7 ms·

Since the start of quarantine I've been live-streaming Catholic Masses where the choir and schola take pride in their ability to sing polyphony and chant which

by mikece 6y ago

Since the start of quarantine I've been live-streaming Catholic Masses where the choir and schola take pride in their ability to sing polyphony and chant which you typically never hear these days and which has always been in the public domain. However, because commercial recordings exist of these works, every single Sunday I've got to file protests against the copyright notices, pointing out that these are live, original performances of works that were in the public domain for over 200 years (over 1500 in some cases). No matter, if a recording of this music exists then CLEARLY no human could have possibly duplicated, in the year 2020, a melody and text that was already ancient a millennium ago. I realize this is machine learning and music sampling but I'm a tad surprised that the dataset cannot include a field such as "this recording is of public domain music"... and after a YouTube channel has to keep saying "No, I'm not playing someone else's CDs, we have a choir singing these live -- can't you hear the imperfections and that the soprano missed that eighth?" I suspect that at some point the channel will be cancelled because its too much of a copyright hazard.

smitty1e 6y ago
The good news is that the means to roll your own system are within reach. Maybe YouTube just has to commit copyright seppuku to achieve enlightenment.
- thatswrong0 6y ago
  It's not really Youtube's fault though. The copyright system in the USA is absolute garbage and stifles creativity and innovation.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    It's absolutely Youtube's fault. Nothing in the existing body of law requires them to proactively block copyrighted material from their platform. They only have to act on DMCA takedown notices in the required timeframe. Their automation obsession has resulted in a firehose of erroneous takedowns that 100% aren't required by law, and they deserve all the ridicule and damage to their business that comes with that.
    - badprose 6y ago
      It's not just YouTube that's automation obsessed. The groups filing the DMCA takedowns are also automatically scanning and flagging content on YouTube.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        The vast majority of content YouTube removes is not due to DMCA requests. It's pretty dumb to file DMCA requests with YouTube, because their manual claim process is easier to do and operates outside of the legal framework of the DMCA.
      - Figs 6y ago
        If YouTube actually followed the law instead of making up their own bullshit system those people could be sued for damages in court for filing false take down notices!
        kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        I'd like to see the lawyers censured for barratry.
        kitotik 6y ago
        If YouTube actually followed the law it would have been shutdown even before google bought them.
    - acituan 6y ago
      > Nothing in the existing body of law requires them to proactively block copyrighted material from their platform The fight doesn’t have to take place in the realm of law. At best copyright holders would have sued youtube into oblivion if they didn’t do proactive takedowns. At worst, well considering that Comcast owns both tons of copyrighted property (through Universal Studios) and major telecommunication infrastructure, I can’t imagine how dirty they can play if they had to.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
invertedIdea 6y ago
The idea is: Google doesn't want to get sued, Google needs to make money, Google is a middle-man extracting ad dollars from eyeballs, and paying royalties to living, litigious content owners. So they will push music attached to dollars, according to the strictest legal terms of the loudest, most punishing complaints. Everything else is ignored, and thus sinks, or gets shoved off the top of the index by greed beasts that ignore courtesy, decency and rules. Obnoxious greed beasts are sociopathic, and will game every tool Google arms them with. They want to be ranked highest for all keywords, as cheaply as possible. So, how does one invert this payola scheme, as an eyeball used to justify advertising profits? You have to tear the greed beasts limb from limb. It may not be obvious, but the people that are filing spurious claims against you, are not good faith actors. They are the sock puppets of people who stand to make money from the keywords you stand to outshine all others on. You are likely crowding out low quality losers, who unfortunately have enough money to buy off-shore social media fleshbots that protest for them in surrogate.
fsflover 6y ago
Consider publishing your work on PeerTube.
- mikece 6y ago
  That supports live streaming? The “live” aspect is the reason we’re doing this at all since The State has been issuing “Thou Shalt Not Go To Church” orders for over a month.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    There are plenty of options for streaming that don't have trigger-happy copyright detection algorithms because they don't host static videos. Worst case, I've heard of people throwing together their own P2P video chat web app using WebRTC in just a few hours.
- Larrikin 6y ago
  Are there tools to publish to both at the same time
hardsoftnfloppy 6y ago
Use DTube, spread the gospel and the gospel my brother.
save_ferris 6y ago
> I'm a tad surprised that the dataset cannot include a field such as "this recording is of public domain music" If there's not a financial incentive to prevent situations like this, the likelihood that YouTube will correct it is approximately nil. The sad truth is that the parties controlling the recordings that YouTube's algos erroneously protect are probably worth more to them financially than some church that broadcasts these performances.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  This is an excellent, albeit seemingly unintentional, critique of capitalism. In a nutshell, if it doesn't make money, it's probably not happening.
  - ARandomerDude 6y ago
    Strange comment on a free forum (HN), with multi-industry fame.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Are you trying to argue that HN doesn't make money? Because, I'm sure Paul Graham might have something to say about that. The forum itself might literally be free to users, but the marketing value to YC is priceless.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      How is the fact that this forum is free to post on relevant to the argument? The vast majority of sites that support comments (including YouTube) are free to post on.
  - basilgohar 6y ago
    I don't know why parent's comments were downvoted, but this captures the same sentiment that is often reiterated frequently, "the market will correct/adapt" or "market forces will adjust" and so on.
kube-system 6y ago
> "No, I'm not playing someone else's CDs, we have a choir singing these live -- can't you hear the imperfections and that the soprano missed that eighth?" That's precisely the issue. It is technologically impossible to solve the problem by analyzing the audio. 1. Two different performances could be audibly indistinguishable. 2. An infringing copy isn't necessarily indistinguishable. Often they have their own imperfections.
choward 6y ago
That's pretty bad and another reason I can't stand artificial scarcity. I think information itself should be free. There are other ways to make money off of it. It's trivial to transfer TBs of data. Any laws and rules you come up with are completely arbitrary. Companies transfer mass amounts of user data continually. But when people share data companies "own" its all of the sudden illegal. Libraries could not be "invented" in today's society unless they only contained user data and only could be visited by corporate interests.
jhymn 6y ago
Would you mind linking to your live-stream recordings? I love listening to choral chants and whatnot. Very soothing.
specialist 6y ago
That's both unfortunate and infuriating. Are there other hosting options? Vimeo, one of the podcasting "networks", or even a terrestrial radio station which has online archives?
orastor 6y ago
Could you share the channel with us?
- mikece 6y ago
  Pretty much every live-stream listed on https://www.LatinMass.live https://www.LatinMass.live
soonix 6y ago
(not addressing the original problem "false copyright notices", but) what about streaming to Twitch? Admittedly, they are mainly doing game streaming, so probably unknown to your intended audience, but they'd probably simply click on a link in your announcement, anyway. I didn't find out whether they consider religious content as controversial or otherwise unwanted on their platform, but from the overall view, it looks fine.

by mikece 6y ago

smitty1e 6y ago

The good news is that the means to roll your own system are within reach. Maybe YouTube just has to commit copyright seppuku to achieve enlightenment.

thatswrong0 6y ago
It's not really Youtube's fault though. The copyright system in the USA is absolute garbage and stifles creativity and innovation.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  It's absolutely Youtube's fault. Nothing in the existing body of law requires them to proactively block copyrighted material from their platform. They only have to act on DMCA takedown notices in the required timeframe. Their automation obsession has resulted in a firehose of erroneous takedowns that 100% aren't required by law, and they deserve all the ridicule and damage to their business that comes with that.
  - badprose 6y ago
    It's not just YouTube that's automation obsessed. The groups filing the DMCA takedowns are also automatically scanning and flagging content on YouTube.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      The vast majority of content YouTube removes is not due to DMCA requests. It's pretty dumb to file DMCA requests with YouTube, because their manual claim process is easier to do and operates outside of the legal framework of the DMCA.
    - Figs 6y ago
      If YouTube actually followed the law instead of making up their own bullshit system those people could be sued for damages in court for filing false take down notices!
      - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        I'd like to see the lawyers censured for barratry.
      - kitotik 6y ago
        If YouTube actually followed the law it would have been shutdown even before google bought them.
  - acituan 6y ago
    > Nothing in the existing body of law requires them to proactively block copyrighted material from their platform The fight doesn’t have to take place in the realm of law. At best copyright holders would have sued youtube into oblivion if they didn’t do proactive takedowns. At worst, well considering that Comcast owns both tons of copyrighted property (through Universal Studios) and major telecommunication infrastructure, I can’t imagine how dirty they can play if they had to.
    - mullingitover 6y ago

invertedIdea 6y ago

The idea is: Google doesn't want to get sued, Google needs to make money, Google is a middle-man extracting ad dollars from eyeballs, and paying royalties to living, litigious content owners. So they will push music attached to dollars, according to the strictest legal terms of the loudest, most punishing complaints. Everything else is ignored, and thus sinks, or gets shoved off the top of the index by greed beasts that ignore courtesy, decency and rules. Obnoxious greed beasts are sociopathic, and will game every tool Google arms them with. They want to be ranked highest for all keywords, as cheaply as possible. So, how does one invert this payola scheme, as an eyeball used to justify advertising profits? You have to tear the greed beasts limb from limb. It may not be obvious, but the people that are filing spurious claims against you, are not good faith actors. They are the sock puppets of people who stand to make money from the keywords you stand to outshine all others on. You are likely crowding out low quality losers, who unfortunately have enough money to buy off-shore social media fleshbots that protest for them in surrogate.

fsflover 6y ago

Consider publishing your work on PeerTube.

mikece 6y ago
That supports live streaming? The “live” aspect is the reason we’re doing this at all since The State has been issuing “Thou Shalt Not Go To Church” orders for over a month.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  There are plenty of options for streaming that don't have trigger-happy copyright detection algorithms because they don't host static videos. Worst case, I've heard of people throwing together their own P2P video chat web app using WebRTC in just a few hours.
Larrikin 6y ago
Are there tools to publish to both at the same time

hardsoftnfloppy 6y ago

Use DTube, spread the gospel and the gospel my brother.

save_ferris 6y ago

> I'm a tad surprised that the dataset cannot include a field such as "this recording is of public domain music" If there's not a financial incentive to prevent situations like this, the likelihood that YouTube will correct it is approximately nil. The sad truth is that the parties controlling the recordings that YouTube's algos erroneously protect are probably worth more to them financially than some church that broadcasts these performances.

pmiller2 6y ago
This is an excellent, albeit seemingly unintentional, critique of capitalism. In a nutshell, if it doesn't make money, it's probably not happening.
- ARandomerDude 6y ago
  Strange comment on a free forum (HN), with multi-industry fame.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Are you trying to argue that HN doesn't make money? Because, I'm sure Paul Graham might have something to say about that. The forum itself might literally be free to users, but the marketing value to YC is priceless.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    How is the fact that this forum is free to post on relevant to the argument? The vast majority of sites that support comments (including YouTube) are free to post on.
- basilgohar 6y ago
  I don't know why parent's comments were downvoted, but this captures the same sentiment that is often reiterated frequently, "the market will correct/adapt" or "market forces will adjust" and so on.

kube-system 6y ago

> "No, I'm not playing someone else's CDs, we have a choir singing these live -- can't you hear the imperfections and that the soprano missed that eighth?" That's precisely the issue. It is technologically impossible to solve the problem by analyzing the audio. 1. Two different performances could be audibly indistinguishable. 2. An infringing copy isn't necessarily indistinguishable. Often they have their own imperfections.

choward 6y ago

That's pretty bad and another reason I can't stand artificial scarcity. I think information itself should be free. There are other ways to make money off of it. It's trivial to transfer TBs of data. Any laws and rules you come up with are completely arbitrary. Companies transfer mass amounts of user data continually. But when people share data companies "own" its all of the sudden illegal. Libraries could not be "invented" in today's society unless they only contained user data and only could be visited by corporate interests.

jhymn 6y ago

Would you mind linking to your live-stream recordings? I love listening to choral chants and whatnot. Very soothing.

specialist 6y ago

That's both unfortunate and infuriating. Are there other hosting options? Vimeo, one of the podcasting "networks", or even a terrestrial radio station which has online archives?

orastor 6y ago

Could you share the channel with us?

mikece 6y ago
Pretty much every live-stream listed on https://www.LatinMass.live https://www.LatinMass.live

soonix 6y ago

(not addressing the original problem "false copyright notices", but) what about streaming to Twitch? Admittedly, they are mainly doing game streaming, so probably unknown to your intended audience, but they'd probably simply click on a link in your announcement, anyway. I didn't find out whether they consider religious content as controversial or otherwise unwanted on their platform, but from the overall view, it looks fine.