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.
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 I frankly think our government is broken and outdated to accommodate the complexities and speed of modern society.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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
no, but a 10YO troll in Brazil sure can get the FBI to raid the home of an American streamer they don't like.
Not saying it's even by any means, but it's better than zero human response. There will at least be some case in a govt. record should some bad actor keep getting reported, unlike Google.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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".
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."
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.
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.
I see where you’re coming from. But a class-action suit from nearly every user that has used public domain copyrighted material and couldn’t monetize it seems just as bad.
> 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.
> 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.
>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.
no, but being compliant in fraud goes farther than arbitrarily banning a user. Not a lawyer, and odds are there's not enough care to address this point legally anyway. But I don't think the potential case here is as open and shut as "we have the rights to refuse service".
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?
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.
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...
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?
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.
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?
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....
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
The book is from the UK, I'm in Australia, it didn't seem a ridiculous thing to say to either of us. Maybe the problem was...US sensitivities. I, like I believe the KLF also, am white and have dedicated most of my life to the music of "blacks of African descent". The issue is how much more important groove is in black music, and how copyright is in origin a white thing. Changing copyright would no doubt be a massive, heroic, lifelong task. Like the way it took Douglas Nicholls[0] 30 years work to remove a racist sentence and a bit from the Australian constitution! I just don't hear calling for a hero here as a negative thing at all, the way evidently some people do.
Did any black people have a problem with the quote? I am curious.
Groove is just as important to many non-black people, so saying that only black people would care about this is annoying me. Anyway, I don't have the ability to downvote things, I can only speak for why I didn't like the phrasing.
Small world I guess, I used to be a random nobody, I guess now people have something to recognize me by. I also release music under the name Dream Scatter by the way.
> saying that only black people would care about this is annoying me.
..But I think no-one said "only black people would care about this".
Like also I think no-one said "We need black people to change this copyright system" or "this is an issue between black and white people".
I'm not sure the quote is 100% serious, if they really thought things can or will be changed in their suggested way. But if I think about it, which I didn't until people said stuff like "Making it about race is extremely ridiculous."—it just seemed a commendable but unremarkable sentiment, one I never dreamed anyone could have a problem with—suggesting a black lawyer seems apt, for reasons something to do with what could be called self-determination. It would be more awesome and appropriate if black people righted the historic wrong, than if white people did it for them because poor black people can't do it on their own. Etc.
Ok, thanks, I think I learnt something about what your and other peoples' problem was/is, and I hope you learnt something about "my side", where what is extremely ridiculous is someone having problems with the noble desire expressed in that quote. But I guess it's hard here where we don't know each other at all, and don't know about what it seems are the unshared assumptions and beliefs that made my quoting a few lines on fixing copyright from a classic book from the 1980s into something extremely ridiculous and annoying in 2021. ..Ok thanks again.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Even if there's no money involved that can still damage the market for the work it derives from. It's one thing if the derivative work consists of original characters in the same setting, or existing characters but in a what-if scenario, but as soon as you start trying to write derivative works in the same vein as the original then you're damaging the original author's ability to market his existing work, and to continue that work himself. You are, in a very real sense, taking something that isn't yours.
That's great if you ignore the fact that almost all our ideas are borrowed. Copyrights work against the movement of ideas - the ground culture springs from. It is artificial scarcity, like DRM, unnatural in the domain of information.
> as soon as you start trying to write derivative works in the same vein as the original then you're damaging the original author's ability to market his existing work
That seems ridiculous. How would expanding literature hurt it? It would be like free PR for the original. Art (tales, legends, stories, music and potry) used to be orally transmitted, we forgot that too, with every retelling it was reinterpreted and adapted. Even Tolkien didn't invent the elves and Rowling didn't invent sorcery.
depends on the derivative. I can't make a story about hogwarts. But I can make a story about a girl with a scar who gets enrolled in a magical academy. And I probably just described 20 works with that description. But I think the legal definition of "derivative work" isn't that loose.
The more gray areas for derivative work is stuff like fan art, translations, and remixes. All are technically in the area to be copyright'd, but at the same time it also helps publishers in essentially being free, natural advertisement.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
> 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...
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.
> 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.
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)
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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?)
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....
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.
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 ?
The reason why Google is not accused of hosting copyrighted content is because they somehow managed to sell the fiction that streaming and download are two totally different things. The slightest touch can make that fiction dissipate.
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.
I'm open to having a conversation about it. What does the space look like between "no the public does not have standing", and "the public has standing individually or as a class"? What are the tradeoffs at those boundaries, and how can we work towards creative solutions that exist in the space between those extremes?
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.
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.
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
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.
The original question was whether or not audio could be fingerprinted from white noise, or if compression would obscure that fingerprint. The original context was YouTube videos specifically.
Sufficient to support the latter assertion was that lossy compression is frequently used.
YouTube's webm does in fact use lossy compression as noted. MP3 is, I assert, still significantly used in multiple contexts, including many podcast sites. I haven't specifically surveyed those, and don't use Apple Podcasts myself (never bought into the ecosystem, though as it happens, this specific response is coming from a MacOS system). I do make heavy use of tools such as youtube-dl and mpv, and find that those do in fact frequently find and extract mp3 audio from various sources, including podcasts and IIRC Soundcloud.
Verification is as simple as:
youtube-dl -F <URL>
The '-F' flag will list available downloadable formats.
E.g.:
$ youtube-dl -F 'https://soundcloud.com/danyork/tdyr-362-thoughts-on-wordpress'
[soundcloud] danyork/tdyr-362-thoughts-on-wordpress: Downloading info JSON
[soundcloud] None: Downloading webpage
[soundcloud] None: Downloading webpage
[soundcloud] danyork/tdyr-362-thoughts-on-wordpress: Downloading info JSON
[soundcloud] 637919466: Downloading JSON metadata
[soundcloud] 637919466: Downloading JSON metadata
[soundcloud] 637919466: Downloading JSON metadata
[info] Available formats for 637919466:
format code extension resolution note
hls_opus_64 opus audio only audio@ 64k
hls_mp3_128 mp3 audio only audio@128k
http_mp3_128 mp3 audio only audio@128k (best)
Pedants are my fourth favourite people, but only during Lent on leap years, prior to Vespers, during a blue moon.
'Opus (audio format) - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Opus_(audio_format)
CELT includes both spectral replication and noise generation, similar to AAC's SBR and PNS'
Podcasts are pretty niche. Almost all codec use these days is from streaming services or video/phone calls - YouTube, Spotify, WhatsApp, etc. None of those use MP3.
> Another notable addition in this version of the AAC standard is Perceptual Noise Substitution (PNS). In that regard, the AAC profiles (AAC-LC, AAC Main and AAC-SSR profiles) are combined with perceptual noise substitution and are defined in the MPEG-4 audio standard as Audio Object Types.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
>or content that children would be particularly attracted to, like nature documentaries.
maybe times have changed, but you could not pay me to sit through a nature documentary back when I was 8.
nature content is a very weird gray area of content in terms of age ratings. It's technically just, well, nature. But then there can definitely be "just nature" content you don't want a kid to see.
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.
> 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.
What if someone exploited this to such an extent that Google could no longer ignore the issue? All someone needs to do is write an open source library that automates this. Almost like exposing a security flaw to the public to force the company to fix it. Sure it would enable bad actors but it would subvert them in the long run. I feel this may be the only way to force the company's hand as an individual.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
I'd take that bet. There's a lot the agorithm does, but there's also a lot of companies and people sharing links to the videos. Any new movie trailer or album drop would definitely be linked from twitter or some company homepage. And I wager those are what make up the most views.
But I wouldn't be surprised to be right or wrong on this. the recommendations certainly aren't a tiny portion.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
that feels overly reductive and conductive to the majority of trades and hobbies today. If a court ruled based on this concept, antitrust wouldn't exist as a concept.
"the difference between an artistic person and a non-artistic person is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
"the difference between a Spanish speaking person and a non-spanish speaking person is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
"the difference between a guitar player and a non-guitar player is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
The more common case of this is :
1. most people aren't "motivated" enough to learn a new skill, especially one that is only indirect to their goal. I COULD learn HTML and host my own website, or I pay some template site $30 and get my portfolio up. Even back in my college days, $30 was worth an a few hours of my work time. well worth a few hours to let someone else keep my portfolio up. Paid off well in hindsight.
2. There isn't time to lean every sub step to your goal, which is why various scaffolding exists. I didn't need to understand how my OS, web browser, nor web server worked in order to send this comment. And I wouldn't send it if it wasn't convenient to do so.
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.)
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.
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.
>In the general case, someone (or some thing) can sue for pretty much any reason whatsoever.
in the general case, copyright trolls aren't going to pursue Joe Schmoe over their indie band cover. you'd put hundreds in and barely make pennies back even if you win.
But in the youtube case, it's an easy profit with little consequence. Suing is easy, but costly. DMCA's is easy and zero cost, especially once you automate it.
True. Though YouTube's ContentID / 3-strikes system isn't even the DMCA process. It's easier yet for the claimant.
It does help reduce the legal threat to YouTube itself. The company is more likely to be sued by a large copyright holder than its many small video uploaders. Though the latter have been known to show up in a disgruntled state of mind and with harmful intent at HQ. That risk is also shifted, from shareholders to employees and contractors.
YouTube from a risk perspective is grotesquely fascinating.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I went digging.
APRA = Australasian Performing Right Association Limited
ECAD = Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
It would also create an arbitrage opportunity for investors who could inspect the copyright situation and put up the $1000 and collect at the end. The system would work well.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ISIL? I guess when you have a culture that totally shuns the existing international framework they're unlikely to be able to or interested in competing with youtube.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I didn't know this. Thank you. I hope FB finally allows me to appeal against the block they have placed on my domain on sharing debugger citing "community guidelines".
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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)
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!
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.)
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.
Too easy for bad actors to create multiple accounts or game this system. I think this would end up hurting genuine claimants of actual pirated works more that it would help the wrongly accused.
That's putting a lot of trust in YouTube that they'll find every claim you make to be valid. Someone could make a dozen accounts with a dozen duplicate/similar versions of your song, you dispute all of them, are found in the right on 9 claims and in the wrong on 3, your account gets 3 wrong accusation strikes and you channel gets banned while the other person then marks one of those knockoffs as the official one.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
> 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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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 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:
> 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
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.
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.
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.
There are non-expired mechanical reproduction copyrights for Beethoven music. (Basically any time someone plays from Beethoven's score, or a modernized but public domain version of it a new creative work is created with the corresponding copyrights.)
So for this reason YT might have some minimal justification for handling "old classical music" (but it is not based on copyright of a long dead composer, but on the "mechanical reproduction" copyright of some orchestra/artist).
Now, that said. If they can't distinguish between performances, then it should not be left to them.
And, anyway, the real problem is the fucked up bias in favoring the claimers.
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.
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:
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
502 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 331 ms ] threadI think it's high time these platforms saw some regulation. It's ridiculous what they are allowed to get away with.
It's tempting to answer failures in regulation with cries for more regulation..
This is Google's poorly implemented system to satisfy big studio creators to publish on YouTube.
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
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.
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.
As you don't want to risk 3 strike, you agree to share revenue.
Basically Youtube doing nothing.
Not saying it's even by any means, but it's better than zero human response. There will at least be some case in a govt. record should some bad actor keep getting reported, unlike Google.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
(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.
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.
(Humans can't really solve this problem either.)
Might not be a function of the data in the video, but they can throw more data from elsewhere at it.
no, but being compliant in fraud goes farther than arbitrarily banning a user. Not a lawyer, and odds are there's not enough care to address this point legally anyway. But I don't think the potential case here is as open and shut as "we have the rights to refuse service".
Being a non-profit organisation doesn't make you immune from frivolous lawsuits...
Google won't get the ad money from these views. That's the point.
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?
No such thing exists. Using "reputation damage" in context of YouTube, or any Google service really doesn't make any sense.
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.
- 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
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.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo...
https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/
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).
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.
The book is from the UK, I'm in Australia, it didn't seem a ridiculous thing to say to either of us. Maybe the problem was...US sensitivities. I, like I believe the KLF also, am white and have dedicated most of my life to the music of "blacks of African descent". The issue is how much more important groove is in black music, and how copyright is in origin a white thing. Changing copyright would no doubt be a massive, heroic, lifelong task. Like the way it took Douglas Nicholls[0] 30 years work to remove a racist sentence and a bit from the Australian constitution! I just don't hear calling for a hero here as a negative thing at all, the way evidently some people do.
Did any black people have a problem with the quote? I am curious.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26980084
p.s. wow, it's you! I checked out your github and website (crucialflow) a few months ago, hehe small world. proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153386
Small world I guess, I used to be a random nobody, I guess now people have something to recognize me by. I also release music under the name Dream Scatter by the way.
..But I think no-one said "only black people would care about this".
Like also I think no-one said "We need black people to change this copyright system" or "this is an issue between black and white people".
I'm not sure the quote is 100% serious, if they really thought things can or will be changed in their suggested way. But if I think about it, which I didn't until people said stuff like "Making it about race is extremely ridiculous."—it just seemed a commendable but unremarkable sentiment, one I never dreamed anyone could have a problem with—suggesting a black lawyer seems apt, for reasons something to do with what could be called self-determination. It would be more awesome and appropriate if black people righted the historic wrong, than if white people did it for them because poor black people can't do it on their own. Etc.
Ok, thanks, I think I learnt something about what your and other peoples' problem was/is, and I hope you learnt something about "my side", where what is extremely ridiculous is someone having problems with the noble desire expressed in that quote. But I guess it's hard here where we don't know each other at all, and don't know about what it seems are the unshared assumptions and beliefs that made my quoting a few lines on fixing copyright from a classic book from the 1980s into something extremely ridiculous and annoying in 2021. ..Ok thanks again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF
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.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
I think putting such constraints on creative work is a cultural disaster.
> as soon as you start trying to write derivative works in the same vein as the original then you're damaging the original author's ability to market his existing work
That seems ridiculous. How would expanding literature hurt it? It would be like free PR for the original. Art (tales, legends, stories, music and potry) used to be orally transmitted, we forgot that too, with every retelling it was reinterpreted and adapted. Even Tolkien didn't invent the elves and Rowling didn't invent sorcery.
The more gray areas for derivative work is stuff like fan art, translations, and remixes. All are technically in the area to be copyright'd, but at the same time it also helps publishers in essentially being free, natural advertisement.
Look at Peertube or other free as in freedom options.
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.
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.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en&ref_...
> 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.
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.
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...
Only a judge acting in a court of law can decide if something is fair use. All else is speculation.
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.
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.
Google has the means to make this stop.
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.
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?
So guilty until proven innocent seems like a perfectly reasonable, if very annoying, stance.
(And, there's no monopoly situation here in any case.)
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.
Can any of us initiate a case and it becomes a class, or?
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.
But, there will still be repeated sections.
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.
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).
Apple Podcasts are AAC. Spotify are Ogg Vorbis. That probably covers 90% of the market right there.
Sufficient to support the latter assertion was that lossy compression is frequently used.
YouTube's webm does in fact use lossy compression as noted. MP3 is, I assert, still significantly used in multiple contexts, including many podcast sites. I haven't specifically surveyed those, and don't use Apple Podcasts myself (never bought into the ecosystem, though as it happens, this specific response is coming from a MacOS system). I do make heavy use of tools such as youtube-dl and mpv, and find that those do in fact frequently find and extract mp3 audio from various sources, including podcasts and IIRC Soundcloud.
Verification is as simple as:
The '-F' flag will list available downloadable formats.E.g.:
Pedants are my fourth favourite people, but only during Lent on leap years, prior to Vespers, during a blue moon.'Opus (audio format) - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Opus_(audio_format) CELT includes both spectral replication and noise generation, similar to AAC's SBR and PNS'
Does opus have a notion of bitrates similar to mp3 or ogg vorbis? If so, the white noise would vary among bitrates.
How do they preserve or modify white noise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
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.
So if you submit white noise to a copyright database, it could match different white noise recordings.
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.
https://www.youredm.com/2015/11/28/soundcloud-finally-goes-t...
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
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.
> 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.
maybe times have changed, but you could not pay me to sit through a nature documentary back when I was 8.
nature content is a very weird gray area of content in terms of age ratings. It's technically just, well, nature. But then there can definitely be "just nature" content you don't want a kid to see.
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.
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.
I'd take that bet. There's a lot the agorithm does, but there's also a lot of companies and people sharing links to the videos. Any new movie trailer or album drop would definitely be linked from twitter or some company homepage. And I wager those are what make up the most views.
But I wouldn't be surprised to be right or wrong on this. the recommendations certainly aren't a tiny portion.
And so many more created.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
For a musician, the learning and upkeep is a lot of time that would better be spent creating; making a living.
Way to go...
that feels overly reductive and conductive to the majority of trades and hobbies today. If a court ruled based on this concept, antitrust wouldn't exist as a concept.
"the difference between an artistic person and a non-artistic person is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
"the difference between a Spanish speaking person and a non-spanish speaking person is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
"the difference between a guitar player and a non-guitar player is that the former decided to learn what is needed. All the information is on the internet"
The more common case of this is :
1. most people aren't "motivated" enough to learn a new skill, especially one that is only indirect to their goal. I COULD learn HTML and host my own website, or I pay some template site $30 and get my portfolio up. Even back in my college days, $30 was worth an a few hours of my work time. well worth a few hours to let someone else keep my portfolio up. Paid off well in hindsight.
2. There isn't time to lean every sub step to your goal, which is why various scaffolding exists. I didn't need to understand how my OS, web browser, nor web server worked in order to send this comment. And I wouldn't send it if it wasn't convenient to do so.
(The parent comment wasn't the best comment, ever, I agree.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html the "In Comments" part.
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.
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.
in the general case, copyright trolls aren't going to pursue Joe Schmoe over their indie band cover. you'd put hundreds in and barely make pennies back even if you win.
But in the youtube case, it's an easy profit with little consequence. Suing is easy, but costly. DMCA's is easy and zero cost, especially once you automate it.
It does help reduce the legal threat to YouTube itself. The company is more likely to be sued by a large copyright holder than its many small video uploaders. Though the latter have been known to show up in a disgruntled state of mind and with harmful intent at HQ. That risk is also shifted, from shareholders to employees and contractors.
YouTube from a risk perspective is grotesquely fascinating.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
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.
If that went away the next easiest option (scary letters) would happen again. DMCA or not.
[0] https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights
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.
- APRA_CS
- ECAD_CS
- SOCAN
- VCPMC_CS
APRA: Australasian Performing Right Association
ECAD: Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição
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/
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).
Maybe I'm wrong ... counter evidence welcomed.
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.
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.
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.
This would get rid of all bots and most false claims
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.
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.
This is the crux of the issue. The DMCA needs to be amended so that filing an incorrect claim comes with some risk.
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.
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.
I think the three copyright strikes have to take place within 90 days. Unless I am confusing community guidelines strikes with copyright strikes.
Is this where we must point out that the entire ContentID system was designed to protect bad actors, because it was written by them?
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”.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
I have used it in the past and it works.
there's the rub .. in the OP's example, the strike wasn't cleared
Why has no such thing emerged?
I'm just trying to look at the root problem here and how to overcome it.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
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.
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.
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".
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...
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.
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.
Thankfully Peertube appears to be gaining some traction due to its compatibility with Mastodon.
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.
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.
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
- a paid video upload account in a place where we're not the product (vimeo)
- self hosting (PeerTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU TED talk
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.)
Of course, that I don't ever look at it without an ad blocker makes it somewhat more difficult.
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!
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/
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
Especially since there’s no strike for copyright holders if they issue a false claim.
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.
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.
So for this reason YT might have some minimal justification for handling "old classical music" (but it is not based on copyright of a long dead composer, but on the "mechanical reproduction" copyright of some orchestra/artist).
Now, that said. If they can't distinguish between performances, then it should not be left to them.
And, anyway, the real problem is the fucked up bias in favoring the claimers.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Use peertube or any other decent video platform.
AHH, but you want the sweet YT cash.