7 ms·

A few days ago, I wrote about a very similar problem that I'm going through at this very moment. Basically, I recorded myself playing a song that was written 1

A few days ago, I wrote about a very similar problem that I'm going through at this very moment. Basically, I recorded myself playing a song that was written 133 years ago, whose composer died 118 years ago. The copyright claim is that I used a melody owned by ASCAP, ICE_CS. But the melody is long in public domain. It is impossible for this melody to be copyrighted. (Also, just to cover the bases of "what if...", I want to clarify that the melody has been correctly identified as the melody written (and published) 133 years ago.) And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it. I, on the other hand, can't monitize it at all because my channel is very small. This is theft.

raverbashing 7y ago
It's probably matching an existing recording, not the composition. (Which does not excuse YT or the claimant in the least for this BS)
- rtkwe 7y ago
  That's clearly what's happening and it's the problem with the system, it has no way to determine if a song is actually the original recording or if it is an original performance based off of a public domain song played correctly the two will be largely identical (to the satisfaction of an algorithm designed to not be fooled by small pace changes in the different performances). It seem ridiculous that (it seems) the Youtube provided royalty free tracks aren't explicitly stored in the Content ID system as un-claimable songs. It would probably require modifications to privilege those matches before others but if you can't even count on music provided by YT I don't see how any creator could feel safe using any music in their work.
e40 7y ago
Same happened to me years ago, when I uploaded my son playing a piano piece written in the 1800's. Immediately locked. What a complete joke. It's theft and someone should be criminally prosecuted.
- chimi 7y ago
  You and the GP should have both stopped before saying "It's theft." It's not theft, not even close. You gave them the video and they said they do not want the video -- for whatever reason. You don't have a right to upload content to YouTube. You do have a right to your property, your video and music you've created. They didn't take it from you. They aren't making money on it and not paying you. You don't have a right to force YouTube to display and distribute that content on their website. Imagine if Columbia records was forced to distribute any and all music sent to it on a demo tape. Columbia saying, "No, we won't distribute this" is not theft. Columbia would be within their rights to say, "Your music sounds too much like Taylor Swift to us. Sorry. It's too big of a risk for us to distribute it." That's exactly what YouTube is doing. They are saying, your music is too much of a risk for us to distribute based on our algorithms. You can still go to Vimeo or soundcloud or build your own website to distribute your music, just like the aforementioned artist that sounds too much like Taylor Swift could go to Arista or upload it to youtube or or soundcloud.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    Seems a bit more like you sending your tape to Colombia and them deciding to distribute it but give all proceeds to some other guy with no relation to your music. ed: You’ve edited your comment but I was referring more to the GP case where they say > And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it. That is exactly Youtube making money on the video and not paying the owner
    - chimi 7y ago
      That's not what I understood when I read it the GP saying: >And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it. By "they," I think he meant: ASCAP, ICE_CS, not YouTube. The problem is that ASCAP, ICE_CS has claimed copyright to something, which they are right to do and that is their performance of the public domain work. Since it sounds like the same work that the GP uploaded, the GP's music was locked. I am no fan of YouTube's profiting off copyrighted material, I think it's unethical, and in this instance I do not believe that is what they are doing. I believe they have written algorithms to prevent copyright infringement and it is over-fitting on the GP's works. The GP said they are "claiming copyright on my music" but I don't see any evidence for that. I do see evidence that ASCAP, ICE_CS claim copyright on their performance of the same music as the GP. Yes, the solution is to have a person in there to be smarter than the AI, but YouTube has said it's not worth it to them to do that and so I believe that is their right. In this case, the GP's claim is that ASCAP, ICE_CS is doing something wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I think everyone here is doing something right and a bad thing has come from that. Theft is wrong. There is no wrongdoing here.
cptaj 7y ago
This is why due process is needed. These platform companies should be regulated after a certain size to enforce proper arbitrage. Arbitrarily cutting off people's livelihoods is completely unacceptable. It should be innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof should be on the one making allegations.
- dwild 7y ago
  > The burden of proof should be on the one making allegations. It's not only a copyright infringement for the one making the video, it's one for Youtube too for sharing it. It still is, Youtube isn't forced to remove the content or sharing the monetization. They just prefer this to the alternative of being responsible for sharing that content. What's needed is laws that absolve Youtube of copyright infringement outside of the content they produce themselves, and instead shift the blame to the content owner.
rolltiide 7y ago
Get San Bruno police to seize Youtube headquarters with civil forfeiture statutes under suspicion of it being used in the commission of a crime. We'll get Youtube's attention and rich people will get civil forfeiture laws repealed.

raverbashing 7y ago

It's probably matching an existing recording, not the composition. (Which does not excuse YT or the claimant in the least for this BS)

rtkwe 7y ago
That's clearly what's happening and it's the problem with the system, it has no way to determine if a song is actually the original recording or if it is an original performance based off of a public domain song played correctly the two will be largely identical (to the satisfaction of an algorithm designed to not be fooled by small pace changes in the different performances). It seem ridiculous that (it seems) the Youtube provided royalty free tracks aren't explicitly stored in the Content ID system as un-claimable songs. It would probably require modifications to privilege those matches before others but if you can't even count on music provided by YT I don't see how any creator could feel safe using any music in their work.

e40 7y ago

Same happened to me years ago, when I uploaded my son playing a piano piece written in the 1800's. Immediately locked. What a complete joke. It's theft and someone should be criminally prosecuted.

chimi 7y ago
You and the GP should have both stopped before saying "It's theft." It's not theft, not even close. You gave them the video and they said they do not want the video -- for whatever reason. You don't have a right to upload content to YouTube. You do have a right to your property, your video and music you've created. They didn't take it from you. They aren't making money on it and not paying you. You don't have a right to force YouTube to display and distribute that content on their website. Imagine if Columbia records was forced to distribute any and all music sent to it on a demo tape. Columbia saying, "No, we won't distribute this" is not theft. Columbia would be within their rights to say, "Your music sounds too much like Taylor Swift to us. Sorry. It's too big of a risk for us to distribute it." That's exactly what YouTube is doing. They are saying, your music is too much of a risk for us to distribute based on our algorithms. You can still go to Vimeo or soundcloud or build your own website to distribute your music, just like the aforementioned artist that sounds too much like Taylor Swift could go to Arista or upload it to youtube or or soundcloud.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ubercow13 7y ago
  Seems a bit more like you sending your tape to Colombia and them deciding to distribute it but give all proceeds to some other guy with no relation to your music. ed: You’ve edited your comment but I was referring more to the GP case where they say > And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it. That is exactly Youtube making money on the video and not paying the owner
  - chimi 7y ago
    That's not what I understood when I read it the GP saying: >And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it. By "they," I think he meant: ASCAP, ICE_CS, not YouTube. The problem is that ASCAP, ICE_CS has claimed copyright to something, which they are right to do and that is their performance of the public domain work. Since it sounds like the same work that the GP uploaded, the GP's music was locked. I am no fan of YouTube's profiting off copyrighted material, I think it's unethical, and in this instance I do not believe that is what they are doing. I believe they have written algorithms to prevent copyright infringement and it is over-fitting on the GP's works. The GP said they are "claiming copyright on my music" but I don't see any evidence for that. I do see evidence that ASCAP, ICE_CS claim copyright on their performance of the same music as the GP. Yes, the solution is to have a person in there to be smarter than the AI, but YouTube has said it's not worth it to them to do that and so I believe that is their right. In this case, the GP's claim is that ASCAP, ICE_CS is doing something wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I think everyone here is doing something right and a bad thing has come from that. Theft is wrong. There is no wrongdoing here.

cptaj 7y ago

This is why due process is needed. These platform companies should be regulated after a certain size to enforce proper arbitrage. Arbitrarily cutting off people's livelihoods is completely unacceptable. It should be innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof should be on the one making allegations.

dwild 7y ago
> The burden of proof should be on the one making allegations. It's not only a copyright infringement for the one making the video, it's one for Youtube too for sharing it. It still is, Youtube isn't forced to remove the content or sharing the monetization. They just prefer this to the alternative of being responsible for sharing that content. What's needed is laws that absolve Youtube of copyright infringement outside of the content they produce themselves, and instead shift the blame to the content owner.

rolltiide 7y ago

Get San Bruno police to seize Youtube headquarters with civil forfeiture statutes under suspicion of it being used in the commission of a crime. We'll get Youtube's attention and rich people will get civil forfeiture laws repealed.