8 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely think the whole copyright system needs reform, but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly p

I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely think the whole copyright system needs reform, but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel. I'm not very familiar with the channel, but from the little I've seen, I believe the educational nature (and thereby fair use defense) could be debatable. Even if some of his videos are clearly educational, it seems that some videos are just covers of popular songs. And even if he's not using published sheet music to play the songs, he may still be required to have mechanical licenses, and possibly also sync licenses. Most published music has three licenses that could be relevant here: the mechanical license (covering the combination of notes, rhythms, and/or lyrics that make the song distinct and "recognizable"), the sync license (using the song along with images/video), and a master license (covering a specific recording of the song). From my limited experience (and confirmed here [1]), it appears that many of these videos probably require at least a mechanical license to be performed publicly on the channel. That being said, I absolutely agree with the sentiment that YouTube's handling of these issues is extremely problematic. They really need to start treating content creators with more respect and assume innocence until proven otherwise. There also needs to be more transparency into the process (and claims) so creators aren't left in the dark, along with improved ways to respond to erroneous claims. [1] https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo...

gfody 6y ago
according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Remember YouTube and its staff will never make decisions on the validity of copyright claims. They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Instead they consider every copyright claim as valid unless legal proceedings tell them otherwise.
  - moefh 6y ago
    > They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Only if they don't comply with a DMCA takedown notice, which allows the supposed violator to claim responsibility. That is, whoever posted the video can say to Youtube "This video doesn't infringe on anyone's copyright, let them sue me if they disagree" and Youtube would be in the clear according to the DMCA. From what we can see in this case, Youtube didn't receive a DMCA takedown notice, since they didn't make it available for the channel owner. Youtube has other internal processes (like Content ID[1]) to detect and remove copyright content, it looks like one of these processes is what triggered the copyright strikes. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
eru 6y ago
> They really need to start treating content creators with more respect and assume innocence until proven otherwise. Doesn't DMCA and similar law strongly bias them in the opposite direction of having to assume guilt? In any case, transparency seems like a good idea from the point of view of the outside world.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  This is a common pattern where law/regulations meet monopoly power: There is a Byzantine bureaucracy that no one understands. The monopoly blames the regulator. The regulator (if they speak at all) blame the monopoly. It's the same way with banks. Any strange and irrational bureaucracy they throw at you is claimed to be legally mandated. This is kind of true, but disengenious.
  - eru 6y ago
    Alas, yes. That's a big part of why I suggest that regulation, if we want any at all, should focus on lowing the barriers to entry and shy away from mandating specific behaviour. The latter can be gamed by the people who can afford the good lawyers, and makes entry for newcomers even harder. Your comparison to finance is apt. It's one of the worst examples of regulatory capture. And many people have very dangerous ideas, eg that deposit insurance is a good idea.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit. Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change. The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers.
      - 6y ago
ta2234234242 6y ago
> but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel. In a legal sense, it is illegal unless they've paid the compulsory licensing fees. That said, Youtube was once a place to find new stars who did covers, and many of them got famous. And now people who got famous like KHS do covers without any kind of issue. https://www.youtube.com/user/KurtHugoSchneider https://www.youtube.com/user/KurtHugoSchneider I just see it as the music industry locking the door behind the people who've already made it.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Exactly, and YouTube, now an incumbent has the incentive to shut down the path they themselves used to become the monopoly.
- kwanbix 6y ago
  I am not from US, and I imagine you are, but it doesn't seem right that I cannot teach people to play instruments by playing a song.
grawprog 6y ago
Our current copyright laws do nothing hut stagnate human creativity. As much as people like to believe they're creative geniuses, most creations tend to be based on previous creations. Just look at the majority of popular music between 1955-1980 or later. Just about all rock music is either heavily inspired by or directly ripped off of blues. If copyright laws had been what they were today entire genres of music wouldn't exist. Same goes for Hollywood, tons of movies are just wholesale ripoffs of older ones or 'heavily inspired by them'. And i'm sure people on HN are likely familiar with such things as the 7 main literary archetypes and whatnot that apply to most human story telling in general. The best kind of human creativity comes from building on what came before. Sure, we need a system to ensure creators are paid and have control of their creations, but our current system goes so far overboard it limits overall human creativity. Profit should not come over the benefit of society and humanity, especially when there's room for both. I doubt anyone was really losing any significant amount of money by this channel existing, but somebody was gaining through its existence.
- cma 6y ago
  Disney's Grimm's based stuff is just about older now than Grimms' Fairy Tales were when Disney made those films.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    Yet try and make any reference to the Disney version in your own production and see how fast the C&D's show up. On that note, check out the Popeye version of the Aladdin and the magic lamp story. If you've ever read the original, you may notice the Disney version doesn't resemble it much, what the Disney version does resemble though a fair bit is the 1930's Popeye version of the story...which is actually quite good. Actually, just check out any of those original Max and Fleischer Popeye cartoons...they're all pretty great.
- jquery 6y ago
  In Japan, they have a much better culture around copyright, and I would argue it’s why Japan is such a creative powerhouse. In Japan, amateur artists can remix whatever popular characters they want, and make money off it, and it’s seen as a tribute to the original artists, not as “theft”. Our copyright laws should be largely eliminated. Anything that isn’t basically an exact reproduction should be fair game. It would be good for the creative arts.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
You also would need the sync license for creating a video which includes the music.

gfody 6y ago

according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

londons_explore 6y ago
Remember YouTube and its staff will never make decisions on the validity of copyright claims. They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Instead they consider every copyright claim as valid unless legal proceedings tell them otherwise.
- moefh 6y ago
  > They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Only if they don't comply with a DMCA takedown notice, which allows the supposed violator to claim responsibility. That is, whoever posted the video can say to Youtube "This video doesn't infringe on anyone's copyright, let them sue me if they disagree" and Youtube would be in the clear according to the DMCA. From what we can see in this case, Youtube didn't receive a DMCA takedown notice, since they didn't make it available for the channel owner. Youtube has other internal processes (like Content ID[1]) to detect and remove copyright content, it looks like one of these processes is what triggered the copyright strikes. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

eru 6y ago

> They really need to start treating content creators with more respect and assume innocence until proven otherwise. Doesn't DMCA and similar law strongly bias them in the opposite direction of having to assume guilt? In any case, transparency seems like a good idea from the point of view of the outside world.

dalbasal 6y ago
This is a common pattern where law/regulations meet monopoly power: There is a Byzantine bureaucracy that no one understands. The monopoly blames the regulator. The regulator (if they speak at all) blame the monopoly. It's the same way with banks. Any strange and irrational bureaucracy they throw at you is claimed to be legally mandated. This is kind of true, but disengenious.
- eru 6y ago
  Alas, yes. That's a big part of why I suggest that regulation, if we want any at all, should focus on lowing the barriers to entry and shy away from mandating specific behaviour. The latter can be gamed by the people who can afford the good lawyers, and makes entry for newcomers even harder. Your comparison to finance is apt. It's one of the worst examples of regulatory capture. And many people have very dangerous ideas, eg that deposit insurance is a good idea.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit. Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change. The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers.
    - 6y ago

ta2234234242 6y ago

> but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel. In a legal sense, it is illegal unless they've paid the compulsory licensing fees. That said, Youtube was once a place to find new stars who did covers, and many of them got famous. And now people who got famous like KHS do covers without any kind of issue. https://www.youtube.com/user/KurtHugoSchneider https://www.youtube.com/user/KurtHugoSchneider I just see it as the music industry locking the door behind the people who've already made it.

dalbasal 6y ago
Exactly, and YouTube, now an incumbent has the incentive to shut down the path they themselves used to become the monopoly.
kwanbix 6y ago
I am not from US, and I imagine you are, but it doesn't seem right that I cannot teach people to play instruments by playing a song.

grawprog 6y ago

Our current copyright laws do nothing hut stagnate human creativity. As much as people like to believe they're creative geniuses, most creations tend to be based on previous creations. Just look at the majority of popular music between 1955-1980 or later. Just about all rock music is either heavily inspired by or directly ripped off of blues. If copyright laws had been what they were today entire genres of music wouldn't exist. Same goes for Hollywood, tons of movies are just wholesale ripoffs of older ones or 'heavily inspired by them'. And i'm sure people on HN are likely familiar with such things as the 7 main literary archetypes and whatnot that apply to most human story telling in general. The best kind of human creativity comes from building on what came before. Sure, we need a system to ensure creators are paid and have control of their creations, but our current system goes so far overboard it limits overall human creativity. Profit should not come over the benefit of society and humanity, especially when there's room for both. I doubt anyone was really losing any significant amount of money by this channel existing, but somebody was gaining through its existence.

cma 6y ago
Disney's Grimm's based stuff is just about older now than Grimms' Fairy Tales were when Disney made those films.
- grawprog 6y ago
  Yet try and make any reference to the Disney version in your own production and see how fast the C&D's show up. On that note, check out the Popeye version of the Aladdin and the magic lamp story. If you've ever read the original, you may notice the Disney version doesn't resemble it much, what the Disney version does resemble though a fair bit is the 1930's Popeye version of the story...which is actually quite good. Actually, just check out any of those original Max and Fleischer Popeye cartoons...they're all pretty great.
jquery 6y ago
In Japan, they have a much better culture around copyright, and I would argue it’s why Japan is such a creative powerhouse. In Japan, amateur artists can remix whatever popular characters they want, and make money off it, and it’s seen as a tribute to the original artists, not as “theft”. Our copyright laws should be largely eliminated. Anything that isn’t basically an exact reproduction should be fair game. It would be good for the creative arts.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

You also would need the sync license for creating a video which includes the music.