6 ms·

> "SonyATV & Warner Chappell have claimed 24 of my videos because the royalty free song Dreams by Joakim Karud (from the OFFICIAL YOUTUBE AUDIO LIBRARY BTW) use

by sly010 7y ago

> "SonyATV & Warner Chappell have claimed 24 of my videos because the royalty free song Dreams by Joakim Karud (from the OFFICIAL YOUTUBE AUDIO LIBRARY BTW) uses a sample from Kenny Burrell Quartet’s ‘Weaver of Dream`" Isn't that protected use anyway?

londons_explore 7y ago
Just because it's protected in law doesn't mean YouTube can't have more IP-owner friendly policies.
- jandrese 7y ago
  From YouTube's perspective this makes total sense. Their takedown system is heavily automated because they deal with hours of new video every minute. There are two possibilities for error: 1. False Positive -- Video is brought down despite it being technically legal. Creator is mad, but YouTube suffers no more liability. 2. False Negative -- Big corporate lawyers sue YouTube for hundreds of trillions of dollars for copyright infringement. Also, these corporate lawyers would very much prefer it if you didn't believe in fair use at all. They will try to convince the court that fair use isn't a thing for weird technical reasons, and they might succeed. So naturally the system is tuned to error on the side of generating excessive false positives. Unfortunately the enforcement side doesn't seem to understand how bad the false positive problem is and hits creators with draconian punishments for errors on YouTube's part.
  - Hamcha 7y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with erring on either side, but at least the appeal process should be better vetted. If you know your system is going to fail, which YouTube has so often it generates drama every month, at least avoid putting more salt in the wound by auto-rejecting everything.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      The media cartels are going to get quite testy if they flag someone's videos time and time again and yet the person is allowed to continue posting. They get especially testy when YouTube tells them "no, you are wrong" and put a video back up even though it contains a 2 second segment that your algorithm clearly believes is infringing on something you own. Remember, these are the people who sued individual Napster users for $1.9 million for sharing a single album, and won.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > 1. False Positive -- Video is brought down despite it being technically legal. Creator is mad, but YouTube suffers no more liability. Solution: Create a law that makes it possible for the creator to sue YouTube for a false positive for the same sum that a media company could sue YouTube for for a false negative. This would counterbalance the scales of both types of errors.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      The problem is that a lawsuit takes time and money. MegaCorp Inc. has plenty of both of those, whereas Bob Youtuber probably doesn't want to (or can't!) fight a protracted court battle against an adversary with effectively infinite resources about getting paid for their videos.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        Soutions: a) youtubers can collectivise b) expensive law firms pick it up with the resouces to win (bob gets nothing but knows MegaCorp gets stung) c) use bad publicity - MegaCorps hate bad publicity d) rich people pretend to be bob, get sued, unleash lawyers on MegaCorp and make lots of money, so MegaCorps get very wary of the 'little' people.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        A and B still mean YouTubers have to dedicate a lot of time and energy to a lawsuit. C is possible today (this article is an example). D is interesting but I am skeptical that even in this hypothetical scenario, "do a thing, wait to get sued and then counter-sue" is the most efficient way for rich people to make more money.
    - b3kart 7y ago
      Unfortunately, even if that law existed, how many creators have the financial resources to go to court with someone like YouTube (i.e. Google). I don't think this is the only case where even if you are technically right, you will go bankrupt before you prove that in court. Case in point: the whole existence of patent trolls.
  - theobon 7y ago
    It isn't just the detection algorithm that is tuned to benefit big corporations. The end to end process is asymmetric with automated issuance of copyright claims which need to be manually disputed which appear to be automatically rejected. Then the appeal process has a three strikes rule against channel owners but no apparent punishment for corporations. I can understand tuning the detection algorithm but to balance the dispute process needs to take this into account. The fact that it doesn't shows where Youtube stands on the issue.
msla 7y ago
A video of white noise was hit with multiple copyright claims: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523 > A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise - indistinct electronic hissing - has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him.
- jobigoud 7y ago
  Can we bisect this to figure out the exact fingerprint that triggers a claim?
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    It's the bit that sounds like cashhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
aidenn0 7y ago
IIRC when you want to dispute a claim of copyright infringement there is no box for "This is fair use." Either you assert you have a valid license to use it or say you do not and submit to the removal or monetization by the copyright holder.
microtherion 7y ago
That's a case by case distinction anyway. But as far as I can hear, "Dreams" does not use one short quote, but basically the entire melody of "Dreams" consists of snippets of "Weaver of Dream" looped over and over again. If you believe in music copyrights at all, this looks like an open and shut case of infringement to me. Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music. That said, YouTube represented this as safe to use, so it seems to me that the onus should be on them to work out a license and pay the associated costs. I'm sure Google can find enough change in their couch pillows to pay off the rightsholders.
- jedimastert 7y ago
  > If you believe in music copyrights at all, this looks like an open and shut case of infringement to me. There are some that truly don't believe that sampling copyrights should be a thing. They think it's just a way to stifle creativity. One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording it samples, and as such does not infringe on any intellectual property. > Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement. The comment was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
  - microtherion 7y ago
    > There are some that truly don't believe that sampling copyrights should be a thing That's why I said "if". > One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording That's not what "derivative" means. > You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Maybe not, but in light of your general point about "stifling creativity", it might be worth pointing out that this is hardly a good piece to highlight said creativity.
- emilecantin 7y ago
  > That said, YouTube represented this as safe to use This is the crux of the issue... As someone who's dabbled in video creation, I have other things to do than look around for "safe" music to use. If I can't even take YouTube's own word on what music I can use, what the hell is there left?

by sly010 7y ago

londons_explore 7y ago

Just because it's protected in law doesn't mean YouTube can't have more IP-owner friendly policies.

jandrese 7y ago
From YouTube's perspective this makes total sense. Their takedown system is heavily automated because they deal with hours of new video every minute. There are two possibilities for error: 1. False Positive -- Video is brought down despite it being technically legal. Creator is mad, but YouTube suffers no more liability. 2. False Negative -- Big corporate lawyers sue YouTube for hundreds of trillions of dollars for copyright infringement. Also, these corporate lawyers would very much prefer it if you didn't believe in fair use at all. They will try to convince the court that fair use isn't a thing for weird technical reasons, and they might succeed. So naturally the system is tuned to error on the side of generating excessive false positives. Unfortunately the enforcement side doesn't seem to understand how bad the false positive problem is and hits creators with draconian punishments for errors on YouTube's part.
- Hamcha 7y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with erring on either side, but at least the appeal process should be better vetted. If you know your system is going to fail, which YouTube has so often it generates drama every month, at least avoid putting more salt in the wound by auto-rejecting everything.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    The media cartels are going to get quite testy if they flag someone's videos time and time again and yet the person is allowed to continue posting. They get especially testy when YouTube tells them "no, you are wrong" and put a video back up even though it contains a 2 second segment that your algorithm clearly believes is infringing on something you own. Remember, these are the people who sued individual Napster users for $1.9 million for sharing a single album, and won.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > 1. False Positive -- Video is brought down despite it being technically legal. Creator is mad, but YouTube suffers no more liability. Solution: Create a law that makes it possible for the creator to sue YouTube for a false positive for the same sum that a media company could sue YouTube for for a false negative. This would counterbalance the scales of both types of errors.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    The problem is that a lawsuit takes time and money. MegaCorp Inc. has plenty of both of those, whereas Bob Youtuber probably doesn't want to (or can't!) fight a protracted court battle against an adversary with effectively infinite resources about getting paid for their videos.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      Soutions: a) youtubers can collectivise b) expensive law firms pick it up with the resouces to win (bob gets nothing but knows MegaCorp gets stung) c) use bad publicity - MegaCorps hate bad publicity d) rich people pretend to be bob, get sued, unleash lawyers on MegaCorp and make lots of money, so MegaCorps get very wary of the 'little' people.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        A and B still mean YouTubers have to dedicate a lot of time and energy to a lawsuit. C is possible today (this article is an example). D is interesting but I am skeptical that even in this hypothetical scenario, "do a thing, wait to get sued and then counter-sue" is the most efficient way for rich people to make more money.
  - b3kart 7y ago
    Unfortunately, even if that law existed, how many creators have the financial resources to go to court with someone like YouTube (i.e. Google). I don't think this is the only case where even if you are technically right, you will go bankrupt before you prove that in court. Case in point: the whole existence of patent trolls.
- theobon 7y ago
  It isn't just the detection algorithm that is tuned to benefit big corporations. The end to end process is asymmetric with automated issuance of copyright claims which need to be manually disputed which appear to be automatically rejected. Then the appeal process has a three strikes rule against channel owners but no apparent punishment for corporations. I can understand tuning the detection algorithm but to balance the dispute process needs to take this into account. The fact that it doesn't shows where Youtube stands on the issue.

msla 7y ago

A video of white noise was hit with multiple copyright claims: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523 > A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise - indistinct electronic hissing - has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him.

jobigoud 7y ago
Can we bisect this to figure out the exact fingerprint that triggers a claim?
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  It's the bit that sounds like cashhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

aidenn0 7y ago

IIRC when you want to dispute a claim of copyright infringement there is no box for "This is fair use." Either you assert you have a valid license to use it or say you do not and submit to the removal or monetization by the copyright holder.

microtherion 7y ago

That's a case by case distinction anyway. But as far as I can hear, "Dreams" does not use one short quote, but basically the entire melody of "Dreams" consists of snippets of "Weaver of Dream" looped over and over again. If you believe in music copyrights at all, this looks like an open and shut case of infringement to me. Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music. That said, YouTube represented this as safe to use, so it seems to me that the onus should be on them to work out a license and pay the associated costs. I'm sure Google can find enough change in their couch pillows to pay off the rightsholders.

jedimastert 7y ago
> If you believe in music copyrights at all, this looks like an open and shut case of infringement to me. There are some that truly don't believe that sampling copyrights should be a thing. They think it's just a way to stifle creativity. One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording it samples, and as such does not infringe on any intellectual property. > Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement. The comment was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
- microtherion 7y ago
  > There are some that truly don't believe that sampling copyrights should be a thing That's why I said "if". > One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording That's not what "derivative" means. > You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Maybe not, but in light of your general point about "stifling creativity", it might be worth pointing out that this is hardly a good piece to highlight said creativity.
emilecantin 7y ago
> That said, YouTube represented this as safe to use This is the crux of the issue... As someone who's dabbled in video creation, I have other things to do than look around for "safe" music to use. If I can't even take YouTube's own word on what music I can use, what the hell is there left?