[HN Gopher] YouTube's eraser tool removes copyrighted music with...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube's eraser tool removes copyrighted music without impacting
other audio
Author : thunderbong
Score : 74 points
Date : 2024-07-05 19:01 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| umvi wrote:
| "AI powered algorithm" or just plain old Fourier Transforms?
| toxik wrote:
| It is pretty hard to subtract a signal like that, if it's
| really just signal C=A+B then maybe if you have exactly B you
| can get A back from C, but with microphones picking up radio or
| something like that? No shot
| codetrotter wrote:
| Also it has to be able to work on remixes that it doesn't
| know about of the songs, etc.
|
| All in all I'd say yeah this definitely requires some clever
| engineering and I believe them that they use AI as part of
| all of this.
| spockz wrote:
| I guess both. One to detect which waves are copyright protected
| and the transformation to remove it.
| AlyssaRowan wrote:
| They're all actually AI powered, generally some form of real-
| time RNN trained on identifying and isolating voice content
| from background noise or music.
|
| rnnoise2 is an open-source model that does very well. There
| also are things like Waves Clarity VX, the Nvidia Broadcast
| (Audio Effects SDK) too, as well as plenty of other solutions
| like Supertone Clear, Krisp, etc etc etc.
| CursedUrn wrote:
| Does that mean youtube is AI generating your voice to "add it
| back" after silencing that part of the video? Does it ever
| generate different words to what you actually said?
| delusional wrote:
| I'm still waiting for Canon to release a tool to scrub pictures
| of the buildings I own. What makes people believe they can just
| post photos of my buildings? I purchased the rights to that
| architecture.
| toxik wrote:
| You can't take a song photo, there is no permanent one unique
| recording of a song that has to play forever for it to exist.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I'm not sure I follow. The equivalent to a photo of a visual
| would be a recording of a audible. Whether either core thing
| exists is independent of a specific recording in both cases.
|
| The main difference in the above analogy is probably that a
| photo is not a primary intended way for the architecture to
| be consumed whereas it is for a song.
| lttlrck wrote:
| Substitute photo for 3D model of building for VR
| consumption and it works better.
|
| Also some music may be/is intended to be heard live. So the
| recording/model analogy can certainly fit.
| tmtvl wrote:
| The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is not
| the same as the way a building is supposed to be experienced.
| Seeing the picture of a building is not the same as seeing the
| actual building. Hearing a piece of music is the same as
| hearing the piece of music.
| skyyler wrote:
| >Seeing the picture of a building is not the same as seeing
| the actual building.
|
| Sure, I agree with this.
|
| >Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of
| music.
|
| Gonna disagree there; in the same way that looking at a
| picture of something isn't the same as looking at something,
| hearing a recording of a performance is not the same as being
| present for the performance.
|
| The Treachery of Images, as Magritte called it.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Eh. Copyright doesn't care how something is meant to be
| experienced.
|
| In the US though, architecture copyrights don't protect
| against people photographing building exteriors.
|
| That said, if your building was covered in a mural or some
| artistic facade that you held the copyright to, then one can
| assert copyright against people posting videos of the
| building on YouTube. Of course, there's exemptions for
| various forms of fair use like critique.
| freedomben wrote:
| > Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece
| of music.
|
| This is way overly reductionist. Hearing a few notes of a
| piece of music in the background with crappy quality is not
| the same as hearing the full ucompressed piece with top of
| the line equipment. It is remarkably analogous to seeing a
| picture of building.
| kaetemi wrote:
| Look up the copyright drama regarding the Atomium in Brussels.
| mikae1 wrote:
| Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35969734
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| !!
|
| https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Incorrect title.
|
| >> remove copyright-claimed music from your video
|
| This tool will only remove music that has been reported/claimed
| by someone and reported to youtube. It certainly cannot remove
| all copyrighted music given that most all recorded music is
| copyrighted already irrespective of youtube. This tool can remove
| stuff that has been reported and shared with youtube's copyright
| systems. That is a different thing than the title.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think the distinction really matters. If no copyright
| claim has been made on some background music in a video, then
| the person who posted the video need not care if that music is
| copyrighted or not.
| teeray wrote:
| It'd be nice to have a fair use tool, identifying when
| copyrighted music is a fair use.
| mikae1 wrote:
| Fair use doesn't exist in many jurisdictions (where artists may
| come from). I would assume carpet bombing is easier than
| surgery.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Fair use may not exist, but rights of citation or parody
| still do.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| I know a few small youtubers who make "walk around" live-stream
| type videos and they always struggle with music from bars etc.
| It's always kind of funny when they attempt to talk over the
| music or start walking faster. Kind of sad how megacorporations
| can affect our behavior.
|
| I hope this won't spill over to a general deterioration or
| avoidance of music. People are really good at copying behavior
| they see from people they see as "authoritative figures" and
| influencers are that, for young people.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I feel like if any meaningful amount of society adopted a
| "avoid copyrighted music" behaviour, the problem would
| resolve itself pretty fast.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Oh my, now I'm imagining a hipster bar that uses "only
| playing non-copyrighted music" as a way to incentivize all
| the wannabe youtubers and instagrammers and tiktokers to
| record their content there.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Human music!
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Boop boop boop. Boop boop boop. Boop boop boop.
| teeray wrote:
| There is a brewery near me that plays only Grateful Dead
| and anything before 19-whatever-it-is to avoid needing a
| license to "perform" it.
| spankalee wrote:
| That roughly amounts to "avoid all recorded music" right
| now.
|
| If you don't like music, sure... but I'm not willing to be
| that ascetic.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| No, the opposite. If people in large numbers are avoiding
| music, then the industry will behave better about
| copyright. They want people to listen to music.
| talldayo wrote:
| > If people in large numbers are avoiding music, then the
| industry will behave better about copyright.
|
| Has there ever been a significant point in history where
| this has happened? It feels like the opposite happens;
| when people conscientiously object to the music industry,
| said industry doubles down on their authority to control
| music. Radio license agreements, home taping, internet-
| distribution and now the YouTube/social media era are all
| punctuated by license-holders reaffirming their control,
| fair use and popularity be damned.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I have no sense that this will ever happen. More speaking
| to the hypothetical being raised.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| So live music only. Nothing recorded. All original pieces
| without sheet music or written lyrics. Nothing online or
| ever via a digital system with a memory function. No
| portable music players, not even 8-tracks. It would be one
| big ren faire of wandering bards creating ad hoc songs for
| coins.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I was thinking more that it would cause companies to have
| no choice but to chill out about copyright... but you're
| kinda selling me on this vision instead.
| geor9e wrote:
| It would be nice to have free AGI lawyers, agreed
| realusername wrote:
| YouTube doesn't respect fair use anyways in any country.
| teeray wrote:
| Because copyright holders hate Fair Use
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Which would be irrelevant except YouTube's copyright strike
| system is effectively run by the copyright holders, and
| thus goes far further than the law requires.
| kernal wrote:
| Not only Remove, but also Trum and even Replace the song.
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| I think they had a similar system before to replace all the audio
| in your video with something from the youtube audio library. The
| first thing in the list was a song called "009 Sound System
| Dreamscape" which became notorious as the background audio for
| tutorials where someone types into notepad due to this system.
|
| I wonder what the pre-eminent audio library song is going to be
| this time.
| segmondy wrote:
| Fitting AI generated music.
| thih9 wrote:
| Now we need a client side algorithm to add that back, perhaps
| provided by a music platform where the user is a subscriber. I'm
| sure streaming services would enjoy this kind of windfall.
| scosman wrote:
| Sync rights are expensive and complicated. Not covered in your
| Spotify subscription.
| mindslight wrote:
| It's covered by my rtorrent subscription.
| zamadatix wrote:
| This is a much better approach, I like it. Does anyone have a
| demo videos of this actually being used from when it was in beta?
| The demo in the video about the feature doesn't demo the results,
| just the UI.
| kragen wrote:
| i wonder if you can use this to make a viral video of someone
| screaming like a lunatic by erasing the loud music they were
| trying to be heard over. like the dean scream video that sunk the
| howard dean presidential campaign
|
| it's disturbing to me when youtube permits post-publication
| editing of videos like this
| Waterluvian wrote:
| It feels quite plausible that soon enough we'll be able to ask it
| to replace copyright music with generated "soundalike" music.
| freedomben wrote:
| We'll see. Rightsholders are doing everything they can to fight
| that, and having the laws and giant corporations all doing
| their bidding makes them much more powerful than "the people."
| They will fight this with everything they have, which is a
| considerable number of billions.
| kelnos wrote:
| I guess it's good that there's a new solution to this problem,
| but I wish it just wasn't a problem in the first place. It's
| ridiculous that someone can't just walk around outside, making a
| video of what they're doing, and post it, without having to worry
| that some copyrighted music is playing in the background for some
| portion of it.
|
| That sort of situation should be considered fair use, and
| copyright owners who attempt to make trouble for people caught up
| in this situation should be slapped down, hard, and fined.
| prox wrote:
| Agreed. It is stupid and vile to use a few words.
|
| I am all for enforcement if it reaches a significant audience
| with commercial interests. But now anyone for any reasons gets
| this crap.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| They can, they just shouldn't expect to be paid for it.
| vanchor3 wrote:
| Personally I would say people should not be able to make
| money off someone else's copyrighted content without
| permission, but someone putting a lot of work into making a
| good video and having someone else claim all the money over
| 10 seconds of audio doesn't seem right either.
| struant wrote:
| Unless the purpose and value of the video is solely
| distribution of the copyrighted music it should be protected
| fair use. If copyright holders don't like it they are free to
| not license their music to be played in public ever.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| > walk around outside, making a video of what they're doing,
| and post it, without having to worry that some copyrighted
| music is playing in the background for some portion of it.
|
| You can, this is called "incidental use" and is an exception to
| copyright in the USA. If you're filming yourself going down the
| street and someone starts playing a song, and you're not going
| out of your easy to capture the copyrighted content, it is
| legal.
|
| YouTube's copyright strike system is more strict than the law,
| probably to kowtow to the music companies serving the YouTube
| Music product in exchange for not having to defend against a
| lawsuit.
|
| If we weren't subject to their monopoly on online video,
| someone could just start telling copyright trolls to pound sand
| when a frivolous complaint comes up.
| talldayo wrote:
| > If we weren't subject to their monopoly on online video,
| someone could just start telling copyright trolls to pound
| sand when a frivolous complaint comes up.
|
| In principle, maybe. But realistically, even if we had a
| competitive and healthy video hosting market, the RIAA would
| still have a legal imperative to moderate those platforms.
| Although we don't perceive them in direct competition with
| YouTube, copyright takedowns still happen on TikTok, Twitter
| and Instagram. Platforms of a certain size become targets for
| IP holders, and platform-owners lack the time or
| accountability to deal with each claim on a case-by-case
| basis. It's less about finding a "someone" to tell-off
| copyright trolls, and more about paying enough lawyers to
| fight Sony & Friends when they make dubious claims.
|
| It's a status-quo that sucks for us humans, but this is what
| intellectual property laws look like as-applied to real life.
| Art, video and even code are all obsessively licensed to
| prevent the accidental proliferation of good ideas.
| clob wrote:
| It's also easier said than done to fend off intelligent and
| determined legal adversaries.
| RajT88 wrote:
| It is pretty ridiculous what their copyright bots flag too.
|
| I recorded a live performance of an orchestra in Barcelona at
| some cathedral. Some version of the song got copyright
| flagged. Really? Flagging live performances of (checks notes)
| a song composed in 1954?
|
| Just bananas.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| > That sort of situation should be considered fair use, and
| copyright owners who attempt to make trouble for people caught
| up in this situation should be slapped down, hard, and fined.
|
| It is considered fair use, but we're not dealing with
| government law here. We're dealing with a private company's
| TOS. In fact, Youtubes entire Copyright "strike" system is just
| a layer in front of "proper" DMCA.
|
| The large, corporate copyright holders are happy with the setup
| since they can basically strike down anything they want without
| worry of legal repercussions (which DMCA addresses). Youtube is
| happy since the large copyright holders are happy. Small
| creators get screwed over, but it doesn't really matter to
| Youtube since there's essentially an endless supply of Youtube
| content creators.
| bmar wrote:
| They should add AI that improves audio as well. Some older MIT
| and Stanford course playlists have pretty bad audio. It would be
| nice if they could just enhance the audio in place.
| djmips wrote:
| I use Nvidia's Broadcast tool to do it locally on my GPU in
| realtime. It works fairly well and has made some older videos,
| especially courses or presentations at conferences satisfactory
| to watch but I agree it would be great if YouTube could
| automatically provide it as a tool as well.
|
| I'm hoping to find a tool that removes umms and ahhhs, mouth
| clicks and other annoying tics.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| This is actually a better solution. If someone complains you can
| scrub it and still maintain your full ownership of the video,
| while still keeping your video watchable.
|
| Replace is nice if it's only the song, but you lose any voice-
| over.
|
| Mute also loses your voice-over.
| ajdude wrote:
| This is essentially how Earworm[1] started
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ
| londons_explore wrote:
| I really wish the content id system was open to all.
|
| Simply default to the first person to upload a piece of video to
| the site 'owns' it. If you're a film studio or something you can
| upload a video and set it to private to 'own' content before you
| release it.
|
| I get that technically scaling content id is hard, but it seems
| like a solvable technical challenge considering the market
| position it would give YouTube as the de facto copyright
| reference index. _Everyone_ has to upload there first unless they
| want to risk getting their content 'owned' by someone else and a
| battle to get it reassigned.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Youtube's eraser tool removes any music that any moron or
| bullshit artist has chosen to claim...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-05 23:00 UTC)