17 ms·
Summary for those that don’t want to watch the video : - Pianist creates YouTube video demonstrating how to play Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata - part of this v
by jeffwass 5y ago
Summary for those that don’t want to watch the video :
- Pianist creates YouTube video demonstrating how to play Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata
- part of this video includes her playing Moonlight Sonata (of course)
- YouTube has a new ‘feature’ that scans submitted videos prior to publication to identify potentially copyrighted material
- her video is found to include copyrighted material. She is certain this is a mistake that will be rectified by disputing the copyright claim
- she agrees the only person who’s content she is reproducing is Beethoven himself
- her copyright dispute is rejected. She is found to be violating the copyright of a piece called “Wicca Moonlight”
- she can appeal the dispute but the appeal process is limited, and she risks getting a feared “copyright strike” on her account, wherein three such strikes would mean permanent closure of the account
- she says nearly anyone can file copyright claims against published YouTube videos, including bots, and is worried about all the time she’s putting in to create content being usurped by a few bad actors
- Black101 5y agoEven if that piece was copyright, is it a copyright violation to play it yourself and publish it?
- qayxc 5y agoPotentially, yes. There are different types of licences [0] and depending on your use of copyrighted material, it may require a license to publish it legally. [0] https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights
- SeanLuke 5y agoYes. Because music is both composed and performed, it has three primary copyright scenarios. 1. Print rights protect sheet music etc. from being copied. 2. Performance rights control whether your composed music can be performed. 3. Mechanical rights control whether your performance can be copied (onto mp3 say). Also related to these are "synchronization" issues and licenses.
- jeffwass 5y agoI sympathise with her. I had a copyright claim on one of my YouTube videos (I’m totally small potatoes, handful of vids with dozens of views). I made a video of myself playing my own unique interpretation of The Safety Dance by Men Without Hats on piano. https://youtu.be/ZNfMZ6g9YWo https://youtu.be/ZNfMZ6g9YWo I got a copyright violation notice shortly after posting it, by some random Latin American music company. It wasn’t clear if it was legit or not, it could have been some holding company of song rights or some failure of the AI. I disputed the claim, saying I used no recorded material, it was entirely my own styling on the song including ragtime and stride piano influences. Frankly I’m not even sure how copyright works on covers, particularly if style is quite different. The company never responded in the 30 day period so the copyright claim was removed. My channel is so small that I probably would have just removed the video. I’m not even close to the levels that are required for monetisation (1000 subscribers and 4000 cumulative view hours). But it was a bit surprising how quickly it was claimed that I violated someone’s copyright.
- spuz 5y agoCovers of songs, even if the covers use completely new styles are protected by copyright law and therefore can risk being claimed by YouTube's system: 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...
- eru 5y agoI guess you need to make it a parody to be in the clear?
- phendrenad2 5y agoThis exact thing has happened to most YT creators at this point. It's just part of doing business on YT. Some small section (<10%?) get three "copyright" strikes (nothing to do with actual copyright, of course, as Google isn't the judge of that), and get taken down, and need to start a new channel from scratch. It's what we all get for using a free video streaming service to distribute our content.
- opan 5y agoI think the centralization plus trusting a company is the issue, not a lack of cost meaning we aren't deserving of a good experience. Look at Peertube or other free as in freedom options.
- qayxc 5y ago> I think the centralization plus trusting a company is the issue, I think that's not the issue at all. The problem is simply scale. Currently, about 5000 videos are uploaded to YT every minute. If just 0.1% of them have any potential copyright issues, that's 5 potentially complex cases per minute or 7200 per day. No amount of human review will be able to decide this in a timely manner. The piano teacher's case is just the simplest of scenarios and you'd have to expect the vast majority being "fair use" cases, which are incredibly hard to decide. Free an in freedom ultimately results in users being sued directly (see torrent networks) and I'm not at all convinced that that's any better.
- xyzzyz 5y ago7200 cases a day is most definitely not too much for a human review.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoIt is because people are routinely violating copyright in much larger amounts, yet nobody is bothering to go after them. Compare with the way the laws about audio and video cassettes ended up.
- tzs 5y ago
- qwertox 5y ago1) Feed a computer with MIDI files of public domain music and render it as audio 2) Upload to YouTube 3) File copyright dispute to YouTube for any (future?) uploaded video which contains the music which used to be in the public domain 4) Have Google reject the videos 5) Create a site or an app which allows you to license that public domain music for a fee. 6) Notify YouTube who has licensed this public domain music. Ok. that's the way Google thinks is the way it should work. Or maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more harm than good. -- Two days ago I uploaded a video which was a screen recording to demonstrate a bug in the Android app "Komoot". It was unlisted, the link was attached to the bug report I sent to the company. It was just a short video showing how the caching (or something in that direction) of uploaded images in the app seemed to be broken. The content in the video was 100% adhering to all the guidelines, specially to those of "for all ages". The content was nothing else but scrolling photos of an MTB-trail with a bit of UI. If your video is flagged or you mark it as "for 18+", then it can only be viewed by logged in persons. After uploading the video I got an email that it was not complying with the "for all ages" requirements, which is kind of bad, because now the support team must log-in with a Google account to YouTube in order to see the harmless but useful video. But then again, videos related to Instagram celebrities or Chinese ASMR-binge eating are totally ok for them.
- Iv 5y ago> Ok. that's the way Google thinks is the way it should work. Or maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more harm than good. Let's be clear. It is not Google that wants it. Actually Google is on the side of calling all of this retarded. It is the state of copyright laws, of the DMCA, of the lobbying by the RIAA. The day the whole copyright ecosystem is updated to accept that computers exist and that people share files on internet easily, Youtube will be VERY happy to unplug all these terrible bots that are there to provide a bad solution to a problem we should not have.
- qwertox 5y ago> Actually Google is on the side of calling all of this retarded. Google has the means to make this stop.
- guggle 5y agoUpload videos to her own website. Problem solved.
- Tepix 5y agoThe reasons why ppl go to YT are monetization and visibility.
- guggle 5y agoYes, I get it and my comment was intended tongue-in-cheek. But still... not everyone goes to YT for monetization in which case I really think it's just better not to use it. I'm probably too old but I remember a time when we had plenty of visibility on the web without platforms dictating the content.
- qwertox 5y agoYou mean your Geocities homepage which got a fabulous 121 hits in 1997? ;)
- robobro 5y agoWhy would you assume that videos have to be shared to YouTube to get views? I really hope that the majority of adults know how to click on or share a hyperlink. If not, there is a big problem.
- lacksconfidence 5y agoBecause while i don't have numbers, i'd bet a weeks pay that the vast majority of youtube views (especially after exluding viral content) come through the youtube recommendation system and not external hyperlinks.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago>i'd bet a weeks pay that the vast majority of youtube views (especially after exluding viral content) come through the youtube recommendation system and not external hyperlinks. I'd take that bet. There's a lot the agorithm does, but there's also a lot of companies and people sharing links to the videos. Any new movie trailer or album drop would definitely be linked from twitter or some company homepage. And I wager those are what make up the most views. But I wouldn't be surprised to be right or wrong on this. the recommendations certainly aren't a tiny portion.
- 0xTJ 5y agoA really great video (if you're willing to spend the better part of an hour watching it) about this is YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.[1] by Tom Scott. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
- avereveard 5y agoDMCA is bad but the undisputable claim and three strike systems is all of Google own doing
- Sebb767 5y agoThe video covers this aspect. Yes, the current system is bad, but it replaces a scary letter demanding cease and desists plus high damage payments and a resolution between extremely expensive lawyers. It surely is not optimal, but I doubt your common YouTuber could afford to fight claims in court.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoThat's a US-specific issue. Yet people all over the world are affected by ContentID (though at least in the EU AFAIK you can now get a third party to mediate this dispute).
- avereveard 5y agoDMCA replaces the scary letters. YouTube only responsibility is to collect claims and counterclaims. Common YouTubers can just accept the claim and mute content. Youtuber wanting a fight or that know the other party would never risk their frivolous challenge to go to court with the threat of perjury hanging on their head have a right to counterclaim and put the ball in the other party field. YouTube instead decide to act as jury and will allow claimant to counter the counterclaim, and here lies the crux of the issue. YouTube isn't protecting poor youtubers anymore than what DMCA already allows; YouTube is instead actively removing youtuber right to challenge the claim, putting all the power in the claimant, far above what DMCA mandates or requires. And that decision to act as jury and judge and final unappealable authority in the claim process lies squarely on YouTube shoulders.
- bredren 5y agoHere are the “copyright owners” as displayed to the pianist in YouTube’s interface: - APRA_CS - ECAD_CS - SOCAN - VCPMC_CS
- yesenadam 5y agoAPRA is Australia & NZ, ECAD is Brazil, SOCAN is Canada, VCPMC is Vietnam. APRA: Australasian Performing Right Association ECAD: Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição SOCAN: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada VCPMC: Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright
- lightlyused 5y agoI went digging. APRA = Australasian Performing Right Association Limited ECAD = Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição SOCAN = Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada VCPMC = Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright CS stands for collections society. In another age CS would stand for the Mafia. All but ECAD were found from here: https://www.cisac.org/ https://www.cisac.org/
- snickms 5y agoThese collection societies are actually the opposite of the mafia. They collect royalties on behalf of the composers. If the composer has a publisher, the royalties are forwarded there instead (so the publisher can take their contractual cut). They are the only way to protect your work if you are unsigned (think struggling artists).
- pbhjpbhj 5y agoAIUI there collection societies are collectives of publishers and look out for the people who own the publishing companies, they're not making sure the publishing companies act fairly and justly, they're making sure they sue people who are too small to defend themselves in order to boost the collections in order to support the publishing company owners. Maybe I'm wrong ... counter evidence welcomed.
- 5y ago
- de6u99er 5y agoStrange, that nobody at Google seems to have heard of Beethoven.
- GordonS 5y agoIMO the biggest issue with all this is the lack of a suitable appeals process, handled by humans. Would such a process be expensive? Yes, but you can't have it both ways, enabling copyright holders to lodge spurious claims at will, and not allow content creators - who the entire platform is built on! - to disclaim them. Would such a process be expensive? Yes, of course - but YouTube can very well afford it.
- sixQuarks 5y agoPerhaps the copyright holder should have to pay for a human review, where the content creator agrees to pay the cost if it turns out to indeed be a true copyright infringement. This would get rid of all bots and most false claims
- amelius 5y agoThat would be too much in favor of the little guy, I'm afraid, and probably doesn't align well with preexisting deals with the music industry.
- blunte 5y agoIf the little guy is indeed little and is earning little or none from their content, then is the copyright holder being harmed? Or is the copyrighted material being promoted, thereby increasing the potential value of that original material?
- gwd 5y agoI think what should happen is this: Step 1: Someone files a copyright claim (or perhaps this is done automatically). This is free. Step 2: Someone disputes the claim. This is also free, and automatically restores the video. Step 3: The filer can re-submit the claim but they have to post a bond for the price of a professional manual review by a trained copyright lawyer; maybe $1000. Step 4: If the video owner can re-dispute the claim; to do so they also have to post a bond for the price of a professional manual review. The trained copyright lawyer comes to a conclusion; whoever "wins" the ruling gets their money back, and the other person pays for the whole thing. If the video owner doesn't go on to step 4, obviously the copyright claimant gets their money back.
- ascotan 5y agoWow. So if a public domain piece of music (which does not have a copyright) is played by someone and recorded (which does have a copyright) the Google AI has no way to know if you're reproducing the the public domain music (which you are allowed to do) or reproducing the reproduction of someone playing a piece of public domain music (which you're not allowed to do).
- DaveExeter 5y ago>“copyright strike” on her account, wherein three such strikes would mean permanent closure of the account I think the three copyright strikes have to take place within 90 days. Unless I am confusing community guidelines strikes with copyright strikes.
- tremon 5y agois worried about all the time she’s putting in to create content being usurped by a few bad actors Is this where we must point out that the entire ContentID system was designed to protect bad actors, because it was written by them?
- toyg 5y agoOne could argue that the DMCA was largely written by bad actors. Everything else flows downhill from there. The “western” world lost a once-in-a-thousand-years chance to change how copyright works at a fundamental level, when the internet started getting traction. We’re now forever beholden to the whims of parasitical “industries”.
- gbuk2013 5y agoThere is actually one more step available, even after the copyright strike: you submit your contact details and YT clears the strike and it’s up to the claimant to then issue proceeding against you outside of YT. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 I have used it in the past and it works.
- jeremyjh 5y agoIf it is so simple why are there content creators losing their channels over merit less claims?
- gbuk2013 5y agoI don’t know - are they submitting counter-claims? All I know is it worked for me and my channel although I was never at the point of having more than one strike.
- anadem 5y ago> and YT clears the strike there's the rub .. in the OP's example, the strike wasn't cleared
- joshuaissac 5y agoAs I understand it from her video, she did not get a copyright strike yet, and she also did not complete the appeals process because she did not want to submit her contact details to strangers.
- jMyles 5y agoIt seems that this entire fiasco can be fixed by simply having a media streaming platform which is hosted in a jurisdiction which doesn't recognize 'intellectual' property. Why has no such thing emerged?
- bmn__ 5y agoSuch a jurisdiction does not exist. See Berne Convention, Rome Convention/PPPPBO, TRIPS, WCT, WPPT.
- jMyles 5y agoWell, presumably one will emerge at some point. I'm just trying to look at the root problem here and how to overcome it.
- LegitShady 5y agoISIL? I guess when you have a culture that totally shuns the existing international framework they're unlikely to be able to or interested in competing with youtube.