4 ms·
I guess at some point platforms will stop removing media that contains copyrighted audio, and instead just remove the copyrighted audio from the media. (?)
by montebicyclelo 6y ago
I guess at some point platforms will stop removing media that contains copyrighted audio, and instead just remove the copyrighted audio from the media. (?)
- Ansil849 6y agoYoutube already does or did this. I remember multiple videos that had no audio and a notification that the audio has been removed owing to a copyright complaint.
- montebicyclelo 6y agoAh, I meant extracting the copyrighted audio signal from the remaining audio signal, and leaving the remaining signal.
- Ansil849 6y agoI'm not sure how feasible that would be if someone is talking over a song playing...
- tenebrisalietum 6y agoIf human beings can tell the difference between speech and background audio while both are playing simultaneously, it has to be possible somehow for a machine to do it.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThis is certainly something that humans do, but they do have a significant error rate.
- Udik 6y agoGiven that copyrighted audio is- more or less by definition- available as a separate track without interference, it shouldn't be too difficult to subtract it from the video's track.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoIt's theoretically straightforward if you have the actual copyrighted audio; you can just invert it and add it to the audio stream. But I believe YouTube stores some kind of digest related to the audio they identify, not the audio itself. Then again, that audio is available for many pieces that happen to be present in other videos on YouTube, which ContentID would automatically identify.
- hnick 6y agoThought experiment: Would such a use of the original music as anti-music count as a transformative work of the original song (not the video, where it definitely would) under copyright? I mean, thinking of a hack. I could distribute two sound files that alone don't sound like anything much, but if you run them through such an inverter, it produces a copyrighted song. I'd guess the legal system would jump on me and claim one of my files has a music-shaped-hole in it that infringes on the original work.
- rzzzt 6y agoAKA "colored bits": https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 The example used in this article uses one-time pad to produce random noise and an appropriate key that, when XORed together, produces a copyrighted work. No worky in the eyes of the law.
- yowlingcat 6y agoDeezer's library Spleeter seems to do quite a good job at separating out various instruments from a raw recording with fairly low phase smearing. I could see that kind of technology could be adapted to this use case not because it's right or wrong, but because there's an incentive for the platform to leave the content up and able to be monetized rather than 86'd entirely.
- Mashimo 6y agoThere was a time when they did that. I had a video with music from The Doors and people talking over. They removed the song and you could still hear the distorted voices
- jedberg 6y agoTwitch does this. They mute the audio but still allow the video. In this case it wouldn't help because the non-music audio is still important.
- im3w1l 6y agoIt should be possible to remove the music while retaining the rest of the audio. It will be a little bit more complicated than just subtracting a known waveform because of imperfect speakers and mics, but I suspect it's still possible.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoVocal isolation has been a thing for a long time, but the lines of https://krisp.ai/ https://krisp.ai/ might already be able to do this sort of thing well?
- Udik 6y agoThe uploaders- or tech-savvy early downloaders- might be able to do the same. So as a way to prevent videos from being uploaded to social media seems completely lame. As this video proves, it's just a ticket for becoming quickly a very famous asshole.