In the end I just gave up, and let some French band monetize my video that contained a song written and recorded by my friend's dad. Enjoy the 25 cents you earned!
I had a recent one where the sound effect from a game released in the 1990s was claimed as being part of a song released in 2015.
The major oversight rather lies in the fact that the law does not introduce huge penalties/indemnification for false copyright claims - if these existed, copyright holders would be a lot more cautious with potentially false claims.
The perjury coverage is weak, but they at least provide something.
EDIT: Perjury comes into play as part of a permanent takedown request, not the initial temporary takedown request. Just a clarification.
If you own the rights to a 2013 advertising jingle for yo-yo wax, and you assert that you own the rights to it while making a DMCA takedown claim against a birthday party video posted in 2010, there is no perjury. The claim that the work is infringing is not the part covered by the perjury threat.
This is why the DMCA is broken. There is no reason whatsoever for legitimate copyright holders to avoid making frivolous claims, and the burden lies entirely on their victims to prove their innocence.
(I am not a lawyer. I might be wrong about this. Don't mistake this comment for legal advice.)
As I said, weak, but it's there.
IANAL, of course.
It is probably valid for a game publisher to claim copyright on the game's music--assuming they created it for the game [as opposed to licensing it].
I also believe that a playthrough video probably counts as fair use in most cases.
Nintendo is known for having a 'bad' reputation with playthrough videos on YouTube.
Kick 'em where it hurts.
Anyway, as others have noted, I believe you agree to an arbitration clause when you sign up. Lawyers aren't likely to get involved, you'll just get kicked off when a human works out you're abusing the terms and conditions.
(I didn't down vote you)
This claim of the cover band can only hold water if they made strong investigations to ensure to their best that the creater of the video did not have a permission of the original copright holder of the song that they covered.
There's no law involved here. "Infringement" in this context relates to a term defined in YouTube's TOS with regards to the ContentID take-down service provided to the big right-holders industry. Not the legal sense of "copyright infringement", because nobody is making a copyright infringement claim in this whole story.
The entire ContentID take-down service is designed so that YouTube will have to deal with as little copyright infringement claims (from the big right-holder industries) as possible.
From the perspective of the uploaders and viewers, ContentID is just this thing that helps YouTube take down videos, which they have the right to do (as per the TOS) "for whatever reason". The dispute procedure is just something to make that easier to swallow, but unsurprisingly it's not at all effective in getting a more just result.
That's what you get when you upload your work to a platform like YouTube instead of publishing it yourself. As a small player you can't really get YouTube to sign a contract detailing the license under which you allow them to publish it on their platform.
For example, in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. And YouTube doesn't even use the DMCA system; it uses its own separate terms-of-service-governed system.
17 U.S. Code § 512(f) states:
(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
This has been tested in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. - and Diebold lost and had to pay $125,000 to Online Policy Group.
Meanwhile, the idea that DMCA notices carry some sort of super-strict ruinous penalty for errors remains completely false. And YouTube -- as I said in the original comment -- uses a separate takedown system governed by their terms of service, so the whole thing is moot.
> in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder
And the Diebold case didn't have anyone with a notarized statement that you speak about. I don't think what you are saying is necessarily supported by the facts of that case.
The notarized statement comment was hyperbole to make a point about how hard it is to prove, sufficiently for a court, that someone "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresented information in a DMCA notice in order to trigger 512(f). In the Diebold case you had the perfect storm, because Diebold's lawyers basically admitted to the court that they knew they were using the DMCA not for copyright enforcement but to take down something that embarrassed them. That is literally what it took to get a judge to nail someone for DMCA abuse.
And even then: the judge only found that they knowingly/materially misrepresented for a subset of the material, and they only paid out $125k, which is literally nothing to a company of Diebold's size.
Meanwhile, DMCA abuse remains routine and rampant today, in large part because it's next to impossible to get someone penalized for it.
Knowingly misrepresenting that material is infringing to get it removed probably ought to be subject to criminal penalties.
I would have elected to not post the video. NEver let anyone profit from your efforts if they have done nothing to contribute. Don't cave to these bottom feeders.
Don't focus on the "bottom feeders". Focus on those to whom you have brought joy. Github would be an empty place otherwise...
In the case of the parent post I was addressing earlier; This is akin to a company claiming part ownership of your open source code because you used part of a public domain library your friend's dad wrote which they copied and incorporated into their closed source product.
edit for more context: https://www.wired.com/story/the-star-wars-video-that-baffled...
Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Mendelssohn, Brahms etc. all did this. Put in this context what Williams has done in borrowing from Holst and others isn't scandalous whatsoever and shouldn't be thought of as such.
> There's a long history - I suppose it's a tradition - of composers claiming copyright on someone else's work and sending DMCA takedowns automatically
That's how absurd it has become.
I always joke about how much money Europe should pay China for ideas like the compass or gunpowder.
Or listen to any of Ralph Vaughan Williams' 9 symphonies and you'll hear John Williams' orchestration and voicing directly.
- should you wish to allow your video to be downloaded, YouTube sets up needless barriers to allow downloads.
- hosting with YouTube means you and your users are being tracked by Google (which owns YouTube).
- YouTube doesn't make it clear how to download the precise video file the submitter uploaded; users get rewritten videos instead.
- YouTube only hosts videos, not arbitrary kinds of other media.
All of these problems are easily solved: use the Internet Archive (at https://archive.org/) and your own hosting instead of YouTube. IA offers a download URL which is static and will redirect to your uploaded data. You can use this URL in an HTML5 video or audio element to embed the data in a webpage (again, no JS needed). IA will (by default) rewrite certain kinds of files, but your original uploaded file is also available and machine-determinable (via an XML file that clearly indicates which is the source file and which are derivative files). IA can be used fully without JS turned on (no need to worry about executing code to get files). IA hosting is gratis (zero cost), as is YouTube.
I have no evidence which indicates IA tracks users akin to how Google does.
I encourage you to consider hosting your media with the Internet Archive and your own website instead of YouTube.
One more reason Google sucks:
Google recently deleted hundreds of videos of the war in Syria. Potential evidence of war crimes erased. Original uploaders may be dead.
I don't think some tech people realize the consequences of their decisions.
Wow, that is truly evil. Do you have a source on this?
Edit: found article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/middleeast/syria-yo...
Arguably. Youtube is a video hosting site, it's not a political platform and has no obligation to host content it doesn't deem suitable for their platform.
Those videos should be sent to news agencies, (inter)national archives, the UN, war crime tribunals, etc instead (or in addition to) "entertainment" video hosting sites.
By parallel, misprision of felony is a crime in the US:
> Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
There is a moral imperative created when someone else is giving you these records. It's like someone asking you to call 911. You don't have to go out looking for emergencies to call 911 about, but you do have to deal with it when one is dropped in your lap. In this case "dealing with it" just means retaining a copy and making it available on some terms.
One implies the other. If your media backup and recovery plan is Youtube, then you need another plan.
For "not a political platform," Youtube has quite a lot of political content, and it's not at all clear to me why someone would think that the idea of a general interest video hosting site and a political platform are somehow exclusive at all.
And as far as obligations go... I'd imagine that there's no legal obligation, and maybe there shouldn't be, but that isn't the end of the question. As far as I know, I'd have no formal obligation to stop and render aid or even contact emergency services if I came across someone unconscious and bleeding on the sidewalk near my house, but that doesn't mean I might not be under some obligation.
And one problem is that organizations like Youtube often don't put themselves together in such a way that there's anyone interested in and capable of responding to these questions.
It's almost like they come across a turtle in the desert, and it's flipped over on its back, belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out their help. But they're not helping. Why is that?
A general interest here seems commercial in nature and is thus susceptible to whims of the owner(s) and their ToS.
One possible solution seems to be something like a Wikipedia for videos, a non-profit org, but the cost of video hosting seems to still be prohibitively high for a non-commercial entity in 2018.
In the spur of the moment, in particular in a warzone, the proper place to store something is the last thing on one's mind.
Regarding "has no obligation to host content it doesn't deem suitable": Yes, sadly, this is a problem not unique to YouTube. All hosters get to decide what to host and to change that decision at any time.
Some people choose to respond to hosting on sufferance by becoming sycophants (placate the hoster with speech one believes won't offend the censors) but that is ultimately detrimental to one's own message and free speech overall. We have no solution for this that is really easy for nontechnical computer users because we all depend on other parties for Internet access. If homes had Internet access that could not be taken away, we might be able to recommend self-hosting. For now, in the age of the ISPs, the best we can do is massively decentralized hosting which uses no DRM, running additional nonfree code (such as YouTube's DRM in JS), and somehow getting a lot of peers with lots of storage and bandwidth to keep available copies of everything uploaded (we ought not decide that one message is worth sharing and not another message because that is the very problem we're trying to solve).
This is a tough problem to solve. I don't know what a viable solution will look like quite yet. But I know what to avoid: we won't solve this problem by placating big business desires for more control over what we say and how we get copies of other people's works.
This particular section of the transcript annoyed me the most.
He’s fired. And becomes like basically a celebrity for certain parts of like the right. And they were kind of like… Like this is not what he was necessarily saying about himself, but for them, it’s like… He’s like this perfect symbol of like the qualified, brilliant, genius coder who’s the best person for the job, whatever his race or gender happen to be, who said one reasonable thing and like got fired because of political correctness.
(Also, frankly, this interview doesn't exactly present its participants as the sharpest tools in the shed.)
It's an entertaining episode from a show I enjoy. Apparently, there are no other fans of the show here.
So don't worry; in a day nobody will remember this subthread anyway :).
Anyways, I googled it and no it is not possible to delete a hacker news account. I successfully disabled reddit, facebook, twitter and linkedin though. So, this is the last outpost of an abysmal time on the web.
Thanks everyone. I am out.
unfortunately this makes your content pretty hidden. You are not within youtube's search anymore, you're not in any sidebar as related video either
Own your own content, but if you seek to spread a message you might want to use closed proprietary ecosystems as long as you aren't dependent on them.
For example, I was recently updating linkedin, and went to add Bruce Schneier, but he had a post that said he never checks or uses it and only links to his website from there. He still has a presence there though, and that really hit me how much these little walled gardens we let take over so much of our compute ecosystem are starting to look like prison, even for your standard copyleft hating SV hipster.
Of course Stallman would say don't even use them, and he makes some good points, but the problem we have now is even if you have a good message you can't reach the masses without going through some priestly gatekeeper of the government-corporate media power. So you have to use the system to beat the system.
Which by the way is what RMS did back when the GNU system didn't exist: use proprietary UNIX to develop GNU, replace the system piecemeal.
In Stallman's case there were no free software OSes. One could not use a computer in freedom. Therefore he used a nonfree OS to write free software until he could run a free software OS and thus had no more need for nonfree OSes. For years now he (and the FSF) don't run nonfree systems. They even endorse computers (and other computer hardware) that can be run completely in freedom (see https://www.fsf.org/ryf for details).
We already have file hosting options that don't use DRM, nonfree JS (or indeed any JS), and avoid the other problems of YouTube. There's no need for coming up with something new as we already have viable other means of sharing files.
We don't need YouTube, they need us. By buying into their limitations and restrictions uploaders endorse YouTube (which is undesirable and certainly not very thoughtful) and help foist YouTube's choices on others (which is unethical).
I'm all for getting rid of YouTube, but I'm not sure how we should do it.
Upload to as many sites as possible, link between them. Keep offline copies if you can.
Not a scaleable solution though. If everyone were to do the same they'd quickly be consumed by bandwidth costs.
IA has been around for many years and not bumped into this problem. Nor are they making choices that even hint at this problem. In fact, they have long made choices (such as default derivatives generation) which suggest they have plenty of storage space and bandwidth.
Also, this isn't an evidenceless complaint specific to IA.
> use the Internet Archive (at https://archive.org/) and your own hosting instead of YouTube
> You can use [the Internet Archive URL] in an HTML5 video or audio element to embed the data in a webpage
If a hoster doesn't want one to distribute the files, that is the issue. Not whether one distributes them for use in an HTML5 video/audio element, or downloading for local storage, or use in some other way.
https://blog.archive.org/2009/07/01/archive-org-supports-the... would seem to address your claim.
I’m confused that you think this isn’t relevant. You’re directly advocating hotlinking against Archive and you don’t even mention supporting their operation in the slightest. I have no idea what you think I said, because your reply makes little sense.
YT never deletes anything, which is why they're losing money. Any archive ALWAYS loses money. Hosting cat videos for 10 years isn't a good business case.
I think a real human should have to spend all day finding content and manually doing the work. Kinda like how some states have banned red light cams. Technology is not perfect. I heard of those cams going off even when it's legal to turn on right. A real human swearing under penalty of perjury or giving sworn testimony seems perfect for accountability.
At least the money is held until you do a dispute now with Youtube. I know if you license royalty free music - the system will even flag it. I know someone personally who had that problem. I guess the systems aren't linked so no idea you had a license but annoying. So say you made a video for a client and uploaded it, and embedded to their website. Even though you didn't monetize it, your client website now has ads for their competitor as they'll allow the video to stay up but with ads where the money goes to whoever claimed it! I guess the way to protect that is to upload as unpublished or unlisted then dispute it before publishing it when you already purchased a license.
We need a path back to the distributed web where people upload videos to a server they own and control. Instead of IoT juicers we need "video broadcasting in a box" solutions.
Some search engine indexing, videos hosted on independent sites(regular http), favorites/playlists can be stored in something like Dropbox privately or shared.
Probably could be just a video tag with additional elements and builtin functionality.
Some advertising spec too... Sites can either implement third party ads or host their own ads for example. So instead of being told your content isn't advertiser friendly. You could run your own ad server that's in the video metadata or use a external one agreeing to their terms for video content. So total freedom to go out and get your own advertisers or signup for a service and plugin a URL and they get to handle that part.
So say you just want to make videos, not doing controversial or political stuff and not really into being a sales person just use this ad network... or maybe you are a very political channel, point to this other ad network that targets that audience. Maybe you are a non-profit, run your own ad server with your own in-house fundraising ads.
Not sure how you'd go about handling sensitive stuff some people might not want to see, maybe at the search engine part using AI/machine learning but also allow sites to indicate certain things within the spec itself... Decentralizing the search part even better.
But ideally you'd have a consistent UI sorta like YouTube but all content is fetched from servers like a web browser, you'd have subscriptions, sorta like RSS, etc...
But I guess subscribers counts and commenting/liking would need to be apart of it too. Maybe use somthing like OpenID. but sites that want to host videos apart of it would provide certain metadata and some callback urls to post to for like comments, getting commentings, likes, etc.
Just thinking out loud... One of the benefits of YouTube is discovery and organizing your watch later, subscribers, etc. So some sort of formal spec for a video app would make sense.
Searching random sites, signup and comment and have like 10 sites to check for new videos would get annoying.
I know, I know, that makes me a pinko commie liberal Freedom Markets™ hating fruitcake.
A common theme during this late stage capitalism is the burden of proof being placed on the weaker party in all these transactions, in other words, we're presumed guilty until we can prove our innocence.
Writing as someone who has been that human, in a startup creating original content that someone was repeatedly ripping and uploading to YouTube after signing up with different credentials to bypass the paywall, unfortunately your approach doesn't work very well either.
It's true that excessively aggressive takedowns result in YouTube not hosting some legitimate content. But it's also true that sites like YouTube allow an infringement to reach thousands or millions of people in a very short space of time, potentially completely undermining the value of the original work.
If you're a Hollywood studio or big record label, you can factor piracy into the cost of doing business, and you can take steps to make it less attractive or more trouble than it's worth. If you're a small independent content creator, the economics and practicalities are entirely different.
Ultimately, once content is shared the genie is out of the bottle, while relatively little content is so time-sensitive that you can't allow for challenging it and keeping it offline while the dispute is resolved, so requiring major hosts to take down by default or lose their safe harbour protections isn't unreasonable. If someone doesn't like that, they're free to host the content on their own systems instead, but such a site is unlikely to have the resources to cause the same scale of damage as a major video hosting service like YouTube or Vimeo, and if it does then it's going to be worthwhile to bring a real copyright infringement action against the site owner, who in turn is likely to be identifiable.
Also, google is leading in this AI sector. Your feedback will help them to improve. The more hassle they introduce, the more you react upon it, the faster it can learn.
2. Automatically download and reupload popular videos, with extremely subtle modifications.
3. File automated takedown notices against each copied (popular) video
4. Destroy youtube's ad ecosystem for cheap
There's a good chance the answer will be "YouTube shuts down", and while that could be a good thing, you'd better have a replacement ready for deployment. Preferably something open source and distributed.
That's wishful thinking, they'll just be whitelisted.
Not sure how this would harm youtube, wouldn't you just end up silencing yourself?
Baiting fraudulent DMCA claims and then countersuing for lost revenue COULD work, but would likely require more legal fees than would be 'profitable'.
If you are able to trigger this to three separate claim holders you can actually jam the system into not paying out or any monetization.
I might be explaining this badly so if I am mixexplaining this but Jim Sterling does this.
YouTube's enforcement system is not set up to treat every actor in it equally. It's set up to favor big rightsholders like record labels at the expense of everyone else. So your attempt to get all those videos demonetized, or get copyright "strikes" on the big labels' accounts, isn't going to succeed. Notices filed against those accounts probably go into a black hole (and you have no DMCA remedy, because YouTube doesn't use the DMCA system, requires you to use that system as part of its terms of service, and so isn't obligated to act DMCA-style on complaints filed through its separate non-DMCA system).
Are you sure? Wouldn't they then lose the "safe habour" protection from the DMCA, and then be more liable?
I know they can, and do, go beyond the DMCA, and take down things more often. But I thought they would still want to keep the benefits (for them) of the DMCA
But YouTube's own easy-to-use automated enforcement system is very different from the DMCA, and almost certainly will ignore or at least massively de-prioritize notices-within-that-system-which-are-not-DMCA-notices against a major company. So if you felt you had a real case you'd probably have to actually send a DMCA notice, which would just result in automatic counter-notice and YouTube saying "well, we followed the rules, if you want more to happen you have to go sue that gigantic company all by yourself".
IIRC I have only been Rick Rolled 2 or 3 times. You had to have Navy SEAL level of discipline during that year or two.
Nope, not falling for that one.
That sounds exactly like how the system should work.
It can be cold and inhuman even if it is a needed service, very vogon-like.
So take an algorithm that can flag a million YouTube videos, and maybe you steal $10,000 of monetization over cost in a few days. Nobody can afford to sue you hard on the false positives because you're mostly only hitting "nice guys" who will just change the sound and reupload. So you up the algorithm to be more profitable, wash, rinse, repeat.
That's why this is really happening.
I’ve preformed pieces like this several times, but not Cage specifically. I agree all performances of these types of compositions will be unique, which is something I admire about all performed pieces. Our canvas is not only one of tones but also time and space.
1) Some copyrighted music has a period of noise that closely matched the segment of noise of the video.
2) There is adversarial pattern in the noise in the video that confused the hunting algorithm.
"must have been created independently and contain a sufficient amount of creativity"
from : https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
US copyright of course, ymmv but I doubt other countries are going to be more likely to allow white noise / PN sequences.
It's likely that your "creative work" will need to be similar to other forms of creative work in order to enjoy that status. Either that, or you need to earn a reputation within a creative community as a person how pushes the conventional boundaries.
In other words, randomly generated sounds are not widely considered to be creative in the conventional sense. So, unless you become the next deadmau5, it's unlikely that a court would rule that your random noise is considered art.
It'd be like John Cage claiming that, since he 'wrote' c4′33″ (consisting of 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence), any powered-off music-playing device is infringing on his copyright and must pay royalties.
You were saying?
He was silly enough to explicitly give Cage a songwriting credit. That's the entire reason the case exists.
So my guess is your turned off hi-fi system wouldn't infringe their copyright - but if you produced an audio file containing nothing but silence and marketed it as a song, you would be infringing.
At least that's my try to find a spec of sanity in this.
It would be functionally impossible for a start. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
Given white noise is a random signal having equal intensity at different frequencies it's basically like saying "what's wrong with copyrighting a particular number?" it is nonsensical.
Or maybe we can all agree that just being able to describe, view, feel, smell or listen to something doesn't necessarily make it something that we can copyright or patent. We can walk back from the brink of madness towards sanity, it just takes the first few steps. :)
Which is why it is not actually in violation to have a mp3 but only to upload or play it - as that is the expression. The digital data is not actually copyrighted.
Which is, again, why white noise makes no sense to copyright - it's random noise.
Think about how many ways you can encode a single song: there are dozens of formats, each with varying bitrates and other attributes. But no matter which "number" of that song you play, a human will hear interpret them all the same.
A copyrighted file is just a large number.
Clearly I didn't mean that the copyrighted work is only associated with a single number. The "two" in the "two are indistinguishable" was in response the the comment above:
> It's not the number that's copyrighted. It's the content that number represents that's copyrighted.
We're not saying that some people should be allowed to confuse consumers by trying to pass off their products as someone else's products (those are trademarks) or that people shouldn't disclose all of the details of their inventions in exchange for a short monopoly on those inventions (that's patents), or that anyone should be allowed to say that their sparkling wine was prepared in Champagne, France (that's regional designation).
"IP" is a broad, vague term that describes different laws, with different purposes. Laws that are so different that it hardly makes sense to discuss them in the same breath.
(could you really abolish copyright without bringing down the rest of IP protections with it?)
Copyright and patent are both intended to encourage innovation by providing the originator with a temporary monopoly on the use of works/processes/etc. Both are frequently discussed here in the context of large corporations/publishers using them to stifle the innovation they were designed to encourage.
Trademarks are often used in tandem with copyrights to protect a body of work in different ways - while "Steamboat Willy"s copyright will eventually expire (if it hasn't already), the trademark of the Mickey Mouse character will last indefinitely (so long as Disney protects it).
Distinctive trademarks are also commonly protected by design patents. Yes, they protect the work in different ways, but the two are related in their use and concept.
If you're so against collective terms, I hereby insist that you no longer refer to the "United States", or "European" culture. But I digress.
If the trademark on Mickey Mouse were used forever, this doesn't mean we can't pass Steamboat Willie around. If its copyright expires, we can copy it, we can reproduce it, we can exhibit it, we can remix it; we just can't confuse the public into thinking we're Disney while we're doing any of this. If Disney thought it could prevent people from copying Steamboat Willie without copyrights, it wouldn't be lobbying for infinite copyright on it. The best Disney could do is make us state, in no ambiguous terms, "Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company" somewhere very prominent while we do whatever we want with Mickey.
A trademark doesn't mean that the trademarked thing is Lord Voldemort. Otherwise, every time we said "Microsoft" or "Apple" we'd be infringing. It just means that we might have trouble calling our OS "Hackintosh" or "Lindows", and even that's debatable in court (Microsoft was about to lose the Lindows case).
It would be very interesting to live in a society where once a product is available on the market any trade secret on it is illegal and the only option is to have patents that you receive royalties for but you can not restrict their use.
that is being reductive. sufficiently so that you're basically straw-manning their point.
i would wager that, for example, extremely few people who view patents as negative (at least in this era), also view trademarks as negative.
Isn't anything that can be converted into bits and compared recognizable and distinctive?
You could sit there in court with a hex editor and show how every byte of two noise files in different, but nobody procures or pays for audio recordings for the aesthetic pleasure of hex dumping them. Law isn't a competition to see whether you can figure out a way to articulate what the difference is.
However in this case it does seem to be youtube's content matching algorithm that is finding the match (as far as I can tell, but it's hard to know for sure). My guess is that their matching algorithm just doesn't work well for white noise.
I could imagine, it's a stretch, a specific "arrangement" of white noise being copyrightable. But in general it is wrong to think you can copyright white noise.
> I'm thinking particularly of 4'33".
I read that using Apple's Text to Speech (macOS High Sierra) like:
> I'm thinking particularly of 4 feet 33 inches.
LOL Apple. You haven't heard of Classical Music yet, have you?
The owners of the rights to the recording can only exercise rights over their recording, not on the song itself.
Sorry to nitpick, but if we are going to talk about legal issues let's, at least, be precise.
I appealed and they put it back, so there's that.
There has to be a reason for why not a single copyright troll has been prosecuted for it.
And, you know what? It seems to have worked. They never flagged me again.
It's a complicated problem. In classical music, ContentID has a hard time differentiating between various recordings of say the Goldberg Variations. People were getting dozens of ContentID matches from Glenn Gould, Andras Schiff, and so forth, and each time they'd dispute the claim, the next one would come with a different recording. Nobody was doing anything nefarious, but you couldn't get any peace. Soe we (Kimiko and myself) decided to put her music into ContentID ourselves. Now it mostly identifies correctly as Kimiko's recordings, and people can ask us (email@example.com) to de-monetize any video where the ads bother them. Some people don't mind, and as a result, Kimiko gets a small amount of revenue for her work as well.
They're not in the US. I think they were East German? This is not new, I'm sure it's literally the same people.
Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't heard her recordings of the WTC and Art of Fugue, and they seem pretty good.
And that's for a standard DMCA takedown, which these may not have been. I believe YouTube has their own process separate from the DMCA which may have looser requirements. (They still have to accept standard DMCA takedowns to get the safe harbor protection, but it doesn't mean they can only act on takedowns that are DMCA compliant)
Any formal/legal claims of infringement should be made by the right-holders industry towards YouTube (which YouTube really wants to avoid) not the uploader. The DCMA was made to facilitate this, but for a huge platform such as YouTube it just falls short. Here's the important part, let it sink in very clearly:
ContentID is a deal that YouTube made, demanded by the larger players in the right-holders industry that goes (something) like: IF the big right-holders can easily make large amounts of claims, and YouTube provides some sort of ML detecting filter to scan for possible infringements, and when flagged the ContentID process will handle these cases such and such, THEN the big right-holder industry people won't file gigantic claims of infringements and take down requests to YouTube.
From the perspective of the little uploader, no courts, claims or legal things are involved. You have no legal relation with the right-holders when YouTube takes down your vid for infringement. You can't sue YouTube for taking down your vid since as a US corporation they have every right to take down any video for whatever reason (and TOS, but mostly because big corporations just get to do whatever). And that reason is mainly: Whatever keeps the big right-holders happy.
YouTube is first and foremost interested in keeping the big right-holders happy, and of course keeping their advertisers happy. That's it. They're not interested in being fair or even ethical (as the recent Logan Paul drama has shown us--considering that YouTube's trending videos are hand-picked by humans ...).
ContentID is not at ALL about YouTube dealing with copyright infringement in general. If you write, perform and record an original song with your band and upload it, ContentID is not going to protect you. It's just there to help the big players scan for their own stuff and then flag whatever. If they accidentally flag the wrong thing, original content or even the actual original sample (if it's not licensed to the big right-holders) that was used in a newer big right-holder licensed work, then it's going to get removed. A false positive is only a very tiny little "oops" for YouTube, they don't really care. The dispute thingy is just a pacifier.
They have literally zero reason to reduce their false positive rate. The software works; the big right holders are happy.
The next copyright claim should be more careful, I guess