5 ms·

I can't understand why Youtube has no procedure to flag companies as "Wicca Moonlight” like scammer / troll so, after a certain number of infractions like that

I can't understand why Youtube has no procedure to flag companies as "Wicca Moonlight” like scammer / troll so, after a certain number of infractions like that one ( pretending to be the rightful owner of the rights on BEETHOVEN music !), they are sanctioned in some way or banned. That to add some symmetry to the procedure to fight trolls trying to steal other peoples hard job.

CydeWeys 5y ago
Maybe "Wicca Moonlight" has previously been flagged as a scammer/troll and are now on their tenth account they've been doing this with? It could be whack-a-mole on all ends. It's not particularly hard to spin up another LLC, register, and start filing claims.
eru 5y ago
They might have such a system, but the scale is so big, that we are still seeing the false negatives?
rainbowzootsuit 5y ago
It seems like the claimers have little invested into the persuit compared to the people making videos and could relatively easily make a new scam account. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add a little more friction to someone making frivolous claims as it would likely kill off a number of them that are low effort.
bredren 5y ago
Alphabet gets paid either way.
mistercow 5y ago
I think the problem is that the whole system they have is to appease copyright holders so that they don’t get sued for individual videos. They’ve productized it and made it all look very official, but the underlying fact that this is about appeasement puts them on a bad footing for banning trolls. If they ban someone, they’re basically saying “sue us instead”, which is exactly what they don’t want.
daedalus_f 5y ago
"Wikka Moonlight" seems to be the name of the audio the copyright claim is originating from rather than the organisation claiming the copyright. [1] The audio contains a recording of Moonlight Sonata with a load of added reverb. The uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic". The "Topic" bit generally gets added to a channel name when a music distributer (like DistroKid [2]) publishes music to youtube on behalf of a musician (in this case Alive Violet Molland), typically at the same time adding it to other streaming services. Distrokid will let you publish an unlimited number of albums in this way for about $20 a year and then collects the revenue from any streaming on your behalf. I'm guessing the distributer may also register the audio with music rights organisations, which are presumably the source of the copyright claims. The Wicca Moonlight video now has 4.4k downvotes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk [2] https://distrokid.com/ https://distrokid.com/
- crescentfresh 5y ago
  > The uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic" I went searching around using that info and came across a (similarly outraged) thread on google's support forums about this video, in which someone named longzijun seemed to make a reasonably sound counter-argument: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted-video-is-claiming-they-own-the-rights-to-mozart-s-moonlight-sonata?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted... > Then she files a counter-notification. The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it. > Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online. > Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case. > False claims can cause inconvenience for sure, but with the counter-notification system, they don't do long-term damage. > Both the takedown system and the counternotification system are mandated by US law (specifically the DMCA). > YouTube is not supposed to intervene in copyright cases. If they do so, they will lose their safe harbor status (again under the DMCA) that protects YouTube from being sued for hosting copyright infringing content. > To sum up > 1) the dispute process has not been completed in this case > 2) your beef should be with US legislators, not YouTube
harshreality 5y ago
How is it the fault of that youtube channel? They may genuinely want to protect their reverb'd rendition of the Moonlight Sonata, which is technically their right even if it's stupid. Then it's purely google's fault that their AI contentid scanner can't distinguish between Wicca Moonlight and some other arbitrary performance of the sonata. It's google's fault that their AI doesn't understand that the sonata itself is in the public domain so they have to only match against exact reproductions rather than "kinda sounds the same because same notes and instruments" reproductions.
pas 5y ago
There are non-expired mechanical reproduction copyrights for Beethoven music. (Basically any time someone plays from Beethoven's score, or a modernized but public domain version of it a new creative work is created with the corresponding copyrights.) So for this reason YT might have some minimal justification for handling "old classical music" (but it is not based on copyright of a long dead composer, but on the "mechanical reproduction" copyright of some orchestra/artist). Now, that said. If they can't distinguish between performances, then it should not be left to them. And, anyway, the real problem is the fucked up bias in favoring the claimers.

CydeWeys 5y ago

Maybe "Wicca Moonlight" has previously been flagged as a scammer/troll and are now on their tenth account they've been doing this with? It could be whack-a-mole on all ends. It's not particularly hard to spin up another LLC, register, and start filing claims.

eru 5y ago

They might have such a system, but the scale is so big, that we are still seeing the false negatives?

rainbowzootsuit 5y ago

It seems like the claimers have little invested into the persuit compared to the people making videos and could relatively easily make a new scam account. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add a little more friction to someone making frivolous claims as it would likely kill off a number of them that are low effort.

bredren 5y ago

Alphabet gets paid either way.

mistercow 5y ago

I think the problem is that the whole system they have is to appease copyright holders so that they don’t get sued for individual videos. They’ve productized it and made it all look very official, but the underlying fact that this is about appeasement puts them on a bad footing for banning trolls. If they ban someone, they’re basically saying “sue us instead”, which is exactly what they don’t want.

daedalus_f 5y ago

"Wikka Moonlight" seems to be the name of the audio the copyright claim is originating from rather than the organisation claiming the copyright. [1] The audio contains a recording of Moonlight Sonata with a load of added reverb. The uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic". The "Topic" bit generally gets added to a channel name when a music distributer (like DistroKid [2]) publishes music to youtube on behalf of a musician (in this case Alive Violet Molland), typically at the same time adding it to other streaming services. Distrokid will let you publish an unlimited number of albums in this way for about $20 a year and then collects the revenue from any streaming on your behalf. I'm guessing the distributer may also register the audio with music rights organisations, which are presumably the source of the copyright claims. The Wicca Moonlight video now has 4.4k downvotes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk [2] https://distrokid.com/ https://distrokid.com/

crescentfresh 5y ago
> The uploading channel is "Alice Violet Molland - Topic" I went searching around using that info and came across a (similarly outraged) thread on google's support forums about this video, in which someone named longzijun seemed to make a reasonably sound counter-argument: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted-video-is-claiming-they-own-the-rights-to-mozart-s-moonlight-sonata?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted... > Then she files a counter-notification. The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it. > Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online. > Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case. > False claims can cause inconvenience for sure, but with the counter-notification system, they don't do long-term damage. > Both the takedown system and the counternotification system are mandated by US law (specifically the DMCA). > YouTube is not supposed to intervene in copyright cases. If they do so, they will lose their safe harbor status (again under the DMCA) that protects YouTube from being sued for hosting copyright infringing content. > To sum up > 1) the dispute process has not been completed in this case > 2) your beef should be with US legislators, not YouTube

harshreality 5y ago

How is it the fault of that youtube channel? They may genuinely want to protect their reverb'd rendition of the Moonlight Sonata, which is technically their right even if it's stupid. Then it's purely google's fault that their AI contentid scanner can't distinguish between Wicca Moonlight and some other arbitrary performance of the sonata. It's google's fault that their AI doesn't understand that the sonata itself is in the public domain so they have to only match against exact reproductions rather than "kinda sounds the same because same notes and instruments" reproductions.

pas 5y ago

There are non-expired mechanical reproduction copyrights for Beethoven music. (Basically any time someone plays from Beethoven's score, or a modernized but public domain version of it a new creative work is created with the corresponding copyrights.) So for this reason YT might have some minimal justification for handling "old classical music" (but it is not based on copyright of a long dead composer, but on the "mechanical reproduction" copyright of some orchestra/artist). Now, that said. If they can't distinguish between performances, then it should not be left to them. And, anyway, the real problem is the fucked up bias in favoring the claimers.