17 ms·

Dear Google: Public domain compositions exist

655 points by mod50ack 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sneak 5y ago
Today it's certain melodies. One day it might be certain phrases. This is the same YouTube that banned any videos contradicting the WHO (the same WHO who said not to wear masks). The same YouTube who takes down videos with evidence of human rights abuses. Stop donating content to a censorship platform.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  I have recently noticed my posts on Youtube that correct inaccuracies in technical videos are vanishing couple of seconds after posted. It seems Youtube is performing some kind of sentiment analysis and removes posts immediately based on it. I stopped commenting on Youtube.
  - loa_in_ 5y ago
    It was me. I often spend 10 minutes writing a comment, I post it and sooner than later I delete it. Effort to put my thoughts into coherent words is often more important to me than the comment itself, and thus it had had served it's purpose in the instant I wrote it down.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      I am also doing that frequently. I spend a bunch of time writing comment only to find out it does not improve the discussion one iota, so I delete it. But having an occasion to think something through lets me organize my thoughts a tiny bit better.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    The spam filter might be picking up the comment. Then it will require approval from the creator of the video. This filter is incredibly aggressive, because of just how much garbage is spammed. As an example, YouTube hid this comment and tagged it as "likely spam": >I saw a Jean Bart video and I thought I might be in it as I went up against you yesterday, glad I was not in the other team in this one lol However, there also exists some kind of other system that sometimes removes comments. I'm not sure how that one works. Even as the creator of the video I've had my comments disappear, but that might've also just been a bug.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      I tried to have fun with comment filter to figure out what causes comments to trigger it but it seem it is implemented so that when you get couple comments removed you are no longer able to put any comment, they are just going to vanish whatever you write.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    I don't comment in the comment section either, but I sometimes read it and I often see people accusing the channel of deleting comments, and the responses from the channel owners that they don't delete any comments. And these channels don't even have anything to do with politics or any controversial topics. I sometimes comment in the live chat on livestreams though. I'm sure there is some kind of super clever and sophisticated algorithm to filter out comments, but in practice as far as I can tell, what comment in the live chat gets through is virtually just random.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      I believe channel owners. The comments are being removed so regularly that would be practically impossible for somebody to react so perfectly within 2-3s of every comment. It is just youtube trying to create illusion of functioning community by automatically censoring anything and anybody that can even potentially be negative, divisive or controversial. And we know the dangers of removing every critical opinion...
      - ttt0 5y ago
        Absolutely, in the full context channel owners often have zero incentive to remove any comments and it makes zero sense for them to do so, so I believe them too. Most people are aware of what YouTube is doing by now, but once in a while you have someone who will blame it on the channel.
- mlang23 5y ago
  Well said. Google has become one of the big evil players. So fucking glad I turned down their hiring attempt.
- dgb23 5y ago
  They also enable a business model for countless independent content creators, easy access to free/open video lectures, talks and so on. I agree with your criticism but there are things at stake here that I very much appreciate as a consumer.
  - sneak 5y ago
    YouTube does not have a monopoly on sending video content via HTTP.
zozbot234 5y ago
> we can’t sue just because we got a copyright claim against our video Um, apparently the underlying problem is that someone claimed a clearly public domain melody in Google's copyright enforcement system. And the public domain status can be proven very easily since sites like IMSLP make early PD editions of classical music readily available to anyone. Wouldn't OP have a claim for tortious interference against whoever claimed this content in a clearly fraudulent way?
- regularfry 5y ago
  So the underlying issue is really that it's "Google's" copyright enforcement system, Google's database. Not a public register of copyright works which could be treated as authoritative, and corrected where necessary. The problem goes back to copyright being assumed, not requiring registration.
  - josefx 5y ago
    Not sure a public register alone would solve the issues. There were already cases in the past where TV shows registered copyright on their episodes and it resulted in automated strikes against youtube videos featured in these episodes. So for any registry to work you would have to go through every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who else might hold copyright. Basically you would end up killing the automation, which would most likely piss of the movie and music cartels/lobbyists.
    - regularfry 5y ago
      With a public register, if a TV show registers copyright incorrectly, that could then be corrected once, rather than the current situation, which requires it to be corrected on every claim. > So for any registry to work you would have to go through every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who else might hold copyright. Basically you would end up killing the automation, which would most likely piss of the movie and music cartels/lobbyists. That would be a feature, not a bug.
mlang23 5y ago
I've said that in a comment about a similar article recently, and it needs to be repeated here: Google is actually helping big players to harass small groups into submission. And they are using their copyright system as a weapon. But nobody questions the sloppy execution of that self-declared law enforcement. I guess they are deliberately trying what they can get away with, to set the ground for future harassment.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  I don't think Google is the main culprit here. The big players have big lawyers. And they fell on YouTube like vultures the moment Google bought it. Google essentially had no choice if they wanted to keep YouTube alive in a way that isn't a massive loss for them. Small groups don't have what it takes to defend themselves, so it is obvious which way Google is going. The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is very little penalties for bogus claims. Still, I don't think what Google does now is good, and I think it will be their downfall if they don't correct course. It is understandable, but it definitely looks like the company is run by robots running a Monte-carlo simulation. It is a very good way of solving computational problems, but it not really compatible with the way human work. In the future, I expect tech giants dominance to erode thanks to companies that actually look like they are being run by humans who care about their customers/partners/users. There are stories all over the web about customers being shut down with no reason given. Technically, Google may have excellent security and reliability, but I don't want my business to depend on what is from my point of view, a dice-rolling company.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    Let us be clear: what Google does has nothing to do with DMCA. This is entirely out of their own volition.
    - lovehashbrowns 5y ago
      Google's ContentID came as a result of Viacom's lawsuit in 2007. It's used to hang on to their "safe harbor" status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_... One of the provisions is that the service provider isn't directly profiting from infringing content. A publisher would argue it's unfair for Google/Youtube to be considered a safe harbor if they make money from ad revenue between the time the infringing content is published and taken down by a DMCA claim. They'd also claim Google makes money using infringing content if users know that content is being hosted on Youtube.
chrismorgan 5y ago
A comment where I provided some details on English church hymns where such composition/melody claims were made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. Précis: about 20% of the hymns we were using were being illegitimately claimed, almost none of the claimants were acting in good faith (they didn’t review the disputes, but allowed them to lapse in my favour), and successful disputes did not prevent subsequent claims for exactly the same thing.
elzbardico 5y ago
Well, maybe is about time to stop feeding the beast. I get it is a fair complaint. But what about not uploading stuff to youutube in the first place if it is so hostile to content creators? Let it be what it is supposed to be, a giant repository of corporate, advertising-based tacky mass culture.
- eloisant 5y ago
  Unfortunately this is a network effect lock-in. Content creators need to be on YouTube because that's where the audience is. Viewers need to use YouTube because that's where the content is.
  - procombo 5y ago
    There are a lot of very busy bees out there right now looking to change that. YouTube provides easy, great advertising revenue. But as individual channels develop their subscriber base, YouTube's role diminishes. Viewers/subscribers find it easy to "juggle" multiple apps. People just needed a reason for alternatives.
    - blunte 5y ago
      Does it really still provide great ad revenue? Hasn't that been declining and increasingly restricted over the last several years? Viewers largely don't care what platform your content is on as long as they can know it exists (link) and can easily consume it without jumping hurdles. I don't care if I watch something on Youtube or Vimeo as long as I see what I'm trying to see.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
Just a tought experiment: How about having two Youtube accounts and copyright-flagging your own videos? Then during the 30 day period your other account gets the ad revenue, oh well.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  Quite aside from this almost certainly being against the T&Cs, I'm not sure what happens when multiple parties claim the copyright. It's literally impossible (I think?) for them all to hold the copyright on the same melody, so how does Google resolve it?
  - pdkl95 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM (cw: strong language) TL;DW - nothing happens, it's an unresolvable deadlock. This "feature" can sometimes be used by deliberately adding many easily claimable works in a video to prevent anybody from monetizing it.
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      That's incredible - it's from five years ago. Are people still using the technique these days?
PaulRobinson 5y ago
The best way to fix Google (or Facebook, or Apple, or Amazon for that matter), is to replace it. Alternatives exist, please use them.
- flixic 5y ago
  This article mentions that a troll is getting ad revenue. Which makes me assume that the author would like to benefit from ad revenue themselves. Do any alternatives exist in that space? Facebook's revenue share and copyright detection algorithms are even worse; Patreons work for existing fanbase. Youtube is probably your only choice for public viewing monetisation.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    Copyright trolls are parasites, I would have a huge problem with them benefiting off my stuff even if I myself wouldn't make a dime on it. You can easily make arguments in favor of rental housing, usury and such, but there is absolutely no defense for this kind of behavior, I just find it immoral.
  - PaulRobinson 5y ago
    Firstly, it’s not a given everybody wants to monetise everything. Secondly, advertising is only one form of monetisation. As a classical music fan myself, I am not going to enjoy any video that takes that route - I’d be happier with a sponsorship route or a “click here to buy on music services” (or even “click here to buy tickets for our upcoming performances”), link. Lastly, yes, other video platforms offer advertising, and they will only get better if content producers make them more competitive with YouTube.
    - wincy 5y ago
      It’s such a crazy small pittance that a creator gets from ad revenue. I watched a video recently of a YouTube channel with 3 million subscribers doing a breakdown of how they make money, and they make $700 a month off the advertising. Luckily they have a Patreon that they make $30,000 a month off of, which they’ve used to make some really amazing content. It’s sort of bizarre that they even run the ads on their videos, honestly, as you’d think not running them would increase appeal leading to more Patreon subscribers.
Laremere 5y ago
I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems with Youtube specific problems. Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.
- mod50ack 5y ago
  Oh, Tom is right. I've seen his video (actually a fan of his stuff), and I know that there's a real problem here for Google. They need to cover their asses here, and with good reason. And in many cases the problem is with the global copyright system. But this isn't such a case --- nobody should get flagged for performing Sullivan or Mozart. It's absurd and a much easier problem to solve than the ones involving fair use which Tom discusses.
- esjeon 5y ago
  > a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims. That will only harm small businesses and individuals. It doesn't take a huge sum of imagination to draw the situation in the brain. A lawyer hired by a big corporation on one side, and a poor artist on another side, both standing in the same courtroom. You already get the drama about to happen. Lawyers will happily bully those poor souls that they are fully capable of introducing more misery to their opponents, so you should just sign this paper and f** off. A few may resist, and few will survive, but the majority won't even take the case to the court out of fear. So, no, that's not a solution.
  - izacus 5y ago
qwertox 5y ago
Google's copyright-recognition AI and how they deal with everything regarding copyright on YouTube should be a heads up for the German court which will be ruling on the Sony Music vs Quad9 case. One of the biggest companies in the world, the one owning some of the most advanced AI systems, isn't capable to rule internally in a fair way on copyright issues, such that the spirit of how copyright is supposed to work is completely neglected. Now apply this to DNS, including the fact that Google isn't the only one providing resolvers. What a horrible thing to do from Sony.
pdkl95 5y ago
Three copyright strikes and Google may delete your entire YT channel, while they continue to allow (and support via their "content id" service) an unlimited number of patently fraudulent claims from accounts that are obviously just spamming claims to see how much ad revenue they can steal. This imbalance is at the core of this issue. Google will severely punish creators for alleged copyright violations, but allows fraudulent claims. If creators have to work under a "3 copyright strikes" Sword of Damocles[1], the accounts of people making copyright claims need similar restriction. If you submit 3 fraudulent copyright claims, you lose your account. You cannot submit any more claims, "content id" no longer flags your works, and you no longer receive payments from any ad revenue claims on other videos. This may sound harsh, but so is deleting someone's channel after 3 copyright claims. [1] 17 U.S. Code § 512 (i) (1) ...The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers
- thanksforfish 5y ago
  I think a challenge is that the law provides much needed protections to YT if they protect copyright holders. Distinguishing between real and fraudulent claimants would need to be done very carefully; could accidentally denying a legitimate claim cause them to lose liability protections? If so, they'd need lawyers in the loop for any decision about denying a fraudulent copyright claim. The cost of that is likely enough to make them prefer the current setup.
  - danaris 5y ago
    YouTube's system goes far beyond what is required for DMCA Safe Harbor.
    - shadilay 5y ago
      Viacom had lawyers and YT creators did not, therefore they did not have a seat at the table when YT's draconian copyright system was created.
chovybizzass 5y ago
just use odyssey
superasn 5y ago
Google's AI has gone totally bonkers. I've been routinely getting emails about 'adult content' in my videos and my videos get age restricted. Last one was a simple screen recording I made of an error to send a company with nothing but mostly white screen. I tried to appeal it but it also got rejected too (I guess that's also automatic?) and a quick search showed that I'm not alone, it is happening a lot.(1) The email you get from Google is also very scary like my actions may have some negative consequences for my Youtube account. (1) https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+YouTube+age+restricted+my+video https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+YouTube+age+restricte...
- breakingcups 5y ago
  I truly don't understand the point of appeals to an automated process if the handling of that appeal is also going to be automatic.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    So you have a number of AI bots running but some take longer and use more computing power than other ones - as you go through the appeals process you get shuffled along to the more and more expensive bots until finally you get denied by every bot and are fresh out of appeals.
    - blunte 5y ago
      Or the appeals are automatic "No, sorry" responses. I would love to see proof of an AI appeal that was successful.
- ourcat 5y ago
  I recently had an Android app removed from the Play Store for offensive content in the screenshots. We're a music site/radio station, and the name of the song playing in the player was 'XXX'. That's all it was. It has been in the store like that for a few years. Updating the screenshots got it listed again, but it was, as you say, totally bonkers.
SSLy 5y ago
murikan company doesn't care about users, news at 11.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of ads running on our new production of a public domain opera. I thought that no one got paid until the claim was upheld/revoked and then the ad money would go to the winner. > And even more copyright trolls are definitely out there making what is likely a substantial amount of money off of stuff they definitely don’t own from people who don’t contest the claims The Youtube three copyright strikes and you're out is definitely a cause of this - there needs to be a consequence for people making false claims. The underlying issue is that 99% of copyright claims are probably valid - youtube is awash with copied video clips and with music they don't own. The solution is for youtube to charge $1 per upload. If you want to make a copyright claim or appeal you have to pay $10+ which you get back if you win - but would pay for a human to review.
amelius 5y ago
The internet brought us the promise that anybody could be a broadcaster. Well, that promise sure didn't hold up long.
w4rh4wk5 5y ago
What keeps bugging me with the whole copyright dilemma on Youtube and Twitch is that it very much feels like a "guilty upon accusation, only innocent when proven otherwise" situation. In my opinion it's fine that an algorithm _detects_ usage of copyrighted material, but it should not automatically issue strikes of any kind. For copyright claims (false or valid) content producers should be treated "innocent unless proven otherwise", as in, the copyright holder has to prove that usage does not fall under fair-use.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Note that it doesn't issue strikes, it only either blocks the video or directs ad revenue to the (alleged) copyright owner. You could get 100 content ID detections and not lose your account (although YouTube might suspend you for abuse if you just continuously upload hundreds of hours of copyrighted material).
  - w4rh4wk5 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I mixed up the strike and content ID thing. Still you loose money, something that should (IMHO) not happen just because a system / copyright holder _thinks_ you _might_ be infringing. After watching Tom Scott's video linked somewhere here, I get where this comes from and that it is more of a problem with copyright in itself and the way entities with money can leverage that.
Carioca 5y ago
I got a DMCA claim on a video of me playing a Bach piece on guitar, with my own AFAIK entirely novel arrangement
superice 5y ago
Okay, evil shower thought: why not actively start abusing this on a massive scale, claim as many copyrights as you can automatically so Google has to address this? If they don't do anything, you put the 'stolen' revenue in a fund for uploaders to access again. Worst case, nothing happens, and video uploaders still get a payout, best case Google is forced to make some changes.
- thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
  I'm with you on this. The system is blatantly broken, and one way to get something done about it is to get everyone to abuse the hell out of it so that the system gets removed or fixed.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Maybe we could use deep RNN to produce novel but likely soundbytes that politicians are likely to say to be included in copyright audio tracks, and then hit the politicians' videos themselves.
Inhibit 5y ago
I actually had a copyright claim filed against an US Air Force band of the Pacific composition and recording. Which I got from them directly and had used because it falls outside copyright (and I like their work). It did get rescinded when I forwarded a response from a surprised representative. But YouTube still immediately flags those works as copyright belonging to a party that reproduces those recordings. regardless of that being impossible.
schuyler2d 5y ago
I'm somewhat surprised that Google doesn't track public domain works and see them as such -- it seems like a perfect honeypot to distinguish copyright trolls (or just over-aggressive studio/record-company algorithms) which they could regulate or push back against. I.e. public domain works are a good input to their own AI -- why are they leaving that on the table?
- TonyTrapp 5y ago
  A specific performance of a public-domain work may still be copyrighted. The problem is that their algorithms are not really tuned to distinguish different performances of the same song - on the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that their algorithms try to find as many similiar-sounding matches as possible, so that e.g. a song playing in the background on a radio is still recognized, even though it obviously sounds very different compared to a direct recording of a song.
  - mod50ack 5y ago
    That's decidedly not the problem here. They didn't confuse my recording for a copyrighted performance. The claim was that I used a copyrighted melody in an original performance --- but the melody is public domain.
    - TonyTrapp 5y ago
      Out of curiosity, what were those four strikes then, if not for four different copyrighted performances of the work? From my understanding of how ContentID works, matches are always done against recordings provided by copyright holders, and not against abstract melodies.
      - mod50ack 5y ago
        It's an opera with various songs. For four of these songs, content ID reported a melody match with a composition. Keep in mind that compositions and performances have separate copyrights and often separate owners! Compositions have to be registered separately in content ID. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2822002?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2822002?hl=en What happened was that each song was correctly identified by its melody and matched with an entry in the composition database, even though the compositions are clearly public domain.
narrator 5y ago
In the constitution you have the 5th amendment due process clause. This is basically your right to good customer service from the government when you are the one charged with a crime. The administration of due process is very expensive, and any good corporate manager driven by OKRs focused on revenue would do away with the process all together in favor of plaintiffs, unless the defendant was a significant taxpayer or something like that. This does not apply to private corporations. However, now we have these trial like processes going on inside of Google and they are driven by OKRs and quarterly profits, so its 100% plaintiff friendly, because Google knows the defendants are largely powerless and not revenue generators.
fencepost 5y ago
I find myself wondering if there's any grounds for action based on "unjust enrichment" here, because there are absolutely entities making money they're not entitled to. If there's involuntary monetization then Google is definitely one of those entities.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
Here's the full list of reasons google will act: 1. Will it make them more money?
6510 5y ago
I think this part of youtube should be spun into a separate entity that delivers services to governments who should protect copyrights for which the copyright holder should pay a fee (read "a tax!"). I understand people are trying to make a living but I'm really tired of everyone else having to pay for their copyright though all kinds of "externalizes" like trolling fair use, making it impossible to find some music to add to a video, do a remix, make fan art etc etc etc I think the public is missing out on 99% of the potential creations and the creativity that comes from them. Learning a new skill is hard if you have no access to anything. The economy is compromised here. Then we also have to view advertisements so that copyright enforcement can be paid for? I use to have thousands (seriously) of youtube subscriptions. Every channel worth watching is gone and most of it was over bullshit violations of fair use. Copyright didn't enhance my experience, it ruined it. The best instance was a movie (that I wont name) made from videos endlessly duplicated on the web from which the origin was impossible to trace. After the movie was launched everyone got a take down notice. Accounts got flagged, people got banned. (not just youtube but also their other services like gmail) That the videos had been online for over a decade didn't bother the process at all. When I play my guitar I hardly feel every string I pull is a wonderful new creation that I should own from now on(???) If I do feel like that I would expect to pay for these services myself. If the creations are not valuable enough to pay for copyright enforcement then they are simply not valuable enough - period. It shouldn't mean other people now have to pay for it. If you play music (a recording) in public (in your bar, disco, restaurant etc) in the Netherlands you have to pay fees regardless of the artist being registered with the entity. The exception is if you have specific written permission. I'm just playing my guitar, why cant I just have people use my music? Why do I have to do extra work so that some unrelated 4rd party can get paid? Why does google have to pay for it? By what logic should google be the one to decide what shall and shall not pass? They have an elaborate system that took a lot of effort, cost them a lot of money and it doesn't work. Just let government do it and charge the tax for the service and deal with false claims similarly - in court. The recording studios claim to be missing out on hundreds of billions. By that logic governments could make a HUGE profit on these taxes. Lets not make it a flat tax, let it scale to the moon.
tinus_hn 5y ago
The solution is to enforce the penalty of perjury required for these claims.
jedberg 5y ago
I just read a good related story yesterday. Someone on TikTok (in Canada) created an original "song" of them singing along with a cat. The song got really popular. So popular that they put the song on Spotify and made it available for sale. And then the original got taken down from TikTok Canada with the warning that "This music is not available in your country". They literally got a copyright notice on their own song with they licensed for sale in US.
- rchaud 5y ago
  His/her unwitting mistake was to put it on Spotify to begin with. The whole point of Spotify is to go where the audience is. The songwriter already had an audience on TT, the next step would be to just link to the song on Dropbox or better yet, on their own website, with a PayPal/Kofi button. By putting it on Spotify, you now have to play by their rules.
tyingq 5y ago
This all makes me curious what barriers (technical, funding, legal, etc) remain for a decentralized P2P video platform to become highly popular. I'd love to see YouTube bring about it's own demise with both the increasingly intrusive ads and heavy-handed copyright processes.
samplenoise 5y ago
The consensus here on this kind of issues these days seems to be that it’s not Google’s fault. However if their rights model would make a correct and consistent distinction between works and performance, they would know that there is no right holder to the work (melody) they’ve identified. It’s not impossible that there are copyright trolls spamming their database with performances of public domain works and claiming both type of rights, but than they should have a system to flag those as inconsistent with known public domain material. They have the money to clean up their data, it’s just not as fun as iterating on their audio to performance and audio to work ML systems, which seem to work fine
Animats 5y ago
File criminal charges for false claim of copyright. It's a criminal offense in the US. While this is very seldom prosecuted, it's worth doing the paperwork to raise the issue and create a paper trail. The Center for New Media Rights might help.[1] [1] https://www.newmediarights.org/ https://www.newmediarights.org/
- specialist 5y ago
  Many comments have referenced DMCA's perjury safeguards. Is anyone keeping score? Who are the claimants? How many are trolls? How many claims are adjudicated and how? Surely YouTube (Google) has metrics. Make it all public. I couldn't readily find Daniel Benjamin Miller's Trial by Jury. Even then, I don't know if third parties (you and me) can see the claimants. Edit: Found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKsDpu5D60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKsDpu5D60 OC's video had four separate claimants; Surely at least 3 are invalid, right? Google's DNA is to shirk any responsibility, shifting all administrative burden onto the afflicted. They absolutely have the means to bat away spurious claims, but simply choose not to bother. They're hiding behind a rigid interpretation of DMCA, "What choice do we have??", because reasons.
  - mod50ack 5y ago
    There are four claims, on compositions, of four separate songs from the opera. They're all invalid.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Belated reply, sorry: Aha! Thanks, that makes sense. Now occurs to me those 4 claims had some origin.
minikites 5y ago
What incentive does Google have to fix this? There's no viable competition in this space.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foobarbecue 5y ago
This. I recorded myself playing some Saint-Saëns on cello with a friend accompanying on the piano, uploaded it to youtube, and the copyright machine decided it's owned BMG. Couldn't believe it.
blacklight 5y ago
I don't get it: if Google correctly identified that the melody was from a 100+ years old composition, and that it wasn't a reproduction of copyrighted content, why did it raise a copyright infringement claim in the first place? It sounds like it has already a database of compositions it matches against, and the year of release is probably reported on that database. The solution may be as simple as not raising a copyright infringement claim on any match again compositions that are 70 years old or older.
twirlock 5y ago
It's probably still copyrighted in China or something. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.

655 points by mod50ack 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Today it's certain melodies. One day it might be certain phrases. This is the same YouTube that banned any videos contradicting the WHO (the same WHO who said not to wear masks). The same YouTube who takes down videos with evidence of human rights abuses. Stop donating content to a censorship platform.

lmilcin 5y ago
I have recently noticed my posts on Youtube that correct inaccuracies in technical videos are vanishing couple of seconds after posted. It seems Youtube is performing some kind of sentiment analysis and removes posts immediately based on it. I stopped commenting on Youtube.
- loa_in_ 5y ago
  It was me. I often spend 10 minutes writing a comment, I post it and sooner than later I delete it. Effort to put my thoughts into coherent words is often more important to me than the comment itself, and thus it had had served it's purpose in the instant I wrote it down.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I am also doing that frequently. I spend a bunch of time writing comment only to find out it does not improve the discussion one iota, so I delete it. But having an occasion to think something through lets me organize my thoughts a tiny bit better.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  The spam filter might be picking up the comment. Then it will require approval from the creator of the video. This filter is incredibly aggressive, because of just how much garbage is spammed. As an example, YouTube hid this comment and tagged it as "likely spam": >I saw a Jean Bart video and I thought I might be in it as I went up against you yesterday, glad I was not in the other team in this one lol However, there also exists some kind of other system that sometimes removes comments. I'm not sure how that one works. Even as the creator of the video I've had my comments disappear, but that might've also just been a bug.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I tried to have fun with comment filter to figure out what causes comments to trigger it but it seem it is implemented so that when you get couple comments removed you are no longer able to put any comment, they are just going to vanish whatever you write.
- ttt0 5y ago
  I don't comment in the comment section either, but I sometimes read it and I often see people accusing the channel of deleting comments, and the responses from the channel owners that they don't delete any comments. And these channels don't even have anything to do with politics or any controversial topics. I sometimes comment in the live chat on livestreams though. I'm sure there is some kind of super clever and sophisticated algorithm to filter out comments, but in practice as far as I can tell, what comment in the live chat gets through is virtually just random.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I believe channel owners. The comments are being removed so regularly that would be practically impossible for somebody to react so perfectly within 2-3s of every comment. It is just youtube trying to create illusion of functioning community by automatically censoring anything and anybody that can even potentially be negative, divisive or controversial. And we know the dangers of removing every critical opinion...
    - ttt0 5y ago
      Absolutely, in the full context channel owners often have zero incentive to remove any comments and it makes zero sense for them to do so, so I believe them too. Most people are aware of what YouTube is doing by now, but once in a while you have someone who will blame it on the channel.
mlang23 5y ago
Well said. Google has become one of the big evil players. So fucking glad I turned down their hiring attempt.
dgb23 5y ago
They also enable a business model for countless independent content creators, easy access to free/open video lectures, talks and so on. I agree with your criticism but there are things at stake here that I very much appreciate as a consumer.
- sneak 5y ago
  YouTube does not have a monopoly on sending video content via HTTP.

zozbot234 5y ago

> we can’t sue just because we got a copyright claim against our video Um, apparently the underlying problem is that someone claimed a clearly public domain melody in Google's copyright enforcement system. And the public domain status can be proven very easily since sites like IMSLP make early PD editions of classical music readily available to anyone. Wouldn't OP have a claim for tortious interference against whoever claimed this content in a clearly fraudulent way?

regularfry 5y ago
So the underlying issue is really that it's "Google's" copyright enforcement system, Google's database. Not a public register of copyright works which could be treated as authoritative, and corrected where necessary. The problem goes back to copyright being assumed, not requiring registration.
- josefx 5y ago
  Not sure a public register alone would solve the issues. There were already cases in the past where TV shows registered copyright on their episodes and it resulted in automated strikes against youtube videos featured in these episodes. So for any registry to work you would have to go through every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who else might hold copyright. Basically you would end up killing the automation, which would most likely piss of the movie and music cartels/lobbyists.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    With a public register, if a TV show registers copyright incorrectly, that could then be corrected once, rather than the current situation, which requires it to be corrected on every claim. > So for any registry to work you would have to go through every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who else might hold copyright. Basically you would end up killing the automation, which would most likely piss of the movie and music cartels/lobbyists. That would be a feature, not a bug.

mlang23 5y ago

I've said that in a comment about a similar article recently, and it needs to be repeated here: Google is actually helping big players to harass small groups into submission. And they are using their copyright system as a weapon. But nobody questions the sloppy execution of that self-declared law enforcement. I guess they are deliberately trying what they can get away with, to set the ground for future harassment.

GuB-42 5y ago
I don't think Google is the main culprit here. The big players have big lawyers. And they fell on YouTube like vultures the moment Google bought it. Google essentially had no choice if they wanted to keep YouTube alive in a way that isn't a massive loss for them. Small groups don't have what it takes to defend themselves, so it is obvious which way Google is going. The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is very little penalties for bogus claims. Still, I don't think what Google does now is good, and I think it will be their downfall if they don't correct course. It is understandable, but it definitely looks like the company is run by robots running a Monte-carlo simulation. It is a very good way of solving computational problems, but it not really compatible with the way human work. In the future, I expect tech giants dominance to erode thanks to companies that actually look like they are being run by humans who care about their customers/partners/users. There are stories all over the web about customers being shut down with no reason given. Technically, Google may have excellent security and reliability, but I don't want my business to depend on what is from my point of view, a dice-rolling company.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Let us be clear: what Google does has nothing to do with DMCA. This is entirely out of their own volition.
  - lovehashbrowns 5y ago
    Google's ContentID came as a result of Viacom's lawsuit in 2007. It's used to hang on to their "safe harbor" status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_... One of the provisions is that the service provider isn't directly profiting from infringing content. A publisher would argue it's unfair for Google/Youtube to be considered a safe harbor if they make money from ad revenue between the time the infringing content is published and taken down by a DMCA claim. They'd also claim Google makes money using infringing content if users know that content is being hosted on Youtube.

chrismorgan 5y ago

A comment where I provided some details on English church hymns where such composition/melody claims were made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. Précis: about 20% of the hymns we were using were being illegitimately claimed, almost none of the claimants were acting in good faith (they didn’t review the disputes, but allowed them to lapse in my favour), and successful disputes did not prevent subsequent claims for exactly the same thing.

elzbardico 5y ago

Well, maybe is about time to stop feeding the beast. I get it is a fair complaint. But what about not uploading stuff to youutube in the first place if it is so hostile to content creators? Let it be what it is supposed to be, a giant repository of corporate, advertising-based tacky mass culture.

eloisant 5y ago
Unfortunately this is a network effect lock-in. Content creators need to be on YouTube because that's where the audience is. Viewers need to use YouTube because that's where the content is.
- procombo 5y ago
  There are a lot of very busy bees out there right now looking to change that. YouTube provides easy, great advertising revenue. But as individual channels develop their subscriber base, YouTube's role diminishes. Viewers/subscribers find it easy to "juggle" multiple apps. People just needed a reason for alternatives.
  - blunte 5y ago
    Does it really still provide great ad revenue? Hasn't that been declining and increasingly restricted over the last several years? Viewers largely don't care what platform your content is on as long as they can know it exists (link) and can easily consume it without jumping hurdles. I don't care if I watch something on Youtube or Vimeo as long as I see what I'm trying to see.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

Just a tought experiment: How about having two Youtube accounts and copyright-flagging your own videos? Then during the 30 day period your other account gets the ad revenue, oh well.

bencollier49 5y ago
Quite aside from this almost certainly being against the T&Cs, I'm not sure what happens when multiple parties claim the copyright. It's literally impossible (I think?) for them all to hold the copyright on the same melody, so how does Google resolve it?
- pdkl95 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM (cw: strong language) TL;DW - nothing happens, it's an unresolvable deadlock. This "feature" can sometimes be used by deliberately adding many easily claimable works in a video to prevent anybody from monetizing it.
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    That's incredible - it's from five years ago. Are people still using the technique these days?

PaulRobinson 5y ago

The best way to fix Google (or Facebook, or Apple, or Amazon for that matter), is to replace it. Alternatives exist, please use them.

flixic 5y ago
This article mentions that a troll is getting ad revenue. Which makes me assume that the author would like to benefit from ad revenue themselves. Do any alternatives exist in that space? Facebook's revenue share and copyright detection algorithms are even worse; Patreons work for existing fanbase. Youtube is probably your only choice for public viewing monetisation.
- ttt0 5y ago
  Copyright trolls are parasites, I would have a huge problem with them benefiting off my stuff even if I myself wouldn't make a dime on it. You can easily make arguments in favor of rental housing, usury and such, but there is absolutely no defense for this kind of behavior, I just find it immoral.
- PaulRobinson 5y ago
  Firstly, it’s not a given everybody wants to monetise everything. Secondly, advertising is only one form of monetisation. As a classical music fan myself, I am not going to enjoy any video that takes that route - I’d be happier with a sponsorship route or a “click here to buy on music services” (or even “click here to buy tickets for our upcoming performances”), link. Lastly, yes, other video platforms offer advertising, and they will only get better if content producers make them more competitive with YouTube.
  - wincy 5y ago
    It’s such a crazy small pittance that a creator gets from ad revenue. I watched a video recently of a YouTube channel with 3 million subscribers doing a breakdown of how they make money, and they make $700 a month off the advertising. Luckily they have a Patreon that they make $30,000 a month off of, which they’ve used to make some really amazing content. It’s sort of bizarre that they even run the ads on their videos, honestly, as you’d think not running them would increase appeal leading to more Patreon subscribers.

Laremere 5y ago

I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems with Youtube specific problems. Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.

mod50ack 5y ago
Oh, Tom is right. I've seen his video (actually a fan of his stuff), and I know that there's a real problem here for Google. They need to cover their asses here, and with good reason. And in many cases the problem is with the global copyright system. But this isn't such a case --- nobody should get flagged for performing Sullivan or Mozart. It's absurd and a much easier problem to solve than the ones involving fair use which Tom discusses.
esjeon 5y ago
> a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims. That will only harm small businesses and individuals. It doesn't take a huge sum of imagination to draw the situation in the brain. A lawyer hired by a big corporation on one side, and a poor artist on another side, both standing in the same courtroom. You already get the drama about to happen. Lawyers will happily bully those poor souls that they are fully capable of introducing more misery to their opponents, so you should just sign this paper and f** off. A few may resist, and few will survive, but the majority won't even take the case to the court out of fear. So, no, that's not a solution.
- izacus 5y ago

qwertox 5y ago

Google's copyright-recognition AI and how they deal with everything regarding copyright on YouTube should be a heads up for the German court which will be ruling on the Sony Music vs Quad9 case. One of the biggest companies in the world, the one owning some of the most advanced AI systems, isn't capable to rule internally in a fair way on copyright issues, such that the spirit of how copyright is supposed to work is completely neglected. Now apply this to DNS, including the fact that Google isn't the only one providing resolvers. What a horrible thing to do from Sony.

pdkl95 5y ago

Three copyright strikes and Google may delete your entire YT channel, while they continue to allow (and support via their "content id" service) an unlimited number of patently fraudulent claims from accounts that are obviously just spamming claims to see how much ad revenue they can steal. This imbalance is at the core of this issue. Google will severely punish creators for alleged copyright violations, but allows fraudulent claims. If creators have to work under a "3 copyright strikes" Sword of Damocles[1], the accounts of people making copyright claims need similar restriction. If you submit 3 fraudulent copyright claims, you lose your account. You cannot submit any more claims, "content id" no longer flags your works, and you no longer receive payments from any ad revenue claims on other videos. This may sound harsh, but so is deleting someone's channel after 3 copyright claims. [1] 17 U.S. Code § 512 (i) (1) ...The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers

thanksforfish 5y ago
I think a challenge is that the law provides much needed protections to YT if they protect copyright holders. Distinguishing between real and fraudulent claimants would need to be done very carefully; could accidentally denying a legitimate claim cause them to lose liability protections? If so, they'd need lawyers in the loop for any decision about denying a fraudulent copyright claim. The cost of that is likely enough to make them prefer the current setup.
- danaris 5y ago
  YouTube's system goes far beyond what is required for DMCA Safe Harbor.
  - shadilay 5y ago
    Viacom had lawyers and YT creators did not, therefore they did not have a seat at the table when YT's draconian copyright system was created.

chovybizzass 5y ago

just use odyssey

superasn 5y ago

Google's AI has gone totally bonkers. I've been routinely getting emails about 'adult content' in my videos and my videos get age restricted. Last one was a simple screen recording I made of an error to send a company with nothing but mostly white screen. I tried to appeal it but it also got rejected too (I guess that's also automatic?) and a quick search showed that I'm not alone, it is happening a lot.(1) The email you get from Google is also very scary like my actions may have some negative consequences for my Youtube account. (1) https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+YouTube+age+restricted+my+video https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+YouTube+age+restricte...

breakingcups 5y ago
I truly don't understand the point of appeals to an automated process if the handling of that appeal is also going to be automatic.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  So you have a number of AI bots running but some take longer and use more computing power than other ones - as you go through the appeals process you get shuffled along to the more and more expensive bots until finally you get denied by every bot and are fresh out of appeals.
  - blunte 5y ago
    Or the appeals are automatic "No, sorry" responses. I would love to see proof of an AI appeal that was successful.
ourcat 5y ago
I recently had an Android app removed from the Play Store for offensive content in the screenshots. We're a music site/radio station, and the name of the song playing in the player was 'XXX'. That's all it was. It has been in the store like that for a few years. Updating the screenshots got it listed again, but it was, as you say, totally bonkers.

SSLy 5y ago

murikan company doesn't care about users, news at 11.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

> So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of ads running on our new production of a public domain opera. I thought that no one got paid until the claim was upheld/revoked and then the ad money would go to the winner. > And even more copyright trolls are definitely out there making what is likely a substantial amount of money off of stuff they definitely don’t own from people who don’t contest the claims The Youtube three copyright strikes and you're out is definitely a cause of this - there needs to be a consequence for people making false claims. The underlying issue is that 99% of copyright claims are probably valid - youtube is awash with copied video clips and with music they don't own. The solution is for youtube to charge $1 per upload. If you want to make a copyright claim or appeal you have to pay $10+ which you get back if you win - but would pay for a human to review.

amelius 5y ago

The internet brought us the promise that anybody could be a broadcaster. Well, that promise sure didn't hold up long.

w4rh4wk5 5y ago

What keeps bugging me with the whole copyright dilemma on Youtube and Twitch is that it very much feels like a "guilty upon accusation, only innocent when proven otherwise" situation. In my opinion it's fine that an algorithm _detects_ usage of copyrighted material, but it should not automatically issue strikes of any kind. For copyright claims (false or valid) content producers should be treated "innocent unless proven otherwise", as in, the copyright holder has to prove that usage does not fall under fair-use.

judge2020 5y ago
Note that it doesn't issue strikes, it only either blocks the video or directs ad revenue to the (alleged) copyright owner. You could get 100 content ID detections and not lose your account (although YouTube might suspend you for abuse if you just continuously upload hundreds of hours of copyrighted material).
- w4rh4wk5 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I mixed up the strike and content ID thing. Still you loose money, something that should (IMHO) not happen just because a system / copyright holder _thinks_ you _might_ be infringing. After watching Tom Scott's video linked somewhere here, I get where this comes from and that it is more of a problem with copyright in itself and the way entities with money can leverage that.

Carioca 5y ago

I got a DMCA claim on a video of me playing a Bach piece on guitar, with my own AFAIK entirely novel arrangement

superice 5y ago

Okay, evil shower thought: why not actively start abusing this on a massive scale, claim as many copyrights as you can automatically so Google has to address this? If they don't do anything, you put the 'stolen' revenue in a fund for uploaders to access again. Worst case, nothing happens, and video uploaders still get a payout, best case Google is forced to make some changes.

thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
I'm with you on this. The system is blatantly broken, and one way to get something done about it is to get everyone to abuse the hell out of it so that the system gets removed or fixed.
cwkoss 5y ago
Maybe we could use deep RNN to produce novel but likely soundbytes that politicians are likely to say to be included in copyright audio tracks, and then hit the politicians' videos themselves.

Inhibit 5y ago

I actually had a copyright claim filed against an US Air Force band of the Pacific composition and recording. Which I got from them directly and had used because it falls outside copyright (and I like their work). It did get rescinded when I forwarded a response from a surprised representative. But YouTube still immediately flags those works as copyright belonging to a party that reproduces those recordings. regardless of that being impossible.

schuyler2d 5y ago

I'm somewhat surprised that Google doesn't track public domain works and see them as such -- it seems like a perfect honeypot to distinguish copyright trolls (or just over-aggressive studio/record-company algorithms) which they could regulate or push back against. I.e. public domain works are a good input to their own AI -- why are they leaving that on the table?

TonyTrapp 5y ago
A specific performance of a public-domain work may still be copyrighted. The problem is that their algorithms are not really tuned to distinguish different performances of the same song - on the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that their algorithms try to find as many similiar-sounding matches as possible, so that e.g. a song playing in the background on a radio is still recognized, even though it obviously sounds very different compared to a direct recording of a song.
- mod50ack 5y ago
  That's decidedly not the problem here. They didn't confuse my recording for a copyrighted performance. The claim was that I used a copyrighted melody in an original performance --- but the melody is public domain.
  - TonyTrapp 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, what were those four strikes then, if not for four different copyrighted performances of the work? From my understanding of how ContentID works, matches are always done against recordings provided by copyright holders, and not against abstract melodies.
    - mod50ack 5y ago
      It's an opera with various songs. For four of these songs, content ID reported a melody match with a composition. Keep in mind that compositions and performances have separate copyrights and often separate owners! Compositions have to be registered separately in content ID. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2822002?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2822002?hl=en What happened was that each song was correctly identified by its melody and matched with an entry in the composition database, even though the compositions are clearly public domain.

narrator 5y ago

In the constitution you have the 5th amendment due process clause. This is basically your right to good customer service from the government when you are the one charged with a crime. The administration of due process is very expensive, and any good corporate manager driven by OKRs focused on revenue would do away with the process all together in favor of plaintiffs, unless the defendant was a significant taxpayer or something like that. This does not apply to private corporations. However, now we have these trial like processes going on inside of Google and they are driven by OKRs and quarterly profits, so its 100% plaintiff friendly, because Google knows the defendants are largely powerless and not revenue generators.

fencepost 5y ago

I find myself wondering if there's any grounds for action based on "unjust enrichment" here, because there are absolutely entities making money they're not entitled to. If there's involuntary monetization then Google is definitely one of those entities.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

Here's the full list of reasons google will act: 1. Will it make them more money?

6510 5y ago

I think this part of youtube should be spun into a separate entity that delivers services to governments who should protect copyrights for which the copyright holder should pay a fee (read "a tax!"). I understand people are trying to make a living but I'm really tired of everyone else having to pay for their copyright though all kinds of "externalizes" like trolling fair use, making it impossible to find some music to add to a video, do a remix, make fan art etc etc etc I think the public is missing out on 99% of the potential creations and the creativity that comes from them. Learning a new skill is hard if you have no access to anything. The economy is compromised here. Then we also have to view advertisements so that copyright enforcement can be paid for? I use to have thousands (seriously) of youtube subscriptions. Every channel worth watching is gone and most of it was over bullshit violations of fair use. Copyright didn't enhance my experience, it ruined it. The best instance was a movie (that I wont name) made from videos endlessly duplicated on the web from which the origin was impossible to trace. After the movie was launched everyone got a take down notice. Accounts got flagged, people got banned. (not just youtube but also their other services like gmail) That the videos had been online for over a decade didn't bother the process at all. When I play my guitar I hardly feel every string I pull is a wonderful new creation that I should own from now on(???) If I do feel like that I would expect to pay for these services myself. If the creations are not valuable enough to pay for copyright enforcement then they are simply not valuable enough - period. It shouldn't mean other people now have to pay for it. If you play music (a recording) in public (in your bar, disco, restaurant etc) in the Netherlands you have to pay fees regardless of the artist being registered with the entity. The exception is if you have specific written permission. I'm just playing my guitar, why cant I just have people use my music? Why do I have to do extra work so that some unrelated 4rd party can get paid? Why does google have to pay for it? By what logic should google be the one to decide what shall and shall not pass? They have an elaborate system that took a lot of effort, cost them a lot of money and it doesn't work. Just let government do it and charge the tax for the service and deal with false claims similarly - in court. The recording studios claim to be missing out on hundreds of billions. By that logic governments could make a HUGE profit on these taxes. Lets not make it a flat tax, let it scale to the moon.

tinus_hn 5y ago

The solution is to enforce the penalty of perjury required for these claims.

jedberg 5y ago

I just read a good related story yesterday. Someone on TikTok (in Canada) created an original "song" of them singing along with a cat. The song got really popular. So popular that they put the song on Spotify and made it available for sale. And then the original got taken down from TikTok Canada with the warning that "This music is not available in your country". They literally got a copyright notice on their own song with they licensed for sale in US.

rchaud 5y ago
His/her unwitting mistake was to put it on Spotify to begin with. The whole point of Spotify is to go where the audience is. The songwriter already had an audience on TT, the next step would be to just link to the song on Dropbox or better yet, on their own website, with a PayPal/Kofi button. By putting it on Spotify, you now have to play by their rules.

tyingq 5y ago

This all makes me curious what barriers (technical, funding, legal, etc) remain for a decentralized P2P video platform to become highly popular. I'd love to see YouTube bring about it's own demise with both the increasingly intrusive ads and heavy-handed copyright processes.

samplenoise 5y ago

The consensus here on this kind of issues these days seems to be that it’s not Google’s fault. However if their rights model would make a correct and consistent distinction between works and performance, they would know that there is no right holder to the work (melody) they’ve identified. It’s not impossible that there are copyright trolls spamming their database with performances of public domain works and claiming both type of rights, but than they should have a system to flag those as inconsistent with known public domain material. They have the money to clean up their data, it’s just not as fun as iterating on their audio to performance and audio to work ML systems, which seem to work fine

Animats 5y ago

File criminal charges for false claim of copyright. It's a criminal offense in the US. While this is very seldom prosecuted, it's worth doing the paperwork to raise the issue and create a paper trail. The Center for New Media Rights might help.[1] [1] https://www.newmediarights.org/ https://www.newmediarights.org/

specialist 5y ago
Many comments have referenced DMCA's perjury safeguards. Is anyone keeping score? Who are the claimants? How many are trolls? How many claims are adjudicated and how? Surely YouTube (Google) has metrics. Make it all public. I couldn't readily find Daniel Benjamin Miller's Trial by Jury. Even then, I don't know if third parties (you and me) can see the claimants. Edit: Found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKsDpu5D60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKsDpu5D60 OC's video had four separate claimants; Surely at least 3 are invalid, right? Google's DNA is to shirk any responsibility, shifting all administrative burden onto the afflicted. They absolutely have the means to bat away spurious claims, but simply choose not to bother. They're hiding behind a rigid interpretation of DMCA, "What choice do we have??", because reasons.
- mod50ack 5y ago
  There are four claims, on compositions, of four separate songs from the opera. They're all invalid.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Belated reply, sorry: Aha! Thanks, that makes sense. Now occurs to me those 4 claims had some origin.

minikites 5y ago

What incentive does Google have to fix this? There's no viable competition in this space.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

foobarbecue 5y ago

This. I recorded myself playing some Saint-Saëns on cello with a friend accompanying on the piano, uploaded it to youtube, and the copyright machine decided it's owned BMG. Couldn't believe it.

blacklight 5y ago

I don't get it: if Google correctly identified that the melody was from a 100+ years old composition, and that it wasn't a reproduction of copyrighted content, why did it raise a copyright infringement claim in the first place? It sounds like it has already a database of compositions it matches against, and the year of release is probably reported on that database. The solution may be as simple as not raising a copyright infringement claim on any match again compositions that are 70 years old or older.

twirlock 5y ago

It's probably still copyrighted in China or something. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.