
| to just have Youtube remove the video.
|
| If that went away the next easiest option (scary letters)
| would happen again. DMCA or not.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| That's a US-specific issue. Yet people all over the world
| are affected by ContentID (though at least in the EU
| AFAIK you can now get a third party to mediate this
| dispute).
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >"copyright strike" on her account, wherein three such strikes
| would mean permanent closure of the account
|
| I think the three copyright strikes have to take place within
| 90 days. Unless I am confusing community guidelines strikes
| with copyright strikes.
| tremon wrote:
| _is worried about all the time she's putting in to create
| content being usurped by a few bad actors_
|
| Is this where we must point out that the entire ContentID
| system was designed to protect bad actors, because it was
| written by them?
| toyg wrote:
| One could argue that _the DMCA_ was largely written by bad
| actors. Everything else flows downhill from there.
|
| The "western" world lost a once-in-a-thousand-years chance to
| change how copyright works at a fundamental level, when the
| internet started getting traction. We're now forever beholden
| to the whims of parasitical "industries".
| ascotan wrote:
| Wow. So if a public domain piece of music (which does not have
| a copyright) is played by someone and recorded (which does have
| a copyright) the Google AI has no way to know if you're
| reproducing the the public domain music (which you are allowed
| to do) or reproducing the reproduction of someone playing a
| piece of public domain music (which you're not allowed to do).
| bredren wrote:
| Here are the "copyright owners" as displayed to the pianist in
| YouTube's interface:
|
| - APRA_CS
|
| - ECAD_CS
|
| - SOCAN
|
| - VCPMC_CS
| lightlyused wrote:
| I went digging. APRA = Australasian Performing Right
| Association Limited ECAD = Escritorio Central de Arrecadacao
| e Distribuicao SOCAN = Society of Composers, Authors and
| Music Publishers of Canada VCPMC = Vietnam Center for
| Protection of Music Copyright
|
| CS stands for collections society. In another age CS would
| stand for the Mafia.
|
| All but ECAD were found from here: https://www.cisac.org/
| snickms wrote:
| These collection societies are actually the opposite of the
| mafia.
|
| They collect royalties on behalf of the composers. If the
| composer has a publisher, the royalties are forwarded there
| instead (so the publisher can take their contractual cut).
|
| They are the only way to protect your work if you are
| unsigned (think struggling artists).
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| AIUI there collection societies are collectives of
| publishers and look out for the people who own the
| publishing companies, they're not making sure the
| publishing companies act fairly and justly, they're
| making sure they sue people who are too small to defend
| themselves in order to boost the collections in order to
| support the publishing company owners.
|
| Maybe I'm wrong ... counter evidence welcomed.
| narcissismo wrote:
| Something odd is happening here. Perhaps I can offer a piece
| of insight.
|
| APRA is the Australian music copyright organisation
| (https://www.apraamcos.com.au/)
|
| ECAD is the Brazillian version.
|
| VCPMC is the Vietnamese equivalent.
|
| Not sure about the others, but basically these are the people
| with whom a composer registers their work. These
| organisations work together by forwarding royalties collected
| within each territory to their rightful owners.
|
| I am a member of APRA and very much doubt that someone got
| away with registering a Beethoven work as their own.
|
| Very curious indeed. I have no explanation.
|
| [Edit] You are only meant to register your work in one
| territory, so it is odd that this 'work' would be registered
| in four of them.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| > I am a member of APRA and very much doubt that someone
| got away with registering a Beethoven work as their own.
|
| I've yet to hear of one of these nationwide registries
| vetting any of the work that gets submitted to them for
| novelty or whatever. That would be too much like doing due
| diligence.
| yesenadam wrote:
| APRA is Australia & NZ, ECAD is Brazil, SOCAN is Canada,
| VCPMC is Vietnam.
|
| APRA: Australasian Performing Right Association
|
| ECAD: Escritorio Central de Arrecadacao e Distribuicao
|
| SOCAN: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of
| Canada
|
| VCPMC: Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright
| jMyles wrote:
| It seems that this entire fiasco can be fixed by simply having
| a media streaming platform which is hosted in a jurisdiction
| which doesn't recognize 'intellectual' property.
|
| Why has no such thing emerged?
| bmn__ wrote:
| Such a jurisdiction does not exist. See Berne Convention,
| Rome Convention/PPPPBO, TRIPS, WCT, WPPT.
| jMyles wrote:
| Well, presumably one will emerge at some point.
|
| I'm just trying to look at the root problem here and how to
| overcome it.
| Black101 wrote:
| Even if that piece was copyright, is it a copyright violation
| to play it yourself and publish it?
| qayxc wrote:
| Potentially, yes. There are different types of licences [0]
| and depending on your use of copyrighted material, it may
| require a license to publish it legally.
|
| [0] https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Yes. Because music is both composed and performed, it has
| three primary copyright scenarios.
|
| 1. Print rights protect sheet music etc. from being copied.
|
| 2. Performance rights control whether your composed music can
| be performed.
|
| 3. Mechanical rights control whether your performance can be
| copied (onto mp3 say). Also related to these are
| "synchronization" issues and licenses.
| jeffwass wrote:
| I sympathise with her. I had a copyright claim on one of my
| YouTube videos (I'm totally small potatoes, handful of vids
| with dozens of views).
|
| I made a video of myself playing my own unique interpretation
| of The Safety Dance by Men Without Hats on piano.
| https://youtu.be/ZNfMZ6g9YWo
|
| I got a copyright violation notice shortly after posting it, by
| some random Latin American music company. It wasn't clear if it
| was legit or not, it could have been some holding company of
| song rights or some failure of the AI.
|
| I disputed the claim, saying I used no recorded material, it
| was entirely my own styling on the song including ragtime and
| stride piano influences.
|
| Frankly I'm not even sure how copyright works on covers,
| particularly if style is quite different.
|
| The company never responded in the 30 day period so the
| copyright claim was removed.
|
| My channel is so small that I probably would have just removed
| the video. I'm not even close to the levels that are required
| for monetisation (1000 subscribers and 4000 cumulative view
| hours).
|
| But it was a bit surprising how quickly it was claimed that I
| violated someone's copyright.
| blondin wrote:
| same here.
|
| i am a big fan of film music. i made a small piano reduction
| of a favorite piece and uploaded it to youtube. i wasn't even
| mad when i saw the copyright claim within hours, since i run
| no ads.
|
| i was however baffled and somewhat proud that my efforts were
| not in vain, and that the algorithm thought my poor
| interpretation was close to the real thing.
|
| i do not defend the algorithm though.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't get why you're confused. You violated copyright and
| got a legitimate claim against you.
| RogerL wrote:
| You are not allowed to create derivative works from another
| person's creation, regardless of whether you are making
| money from it. You can't go and make a Shrek III flick, for
| example, or write a book set in the Harry Potter universe.
| Likewise, you can't adapt music from a film (IANAL, there
| are things like fair use, but in general this holds).
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
| visarga wrote:
| > You are not allowed to create (free) derivative works
|
| I think putting such constraints on creative work is a
| cultural disaster.
| solipsism wrote:
| Then your beef is with the United States, not with
| Google.
| EarlKing wrote:
| I think misappropriating someone else's work to make a
| buck is a cultural disaster, but then I work for a living
| and expect to get paid, so what do I know? Fair Use does
| exist to provide an avenue for the reuse of the work of
| others for criticism, parody, and the like., but straight
| up lifting someone else's work and using it to your own
| ends, even if noncommercial, is wrong.
| spuz wrote:
| Covers of songs, even if the covers use completely new styles
| are protected by copyright law and therefore can risk being
| claimed by YouTube's system:
|
| https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-
| yo...
| eru wrote:
| I guess you need to make it a parody to be in the clear?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm guessing the next Weird Al has already been
| disillusioned with the copyright ban hammer.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Weird Al himself was well aware of this issue, and
| famously would only parody songs after receiving
| permission from the authors.
| stordoff wrote:
| > Al does get permission from the original writers of the
| songs that he parodies. While the law supports his
| ability to parody without permission, he feels it's
| important to maintain the relationships that he's built
| with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants
| to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as
| writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of
| the royalties.
|
| https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/
| grayclhn wrote:
| Permission from the authors is unfortunately different
| from permission by the copyright holders. IIRC Weird Al
| did it more for goodwill than legality.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| Didn't even need the next Weird Al. Al's own YouTube
| videos were copyright claimed by his own label for
| violating copyright.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Not necessarily.... The Posterchild for parody is 2 Live
| Crew Pretty Woman. Which includes samples of the original
| Oh, Pretty Woman. Youtube videos get flagged for 10
| seconds of a song snippet all the time.
|
| After the Campbell v Acuff-Rose Supreme Court decision, 2
| Live Crew licensed the song from Acuff-Rose music. (which
| is what they tried to do in the first place).
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Parody is a fair use defense, so you have to go through a
| lawsuit to be able to assert it.
| yesenadam wrote:
| Not an expert, but I've been learning a lil about this
| lately. Royalties for performances of someone else's song are
| paid to the writers of the words and the music. The melody
| and words can be copyrighted, not the chords or style. So you
| can use the chords of an existing song and give it new melody
| and words, and it is your own song. Style has nothing to do
| it.
|
| I love this quote from the classic _The Manual: How To Have A
| Number 1 The Easy Way_ by KLF:
|
| ...the copyright laws that have grown over the past one
| hundred years have all been developed by whites of European
| descent and these laws state that fifty per cent of the
| copyright of any song should be for the lyrics, the other
| fifty per cent for the top line (sung) melody; groove doesn't
| even get a look in. If the copyright laws had been in the
| hands of blacks of African descent, at least eighty per cent
| would have gone to the creators of the groove, the remainder
| split between the lyrics and the melody. If perchance you are
| reading this and you are both black and a lawyer, make a name
| for yourself. Right the wrongs.
| yesenadam wrote:
| I'd love to know if (the downvoters think) that has factual
| errors. I'm a jazz musician who will soon be releasing
| music online--some my compositions, some not--and planning
| to pay license fees etc. Thanks--I'm a totally at a loss
| what could have made people downvote it!
| DreamScatter wrote:
| I think the problem with that post is that race (black
| and white people) are unnecessarily brought into it. I'm
| sure that musicians of all races would want this issue
| addressed. Making it about race is extremely ridiculous.
| DreamScatter wrote:
| That doesn't have anything to do with black or white
| people. We don't need black people to change this copyright
| system, just people in general who want to make sure that
| musicians get paid. Saying this is an issue between black
| and white people is extremely ridiculous.
| weswpg wrote:
| Learning about the difference between a "groove", a
| "melody" and a song has been a wonderful rabbit hole to go
| down. Thanks!
| [deleted]
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| This exact thing has happened to most YT creators at this
| point. It's just part of doing business on YT. Some small
| section (<10%?) get three "copyright" strikes (nothing to do
| with actual copyright, of course, as Google isn't the judge of
| that), and get taken down, and need to start a new channel from
| scratch. It's what we all get for using a free video streaming
| service to distribute our content.
| opan wrote:
| I think the centralization plus trusting a company is the
| issue, not a lack of cost meaning we aren't deserving of a
| good experience.
|
| Look at Peertube or other free as in freedom options.
| qayxc wrote:
| > I think the centralization plus trusting a company is the
| issue,
|
| I think that's not the issue at all. The problem is simply
| scale. Currently, about 5000 videos are uploaded to YT
| every _minute_. If just 0.1% of them have any potential
| copyright issues, that 's 5 potentially complex cases per
| minute or 7200 per day.
|
| No amount of human review will be able to decide this in a
| timely manner. The piano teacher's case is just the
| simplest of scenarios and you'd have to expect the vast
| majority being "fair use" cases, which are incredibly hard
| to decide.
|
| Free an in freedom ultimately results in users being sued
| directly (see torrent networks) and I'm not at all
| convinced that that's any better.
| adolph wrote:
| > > I think the centralization plus trusting a company is
| the issue,
|
| > I think that's not the issue at all. The problem is
| simply scale.
|
| Do you think that the scale of YT is achieved without
| centralization?
|
| Given the reality that a lack of a centralizing force
| like YT would just shift copyright adjudication to actual
| courts and be more expensive and higher stakes for all
| involved and probably have a similar error rate and bad
| actors like Prenda, I'd agree that a relatively benignly
| uncaring Corp without access to police and prisons is
| better than the court route.
| emidln wrote:
| > 7200 per day
|
| Let's say it takes 5 minutes to properly adjudicate a
| dispute. 5 minutes allows 20 per person-hour. An 8 hour
| shift could resolve 160 reviews. 7200 / 160 = 45 shifts
| per day to review all of the hypothetical copyright
| issues. I don't think that's required, and the number of
| requested reviews is going to be some fraction of that.
| Requiring google to spread out under 50 shifts over a 24
| period in order to provide a fair review so that they may
| bring in billions of dollars a year from youtube doesn't
| seem like a large ask. This is call-center-esque work and
| even done in the US or Western Europe would be very
| cheap, particularly as it can avoid otherwise more
| cumbersome regulatory hurdles.
| qayxc wrote:
| > Let's say it takes 5 minutes to properly adjudicate a
| dispute.
|
| That's highly unrealistic, but review alone would take at
| least twice as long, since the average video length is
| about 12 minutes.
|
| How would you find out in just 5 minutes whether a
| monetization claim is justified? Not every case is as
| clear as the piano teacher's case. Keep in mind that this
| isn't a DMCA takedown request either - it's about a party
| that claims the content in order to redirect the revenue.
|
| So you seriously claim that on average you can find out
| in just 5 minutes whether one of the 6 license types [0]
| applies and the claimant actually has a case? If it was
| that easy, I doubt that court cases like [1] would take
| years. And that's assuming all the information is already
| at hand so no further communication with either party is
| required...
|
| [0]
| https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights
|
| [1] https://completemusicupdate.com/article/song-theft-
| dispute-o...
| trasz wrote:
| You don't need to review the whole video, the accusing
| side should provide the exact time at which the alleged
| violation happens.
| riskable wrote:
| > "fair use" cases, which are incredibly hard to decide.
|
| Only a judge acting in a court of law can decide if
| something is fair use. All else is speculation.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| 7200 cases a day is most definitely not too much for a
| human review.
| tzs wrote:
| If they followed the DMCA instead of their own system it
| would scale just fine.
|
| It would scale because under the DMCA system the _site_
| is not responsible for finding violations. That is up to
| the copyright owners.
|
| All the site has to do is:
|
| 1. Take down alleged infringing content when someone
| claiming to be the copyright owner files a take-down
| notice.
|
| 2. Put the content back when whoever uploaded it files a
| counter-notice.
|
| 3. Tell the former that if they want the content taken
| down again, sue the latter. The site is now in the DMCA
| safe harbor.
|
| All the site has to scale up to handle is dealing with
| notices and counter-notices. For that, all they need to
| do is check that all the required fields in the forms are
| filled out. This does not require anyone with any legal
| training--it is just checking things like they have
| identified themselves, described what content they want
| taken down/put back up, stated a reason for their belief
| that this action should be taken, and similar things.
|
| You could train in an afternoon anyone who can read at a
| pre-high school level to handle this. 20 people in a
| normal shift could handle those 7200 cases per day.
|
| Heck, you could even speed that up if you wanted by doing
| even less review on the notices. There aren't really any
| legal consequences to the site if they accept a notice
| that wasn't quite right. It is only the counter-notice
| that needs a little scrutiny. You want to make sure
| everything is correctly filled out in that, because it is
| the counter-notice that gives you the safe harbor.
| Aunche wrote:
| I mean that's basically how it works right now:
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en&r
| ef_...
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| It is because people are routinely violating copyright in
| much larger amounts, yet nobody is bothering to go after
| them. Compare with the way the laws about audio and video
| cassettes ended up.
| gbuk2013 wrote:
| There is actually one more step available, even after the
| copyright strike: you submit your contact details and YT clears
| the strike and it's up to the claimant to then issue proceeding
| against you outside of YT.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
|
| I have used it in the past and it works.
| anadem wrote:
| > and YT clears the strike
|
| there's the rub .. in the OP's example, the strike wasn't
| cleared
| joshuaissac wrote:
| As I understand it from her video, she did not get a
| copyright strike yet, and she also did not complete the
| appeals process because she did not want to submit her
| contact details to strangers.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| If it is so simple why are there content creators losing
| their channels over merit less claims?
| gbuk2013 wrote:
| I don't know - are they submitting counter-claims? All I
| know is it worked for me and my channel although I was
| never at the point of having more than one strike.
| qwertox wrote:
| 1) Feed a computer with MIDI files of public domain music and
| render it as audio
|
| 2) Upload to YouTube
|
| 3) File copyright dispute to YouTube for any (future?) uploaded
| video which contains the music which used to be in the public
| domain
|
| 4) Have Google reject the videos
|
| 5) Create a site or an app which allows you to license that
| public domain music for a fee.
|
| 6) Notify YouTube who has licensed this public domain music.
|
| Ok. that's the way Google thinks is the way it should work. Or
| maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more harm
| than good.
|
| --
|
| Two days ago I uploaded a video which was a screen recording to
| demonstrate a bug in the Android app "Komoot". It was unlisted,
| the link was attached to the bug report I sent to the company.
| It was just a short video showing how the caching (or something
| in that direction) of uploaded images in the app seemed to be
| broken. The content in the video was 100% adhering to all the
| guidelines, specially to those of "for all ages". The content
| was nothing else but scrolling photos of an MTB-trail with a
| bit of UI. If your video is flagged or you mark it as "for
| 18+", then it can only be viewed by logged in persons.
|
| After uploading the video I got an email that it was not
| complying with the "for all ages" requirements, which is kind
| of bad, because now the support team must log-in with a Google
| account to YouTube in order to see the harmless but useful
| video.
|
| But then again, videos related to Instagram celebrities or
| Chinese ASMR-binge eating are totally ok for them.
| havernator wrote:
| http://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
|
| TL;DR copyright becomes absurd surprisingly fast when you
| have a large population, widely-available authoring/recording
| tools, and a way to store/search all of them, indefinitely.
| Like, _indefensible_ absurd.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| That was a good read. Thanks for sharing it.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Honestly, the only way things will change is through grass
| roots abuse of the system like this. You have to force them
| to change.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Sounds like good material for a Defcon talk: "How I Own A
| Quarter of Content on YouTube"
| Iv wrote:
| > Ok. that's the way Google thinks is the way it should work.
| Or maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more
| harm than good.
|
| Let's be clear. It is not Google that wants it. Actually
| Google is on the side of calling all of this retarded. It is
| the state of copyright laws, of the DMCA, of the lobbying by
| the RIAA. The day the whole copyright ecosystem is updated to
| accept that computers exist and that people share files on
| internet easily, Youtube will be VERY happy to unplug all
| these terrible bots that are there to provide a bad solution
| to a problem we should not have.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Ehh, Google has gone to great lengths to ensure that the
| largest holders of copyright have their content libraries
| available to check against new uploads and apparently no
| lengths to ensure that public domain content is available
| for the same purpose.
| techdragon wrote:
| The public domain doesn't threaten to sue them.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It ought to.
| ddingus wrote:
| Who has standing?
| qwertox wrote:
| > Actually Google is on the side of calling all of this
| retarded.
|
| Google has the means to make this stop.
| Iv wrote:
| How so?
| rndgermandude wrote:
| For starters, they should actually follow the DMCA. The
| DMCA gives affected people a defined way to counter-
| notice, and then the entity who filed the initial DMCA
| notice can either sue within 14 days or the content gets
| restored.
|
| Instead Google chose to evaluate "disputes" themselves,
| with algorithms and "AI", and reject disputes. Rejecting
| counter-notices is absolutely NOT something the DMCA
| mandates or even suggests. Moreover Youtube essentially
| used to allow (probably still does) alleged rights owners
| to reject disputes in essentially one click, while the
| DMCA would require them to bring a law suit. Some
| copyright owners therefore created bots doing the
| clicking for them.
|
| They could also be more lenient to "established" players
| as a first step, especially when it comes to counter-
| notices/disputes. Factor in previous history google has
| with an alleged infringer (alleged by their own algorithm
| by the way, not even by a third party) when considering a
| dispute, like account age, channel age, number of
| previous videos without problems, "we do know the
| customer" e.g. to pay out ad money, etc. And then maybe
| not outright reject it, but leave it to the alleged
| copyright owner to file a law suit (as the DMCA states)
| or at least refer it to actual human beings for further
| evaluation.
|
| Of course, Google could hire people to check up on their
| own algorithms and decide on disputes instead of
| machines. Youtube had $6 BILLION in ad revenue in the
| last quarter (not year), so they could certainly afford
| to hire some people. In the end it might even be a
| profitable investment, as fewer good content is pruned
| from Youtube for wrong copyright issues, leading to more
| ad revenue.
|
| Youtube right now seems pretty content with their quasi-
| monopoly, to their own detriment in my opinion. As
| unlikely as it may seem that people will create
| competitors, it can happen, ask mighty MySpace about it.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Youtube had $6 BILLION in ad revenue in the last
| quarter (not year), so they could certainly afford to
| hire some people. In the end it might even be a
| profitable investment, as fewer good content is pruned
| from Youtube for wrong copyright issues, leading to more
| ad revenue.
|
| Who is paying said ad revenue though? Could a large chunk
| of it come from the same companies/industries who
| currently enjoy the broken state of YouTube's DMCA
| process?
| withinboredom wrote:
| They just stop and wait for the DMCA take downs and
| copyright owners have to make their own claims? I guess.
| azornathogron wrote:
| Add friction to the process of submitting copyright
| claims. Reduce friction in the process of appealing
| copyright claims. Relax draconian rules like the
| copyright strike system leading to account closure.
| Adjust the content ID system to reduce false positives
| (assuming no magical improvement to the system this will
| come at the cost of increased false negatives; that seems
| like an entirely reasonable trade-off)
| p49k wrote:
| Parent comment was also referring to YouTube's AI marking a
| benign video as 18+. Google is willing to wrongly punish
| people via excessive/unfair false positives in the interest
| of trying to be more advertiser friendly. It's just about
| money.
| eru wrote:
| Well, false positives result in fewer scandals than false
| negatives here.
|
| So guilty until proven innocent seems like a perfectly
| reasonable, if very annoying, stance.
| DreamScatter wrote:
| It's not reasonable to screw innocent people over.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It's reasonable for a for-profit company that has a
| monopoly.
| mlang23 wrote:
| I dont believe this in the slightest. Besides, the false-
| positives which regularily pop up around YouTube claims are
| not a result of any law, or lobbying. They are the result
| of googles sloppy implementation of the cliam system.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| I don't think the laws are so harsh. It seems like YouTube
| caved in to the music industry interests so that popular
| artists continue to premiere their videos on YouTube.
| sofixa wrote:
| And otherwise they'd get sued for hosting copyrighted
| content, which will result in hefty fines and jail(
| didn't the US want to get Kim Dotcom from NZ precisely
| for that?)
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| They won't get sued if they follow the DMCA process which
| is very different from what they are doing.
| slavik81 wrote:
| They were sued [1]. The lawsuit lasted 7 years and ended
| in a settlement. The terms were not public, but I think
| it's likely they promised to institute a process that
| goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires. [1]: https:
| //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y...
| .
| MereInterest wrote:
| So long as they respond to actual DMCA reports, no.
| ContentID goes far, far beyond what is required by the
| DMCA to have safe harbor.
| tzs wrote:
| Dotcom got in trouble because he was intentionally
| hosting infringing content, going so far as to try to
| hide that material from the copyright owners by making it
| look like he had taken it down when notified of its
| presence when in fact he just made the URL that the
| owners knew about stop working. Employees that went too
| far and actually took down infringing material got
| reprimanded.
|
| Go dig up a copy of the indictment. It includes a bunch
| of internal emails from Dotcom and other running his site
| where they talk about all this stuff. It was basically a
| site whose intent and business model was hosting pirated
| movies. That you could also use it to host your own
| photos or whatever was there to try to provide cover.
| sofixa wrote:
| Does the extent matter that much? Assuming YouTube did
| nothing to take down copyrighted content, is that better
| or worse compared to lying about taking down ?
| treesprite82 wrote:
| > which is kind of bad, because now the support team must
| log-in with a Google account to YouTube in order to see the
| harmless but useful video.
|
| Not only this, but in the EU* it requires verifying your age
| with a credit card or ID photo:
| https://i.imgur.com/gP20dXi.png
| [deleted]
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Since you van have a credit card when you are 13 yo, the
| check is more or less useless.
| envp wrote:
| It's it effectively doxxing people under 13? That's a
| concerning implication if I'm understanding this
| correctly.
| anticensor wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eBB1ZzvFoI
| [deleted]
| moron4hire wrote:
| You have YouTube's content rating system backwards.
|
| It's not "racey content gets marked special" with "suitable
| for children" being a catch-all category.
|
| YouTube's "content developed for children", is the special
| case. It's explicitly content meant for and marketed to
| children, or content that children would be particularly
| attracted to, like nature documentaries.
|
| All other content _should_ be marked "not intended for
| children", even if it's not "adult"--aka restricted to
| 18+--content.
|
| This is stated pretty clearly in YouTube's documentation.
| They have a link to it in a contextual pop-up right next to
| the form field asking you to self-rate the video.
| qwertox wrote:
| This was the email I got:
|
| > We wanted to let you know that our team has reviewed your
| content and we don't think it's in line with our Community
| Guidelines. As a result, we've age-restricted the following
| content:
|
| > Video: Komoot Bug
|
| > We haven't applied a strike to your channel, and your
| content is still live for some users on YouTube. Keep
| reading for more details on what this means and steps you
| can take if you'd like to appeal this decision.
|
| > What "age-restricted" means
|
| > We age-restrict content when we don't think it's suitable
| for younger audiences. This means it will not be visible to
| users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or
| have Restricted Mode enabled. It also won't be eligible for
| ads. Learn more about age restrictions.
|
| When I click on appeal I get a popup titled "Submit an
| appeal" with the body text of "Appealing this violation is
| not available"
|
| ----
|
| EDIT: Ah. I see. I actually did set it to "Is made for
| kids" thinking that this means that through this option I
| express that it does have no content which would be against
| the community guidelines.
|
| I've now changed it to "Not made for kids" but also "Not
| age restricted".
|
| Thanks for pointing this out.
| contravariant wrote:
| Unless they've changed this you can get around this by
| sending the 'embedded' link:
| https://www.youtube.com/embed/<videoid> instead of
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<videoid>.
| ozim wrote:
| There are disputes over "white noise" videos so it is already
| as bad as it gets.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| I don't think it's hit YouTube, but there are people and/or
| bots enforcing a copyright on silence:
|
| https://www.youredm.com/2015/11/28/soundcloud-finally-
| goes-t...
| Someone wrote:
| What would be worse: whoever holding the rights to John
| Cage's "4'33" filing complaints against movies without
| background music, claiming that they have copyrighted
| background music.
| teachingassist wrote:
| Given that white noise is random, a recorded copy of white
| noise is its own perfect watermark.
| ozim wrote:
| If you take 30 seconds of white noise and look for it in
| 2h long generated output I expect that you can find
| similar 30 seconds in whole 2h.
|
| Copyright algos are not looking at the whole video, they
| are searching for pieces of songs.
|
| Because if you use 30sec of someones song you have to pay
| up and youtube is enforcing that.
|
| Now if you will take another 2h video cut it into pieces
| and start searching for similar patterns in other 2h
| video I expect you will find some matching ones.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Depends on how lossy the compression is. Your watermark
| becomes compression artefacts instead.
| cma wrote:
| Most audio codecs by now use perceptual noise
| substitution, which potentially substitutes in identical
| noise (I think it just EQs it?).
| DreamScatter wrote:
| no, the mp3 codec actually deletes humanly inaudible
| portions of the frequency spectrum to reduce storage,
| this data isn't recoverd or replaced or referred when
| played back again, it's lost information. what is removed
| is based on human perception limits for audio
| IshKebab wrote:
| He is referring to modern codecs, not MP3. MP3 isn't
| widely used anymore.
|
| Modern codecs don't encode noise - they remove it during
| decoding and then add back artificial "comfort noise"
| when decoding, e.g. for film grain or background noise in
| voice calls.
| DreamScatter wrote:
| You haven't named any lossy stream codecs that do restore
| white noise, so i will not consider you a reliable source
| of info.
| orestarod wrote:
| Got a source for the current usage of MP3?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What services do you know of that use MP3?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Virtually every podcast ever.
|
| YouTube itself seems to rely more on webm for audio. That
| seems to be a container for Opus or Vorbis formats.
|
| Vorbis and Opus themselves are lossy encoders (Ogg
| Vorbis).
| pierrec wrote:
| If you're comparing sample-for-sample, maybe. But that's
| not what is performed by music identification algorithms
| - it would be both slow (to the point of being unusable)
| and inaccurate (because of re-encoding, etc). Instead
| they rely on different kinds of dimensionality reduction
| that match the way we perceive music, so they only
| compare smaller amounts of data to get more perceptually
| relevant matches. The Shazam fingerprinting algorithm is
| the best known but there are others.
|
| So if you submit white noise to a copyright database, it
| could match different white noise recordings.
| Guest42 wrote:
| Does it depend on seeding that would eventually have
| tendencies for replication? Or could that be pushed out
| until practically forever?
| someguyorother wrote:
| If the white noise is based on a random number generator,
| the pattern would restart after a full cycle.
|
| If the random number generator's period is 2^32 and you
| use one integer per sample, then at 44 kHz, you would
| have about a million seconds, or twelve days, before the
| RNG has gone through a full period.
|
| Most RNGs have periods much higher than this. xorshift128
| has a period of 2^128-1 and the Mersenne Twister's period
| is 2^19937-1.
|
| So you could push it out until practically forever.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _So you could push it out until practically forever._
|
| But, there will still be repeated sections.
| aranchelk wrote:
| Knowing nothing of the YouTube algorithm, I'd still wager
| it'll take you longer than the lifetime of the copyright
| to produce conflicting noise works.
| ageitgey wrote:
| Even if they were the case, this further shows how
| limited and dumb (i.e. not 'smart') YouTube's copyright
| voilation detection system is.
|
| You (probably) can't copyright white noise because US
| copyright requires authorship. So in the same way that
| you can't copyright a phonebook's alphabetical list of
| numbers, you can't copyright random numbers rendered as
| sound, unless you did something else unique to it to
| exert authorship. It's just not something protected by
| copyright law. So even copying someone else's exact white
| noise sample is probably just fine.
|
| The problem is that YouTube's system can only apply
| simple content matching rules and it counts any
| sufficiently long content match as a violation with no
| consideration of the work or context of use. Thats not
| how copyright law works. Copyright is a complicated
| system with all sorts of issues like fair use, derivative
| works, public domain, and works that don't qualify for
| protection. It's not a database query.
| T-hawk wrote:
| > Or maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more
| harm than good.
|
| Google recognizes that these flaws in their AI aren't worth
| caring about. Google doesn't have any mission or obligation
| to help the world share videos. Google cares about Google's
| profits. And they've found that the expedient way to do that
| is just let the AI be overzealous with rejecting, because the
| cost of a false positive is infinitesimally tiny and the cost
| of a false negative (real copyright violation) is so much
| higher.
|
| How do we fix this? Competition. We need a Google/Youtube
| competitor so that users will choose the platform that does
| copyright recognition better.
| imperistan wrote:
| Could we fix this (partially) by writing software that generates
| every possible piece of music and then upload it to YouTube? If
| you never claim copyright on the pieces, No one else could claim
| them in the future cause you uploaded it first. Now we only need
| a way to filter out all existing copyrighted music I guess
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Is this all because of bad American law, or is youtube
| proactively being bad in their moderation process?
| qayxc wrote:
| It's a problem of scale. It's perfectly possibile to manage a
| few hundred disputes on a daily basis, but with >5000 uploads
| per minute, it becomes impossible to do manually.
|
| The worst part is the asymmetry between claimants and creators.
| But that's the fucked up nature of civil law - the burden of
| proof is reversed.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > It's a problem of scale. It's perfectly possibile to manage
| a few hundred disputes on a daily basis, but with >5000
| uploads per minute, it becomes impossible to do manually.
|
| Nonsense. Assuming the revenue to Google increases linearly
| with uploads, so does their ability to hire content
| moderators.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| Revenue is a function of views, not uploads.
| strange_things wrote:
| https://youtu.be/-ThyLB6bakk
|
| Here is the "wicka moonlight". Already 6.1K dislikes. I wonder
| why...
| seaman1921 wrote:
| YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
| manquer wrote:
| As much I love tom scott, he is ignoring the choices that
| YouTube made along the way were that precisely that choices.
| They didn't have to become this kind of platform.
|
| Tom himself is owning/promoting nebula an alternative platform
| with quality curated content.
|
| Youtube either could have become a pure user generated platform
| not engaging with big biz, and strictly following DMCA only :
| counter notice is not for Google's to review merit , claims
| like above are penalized, you have to take it court if there is
| a counter notice, no three strikes nonsense, no flawed content
| ID system - all of this is placate big biz.
|
| Alternatively they could have become a curated content platform
| (like nebula) them wanting to do everything is why we are here.
|
| Every other user content platform in video or otherwise is
| working perfectly fine with DMCA framework, they all have
| considerably less resources than Google.
|
| P.S. Google's inability to put people to support content
| creators and this dispute process even for creators with 100'
| of millions of views is simply about Google culture of not
| believing in user/creater support (product) , big biz sure gets
| human support.
| jarek83 wrote:
| Google - you are becoming the most dump entity in the internet.
| Laughable level of work you are providing in recent years. Maybe
| consider laundry business if you can't grasp technology for
| people.
| lsiebert wrote:
| Well remember when they scanned a bunch of books? Like all the
| books in a bunch of libraries?
|
| That was physically turning pages, photographing them, doing OCR
| and then correcting that. By comparison create a library of
| public works in terms of audio to test copyright claims, and
| reject or put greater requirements on ones for public domain
| works would be relatively easy.
| rchaud wrote:
| If this is Google being proactive about avoiding lawsuits, how
| come the same issue doesn't affect Patreon?
|
| A number of 'reaction' channels have copyrighted content (full
| music videos) that is clipped on Youtube to avoid strikes. The
| full versions of these videos are on the uploader's Patreon.
| anoncow wrote:
| Being able to access real people for support should be a
| mandatory requirement for big corporations offering services to
| the public directly.
| vidarh wrote:
| In the UK you have a right to have automated decisions on e.g.
| loan applications reviewed by a human. Broadening a right like
| that would certainly be worth considering.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The GDPR has exactly this provision.
|
| https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
| exporectomy wrote:
| No. Mandating real people won't help. I've dealt with real
| support people who are exactly as useless as the website's FAQ.
| They're powerless to make any special exceptions to the
| predefined process or even to escalate to someone who can.
|
| As an example, I can't use my main email address for an Apple
| ID account because apparently somebody else set it as their
| backup email and I may have carelessly clicked the accept link
| when I got the confirmation. I talked to a human Apple support
| person and his higher level colleague and was told that's
| probably what happened but they can't know for sure and even if
| they did, they can't fix it. The end. Bye.
| katbyte wrote:
| at least you spoke to someone and now know why your screwed
| vs an automated AI system that doesn't tell you anything /s
| saalweachter wrote:
| To be fair one of the major drivers of quack medicine is
| that there are still a lot of problems where science based
| medicine will eventually go "We don't know what's wrong
| with you, but it's probably not something we can fix, so it
| just sucks to be you right now."
|
| It may be the best most honest answer, but a lot of people
| would rather have a name for what's wrong with them, even
| if there's no cure, and a treatment, even if it doesn't
| work.
| libertine wrote:
| >Mandating real people won't help.
|
| Mandating real people COULD help, bust sometimes it doesn't -
| yet this is by design. For example, Amazon Seller Support
| renders humans into bots because they can only reply with
| templates (it's like they have humans teaching machines what
| to reply from a fixed set of replies) - of course this is a
| shitshow.
|
| If you get a cryptic reply, you have to figure it out, just
| to reply and get the same response, and then to finally get a
| "case is closed".
| plasma wrote:
| You could try doing an account recovery (leverage that email)
| and just change it to something else.
| exporectomy wrote:
| I think I lost the email which was many years prior, and
| also I would need to know the actual email of the account
| it's linked to, which I don't.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| > Being able to access real people for support should be a
| mandatory requirement.
|
| Being able to appeal an automated decision to a real person is
| a mandatory requirement under the GDPR.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
| CRConrad wrote:
| Especially noteworthy here: > The data protection law
| establishes that you have the _right not to be subject to a
| decision based solely on automated means,_ if the decision
| produces legal effects concerning you or significantly
| affects you in a similar way.
|
| That seems to me (IANAL etc) like it could be used to argue
| that you need to be able to appeal to a real person _who
| actually has the power to do something_ about the problem.
| Because these examples like in the GP(?) where one gets hold
| of a real person who claims they can 't do anything because
| "that's just how the system works"... Well, then they're not
| really "a person" in the sense that I'm fairly sure has to be
| the one meant here; they're just another cog in the automated
| means.
| mxcrossb wrote:
| Or in this case, maybe we should be relaxing the legal
| requirements that lead to YouTube trying to enforce copyright.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| While that would be good, I don't think this would solve
| anything on Youtube. In the end Youtube is heavily courting
| the music companies with the way they do things, it's not
| about the actual law.
|
| See the whole world of educational music youtubers, they are
| well within their rights to do quite a few things, but in
| reality they can't even perform certain short guitar riffs
| themselves without getting flagged.
| swiley wrote:
| What a horribly broken platform.
|
| Thankfully Peertube appears to be gaining some traction due to
| its compatibility with Mastodon.
| stirlo wrote:
| Yes, it expect it will have a near monopoly in the year desktop
| Linux goes mainstream...
| ziftface wrote:
| Funny but I can actually see peertube appealing to big
| YouTubers, especially if there's an ecosystem around it, like
| apps and fully hosted servers.
| [deleted]
| kossTKR wrote:
| Really? Interesting as i am looking for a video hosting
| platform.
|
| Looking at their front page and it looks dead and weird to me.
| A mix of my little pony videos, scantily clad women and 5
| second long videos of grass, bugs etc. Absurd curation.
| Symbiose wrote:
| I made a Moonlight Sonata cover myself a few years ago
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIbBcJ7EkxQ) and had countless
| copyright claims since then.
|
| I had to manually dispute every single claims over the years and
| prove again and again that no copyright were infringed.
|
| It can get tiring when you get a copyright claim finally lifted
| after weeks of dispute, only to get a new claim the next month.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| I wonder if small claims court could assist, for each
| infraction and claim. Time lost, etc.
|
| IANAL
| mcv wrote:
| This sort of thing happens way too often on Youtube, and it's far
| worse than merely violating copyright; here artists get denied
| ownership of their own expression of public domain music. Unlike
| mere copyright violation, this is actual copyright theft that
| Youtube is enabling here.
|
| It should be punished harder than merely copying someone else's
| work usually is, but instead this sort of direct theft seems to
| be allowed by governments and copyright institutes.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| > here artists get denied ownership of their own expression of
| public domain music
|
| Hell why stop there, music artists get _their own original
| music_ stolen by Youtube who then proceeds to hand it to
| someone else, for anyone interested in a popular example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw
| meepmorp wrote:
| YouTube's automatic system exists to keep the company from
| getting sued and it's going to work like anything else at
| Google and be as automated as possible. The necessary result is
| a black box ML system to score content, and biasing ambiguous
| output in favor of the side more likely to have lawyers on
| retainer.
| gabrielblack wrote:
| I can't understand why Youtube has no procedure to flag companies
| as "Wicca Moonlight" like scammer / troll so, after a certain
| number of infractions like that one ( pretending to be the
| rightful owner of the rights on BEETHOVEN music !), they are
| sanctioned in some way or banned. That to add some symmetry to
| the procedure to fight trolls trying to steal other peoples hard
| job.
| mistercow wrote:
| I think the problem is that the whole system they have is to
| appease copyright holders so that they don't get sued for
| individual videos. They've productized it and made it all look
| very official, but the underlying fact that this is about
| appeasement puts them on a bad footing for banning trolls. If
| they ban someone, they're basically saying "sue us instead",
| which is exactly what they don't want.
| harshreality wrote:
| How is it the fault of that youtube channel? They may genuinely
| want to protect _their_ reverb 'd rendition of the Moonlight
| Sonata, which is technically their right even if it's stupid.
|
| Then it's purely google's fault that their AI contentid scanner
| can't distinguish between Wicca Moonlight and some other
| arbitrary performance of the sonata. It's google's fault that
| their AI doesn't understand that the sonata itself is in the
| public domain so they have to _only_ match against _exact_
| reproductions rather than "kinda sounds the same because same
| notes and instruments" reproductions.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Maybe "Wicca Moonlight" has previously been flagged as a
| scammer/troll and are now on their tenth account they've been
| doing this with? It could be whack-a-mole on all ends. It's not
| particularly hard to spin up another LLC, register, and start
| filing claims.
| eru wrote:
| They might have such a system, but the scale is so big, that we
| are still seeing the false negatives?
| bredren wrote:
| Alphabet gets paid either way.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| It seems like the claimers have little invested into the
| persuit compared to the people making videos and could
| relatively easily make a new scam account. It certainly
| wouldn't hurt to add a little more friction to someone making
| frivolous claims as it would likely kill off a number of them
| that are low effort.
| daedalus_f wrote:
| "Wikka Moonlight" seems to be the name of the audio the
| copyright claim is originating from rather than the
| organisation claiming the copyright. [1] The audio contains a
| recording of Moonlight Sonata with a load of added reverb. The
| uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic".
|
| The "Topic" bit generally gets added to a channel name when a
| music distributer (like DistroKid [2]) publishes music to
| youtube on behalf of a musician (in this case Alive Violet
| Molland), typically at the same time adding it to other
| streaming services.
|
| Distrokid will let you publish an unlimited number of albums in
| this way for about $20 a year and then collects the revenue
| from any streaming on your behalf. I'm guessing the distributer
| may also register the audio with music rights organisations,
| which are presumably the source of the copyright claims.
|
| The Wicca Moonlight video now has 4.4k downvotes.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk [2]
| https://distrokid.com/
| crescentfresh wrote:
| > The uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic"
|
| I went searching around using that info and came across a
| (similarly outraged) thread on google's support forums about
| this video, in which someone named longzijun seemed to make a
| reasonably sound counter-argument:
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted.
| ..
|
| > Then she files a counter-notification. The appeals process
| has not been completed. She is only part-way through it.
|
| > Once she files that and if she does it properly, the
| claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her
| or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video
| goes back online.
|
| > Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in
| this case.
|
| > False claims can cause inconvenience for sure, but with the
| counter-notification system, they don't do long-term damage.
|
| > Both the takedown system and the counternotification system
| are mandated by US law (specifically the DMCA).
|
| > YouTube is not supposed to intervene in copyright cases. If
| they do so, they will lose their safe harbor status (again
| under the DMCA) that protects YouTube from being sued for
| hosting copyright infringing content.
|
| > To sum up
|
| > 1) the dispute process has not been completed in this case
|
| > 2) your beef should be with US legislators, not YouTube
| datapolitical wrote:
| Issuing the strike when the process is not complete is an
| example of them getting involved.
|
| Especially since there's no strike for copyright holders if
| they issue a false claim.
| CRConrad wrote:
| That poster _may_ be right on this particular issue... But
| it 's hard to take them seriously after umpteen posts where
| they go on yammering about "If someone posts a recording of
| someone's performance" after repeatedly being told that the
| lady posted _her own_ performance, and repeatedly asking
| someone else whether they are that poster, which AFAICS has
| fuck-all to do with anything.
| crescentfresh wrote:
| So much agree. Their taking issue with that detail made
| me trust their viewpoint less.
| daedalus_f wrote:
| Unless I've misunderstood something, no DMCA notice or
| counter-notice has been sent.
|
| Instead the copyright claim is purely via YouTube's content
| ID system that detected the supposedly infringing audio
| before the video was even published, as the YouTuber states
| in the video linked. The company claiming the copyright
| sought to monetise the "infringing" video for themselves
| through this content ID mechanism.
|
| I would argue that, while YouTube says it cannot arbitrate
| copyright disputes, if it continues to allow supposed
| copyright holders the exclusive right to decide whether
| something is in fact their copyright, they are arbitrating
| the disputes, just in a completely one sided manner, and
| the creators beef should be with them. If they were
| actually neutral, they would instead allow the DMCA system
| to work as you said.
| [deleted]
| raarts wrote:
| In ten, maybe twenty years I predict storage and cpu will be so
| cheap that everyone can just host their own data in their own
| router, and provide some universal API to it. Many problems
| solved, including privacy.
| tcgmu wrote:
| We've already had the capability to do this for many years. See
| Napster or BitTorrent.
|
| The thorny issue is that legitimate copyright holders lose out
| when anyone can freely host and share their work. That leads to
| discussions about whether there should be copyright at all,
| whether digital creators have a right to charge for their work,
| etc. Those are the problems that need to be solved, not the
| technical issues.
| crazypython wrote:
| Upload to a decentralized service like PeerTube or Odysee
| instead.
| tonystride wrote:
| I've been working on a project converting my piano curriculum
| into a 42 week YouTube series (currently on week 34, almost
| there!) and one of the first challenges I ran into, other than
| sucking a video production, was what to do about teaching
| repertoire so as not to run into copyright claims.
|
| I decided to compose my own material each week and it has turned
| out to be the best thing about producing the series. At first the
| idea of writing a new intermediate level piece each week seemed
| daunting but it's actually been quite liberating. Also when I'm
| finished with the series I'll be able to publish the collection
| as my own book of repertoire.
|
| If you've been teaching for a while (like 10 years) I would
| highly recommend going beyond the safety net of pre published
| teaching repertoire and try making some yourself. Find the deeper
| connection to what you teach about music by encoding into, well,
| music! New music, that reflects your unique relationship with the
| craft.
| durnygbur wrote:
| How come this video is not interrupted by ads?! Something is
| fishy here.
| rchaud wrote:
| I think uploaders can choose whether to include ads in their
| videos.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| Before HNers waste a lot of time debating pointlessly, here's the
| facts about how Youtube works:
|
| Youtube has a 2-level copyright complaint scheme:
|
| 1) Youtube Content ID system - almost all complaints are handled
| by Youtube with their internal process. Essentially most musical
| performances are demonetized unless you're the music publisher,
| and occasionally for legit uploaders a copyright claim is made.
|
| The Content ID system was very likely developed as part of the
| settlement agreement with labels, where Google spent about $1
| billion in legal fees.
|
| If you don't follow YT's instructions and instead protest, then
| you risk having your account locked. So most uploaders back off.
|
| Fair use is not respected by YT normally, because they don't have
| to under their internal system.
|
| (What's interesting is that after a famous rock song by a
| Youtube-famous cover artist was blocked, it was unblocked a few
| months later with the original view count also restored. That one
| was weird - very hmmm.)
|
| 2) US federal copyright legal process - rarely used for Youtube
| because #1.
|
| Fair use is a defense if you file a lawsuit and win. (Using less
| than 10 seconds approx. for educational purposes.)
|
| Source: I advise a famous Youtube artist on US publishing issues.
| markvdb wrote:
| This kind of absurd copyright trouble is all over the place in
| the world of music education. I advised my boss to choose a video
| hosting platform between:
|
| - a paid video upload account in a place where we're not the
| product (vimeo)
|
| - self hosting (PeerTube)
| kroeckx wrote:
| For music copyright is split in 2 types: composition and
| recording. The copyright on the composition is probably expired,
| but on a recording most likely isn't. The automated system most
| likely claims it's a copy of a copyrighted recording. Since it's
| a popular piece, it can be hard to tell recordings apart.
|
| Note that the composition might also still have a copyright
| because it's not the original composition but a derived work, but
| that seems unlikely in this case.
| shirleyquirk wrote:
| https://youtu.be/-ThyLB6bakk is the referenced "Wicca moonlight"
| performed by Alice violet molland
| [deleted]
| politician wrote:
| Why don't people upload the video from one account, and then
| claim copyright infringement from another account, and then
| intentionally drag out the appeals process as a form of defense
| against baseless claims?
| ajuc wrote:
| IP is such a scam.
| Normille wrote:
| I don't know what I find more annoying; the ridiculous US
| copyright system that allows people to copyright almost
| 'anything'... or the unfathomably stupid people employed by the
| likes of Amazon, YouTube _et al_ whose policies seem to be _" Ban
| first. Ask questions later... Bu let's not bother with the
| questions"_
|
| It doesn't surprise me that a 200 years dead composer's works are
| considered subject to copyright when, apparently, even referring
| to the name of a 1200 year old mediaeval manuscript violates
| copyright:
|
| https://stiobhart.net/2021-04-8-bubble-trouble/
| Iv wrote:
| The policies are directly caused by the laws. If google does
| not react swiftly, it is considered guilty of copyright
| infringement. Remove the laws, the policies are instantly
| removes as well.
| Normille wrote:
| >If google does not react swiftly, it is considered guilty of
| copyright infringement.
|
| Only if a copyright infringement has actually taken place.
|
| The problem is that none of these companies ever apply a
| gramme of logic or examine the merits of the claim, when
| someone cries 'copyright infringement'. They just
| automatically remove the 'offending' article and refuse to
| countenance any counter-arguments from the person accused.
|
| It's this supine attitude which, I reckon, is fuelling all
| these ridiculous claims. I just wish that the likes of
| Amazon, Google, YouTube, RedBubble... etc. would call the
| copyright trolls' bluff occasionally and not just instantly
| cave. Every. Single. Time.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The problem is that none of these companies ever apply a
| gramme of logic or examine the merits of the claim
|
| True, but, TBF, evaluating merits doesn't scale, the
| authors of the safe harbor provision knew this, and this is
| exactly the outcome the law intended, though it does not
| mandate it.
| masklinn wrote:
| Exactly. Benefiting from Safe Harbor provisions is usually
| predicated on taking the claimant at their word and
| implementing restrictions as fast as possible.
|
| No such requirements exist on the release side.
|
| Therefore it is no surprise that platform policies will
| heavily favor claimants, that is very strong incentivised if
| not an explicit requirement.
| wheybags wrote:
| I studied there. When I got to the start of the long winded
| official name, I actually said "oh no" out loud to myself :(
| NiceWayToDoIT wrote:
| That is the reason these guys decided to Copyrighting all the
| melodies to avoid accidental infringement
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU TED talk
| lovelyviking wrote:
| did it help?
| mlang23 wrote:
| One of the first uploads I did to YouTube, a recording of me
| playing BWV 1034-3 (Andante) got a copyright claim. This was the
| day I realized youtube is in fact helping big corporations to
| supress individuals. "We might delete your account if you raise
| an objection against this claim and we find your objection is
| invalid." That was pretty much around the time YT decided that it
| can now be as evil as it wants.
| mykowebhn wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k&t=12s&ab_channel...
|
| The irony and hypocrisy of this are incredible.
| enriquto wrote:
| Youtubers have it coming. They have accepted obviously
| unacceptable terms of service. The problems of Youtube are very
| old, and people have been consistently proposing alternatives
| that solve these problems. Yet they willingly chose to fatten the
| beast in the hopes that they will get spared of its cruelty. I
| say good riddance!
| squid32 wrote:
| Copyright is broken, time to overhaul the whole system.
|
| edit: Every. single. video I uploaded to youtube has been
| copyright claimed.
|
| If you know a reasonable alternative to youtube, please let me
| know.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Actually I doubt that you _can_ avoid abusing current copyright
| laws.
|
| Also because there is no such "right" in nature. If you wish
| monopoly call it for what it _is_ and have laws in accordance.
| Such "right" shouldn't exist in the first place or at least in
| the current form.
|
| Copy process is the way people learn and progress. Copy process
| is essential for spreading knowledge and development.
|
| When you learn you copy. When you sing you copy. When you speak
| you copy. When you teach you copy. When you think you copy.
| People copy their parents. _You_ are the mixed copy of your
| parents plus mixed copy of other things and factors.
|
| When you show to others what you did you copy too.
|
| I give you a concrete example. I was dancing Argentinian tango in
| a charity event and wanted to show record of it to other people.
| I've got copyright claim on YouTube.
|
| I was not even demonstrating music - I was demonstrating Dancing!
| The music played in the background was created somewhere in
| 1930-1940. The music played at the event was not even original
| composition. It was a cover done by local artist. And it was
| played live during the event with improvisations. Unfortunately I
| couldn't show this event to anyone else because I've got
| copyright claim on YouTube channel. I couldn't even share the
| record with my friends as private link. I couldn't even show the
| video to my partner for goodness sake. If this is not idiocy
| resulting from so called "copyright" then what is?
|
| Unlimited copy process is _crucial_ to arts especially because
| you should feel free to express yourself and only this way
| something _new_ can appear.
|
| Copy is a natural process and any attempt to _regulate_ it or
| _regulate it too much_ can and will create more problems than it
| solves!
|
| Perhaps it's time to start listening RMS more carefully. This is
| one about copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Better terms for copyright include "imaginary property" and
| "bourgeoise pseudocapital."
|
| Not only does copyright hinder creativity and infringe upon
| your natural right to copy, but it doesn't even benefit artists
| so much as companies who pay them a pittance while wielding the
| law as a cudgel to protect their imaginary fiefdom. The world
| needs less ownership, not more.
| cdot2 wrote:
| People will complain about copyright precisely until they
| have some creative work of theirs sold by someone else.
| Professional authors cannot exist without copyright.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| I complain about copyright precisely because I cannot even
| show my creative work. And if I'll try to upload it
| anywhere where people are then I will be stripped off any
| of my "rights" in that very moment. So how copyright helps
| in that case?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Copyright is a way to encourage the production of _new_
| culture. Even if it is abused it doesn 't remove all of its
| merits. Countries with weak copyright laws do produce or export
| content and are barely heard of and the reason why is not hard
| to deduce: all their top talents can't live out of what they
| produce and therefore go elsewhere.
|
| If you really want to go the deconstruction route, laws are
| unnatural but murder and assault are found in nature everywhere
| and therefore we're all doing it wrong. Now if you excuse me I
| have to take care of my collection of scalps /s.
| blacklight wrote:
| I've already stated this many times, I'll state it again.
|
| Get your shit out of YouTube and any other Google product.
|
| Google is a dumb, faceless, fully automated company only
| interested in extracting as much data as possible from its users,
| force them to swallow as many ads as possible, all without caring
| about listening to them (both consumers and creators), under the
| faulty assumption that they're too big for users and consumers to
| live without them. They simply don't deserve anybody using their
| shitty products anymore.
|
| The error in this case is quite obvious. YouTube's scanner
| incorrectly identified the teacher's recording of Moonlight
| Sonata as a copyrighted reinterpretation of the same piece of
| music originally written by a guy who actually died 200 years
| ago. And I can't completely put the blame on Google's AI: the
| notes are technically the same, the beat might also be the same,
| if you calculate an FFT of the audio you'll probably also come up
| with similar spectral signatures. But a human listener will
| IMMEDIATELY notice that was played by the teacher IS NOT the the
| same as the copyrighted piece of music.
|
| The problem is: who is accountable for these mistakes? Who shall
| I reach out to if Google's foggy algorithms make a mistake? And,
| in the case of educators and creators who actually do that for a
| job, who will compensate them for the revenue they have lost
| because of algorithmic errors?
|
| Until Google can provide an answer to these questions, I repeat:
| keep your ass away from anything that has their name on it. They
| are not reliable, the risk of losing your data, your account or
| your followers because of random automated decision is very high,
| and the probability of getting a real human to assist you is very
| low.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| And put your content where? What should this piano teacher do?
|
| This is partially the fault of YouTube/Google, but also
| copyright law in general. It's broken.
|
| This community, right here, could collaborate and force changes
| upon the powers that be. Boycotting Google and YouTube isn't
| going to do it though.
| ratww wrote:
| Google's extension to copyright and lack of accountability is
| the only thing broken here. That, and the fact that they have
| multiple monopolies.
|
| Boycotting Google is the only way to go. One can also
| advocate for regulation in this are.
|
| As for your question: They can put the video in Nebula or
| Patreon, for instance. Maybe there can be more of those,
| perhaps for music teachers. Maybe that's also an opportunity
| for someone new to jump into the streaming game and provide
| some competition.
| josteink wrote:
| > And put your content where?
|
| Vimeo? Peertube? Facebook? Self hosted website? Anywhere?
| livre wrote:
| You can put your content anywhere you want but you can't
| choose where the audience is. YouTube is in practice a big
| monopoly because there's no audience in the "alternatives."
| If you want to be seen you have no choice but YouTube, you
| can prepare for the worst and upload simultaneously to
| other platforms and include links in your video description
| but you can't avoid YouTube.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Vimeo? Peertube? Facebook? Self hosted website?
| Anywhere?_
|
| Those proposed alternatives don't address why the content
| creators like this piano teacher put their tutorials _on
| Youtube_ :
|
| ++ $0 in hosting and bandwidth costs: self-hosted costs
| money that's often _unpredictable_ , and Vimeo has platform
| membership fees
|
| ++ ad revenue to help make the effort of producing a video
| worthwhile : Peertube does not have relationship with ad
| sponsors
|
| ++ audience size & reach : Vimeo/Peertube/selfhosted/etc
| don't have comparable viewers. For niche content such as
| piano instruction, this makes building a financially
| sustainable audience more difficult
|
| ++ discovery recommendations from the platform:
| Vimeo/Peertube/selfhosted don't have the network effect
| ecosystem of _other videos on music_ that can lead viewers
| to the piano teacher 's tutorial videos.
|
| When frustrated Youtubers ask _" And put your content
| where?"_, they're not looking for dumb hosting sites to
| upload some mp4 files. Their question is really a short
| version of: _" And put your content where that has the
| audience reach and monetization to make the video
| production worthwhile?"_
|
| A content creator like this piano teacher wants to make
| some extra money with Youtube videos. It's not the end of
| the world if she can't do that but the extra income could
| help offset the cancellation of in-person lessons because
| of pandemic social distancing. I don't think lecturing
| people repeatedly about Vimeo and Peertube is helpful.
|
| EDIT reply to: _> But the other rely to this comment makes
| a very good point - post in as many places as
| possible/desired _in addition_ to YouTube, and point to all
| the other places in that YouTube posting._
|
| You're still losing sight of this thread's topic: the piano
| teacher is _losing ad monetization money_ to a fraudulent
| claim of copyright. If she hypothetically uploaded her
| Moonlight Sonata tutorial to Peertube /Vimeo/selfhosting,
| she still gets $0 in ad share revenue from those
| alternative video hosters which makes the advice
| irrelevant.
|
| Your "syndication" advice to distribute the videos to
| multiple sites _solves a different problem_ such as de-
| platforming. E.g. Youtube deletes /censors her video or her
| entire channel.
|
| That's _not_ the problem she has. Her video is still there
| and viewable. But she doesn 't want the ad monetization
| money _stolen from her_ by a fraudulent claim.
| zentiggr wrote:
| But the other rely to this comment makes a very good
| point - post in as many places as possible/desired _in
| addition_ to YouTube, and point to all the other places
| in that YouTube posting.
|
| Also a good way to inform viewers about Google's shitty
| policies and forewarn them that the much more reliable
| sources are All The Others.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I hate copyright law and agree it's broken, but it's not at
| fault here. Compositions can be copyrighted, but obviously
| Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is in the public domain and has
| been for a long time. Performances can be copyrighted, but
| obviously a performance isn't the same thing as a
| composition.
|
| There's no _legal_ grey area here. This is _completely_ on
| Google /Youtube. Why isn't there a way to assert the
| copyright status when uploading, beyond saying you ownt he
| copyright or not? The answer would seem to be that it would
| take some work on the company's part, and they don't want to
| put it in because it's unlikely to yield any additional
| revenue and the occasional bit of bad publicity doesn't hurt
| them enough.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| "This is completely on Google/Youtube. "
|
| What about the copyright trolls that are filing claims for
| content they don't own, forcing Google into an arms race
| with them.
|
| Even when the system is working "correctly" it is broken.
| If I take a video of my kid dancing to a song, I often
| can't share it with my family on YouTube. That's messed up.
| mikenew wrote:
| > under the faulty assumption that they're too big for users
| and consumers to live without them
|
| It is, unfortunately, not a faulty assumption. I'm a piano
| teacher on YouTube, and I'm able to make money there. My entire
| audience was developed through the platform. I put videos on
| platforms like Vimeo or even Peertube, and I've had more views
| in one day on YouTube than their entire lifetime on those other
| platforms combined.
|
| The network effect is a cruel mistress, but short of some kind
| of global exodus _no one_ has the ability to change that. I
| hate it as much as anyone.
| fsflover wrote:
| Any creator with established audience can bring those people
| to alternative platform, e.g., Peertube. Start from posting
| videos on both platforms and advertise the other one. Then
| post videos on Peertube _earlier_.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Any creator with established audience_
|
| Well yeah, once you're already successful you have more
| options. That's absolutely no help to people who do not
| have a paying audience.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| That will only work for a select group of viewers. Waiting
| a day or even a week isn't a huge deal for me as a
| consumer, and I'm familiar with it because Patreon people
| often put their videos up in patreon earlier than their
| YouTube ones.
| fsflover wrote:
| You are right. However, when Google blocks the creator,
| most of their audience will know how to find them.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Yeah, but YouTube has ads that can pay the content creator.
| PeerTube doesn't.
| tom-_- wrote:
| As a content creator, you want the platform to protect your
| copyright and at YouTube's scale, copyright scanners are the
| only way to implement this.
|
| Will they produce false positives? Of course. Do the benefits
| to content creators outweigh the costs of these false
| positives? Yes if you believe creative content should be
| protected.
|
| The only other viable model for content creators are
| subscription based services like Patreon and they have/will
| also be pressured by the entertainment industry or even the
| content creators themselves to flag copyright infringement once
| the platform gets large enough.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| > As a content creator, you want the platform to protect your
| copyright and at YouTube's scale, copyright scanners are the
| only way to implement this.
|
| Is this really true, though?
|
| Google certainly doesn't want to pay for people, but
| automated systems can be used as a first-pass filter, before
| human are brought-in to make a second-pass judgement.
|
| So what is the rate of false-positives? And how many
| automated flags are triggered per day?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| But the difference between composition and performance is
| well delineated in copyright law. What _technical barrier_ is
| preventing Google from setting up scanners to detect
| similarity, get a hit, and then identify a video as a
| performance of 'Moonlight Sonata', look _that_ up, and OK it
| on the basis that everything written by Beethoven is long out
| of copyright?
| dominostars wrote:
| As it stands, someone can make a remix of your song and make
| claims against anyone using your original song. It all
| happens through youtube's automated system, and you won't see
| a penny for your work.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Like some have suggested, the automated system should only be
| an input for a team of humans to then review and consider.
| They should then contact the potentially breaching party and
| get some feedback as well as doing some due diligence to
| check if the complaint came from a proper right holder.
|
| Yes this costs money but it is the only way to do the job
| without being a scumbag and a general burden on the world.
|
| Furthermore it should cost the person sending a complaint
| somethings to file it, which then is refunded if the
| complaint is found to have merit.
|
| Lastly, some of these steps could and should be skipped if a
| particular account or multiple accounts determined by some
| other means to be the same person are repeatedly found to be
| in violation.
|
| Similarly if a person keeps making unfounded accusations the
| refundable fee might increase in steps.
| bskap wrote:
| That's all great in theory, but current US copyright law
| isn't really in favor of implementing any of that. If
| Google tried to do it, they'd likely get flooded with
| massive lawsuits from the media conglomerates because
| they'd lose the DMCA safe harbor.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| No doubt you're right. In that case the copyright laws
| are wrong and should be fixed.
|
| I apologise and transfer my scumbag stamp from google to
| Congress then for this particular case :)
| rfrey wrote:
| Why would they lose the DMCA safe harbor? We're talking
| about YouTube's own scanner here, not DMCA takedowns.
| There's no requirement in the DMCA to implement an
| internal scanner that has many false positives, and not
| investigate the scanner's output.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Sobhow was wicca moonlight even copyri if it was that close to
| something that is out of copyright protection?
| matchagaucho wrote:
| _The error in this case is quite obvious..._
|
| That was the symptom. The cause of the error was Google
| allowing another Publisher to stake claims on public domain
| music.
| dominostars wrote:
| People are using this system intentionally as a scam. Recently,
| I tried uploading a video which had video game music in the
| background, and youtube flagged a copyright claim on behalf of
| someone who made a remix of the original song. I did not have a
| license to use the song, so that's fair, but my choices were
| either to drop my video or run ads that give money to someone
| who wasn't even the owner of the song I was trying to use.
|
| There was no avenue for recourse, or to report the person who
| was fraudulently making claims.
| erik wrote:
| Can you reach out to the original composer of the game music?
| They would likely care about the bogus claims. Particularly
| if it is a smaller studio. It's not a great solution, but it
| might work.
| danbmil99 wrote:
| Interestingly this intersects with
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972
|
| Content cannot be safe if the tech necessary to deliver it is
| out of reach for independent creators.
|
| Note that in the Roku thread Google is (IMHO) the good guy, for
| reasons unrelated to this thread's concern.
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| I agree with your assessment of Google; however, what is a
| reasonable alternative for a content creator who wants to
| publish their videos and be able to build an audience? You
| kinda have to go where the audience will be if you don't
| already have one and I'm not aware of any video discovery
| platforms with anywhere near the reach of YouTube. I've managed
| to get out of Google products almost entirely--YouTube remains
| the exception.
|
| Moreover, let's say a new site comes along and dethrones
| YouTube. Remember that this whole mess started because of
| lawsuits that were ultimately ruled (or settled) in favor of
| copyright holders. Any player in this space will need a method
| for handling vast quantities of copyrighted material scanning
| and, like Google, will be heavily incentivized by legal
| precedent to have that system "err on the side of caution."
|
| I'm not a fan of Google; but, the villain of this story is the
| horribly outdated and corporate-lobbied copyright system that
| will push any player in the video space to this kind of
| draconian approach.
| ineptech wrote:
| > what is a reasonable alternative for a content creator..?
|
| Insurance? I'm only half kidding. No individual youtuber has
| the deep pockets to stir the slumbering Googlebeast enough to
| get it to notice and correct its mistake, but all youtubers
| certainly do. Conversely, perhaps there's a market for a we-
| only-get-paid-if-we-win lawyers to spring up here, as they
| have with workplace injuries and such. Youtube's resolution
| process may not be friendly to creators, but juries probably
| will be, if the creator bypasses Google and sues the party
| making the claim. "Sues for what?" I dunno - emotional
| damages? Tortious claims? They'll figure something out, I
| imagine.
|
| Maybe those are silly ideas, but they're certainly less silly
| than waiting for Google to fix things...
| superkuh wrote:
| Or join the youtube creators union https://fairtube.info/
| fsflover wrote:
| > however, what is a reasonable alternative for a content
| creator who wants to publish their videos and be able to
| build an audience?
|
| Put your videos on Youtube _and_ PeerTube.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Does PeerTube have ads or monetization?
| fsflover wrote:
| No. But you can advertise something in your own videos as
| people often do nowadays.
| cortesoft wrote:
| That is a lot harder to do, and only the most successful
| content creators will be able to find sponsors on their
| own. In addition, that is a lot of extra work for a small
| content creator.
| zentiggr wrote:
| ... or the small content creator gets a random permanent
| ban for "REASON WE CAN'T TELL YOU SO YOU CAN'T GAME US",
| and the easy road turns out to be a dead end.
|
| And you wind up doing the extra work anyway.
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| I'd honestly never heard of PeerTube so I searched it. Ah,
| they have a "about peertube" video! Should be great! In the
| first 30 seconds of the video, there were 1-3s long hiccups
| 4 times. Not exactly a confidence-inspiring start. After
| figuring out how to find more videos, I tried to play some
| --but, experienced more hiccups or load times from 20s to a
| full minute--and some just flat out didn't play at all.
|
| I'm not saying PeerTube doesn't look like interesting tech;
| but this is clearly aimed at a far more tech-savvy crowd
| and to put it out there in response to asking for a,
| "reasonable alternative for a content creator who wants to
| publish their videos and be able to build an audience" is
| just totally missing the mark of what makes YouTube
| successful for creators and viewers alike.
| fsflover wrote:
| > 1-3s long hiccups 4 times
|
| PeerTube is not one single website. It is a decentralized
| platform, where everyone can set up their own server and
| it will work as a part of the whole system (like emails
| work). This is why it will never be owned by a single
| entity like Google.
|
| You probably chose a slow server. It does not mean that
| the whole PeerTube is slow.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| As stated above, I watched the promotional video from
| PeerTube themselves on the JoinPeertube.org website and
| experienced multiple hiccups in under 30s. If their own
| hosting isn't cutting it, what chance does anyone else
| have?
|
| > You probably chose a slow server.
|
| I didn't choose a server. I chose a video. The moment the
| service asks me to think about what server is hosting it
| is the moment I don't care enough to jump through those
| hoops. Never underestimate the value of a consistent
| experience.
|
| Once again, I don't want to be disparaging to PeerTube--
| it's a cool concept and I understand the foundations
| behind it. But, spending 10 minutes with it earlier today
| made it obvious that it's not going to challenge YouTube
| as a content discovery platform.
|
| Edit: Corrected the URL from "PeerTube.com" to
| "JoinPeertube.org" -- I typed "PeerTube.com" in haste and
| just assuming the URL.
| fsflover wrote:
| > from PeerTube themselves on the PeerTube.com
|
| PeerTube.com is not "PeerTube themselves". This is one of
| the servers, not the best one. This is the official
| PeerTube website: https://joinpeertube.org. It will show
| search results on many servers.
|
| > The moment the service asks me to think about what
| server is hosting it is the moment I don't care enough to
| jump through those hoops.
|
| You only choose your server once, like you chose Youtube
| once. You do not need to jump through hoops.
|
| > If their own hosting isn't cutting it
|
| PeerTube (actually FramaSoft) is a non-profit
| organization. You shouldn't expect huge resources from
| them. Also peertube.com is not their server AFAIK.
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| I corrected the URL in my post. I was on JoinPeertube.org
| and watched the, "What is PeerTube?" video that is
| embedded in that page. If I watched it again, it might
| not buffer at all. Maybe it was a bad moment. But I
| consume a lot of content on YouTube and I can't remember
| the last time a video buffered a single time--let alone
| several times in the first 30 seconds.
|
| I'm honestly done with this ridiculous strawman about
| whether the video works. PeerTube is not a viable
| alternative to YouTube from a content creator's
| perspective for may reasons which I've already stated;
| but, I'll summarize:
|
| 1. It lacks even a tiny fraction of the distribution and
| discovery reach offered by YouTube.
|
| 2. It lacks the monetization features that allows YouTube
| to become part of a business.
|
| 3. It requires me to provide my own hosting and technical
| setup which is far more involved than dropping a video
| into your browser like you get with YouTube.
|
| 4. If I, as a consumer with no knowledge or interest in
| how PeerTube works, "choose the wrong server," I get a
| crappy experience with videos buffering for ages so I'm
| disinclined to continue to use the platform leading to
| reduced audiences on the platform and the feeling of,
| "doing extra work for nothing."
|
| You can defend it all you want; but, your responses so
| far have been thinly veiled, "You're too stupid to get it
| right." I guess maybe I am; but, I'll stand behind _that_
| being the single biggest reason that PeerTube simply
| cannot be a platform to rival YouTube.
| fsflover wrote:
| > 3. It requires me to provide my own hosting and
| technical setup
|
| This is wrong. You choose someone's server and use it
| just like you use Youtube.
|
| > "You're too stupid to get it right."
|
| I never said or implied that. Yes, using PeerTube is
| slightly harder, but the benefit you get is huge. If it
| is not worth for you, you can give your live to Google...
| StreamBright wrote:
| There are ways to avoid these copyright guys going after you
| with a truly decentralized system where node stores only a
| fraction of the content and there is no central place to ban
| content. Just like the concept of internet was DODs answer to
| a threat nuking communication there must be an answer to the
| threat of copyright trolling. I am very much waiting to a
| decentralized content platform to show up that is immune to
| content filtering abuse and much easier on the ISPs bandwidth
| wise than the current YT or similar sites.
| ajross wrote:
| > however, what is a reasonable alternative for a content
| creator who wants to publish their videos and be able to
| build an audience?
|
| I think it's more instructive to look at it from the other
| side. What's the reasonable alternative for a _video hosting
| service_ to doing this kind of policing? Remember it 's not
| really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA
| requirements mean you have to be responsive. And thus there's
| a built-in incentive to cut a deal with the content owners to
| preemptively prevent the DMCA claims (which are expensive!)
| by doing this sort of automated policing.
|
| It's true that not every host does this, but every host that
| doesn't do this either does it in violation of the law or
| eats significant overhead that needs to be recouped in some
| other way (i.e. by paying their content creators less! Check
| the author's channel, this is someone who's clearly on
| youtube for revenue. Would even she jump ship given that it
| would probably cost her money?)
|
| Really, this isn't something Google can fix. It's a problem
| with the legal regime that imagines that all infringement is
| a bright line definition and that preemptive takedowns are
| the best solution.
| burkaman wrote:
| The alternative is to responsibly scale your service. If
| your platform is so big that it can only be moderated by
| algorithms, and the algorithms don't work, then it's too
| big. Scale down until, at the very least, you can hire
| enough humans to review complaints when the algorithm does
| something wrong. Even better would be to have a human
| review every flagged violation to confirm it.
|
| Obviously, hiring humans is expensive, and nobody is
| forcing them to do it, but that doesn't make it an
| unreasonable alternative. I consider it unreasonable to
| design an unethical system with the sole excuse that it
| makes more money that way.
| ajross wrote:
| So... which providers have responsibly scaled, in your
| opinion? All we have are tiny hosts (mostly porn) running
| by the seat of their pants and occasionally disappearing
| in a conflagration of lawsuits, and big folks like TikTok
| and Google and Facebook with draconian preemptive
| enforcement of various forms.
|
| I think that argues strongly that the service you want to
| see is "unreasonable" given the regulation regime we
| have. You can't put this on the hosts, you'll just be
| disappointed. Call your representative.
| nine_k wrote:
| To leave a ton of money on the table, and let the
| competition eat that space, because 0.1% of DMCA requests
| would be served with an overreaction?
|
| Sorry, this is not going to make business sense. If you
| want a free video publishing platform that does user
| outreach for you, you got to pay a price; the false
| positives is a part of the price, alas.
| gbear605 wrote:
| That's why we need a regulation change to make it so that
| you can't outcompete by being unethical.
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| Completely agreed. I'd love to see Google (and let's get
| Twitch in there as well, while we're at it) working _with_
| content creators to push for legal change. To me, that 's
| what's most disappointing: Google will spend millions on
| lobbying to legally collect more and more information about
| me; but, they don't have the inclination to use their size
| and scale to push a significant expansion of Fair Use
| Doctrine (or, if they do, they certainly aren't vocal about
| it).
| creato wrote:
| It was out of self interest of course, but, Google did
| just finish a decade long, costing probably hundreds of
| millions of dollars in legal fees, battle with Oracle to
| fight for reasonable copyright interpretation for
| software developers.
|
| This current situation on YT is the result of _another_
| multi-billion dollar legal fight with the music industry.
| I don 't like how YT handles this either but I put most
| of the blame on the music industry for it.
| feudalism wrote:
| > what is a reasonable alternative for a content creator who
| wants to publish their videos and be able to build an
| audience?
|
| I've noticed several tech-related content producers copying
| their videos over to LBRY/Odysee as a backup in case the YT
| algorithm decides to cancel them.
| bcrescimanno wrote:
| These are great solutions to keep your content if Google
| decides to lock you out or destroy your content; but, they
| aren't platforms on which you can build a content creation
| side of a business.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - agreed.
|
| If I was a creator I'd use YouTube, but also have backed up
| local copies of videos. Preferably hosted elsewhere in case
| the channel gets in trouble too.
|
| You have to be where the users are and YouTube is by far the
| best video streaming service (with the largest audience).
| ergot_vacation wrote:
| I'd disagree slightly with the parent post here: the
| conclusion shouldn't be "get away from Google" so much as "If
| you have to use Google, understand what you're getting into."
| If you deal with unsavory people, things will go south
| eventually. If you deal with Google, sooner or later things
| like this will happen. Expect it, build it into your
| strategy, but don't be surprised by it.
| RogerL wrote:
| How do you "build that into your strategy"? That is so easy
| to type, but unactionable. A piano teacher can't build her
| own streaming platform, and if she goes to a different
| platform she'll die in obscurity.
|
| Concretely, what should she have done differently?
| piptastic wrote:
| my thoughts would be:
|
| - while building up your following on google, market your
| brand to your own site(s) as much as possible
|
| - build brand an alternate streaming site(s)
|
| - have a way to reach your followers in the event you get
| shut down - email list, etc. to inform your followers to
| switch to the alternate site
| matart wrote:
| Do many people watch through embedded videos or do people
| watch in the YouTube app? There's a convenience in having
| all your videos in 1 place. I've had a couple podcasts
| move to Spotify only and I stopped listening even though
| I have a Spotify subscription.
| zentiggr wrote:
| It's that assumption of "dying in obscurity" that gives
| Google their damnable network effect.
|
| If there isn't enough marketing advice out there about
| finding as many channels and methods as you can, I'll eat
| this comment with barbecue sauce.
|
| Read up, utilize all the advice on everything except
| Google-owned properties, accept the lower visibility, and
| help neuter the algorithm beast.
|
| Or accept that you're riding the tiger and never complain
| again.
| ratsmack wrote:
| >Expect it, build it into your strategy, but don't be
| surprised by it.
|
| This is kind of like saying... Expect failure, build
| failure into you strategy, and move blindly forward
| believing there is no other alternative.
| zentiggr wrote:
| I'd say it's more like:
|
| Go ahead and build your initial business on quicksand.
|
| Know that you'll get lots of traffic, but it might sink
| into the ground at any time.
|
| Use the profits to build up a solid future property that
| isn't built on quicksand.
| StreamBright wrote:
| Explain this to my mom please. P50 users of the internet
| could not give two shits about these entities.
| simion314 wrote:
| I just want to emphasize that Google are not the only ones,
|
| I had my Sony Play Station account banned for 2 months with no
| exact reason and no way to appeal, on short the Sony message
| was like "you did something wrong, something about our policy
| on sex and violence, our moderators are perfect so there is no
| mistake and there is nothing you can do".
|
| I think we need something that addresses all such issues and
| not a Google only workaround, the solution is regulations.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| When I was at Google they had a mission statement that went
| something like "Organize the worlds data and make it
| available." But the reality seems to be it was "Seize the
| world's data and hold it for ransom." The latter of course
| being the better business model.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Everyone uses youtube. Local businesses use youtube. I took
| driving lessons and they use it. Small tech companies use it to
| host their promo videos, and so on. So people use it without
| even needing the "reach" that youtube can provide - it's just
| being used for hosting.
| zentiggr wrote:
| Again and again the same basic "but it's free" refrain.
|
| Sure, building on quicksand is free. No one wants to pay for
| a service that is as undependable, and impossible to appeal
| in case of fraudulent or just mistaken bans.
|
| So go ahead and build on that quicksand... but do it knowing
| so, and stop complaining when the quicksand swallows you.
|
| There might not be much land around the edge of the quicksand
| patch, but it's solid ground.
| 6510 wrote:
| All that is true of course but I think the bigger issue is that
| the copyright system has to go or at least change dramatically.
| People walk around with video cameras now 24/7, they want to
| add music to their video. We should facilitate this.
| Causality1 wrote:
| The more stories like this crop up, the more I wonder what the
| source is. Google's pervasively horrible treatment of both free
| users and paying customers reflects its extraordinary fetish
| for using computers to do a person's job. The worse it gets the
| more I start to think this is coming from someone in
| particular. How could they be so incapable of improvement
| unless someone powerful is stomping on it? Who is it? Who in
| the top twenty Alphabet/Google executives has this godawful
| obsession?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _The problem is: who is accountable for these mistakes? Who
| shall I reach out to if Google 's foggy algorithms make a
| mistake? And, in the case of educators and creators who
| actually do that for a job, who will compensate them for the
| revenue they have lost because of algorithmic errors?_
|
| Given that we've had to endure this nonsense for more years
| than I can count now, and Google and other companies refuse to
| budge, it sounds like a great opportunity for legislation to
| enumerate users' rights in situations like this, and to
| enumerate penalties should companies like Google violate them.
| ergot_vacation wrote:
| More and more, ordinary people are not citizens in a nation,
| with a balance of rights and responsibilities afforded to them,
| but simply cattle: a resource to be cultivated, controlled, and
| harvested. This is true online, but also increasingly off.
| People are still operating under the outdated notion that
| corporations, banks and government institutions can be held to
| account because they are in some way vulnerable to the
| displeasure of ordinary people. They cannot, and are not.
|
| Youtube does not care about your happiness. Their business
| model is unrelated to it. Youtube, like Google, is in the
| business of gathering up a bunch of delicious users and bolt-
| gunning and butchering them so they can be served up to ad
| partners for a tidy sum. In this arrangement, the happiness of
| the livestock hardly matters.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Without a viable and better alternative this wouldnt make
| sense. But what would be a viable alternative? Well, it could
| use only non-copyrighted material, which is feasible nowadays,
| there is tons of CC0 music to dress any video
| vkou wrote:
| > Get your shit out of YouTube and any other Google product.
|
| Any video hosting service that you will move to will behave in
| a very similar ways, in order to avoid getting sued out of
| existence by the media lobby.
|
| If you want to solve this problem, the solution can only come
| from dismantling the parasitic parts of the media industry.
| That requires political action.
| zentiggr wrote:
| Sure, that's step 2.
|
| Step 1 is walk away from the biggest, most obscure and
| capricious banning system around, to pull the biggest teeth
| of that copyright industry.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Get your shit out of YouTube and any other Google product.
|
| My thoughts exactly 5 years ago. So I did exactly as you say
| back then. So , did you notice? Did it help? I do not think so.
|
| May be the problem is more complicated and leaving YouTube
| would not help ?
| fsflover wrote:
| I guess it did help _you_ , since you are protected from
| Google's unpredictable moves.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Genuine question, what should I replace Firebase with? I have a
| responsibility to my customers there, not just myself. I want
| to fulfill that responsibility by migrating off of Google while
| continuing to provide the product performance they expect.
| tomcooks wrote:
| You publish on a proprietary, commercial,centralised platform and
| are surprised that said platform behaves like that?
|
| Use peertube or any other decent video platform.
|
| AHH, but you want the sweet YT cash.
| savrajsingh wrote:
| In this case, a solution is to match against obviously known
| public domain first, and failing that, check copyright claims.
| I'd imagine google has or can quickly build the necessary db of
| all public domain music, starting with music from 100+ years ago.
| Also identify copyright claims that conflict with that db ahead
| of time.
| analog31 wrote:
| The irony is that Beethoven probably stole it. Even to this day,
| music composition has always involved "something old, something
| new, something borrowed, something blue," to quote Duke
| Ellington.
| lurquer wrote:
| YouTube is an advertising company. Period.
|
| The problem won't be fixed as it's not a problem... who cares if
| some piano teacher gets silenced? It matters not one iota to the
| revenue.
|
| You could ban 10% of 'content creators' and it wouldn't matter:
| people watch YouTube like they used to watch TV: it doesn't
| matter what's on or how crappy it is. You'll keep watching. Your
| favorite show got cancelled? You'll grouse and watch something
| else... your consumption of pharmaceutical and insurance ads will
| not be affected at all.
|
| There will be no competitor emerge in this medium... just as no
| 'competitor' ever emerged in the established newspaper domain.
|
| There may be a new medium that emerges that nukes YouTube. Can't
| imagine what it would be.
| rurban wrote:
| Maybe the adequate counteraction is to file DMCA claims against
| Google itself. Like the German newspapers did. Google News copies
| their headlines and intro. And fotos.
|
| Or Australian news. Google News copies everything.
|
| Or Google Search. Googles copies everything. Text, fotos,
| original work, derivative work. Nobody needs to go into museums
| anymore. Google has it. Nobody needs go into cinemas anymore.
| Google has it.
|
| Youtube is full of copyright violations, and has no adequate
| support mechanism to handle claims and violations, as we saw in
| this example. They are policing themselves, the biggest thieve of
| all.
| WmyEE0UsWAwC2i wrote:
| This should bear consequences for YouTube as they have enabled
| such brutal treatment on this woman and many others.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| She actually decided to quit YouTube after this completely unfair
| treatment.
|
| I think it's high time these platforms saw some regulation. It's
| ridiculous what they are allowed to get away with.
| swiley wrote:
| Good for her, it's the sustained highly creative output of
| skilled people that makes Youtube interesting beyond music
| piracy and memes. They have the power to collectively do the
| same to any other platform and shouldn't tolerate abuse like
| this.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Quitting will just get people to use the next best teacher on
| youtube that they can find. She can just get the music muted
| and create a link to her patreon, and tell that Google muted
| it. Google will lose out on revenue that way for now.
| eru wrote:
| You know that Google's behaviour here is a reaction to
| regulation?
|
| It's tempting to answer failures in regulation with cries for
| more regulation..
| CRConrad wrote:
| This seems more a failure in Google's reaction than in the
| legislation they're reacting to.
| banbanbang wrote:
| It's a good point but regulators (ie politicians) are nowhere
| near up to the tasks. They often leave the legislative
| details to industry "experts" often tied to big corporations.
| I frankly think our government is broken and outdated to
| accommodate the complexities and speed of modern society. It
| also doesn't help that politicians refuse to retire and hold
| onto their seats often until death.
| manquer wrote:
| Hardly, dmca is straight forward law, take down notice and
| counter notice has no three strikes. There are penalties for
| incorrect claims to deter such claims
|
| This is Google's poorly implemented system to satisfy big
| studio creators to publish on YouTube.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I feel like the fundamental issue here with these giant tech
| companies is _their scale has outgrown the capabilities of their
| AI_. They 've all basically bowed down to the mantra of "AI will
| solve everything", and indeed they are so big that getting human
| customer support at the scale they need would be a huge financial
| hit, even for them.
|
| But here is a situation where any rational human can say "this is
| crazy, anyone with sense knows that Moonlight Sonata is in the
| public domain", but Google has created a Kafkaesque nightmare
| because (as has been lamented a million times on HN) it takes an
| act of God (or Twitter outrage) to actually connect with a human
| support person is you're not a paying customer.
| noobermin wrote:
| This entire episode is a great example of how the SV crowd
| really is full of groupthink and ideology despite their veneer
| of being rational. Everyone who isn't in the SV RDF can see the
| limits of AI today for example youtube copyright strikes,
| failures of AVs to take over the streets, and so on and so on.
| AI is useful but it clearly has limitations but the industry
| can't recognize it because they're high on their own supply.
| modzu wrote:
| the ai is built to deal with the peasant class. the ai
| occassionaly abuses them, because the peasants have no power.
| but nobody cares about the peasants except other peasants. the
| peasants are fed enough (you tube mostly works for them) just
| enough to keep them content and any sort of uprising is
| quelled. content enough in their toil (creating content), the
| ai grows stronger.
| kecupochren wrote:
| what a world to live in
| fortran77 wrote:
| This is widely known among the classical musician community.
| Nearly every time I upload a YouTube video of me sitting at my
| piano playing something written 150+ years ago, I'll get a
| copyright strike.
|
| In the past, I'd simply affirm it was mine and it would go away.
|
| It looks like the new system isn't so forgiving.
|
| This probably won't change until the right person gets a claim
| and hires the right lawyer who thinks of a good argument to win a
| massive judgement.
| [deleted]
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Along the same lines, I was publishing church services each
| Sunday between May and December of last year, with three English
| hymns in each, mostly old ones well-known across denominations.
| In total, I got 23 Content ID claims (about 20% of the hymns),
| claiming ownership of the melody. Every single one was for a work
| in the public domain. I disputed each, providing the name and
| date of death of the composer.
|
| Two were released (one after three days, the other after 27), the
| rest were allowed to lapse in my favour (which happens after 30
| days).
|
| A few of these claims were duplicates (same claimer, same hymn).
| This showed that even though I had successfully disputed their
| claim in the past in the grounds of the work being in the public
| domain, _YouTube had not revoked their ability to claim the
| melody in question_.
|
| If any of the liars claiming they owned these works had rejected
| my dispute, it could have become a strike, _& c._ and there would
| of course be no recourse, because Google generally refuses to
| arbitrate.
|
| Also, an insidious aspect of the claims system was that YouTube
| basically didn't tell you about the copyright claim at all when
| publishing; you had to close the edit page for the video and
| return to the list, and see if the Restrictions column for the
| video said "Copyright claim". If you didn't do that, the video
| would probably be being monetised by the claimer in at least some
| of the world (and if you disputed it, I guess Google would
| happily take the lot for the period while they had monetised it--
| though now that they're putting ads on everything, this lot isn't
| so different from the usual situation; depends on whether you
| hate the balance of the ad money going to the copyright liars or
| Google more).
|
| (There was also one amusing case where some music being played at
| a nearby temple was audible during a quiet time in the service,
| and so I found out the name of the music being played. I claimed
| fair use on that one, because I didn't even _want_ that music in
| it, and it was quiet. That claim was released after ten days.)
| maweki wrote:
| > Every single one was for a work in the public domain.
|
| While the sheet music is, the performance by other artists - as
| your own performance - is not. That's the issue the algorithm
| is having here (not defending).
|
| The automated system would need to "understand" that this is
| indeed a new performance of a public domain piece of sheet
| music and not a reproduction of a copyrighted performance by
| somebody else. Even if you were note for note playing exactly
| the same (tempo and whatnot) with the same instrument tuned the
| same way. I think this would be an argument against automated
| systems. Whether a human could know that my bike-ride was
| scored by myself and not somebody else is doubtful though.
|
| On the other hand, I do understand that people do not want
| their individual performances to be used without licence and
| there may be many such performances.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Every time that I'm speaking of it was the _melody_ that was
| being claimed, not a specific recording.
| maweki wrote:
| I understand that that is what was claimed.
|
| I said that two actual and copyrightable performances of
| the same melody are arguably indistinguishable.
|
| Edit: How would an automated system know, that you did not
| just non-transformatively alter another person's
| performance, instead of performing yourself?
| ncallaway wrote:
| > How would an automated system know, that you did not
| just non-transformatively alter another person's
| performance, instead of performing yourself?
|
| Yes, exactly. You have really nailed the problem with the
| current system.
|
| Google _chose_ to build an automated system. That was a
| choice, not an immutable fact. Google _chose_ not to have
| a human arbitration process. Another choice. Google
| _chooses_ not to punish the claimants that abuse the
| system. Another choice, not an immutable fact.
|
| People aren't saying there must be a perfect automated
| system. People are saying Google has chosen to employ an
| automated system that does not meet the actual needs.
|
| The criticism is for Google choosing to exclusively use
| an automated system, which can never successfully perform
| this task.
| rocqua wrote:
| Ideally, the easy cases are automated, and more difficult
| cases like these are not. Hence, the system would know
| because of an actual DMCA request, rather than an
| automated YouTube request.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I have gained the impression that YouTube has two
| distinct techniques within Content ID, one for claiming
| melodies, and another for claiming specific recordings.
|
| I'm absolutely confident that this is doing melody
| matching: these recordings are trivially distinguishable
| from any professional performance, with completely
| different instruments and playing styles, and with much
| lower quality singing.
|
| For example, the most repeated claim was by "AdRev
| Publishing", claiming "Crimond (The Lord's My Shepherd) -
| FirstCom" three times. (That song was also claimed once
| by "Capitol CMG Publishing and Adorando Brazil" as "The
| Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want".) The first two times,
| I was accompanying with a piano-sound keyboard in the
| traditional four-part harmony--admittedly they sound
| fairly similar to one another; but in the third, an
| Indian was playing, using a piano-and-strings sound on a
| different keyboard, using Indian harmonisation (which is
| quite different).
|
| I think we even had an unaccompanied song claimed once,
| matching throwaway0b1's report.
|
| These are _completely_ different performances from
| whatever recordings the liars may have provided to the
| Content ID system. The melody is the only thing they will
| have in common.
| teach wrote:
| My experience aligns with yours. I had a video of a half-
| hour coffee-shop-style gig blocked because at one point I
| covered "Hotel California". This was just me -- one
| voice, one acoustic guitar played poorly, and was down a
| whole step from the original key.
| rocqua wrote:
| I believe that Hotel California is still under protection
| as a melody, rather than a performance. Hence covers
| require either a license or fair use according to law.
| This differs a lot from the case of performing a 200 year
| old song whose melody is in the public domain.
|
| Not to say it was wrong what you did, or that Google was
| in the right for flagging. But Google was legally
| correct.
|
| (Google suggests controversy around the question of
| whether hotel California is public domain or not)
| thraway123412 wrote:
| I don't think I'm ever going to approve of any sort of
| automated copyright claim system but if Google wanted to make
| it one bit fair, they should use the same concept of three
| strikes against the accounts that make false claims and ban
| them.
| throwaway0b1 wrote:
| I've had the same experience (although I don't remember if it
| was specifically the melody being claimed). I don't always
| bother to dispute them (in my understanding, most of them just
| claim ad revenue, and we don't run ads), but sometimes it
| annoys me enough that I do. (The organist and people singing
| are pretty clearly pictured, and I get especially annoyed when
| it's a capella.)
| chrismorgan wrote:
| > _we don 't run ads_
|
| Historically Google only put ads when requested by the
| channel, which required a fairly significant threshold of
| views and subscribers and supposedly manual review by Google.
| Some time last year they started a switch towards serving ads
| on all videos, regardless of the preferences of the channel
| (whether you're big or small, whether you want ads or not),
| which I hear has been progressing steadily further and
| further. (I wouldn't know. The internet's too dangerous to
| view without an ad blocker. I also just generally hate ads
| and only see any at all when I leave my peaceful rural
| environs and go to the big city.)
| throwaway0b1 wrote:
| True, this is also something I should look into further
| (also, for example, to make sure that they don't force ads
| when a copyright claim is put on).
|
| Of course, that I don't ever look at it without an ad
| blocker makes it somewhat more difficult.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| My reading of the situation at the time was that if there
| was a copyright claim, the video _would_ be monetised in
| certain regions (depending on the claimant). So once I
| cottoned on to the situation, I always disputed the
| claims before publishing, so that no one would be fed
| ads. Now, who knows. Once I returned from India to
| Australia I stopped uploading the videos personally, and
| I don't intend to publish any of my _own_ stuff that I
| might make to YouTube.
| throwaway0b1 wrote:
| Yeah, I should probably just dispute them all at some
| point.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| YouTube's system has some _massive_ design flaws. One of which is
| that the default way copyright holders get treated varies based
| off whether you 're doing automated ContentID type claims vs
| whether you merely own the copyright to your own work you
| created.
|
| As a result, you get better outcomes if you own a piece of
| content-ID'd work that you include in your videos, which is
| completely silly. Basically, if you copyright claim your own work
| automatically, if someone else comes along and tries to do the
| same, worst-case you _split_ the advertising revenue among all
| the copyright claimants. If you just upload it normally, you get
| _zero_ if someone claims it.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Susan Wojcicki on the case again. The freedom of expression
| pillar would crumble without her support.
| barkingcat wrote:
| This has been happening for decades. Almost all musicians playing
| classical music has had bans, 3 strikes, blocks, etc on social
| media, youtube, live streaming sites.
|
| Often times Hilary Hahn (one of the great violinists of our
| times) gets copyright claims on her own practice streams because
| they sound _literally_ like her concerts and solo albums.
|
| Basically, the more refined and the better you are as a classical
| musician, the more likely you'll get a ban for streaming live
| music (that you play) because ... the composers are all long dead
| and there's thousands, if not tens of thousands of previous
| interpretations of the same music (literally note by note the
| same) floating around in the algorithms of the RIAA ban bots.
| mullikine wrote:
| There should be some kind of law to forbid this type of
| unilateral model training. What great lapse of judgement to not
| also train the same model that is used to blacklist music to also
| whitelist music that is in the public domain -- and to use AI in
| this way, to suppress the creative freedoms of billions of human
| beings as the robot revolution edges closer to automate us out of
| existence. AI should not be used this way, but if you're going to
| do it you may as well be honest about it. How this algorithm
| could be deployed without first even acknowledging the existence
| of music outside of what is proprietary is disturbing
| aspectmin wrote:
| Someone needs for form a defense association which indie artists
| and content producers can join/pay into. Use this structure and
| funds to defend artists against these claims.
| [deleted]
| intricatedetail wrote:
| The current copyright law is unsustainable. Pretty much every
| melody you can think of is copyrighted and as an artist you can
| be anxious that anything you make can be claimed by someone else.
| Copyright laws need urgent change as they are not fit for
| purpose...
| tapland wrote:
| In this case that's not the problem. Beethoven isn't
| copyrighted, but public.
| atoav wrote:
| Yeah but certain Beethoven _recordings_ are copyrighted.
| Legally you are totally allowed to play his works on an
| instrument, while you could still break someones copyright by
| e.g. using their 2019 recording of the work which they sell
| on CD or whatnot.
|
| How will sonic fingerprinting be able to decide whether it is
| that copyrighted work, or whether it is somwonw playing it
| live? It just won't
| polytely wrote:
| The problem is that Youtube is pretending that their shoddy
| sonic fingerprinting system works and is fine with 3rd
| parties using their dumb system to defraud their users
| atoav wrote:
| Yeah, I think they should mark recordings where the
| melody is public domain and review these cases manually.
| genezeta wrote:
| It's still related to copyright law.
|
| If the law promotes, say by making it a default, that one
| side can easily benefit from a certain behaviour, then
| people, companies will assume that as the behaviour to
| favour. And then these are the consequences: that going
| around claiming rights on whatever you feel like is not only
| not punished by Youtube but carelessly accepted. Because it's
| just _easier_ , less effort.
| fourseventy wrote:
| I agree. On top of that you have bands from 50 years ago suing
| each other because two riffs sound vaguely alike, its
| ridiculous.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Copyright cannot be fixed, it should be abolished. It made
| sense in the era of physical books and huge printing presses.
| That era is long gone, copying have made copying trivial.
| hvdijk wrote:
| That seems backwards: the concept of copyright was introduced
| because the printing press made it so much easier to make a
| large number of exact copies. If you agree with the
| introduction of copyright in that era, as you say you do, how
| does it then make sense to abolish it again when copying
| becomes even easier?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Printing presses were not ubiquitous. There were relatively
| few of them, not everyone had access, there were
| limitations to the scale of copyright infringement due to
| the physical nature of books. People had to be major
| industry players in order to infringe copyright at scale
| and it was necessary to do it for profit in order to cover
| the significant costs involved.
|
| Today virtually everyone has access to a computer that can
| create and transmit unlimited copies of any data at massive
| scales and at negligible costs and there's no way to stop
| it from happening unless you destroy computing freedom by
| making it so processors refuse to run software not signed
| by the government.
|
| Copyright needs to go away because the alternative is the
| total destruction of free computing as we know it today. I
| want a future where I'm in control of my devices and can
| write my own software if I want without the need for some
| government license. If the copyright industry must die in
| order to protect that future, so be it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-01 23:00 UTC)