5 ms·

I'm suspicious of video #4 being the reason. There is a wave of people copying other people's music, claiming as their own and then sending claims to the origi

by ratww 5y ago

I'm suspicious of video #4 being the reason. There is a wave of people copying other people's music, claiming as their own and then sending claims to the original video. Maybe since your channel is small, Youtube decided to just ban. I've seen it happened with people who tried to pirate music more than once. I don't post any music at all on Youtube. It all goes trough a third-party service that posts on my behalf and on streaming services.

S_A_P 5y ago
I suppose that is possible but don’t they give you a strike for that instead of an outright ban for strike 1?
- ratww 5y ago
  That's correct, but I've seen this rule being broken often on channels that had pirate music.
  - S_A_P 5y ago
    The music has been there for 8 years for one and 2 years for the second one. I’m wondering If my channel name is the reason “stupid American pig” is my band name. But it’s been that name since 2008
    - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
      Holy Shit! That's a fantastic name. Are you punk rock? But I agree that is a very dangerous name in the time of algorithm controlled moderation.
      - S_A_P 5y ago
        I’m a fan of punk rock but I wouldn’t call my music that. Mostly lofi type stuff.
    - ratww 5y ago
      Ah the plot thickens, then! It could be an overzealous filter.
      - brudgers 5y ago
        There’s almost always more to My account was banned stories. I mean here there’s the obvious question of why not make a new account and move on? Considering the description of the account that would be much less effort than has been invested here. And less drama.
winternett 5y ago
I wish there was a shazam service for Google... People that hijack music should not be allowed to profit from doing so at the original artist's expense, and YT is liable for letting that happen. There will probably be a class action suit in a few years where Lawyers will likely collect all the settlement money, and then justice won't be served. This is America.
- hunter2_ 5y ago
  If I understand you correctly, it does exist, and it's called Content ID.
  - winternett 5y ago
    Only Google people can view the back-end of Content ID... I'm talking about a service that we as normal people can use to see where our own music is being used across the Internet... Right now the only thing content creators can do is use metadata to search for their own content, but if there was a method to search for the footprints of music and film, then we could work on overall fairness better.
    - hunter2_ 5y ago
      Oh I see. That would be very cool. Sounds like it could work similarly to the "search Google for this image" feature.
      - winternett 5y ago
        Yeah, unfortunately Google reverse image search doesn't work properly any more as well :(
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        exikyut 5y ago
        Use Yandex. It's all in Russian but it's... try it, and then try it some more. I don't even find it inconvenient that I can't long-press and "search Yandex for this image" on my phone, the quality is sufficiently better enough that it's worth it to {go navigating through Recent/whatever|copy/paste the URL}
pvarangot 5y ago
I do music as a hobby and tried to use YouTube to share some stuff with Reddit/Discord/friends and I couldn't get anything to survive unclaimed for more than a day after posting on Reddit. I was using maybe some samples from percussion but from a pack that I have a license to but the rest of the stuff was my own sound design and arrangement... also it sounded really bad. Now I just don't share on Reddit anymore and mostly use private links because of that experience.
- brudgers 5y ago
  Your original work uses the licensed track. You have a copyright. Someone else used the same track in their original work. They also have copyright. Your work is similar to their work. If they were first they have a plausible copyright claim against you. Unless the license was copyleft. Which is a motivation for copyleft. The license to a drum track only protects from claims from the rightsholder of the drum track.
  - ratww 5y ago
    > Your original work uses the licensed track Using samples for percussion doesn’t mean sampling other commercial tracks, nor does it mean you’re using loops. > Your work is similar to their work. > > If they were first they have a plausible copyright claim against you. > > Unless the license was copyleft. Which is a motivation for copyleft. > > The license to a drum track only protects from claims from the rightsholder of the drum track. This is 100% incorrect. There is nothing here that matches reality of copyright. The owner of the original recording that was sample owns the copyright but can license to others without losing it. If you have a legitimate license and the licenser is the legitimate copyright owner, you are in the clear. One person using it doesn’t make them the owner. The copyleft advice is also completely wrong. Copyleft in the context of music is untested in courts and wouldn’t make a iota of difference here.
brudgers 5y ago
The copying issue can arise when using legally licensed content loops and tracks without substantial modification and layering. Basically when it is easy and simple and sounds good right out of the box, someone else has beat you to using it in a song, and you are in violation of their copyright. The license to the loop/track/etc. doesn’t mean your work isn’t protected by copyright. And it doesn’t mean your work doesn’t infringe on other work using the same content under the same license.
- ratww 5y ago
  > Basically when it is easy and simple and sounds good right out of the box, someone else has beat you to using it in a song, and you are in violation of their copyright. No, it’s not. Not in a million years is a violation. This is not how copyright and licensing works. Youtube doing what it does is 100% wrong in every aspect, technical and practical. > The license to the loop/track/etc. doesn’t mean your work isn’t protected by copyright. And it doesn’t mean your work doesn’t infringe on other work using the same content under the same license. You’re 100% wrong. If you use something licensed to you, then you are not violating anything, and just because someone beat you, doesn’t mean they get exclusive rights to the sound. This is 100% pure bullshit. ContentID is not synonymous with copyright. And ContentID is severely broken. Just like your reply below that seems to ve flagged, your new post is also 100% wrong.

by ratww 5y ago

S_A_P 5y ago

I suppose that is possible but don’t they give you a strike for that instead of an outright ban for strike 1?

ratww 5y ago
That's correct, but I've seen this rule being broken often on channels that had pirate music.
- S_A_P 5y ago
  The music has been there for 8 years for one and 2 years for the second one. I’m wondering If my channel name is the reason “stupid American pig” is my band name. But it’s been that name since 2008
  - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
    Holy Shit! That's a fantastic name. Are you punk rock? But I agree that is a very dangerous name in the time of algorithm controlled moderation.
    - S_A_P 5y ago
      I’m a fan of punk rock but I wouldn’t call my music that. Mostly lofi type stuff.
  - ratww 5y ago
    Ah the plot thickens, then! It could be an overzealous filter.
    - brudgers 5y ago
      There’s almost always more to My account was banned stories. I mean here there’s the obvious question of why not make a new account and move on? Considering the description of the account that would be much less effort than has been invested here. And less drama.

winternett 5y ago

I wish there was a shazam service for Google... People that hijack music should not be allowed to profit from doing so at the original artist's expense, and YT is liable for letting that happen. There will probably be a class action suit in a few years where Lawyers will likely collect all the settlement money, and then justice won't be served. This is America.

hunter2_ 5y ago
If I understand you correctly, it does exist, and it's called Content ID.
- winternett 5y ago
  Only Google people can view the back-end of Content ID... I'm talking about a service that we as normal people can use to see where our own music is being used across the Internet... Right now the only thing content creators can do is use metadata to search for their own content, but if there was a method to search for the footprints of music and film, then we could work on overall fairness better.
  - hunter2_ 5y ago
    Oh I see. That would be very cool. Sounds like it could work similarly to the "search Google for this image" feature.
    - winternett 5y ago
      Yeah, unfortunately Google reverse image search doesn't work properly any more as well :(
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - exikyut 5y ago
        Use Yandex. It's all in Russian but it's... try it, and then try it some more. I don't even find it inconvenient that I can't long-press and "search Yandex for this image" on my phone, the quality is sufficiently better enough that it's worth it to {go navigating through Recent/whatever|copy/paste the URL}

pvarangot 5y ago

I do music as a hobby and tried to use YouTube to share some stuff with Reddit/Discord/friends and I couldn't get anything to survive unclaimed for more than a day after posting on Reddit. I was using maybe some samples from percussion but from a pack that I have a license to but the rest of the stuff was my own sound design and arrangement... also it sounded really bad. Now I just don't share on Reddit anymore and mostly use private links because of that experience.

brudgers 5y ago
Your original work uses the licensed track. You have a copyright. Someone else used the same track in their original work. They also have copyright. Your work is similar to their work. If they were first they have a plausible copyright claim against you. Unless the license was copyleft. Which is a motivation for copyleft. The license to a drum track only protects from claims from the rightsholder of the drum track.
- ratww 5y ago
  > Your original work uses the licensed track Using samples for percussion doesn’t mean sampling other commercial tracks, nor does it mean you’re using loops. > Your work is similar to their work. > > If they were first they have a plausible copyright claim against you. > > Unless the license was copyleft. Which is a motivation for copyleft. > > The license to a drum track only protects from claims from the rightsholder of the drum track. This is 100% incorrect. There is nothing here that matches reality of copyright. The owner of the original recording that was sample owns the copyright but can license to others without losing it. If you have a legitimate license and the licenser is the legitimate copyright owner, you are in the clear. One person using it doesn’t make them the owner. The copyleft advice is also completely wrong. Copyleft in the context of music is untested in courts and wouldn’t make a iota of difference here.

brudgers 5y ago

The copying issue can arise when using legally licensed content loops and tracks without substantial modification and layering. Basically when it is easy and simple and sounds good right out of the box, someone else has beat you to using it in a song, and you are in violation of their copyright. The license to the loop/track/etc. doesn’t mean your work isn’t protected by copyright. And it doesn’t mean your work doesn’t infringe on other work using the same content under the same license.

ratww 5y ago
> Basically when it is easy and simple and sounds good right out of the box, someone else has beat you to using it in a song, and you are in violation of their copyright. No, it’s not. Not in a million years is a violation. This is not how copyright and licensing works. Youtube doing what it does is 100% wrong in every aspect, technical and practical. > The license to the loop/track/etc. doesn’t mean your work isn’t protected by copyright. And it doesn’t mean your work doesn’t infringe on other work using the same content under the same license. You’re 100% wrong. If you use something licensed to you, then you are not violating anything, and just because someone beat you, doesn’t mean they get exclusive rights to the sound. This is 100% pure bullshit. ContentID is not synonymous with copyright. And ContentID is severely broken. Just like your reply below that seems to ve flagged, your new post is also 100% wrong.