3 ms·
>The law is simply more complicated than `if(audioMatches) then {illegal}` >Sometimes a match on audio is not an illegal copyright infringement. >Sometimes au
by mrkramer 6y ago
>The law is simply more complicated than `if(audioMatches) then {illegal}`
>Sometimes a match on audio is not an illegal copyright infringement.
>Sometimes audio that doesn't match is illegal copyright infringement.
>Let's say you play a song from the year 1200 on the violin. You have the copyright to that performance. Now, let's say I play the same song, and I play it relatively well. I have the copyright to my performance. Likely, the audio fingerprints match, and Shazam/Google/Content ID will all say that my recording matches yours -- even though my performance was entirely legal, and we both own copyrights to our respective performances.
>The information Google is missing is that it doesn't know that the sheet music we were both reading was authored in 1200.
I'll be honest I don't know anything about copyright but wouldn't solution be for example you as a YouTube content creator can claim the right to that particular song and the other guy as well and know Google has a record in their database that says:
John owns right to 1200 violin song (song id)
Jack owns right to 1200 violin song (song id)
And then IF John's (song id) matches Jack's (song id) don't send copyright strike.
Google needs to build YouTube knowledge graph so it has better awareness on information.
- joebob42 6y agoThe problem is, Google doesn't know they both have the rights to it. It just knows they both uploaded it. They might neither of them have the rights to it. It's just some arbitrary audio, and google was able to find another very similar audio somewhere else.
- kube-system 6y agoAs I understand, that already exists today, and you can claim that you own a piece of content through the content ID system, by disputing the match. The problem is that most people uploading content do not have legal council helping them with this, so they: 1. don’t know that they can/should dispute 2. are afraid of escalating the situation to court 3. ignore it because legalese is scary/uninteresting and they don’t care about filling out forms over it and just want to upload their dank memes
- intricatedetail 6y agoIs it legal to put consumer / creator in that position vs goliath? It seems that law needs changing. If a creator wants to dispute the claim, Google should pay for their independent lawyers if they can't afford it.
- kube-system 6y agoI've watched some YouTube videos that show the process of disputing a Content ID match. It's a pretty straightforward process and Google explains how it works. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en But Google can't fix legal illiteracy. They warn: > Before you dispute: Make sure you understand how fair use and the public domain work. YouTube can’t help you decide whether you should dispute a claim. If you’re not sure what to do, you may want to seek your own legal advice. I don't think it would really even help if lawyers were provided. All of the information needed to understand the situation is widely available. But most people can't be bothered to RTFM. They just want to upload their stuff any click 'next' without reading anything.