3 ms·

Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike

Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike on YouTube--often by a big label (BMI, etc). Last week it was a Robert Schumann piece, composed in 1848. The strike is still there, even though I contested it. (The form to contest it doesn't even have a good box to check for this scenario.) I would love it if I had the resources to sue BMI for defamation (they're claiming I'm a thief) and sue YouTube for facilitating this. They really need to make sure their music match looks for _exact_ matches for compositions that are out of copyright, to catch specific performances and not just melodic/harmonic/rhytmic matches.

InternetUser 1y ago
Rick Beato has talked about this problem; in one video, he was even talking about how 5-second snippets of jazz were causing videos to be taken down, but the algorithm didn't even identify the right song. It reminds of how, in using the Shazam app, I've had numerous instances where it will wrongly identify a track 2 or 3 times, and even stick with the wrong answer. But even bands like Guns N' Roses and The Eagles will get videos of cover performances quickly blocked for sounding too close to the originals. Here's a great video where he talks about YouTube's recklessly draconian algorithms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok
- fortran77 1y ago
  That's not _this_ problem. Guns n' Roses, the Eagles, etc (or someone assigned by them) owns the rights to the score, lyrics, and recordings of performances. These are separate copyrights. If you cover their song, you may still be infringing on their copyrighted lyrics, score, and arrangements. I'm talking about compositions to which nobody has any rights to any part of (a recording of a performance can still have a copyright).
lakomen 1y ago
[dead]
elric 1y ago
The lack of (legal) recourse (in practice, if not in theory) against large multinational monopolists like YT is the real problem here. Imagine if a policeman came to your house every time you played the piano to fine you for nonexistent copyright infringement. That cop would be unemployed in very short order. You could take all sorts of against them, and there are protections in place to prevent such abuse of power. Not so with YT. You have fuck all recourse against the arbitrary and often incorrect decisions of whatever they call this ridiculous attempt at moderation. It is incredibly difficult to even talk to a human being. You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who could help you in this. Let alone a judge who would spend time on this only to tell Google the obvious truth: "the composition is out of copyright, stop being ridiculous". They'd go back to making the same mistakes immediately. My personal take on this is that it needs to be easier to talk to humans, to contest decisions, and to have humans in the moderation loop BEFORE handing out copyright strikes. If that means YT is no longer profitable, so be it.
- MyPasswordSucks 1y ago
  > Imagine if a policeman came to your house every time you played the piano to fine you for nonexistent copyright infringement. That cop would be unemployed in very short order. You could take all sorts of against them, and there are protections in place to prevent such abuse of power. The legal concept of qualified immunity prevents taking personal action against civic officials for actions they perform in the course of their civic duties. So, assuming the policeman is coming to your house because BMI called 911 to report (non-existent) copyright theft, the policeman is simply doing his thankless job, and is immune from suit. If the policeman is just showing up without being called, then - while he would not benefit from qualified immunity - 1. it makes no sense to label him as a "policeman" since he's no longer performing the job of a policeman - you might as well just say "brown-haired guy" or "rollercoaster enthusiast" or "guy who prefers Pepsi to Coke" as those traits are just as relevant; and 2. it's a very poor analogic fit, because in the situation you're comparing it to, YouTube (the cop) is being called by BMI. Note that qualified immunity is, strictly speaking, only applicable to government/civic actors, not private enterprise. However, the general principle still applies throughout the legal canon (usually lurking between the phrases "duty of care" and "assumption of risk" - you can't sue Kevin McCallister for causing you to cut your foot when you stepped on haphazardly-placed Christmas ornaments, because you were trespassing on private property and the McCallister family owed you no duty of care; and you can't sue We Throw Pies At Your Face For Five Dollars Inc for throwing a pie at your face, assuming you went there and paid five dollars, because you knew what you were getting into and they were just doing their job). In the case of copyright, legal immunity for content providers is actually hard-coded into the DMCA, mostly via the OCILLA safe harbor (Title II). Also, please don't confuse an explanation of the process for an endorsement of the process. The DMCA is bad law that only looks good if you compare it to hypothetical laws that would be worse, copyright in the US has been ridiculous for generations and trying to emulate Europe in the late 80s only made it worse, and I wish YouTube could find a way to take a stance against rightsholders who abuse the process. But their status as a large multinational monopolist isn't why you can't sue them - it's baked into the law, because that's how the DMCA works.

InternetUser 1y ago

Rick Beato has talked about this problem; in one video, he was even talking about how 5-second snippets of jazz were causing videos to be taken down, but the algorithm didn't even identify the right song. It reminds of how, in using the Shazam app, I've had numerous instances where it will wrongly identify a track 2 or 3 times, and even stick with the wrong answer. But even bands like Guns N' Roses and The Eagles will get videos of cover performances quickly blocked for sounding too close to the originals. Here's a great video where he talks about YouTube's recklessly draconian algorithms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok

fortran77 1y ago
That's not _this_ problem. Guns n' Roses, the Eagles, etc (or someone assigned by them) owns the rights to the score, lyrics, and recordings of performances. These are separate copyrights. If you cover their song, you may still be infringing on their copyrighted lyrics, score, and arrangements. I'm talking about compositions to which nobody has any rights to any part of (a recording of a performance can still have a copyright).

lakomen 1y ago

[dead]

elric 1y ago

The lack of (legal) recourse (in practice, if not in theory) against large multinational monopolists like YT is the real problem here. Imagine if a policeman came to your house every time you played the piano to fine you for nonexistent copyright infringement. That cop would be unemployed in very short order. You could take all sorts of against them, and there are protections in place to prevent such abuse of power. Not so with YT. You have fuck all recourse against the arbitrary and often incorrect decisions of whatever they call this ridiculous attempt at moderation. It is incredibly difficult to even talk to a human being. You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who could help you in this. Let alone a judge who would spend time on this only to tell Google the obvious truth: "the composition is out of copyright, stop being ridiculous". They'd go back to making the same mistakes immediately. My personal take on this is that it needs to be easier to talk to humans, to contest decisions, and to have humans in the moderation loop BEFORE handing out copyright strikes. If that means YT is no longer profitable, so be it.

MyPasswordSucks 1y ago
> Imagine if a policeman came to your house every time you played the piano to fine you for nonexistent copyright infringement. That cop would be unemployed in very short order. You could take all sorts of against them, and there are protections in place to prevent such abuse of power. The legal concept of qualified immunity prevents taking personal action against civic officials for actions they perform in the course of their civic duties. So, assuming the policeman is coming to your house because BMI called 911 to report (non-existent) copyright theft, the policeman is simply doing his thankless job, and is immune from suit. If the policeman is just showing up without being called, then - while he would not benefit from qualified immunity - 1. it makes no sense to label him as a "policeman" since he's no longer performing the job of a policeman - you might as well just say "brown-haired guy" or "rollercoaster enthusiast" or "guy who prefers Pepsi to Coke" as those traits are just as relevant; and 2. it's a very poor analogic fit, because in the situation you're comparing it to, YouTube (the cop) is being called by BMI. Note that qualified immunity is, strictly speaking, only applicable to government/civic actors, not private enterprise. However, the general principle still applies throughout the legal canon (usually lurking between the phrases "duty of care" and "assumption of risk" - you can't sue Kevin McCallister for causing you to cut your foot when you stepped on haphazardly-placed Christmas ornaments, because you were trespassing on private property and the McCallister family owed you no duty of care; and you can't sue We Throw Pies At Your Face For Five Dollars Inc for throwing a pie at your face, assuming you went there and paid five dollars, because you knew what you were getting into and they were just doing their job). In the case of copyright, legal immunity for content providers is actually hard-coded into the DMCA, mostly via the OCILLA safe harbor (Title II). Also, please don't confuse an explanation of the process for an endorsement of the process. The DMCA is bad law that only looks good if you compare it to hypothetical laws that would be worse, copyright in the US has been ridiculous for generations and trying to emulate Europe in the late 80s only made it worse, and I wish YouTube could find a way to take a stance against rightsholders who abuse the process. But their status as a large multinational monopolist isn't why you can't sue them - it's baked into the law, because that's how the DMCA works.