4 ms·

> A mandatory filter run on the TV News Archive might catch a famous song used in a political ad or at a campaign rally, and determine that such material must b

by lygaret 10y ago

> A mandatory filter run on the TV News Archive might catch a famous song used in a political ad or at a campaign rally, and determine that such material must be removed. Imagine when that becomes a strategy. If always have copyrighted songs playing in the background of speeches you wish future control over, you can just sue to get those speeches removed over copyright in the background, and the removal propagated to filters everywhere. I like my instant revisionist propaganda with The Beatles playing in the background.

cbanek 10y ago
Hopefully it'll be "Back in the USSR"!
losteric 10y ago
Given an audio file with just the music, couldn't you just remove the background music from the speech?
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  Can you? First, "just" has the connotation of "easy". It's possible that archive.org doesn't have the manpower to manually filter music from speeches, or that the technology isn't good enough to do it automatically. Second, the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music. By transitivity, one could argue that the audio without the music is a derivative work of the music. And whether or not you're right in the abstract, you have to pay a lawyer $500/hour to think about it.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music // Obviously this is technically correct, which is usually the best kind of correct (internet memes can't be wrong). However, legally whilst the work of 'music+speech' is used to acquire the speech the resulting speech is not artistically related to the preexisting 'music' work. The art is supposed to be the bit that copyright protects. In practice Fair Use / Fair Dealing should apply quite easily to the whole work, or indeed a processed derivative used for (eg) news reporting. (The rights holder licensed use at a rally they should thus have anticipated Fair Use reproduction for news/history.) The derailment on that line though would be when the speech is made over music that the speaker didn't get permission to use. Use of arms-length controlled corporations could probably generate such a situation.
pdkl95 10y ago
Jim Sterling already uses a variation of this strategy, which he calls the "Copyright Deadlock"[1]. He discovered it is possible to defeat ContentID-based forced monetization of his videos by including multiple songs/footage from different businesses. [1] (warning: Jim Sterling uses strong language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM
- lygaret 10y ago
  That's gross and amazing, in equal proportion. Thanks!

by lygaret 10y ago

cbanek 10y ago

Hopefully it'll be "Back in the USSR"!

losteric 10y ago

Given an audio file with just the music, couldn't you just remove the background music from the speech?

MichaelBurge 10y ago
Can you? First, "just" has the connotation of "easy". It's possible that archive.org doesn't have the manpower to manually filter music from speeches, or that the technology isn't good enough to do it automatically. Second, the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music. By transitivity, one could argue that the audio without the music is a derivative work of the music. And whether or not you're right in the abstract, you have to pay a lawyer $500/hour to think about it.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music // Obviously this is technically correct, which is usually the best kind of correct (internet memes can't be wrong). However, legally whilst the work of 'music+speech' is used to acquire the speech the resulting speech is not artistically related to the preexisting 'music' work. The art is supposed to be the bit that copyright protects. In practice Fair Use / Fair Dealing should apply quite easily to the whole work, or indeed a processed derivative used for (eg) news reporting. (The rights holder licensed use at a rally they should thus have anticipated Fair Use reproduction for news/history.) The derailment on that line though would be when the speech is made over music that the speaker didn't get permission to use. Use of arms-length controlled corporations could probably generate such a situation.

pdkl95 10y ago

Jim Sterling already uses a variation of this strategy, which he calls the "Copyright Deadlock"[1]. He discovered it is possible to defeat ContentID-based forced monetization of his videos by including multiple songs/footage from different businesses. [1] (warning: Jim Sterling uses strong language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM

lygaret 10y ago
That's gross and amazing, in equal proportion. Thanks!