4 ms·

Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions coul

Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.

lucideer 5y ago
Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement. This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say there's definitely a market.
- 988747 5y ago
  But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.
  - lucideer 5y ago
    There's a reasonable argument that deepfakes are challenging our ability to rely on video evidence in general, but saying any editing at all removes credibility is pretty out there. Almost every video on the internet has been edited in some way.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Are there deepfakes out there that can withstand even a cursory technical interrogation? Most of them are extremely obvious once you've seen two or three.
      - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
        Depends what you mean by "technical". There are deep fakes that are good enough to fool some humans. There are deep fakes that are good enough to pass by some AI detection. Then there are some deep fakes that can not pass either. By definition this is unquatifiable problem since you won't know how many deep fakes you aren't detecting since you aren't detecting them.
      - lucideer 5y ago
        While it's blatantly obvious from the context and subject matter that they're fake, I did find quite a few of the Sassy Justice[0] series' examples to be quite convincing from a technical standpoint (I imagine they could have been undetectable given more subtle context & subject matter) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
  - hirundo 5y ago
    So post the video with the copyright-material-subtracted audio, plus a link to the unedited audio.
  - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    Stupid question: How do you know that the video isn't "edited"? It clearly has been edited to add the subtitles and the watermark to the top left corner and it has fade to black and then fade in their logo and donation link at the end.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  It'd probably be better to do a vocal boost to the max and try to silence the music part as much as you can. Although I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess on a YouTube video.
  - lucideer 5y ago
    A straight vocal boost would change the audio profile of the overall scene pretty significantly, so I'm thinking some tool that has less impact would be desirable. > I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess I don't know how it'd fare in this instance but continuous improvements to the Shazam-esque algorithms used by copyright-flagging bots might make this less and less likely to go undetected.
- eqtn 5y ago
  There is "Mute song only(beta)" in YouTube which says "Remove the claimed song only, keeping the rest of the sound. This option usually takes longer and might not work if the song is hard to remove"
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    I've tried it on a short clip that's under a minute long and it never actually processed the file when I tried. The beta flag is definitely warranted and you really don't want to rely on it.
grahamburger 5y ago
Yeah this seems like an easy way around it. Post the video with subtitles and no audio, and a link to the original video hosted on a PeerTube instance or something.
jopsen 5y ago
Or just use mask/obfuscate the audio, and face while your at it. In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force. There are also many other contributing factors to policing issues in the US. But the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me. And if it's not just a few bad apples, then why do we need to publicly shame individual officers who are just doing their job as they were trained to do, in line with department policies? (Doesn't such public shaming just create opposition and resentment, distracting from the issue at hand) Just saying... in other countries media don't go around posting/shaming people publicly if there is no conviction. (Sure, there is a balance, a few exceptions, and lots of nuance)
- kemonocode 5y ago
  > In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should stop doing such things or think really hard about their chosen career path. > After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force. At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. Mayhaps if they like the lack of it and with less bodily risk, they could pursue politics instead.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    > Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties... True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to escalate to the point of publicly shaming officers. Or at-least maybe we don't always need to, sometimes it's definitely called for. > At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. I don't think any actions by any individual police officer is likely to scale far.

Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.

lucideer 5y ago

Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement. This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say there's definitely a market.

988747 5y ago
But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.
- lucideer 5y ago
  There's a reasonable argument that deepfakes are challenging our ability to rely on video evidence in general, but saying any editing at all removes credibility is pretty out there. Almost every video on the internet has been edited in some way.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Are there deepfakes out there that can withstand even a cursory technical interrogation? Most of them are extremely obvious once you've seen two or three.
    - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
      Depends what you mean by "technical". There are deep fakes that are good enough to fool some humans. There are deep fakes that are good enough to pass by some AI detection. Then there are some deep fakes that can not pass either. By definition this is unquatifiable problem since you won't know how many deep fakes you aren't detecting since you aren't detecting them.
    - lucideer 5y ago
      While it's blatantly obvious from the context and subject matter that they're fake, I did find quite a few of the Sassy Justice[0] series' examples to be quite convincing from a technical standpoint (I imagine they could have been undetectable given more subtle context & subject matter) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
- hirundo 5y ago
  So post the video with the copyright-material-subtracted audio, plus a link to the unedited audio.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  Stupid question: How do you know that the video isn't "edited"? It clearly has been edited to add the subtitles and the watermark to the top left corner and it has fade to black and then fade in their logo and donation link at the end.
Hamuko 5y ago
It'd probably be better to do a vocal boost to the max and try to silence the music part as much as you can. Although I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess on a YouTube video.
- lucideer 5y ago
  A straight vocal boost would change the audio profile of the overall scene pretty significantly, so I'm thinking some tool that has less impact would be desirable. > I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess I don't know how it'd fare in this instance but continuous improvements to the Shazam-esque algorithms used by copyright-flagging bots might make this less and less likely to go undetected.
eqtn 5y ago
There is "Mute song only(beta)" in YouTube which says "Remove the claimed song only, keeping the rest of the sound. This option usually takes longer and might not work if the song is hard to remove"
- Hamuko 5y ago
  I've tried it on a short clip that's under a minute long and it never actually processed the file when I tried. The beta flag is definitely warranted and you really don't want to rely on it.

grahamburger 5y ago

Yeah this seems like an easy way around it. Post the video with subtitles and no audio, and a link to the original video hosted on a PeerTube instance or something.

jopsen 5y ago

Or just use mask/obfuscate the audio, and face while your at it. In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force. There are also many other contributing factors to policing issues in the US. But the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me. And if it's not just a few bad apples, then why do we need to publicly shame individual officers who are just doing their job as they were trained to do, in line with department policies? (Doesn't such public shaming just create opposition and resentment, distracting from the issue at hand) Just saying... in other countries media don't go around posting/shaming people publicly if there is no conviction. (Sure, there is a balance, a few exceptions, and lots of nuance)

kemonocode 5y ago
> In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should stop doing such things or think really hard about their chosen career path. > After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force. At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. Mayhaps if they like the lack of it and with less bodily risk, they could pursue politics instead.
- jopsen 5y ago
  > Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties... True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to escalate to the point of publicly shaming officers. Or at-least maybe we don't always need to, sometimes it's definitely called for. > At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. I don't think any actions by any individual police officer is likely to scale far.