3 ms·
The current copyright law is unsustainable. Pretty much every melody you can think of is copyrighted and as an artist you can be anxious that anything you make
by intricatedetail 5y ago
The current copyright law is unsustainable. Pretty much every melody you can think of is copyrighted and as an artist you can be anxious that anything you make can be claimed by someone else. Copyright laws need urgent change as they are not fit for purpose...
- tapland 5y agoIn this case that's not the problem. Beethoven isn't copyrighted, but public.
- atoav 5y agoYeah but certain Beethoven recordings are copyrighted. Legally you are totally allowed to play his works on an instrument, while you could still break someones copyright by e.g. using their 2019 recording of the work which they sell on CD or whatnot. How will sonic fingerprinting be able to decide whether it is that copyrighted work, or whether it is somwonw playing it live? It just won't
- polytely 5y agoThe problem is that Youtube is pretending that their shoddy sonic fingerprinting system works and is fine with 3rd parties using their dumb system to defraud their users
- atoav 5y agoYeah, I think they should mark recordings where the melody is public domain and review these cases manually.
- genezeta 5y agoIt's still related to copyright law. If the law promotes, say by making it a default, that one side can easily benefit from a certain behaviour, then people, companies will assume that as the behaviour to favour. And then these are the consequences: that going around claiming rights on whatever you feel like is not only not punished by Youtube but carelessly accepted. Because it's just easier, less effort.
- fourseventy 5y agoI agree. On top of that you have bands from 50 years ago suing each other because two riffs sound vaguely alike, its ridiculous.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoCopyright cannot be fixed, it should be abolished. It made sense in the era of physical books and huge printing presses. That era is long gone, copying have made copying trivial.
- hvdijk 5y agoThat seems backwards: the concept of copyright was introduced because the printing press made it so much easier to make a large number of exact copies. If you agree with the introduction of copyright in that era, as you say you do, how does it then make sense to abolish it again when copying becomes even easier?
- matheusmoreira 5y agoPrinting presses were not ubiquitous. There were relatively few of them, not everyone had access, there were limitations to the scale of copyright infringement due to the physical nature of books. People had to be major industry players in order to infringe copyright at scale and it was necessary to do it for profit in order to cover the significant costs involved. Today virtually everyone has access to a computer that can create and transmit unlimited copies of any data at massive scales and at negligible costs and there's no way to stop it from happening unless you destroy computing freedom by making it so processors refuse to run software not signed by the government. Copyright needs to go away because the alternative is the total destruction of free computing as we know it today. I want a future where I'm in control of my devices and can write my own software if I want without the need for some government license. If the copyright industry must die in order to protect that future, so be it.