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