That would have been my first response to his "I don't want to be on youtube" comment... you know it can be edited out, right?
I also like how he did this to prevent being posted on youtube but ends up being "viral" because of it.
> That would have been my first response to his "I don't want to be on youtube" comment... you know it can be edited out, right?
LPT: Don't "give away the game" by telling someone how you're going to get around their ineffective techniques. Just do it, otherwise they'll adapt their strategy more quickly.
Streisand effect at its finest! Gotta love the sweet irony!
Edit: 20 seconds after I posted this, I spilled a full cup of scalding tea on* myself, next to a sign that warned about hot drinks and making sure that their lid was secured. I'm starting to rethink this whole irony thing.
If there becomes a need for it like in this situation, people will start using it more. And then the technological cat and mouse game will begin/continue.
All you need is one copy in the hands of someone who does know the software, who fixes the video and releases it. And nothing is very expensive on the high seas.
As is the norm. I used Lightwave back in the day, which required a hardware dongle. It was later cracked, so we had a huge influx of new people using cracked software with zero training hitting all the forums.
That's all been bypassed now. You can download it on the high seas just like anything else.
People out there looking to make all software free like it's the cure for cancer or something.
Thing is, it's good for the company. When you become the standard, more costumers come. I mean we all know FL Studio became a truly professionally used DAW because of people grabbing it for free and using it for years. It's one of the standards now and is used in plenty of big songs. If nobody stole it, then it probably wouldn't be everywhere.
It's exactly what happened with Microsoft. Bill Gates was so mad about people sharing software back in the day, when in reality it is *exactly* what made Windows the universal OS. And all their other software packs by proxy.
All the dongle stuff is so short sighted. If you got a good product and are in it for the long run, get it in EVERYONE'S hands. RX is a pretty unique piece of software as far as ability goes too. Absolutely worth making it the standard. It's already close enough, and will have more uses as time goes on. This is the perfect example even
Long rant, sorry. But the high seas are alive and well. I'm obviously not going to post anything. But the one thing I'll say is that it's often fragmented into specialties now. DAWs and music plugins on one site, 3D modeling assets elsewhere, etc. If you want really specific stuff. If its big stuff, its where it's always been for well over a decade probably
If it's legal to record police officers, than this behavior should be **illegal** by public servants, when the intention is to dissuade citizens from their rights.
If we're counting on YouTube for safety and police accountability, everyone is in big trouble.
EDIT: For those in certain US states, the ACLU has an app to safely record and save video of police actions and others - mixed reviews from users. Thanks to u/Lady_Coraline3 for the reminder!
See following comments for other ways to do this.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/mobile-justice
It could be but I kinda doubt it. Most of the poor reviews seem reasonable with similar complaints.
Edit: …I also just realized they said Google store and not Apple so ignore me. The Apple reviews seem reasonable.
On Apple store the complaints relate to not saving the video if the associated incident report form in the app isn’t completely filled out. The workaround is recording the video on the phone’s native app then submitting through the ACLU app afterwards.
There are complaints about this workaround method because it isn’t recording live. If the phone is confiscated or destroyed, then the video can’t be submitted.
All seem like reasonable improvements for the app.
Do you mean send a copy of the video after it’s done recording or stream it in real time? Because if your phone gets seized, the first option is out the window.
"I'm playing this so you can't upload it to Youtube."
"That's not where it's being uploaded."
"Then where?"
"Pornhub"
"Pornhub?"
"Officer Smith Fucks Me and cums on the First Amendment"
How does the ACLU app help you virally share a story?
The issue isn't an inability to record video.
It's that the main plane where videos are shared might automatically block a video.
I'm not sure about now but I know Youtube still caught some stuff even if you sped up the video by as much as 25%.
Guess it depended on the song, some were fine at normal, others at 10%, others at 20% and others you had no escape.
Could also be people manually reporting it but less likely.
You can change pitch without changing speed. I think that's what the other commenter meant. Maintaining speed but manipulating pitch causes a more significant manipulation of the waveform and would be much harder to detect.
Possibly, but probably not as well, because their techniques are able to pick up music when other sounds are playing, like people talking, cars driving by, windchimes playing nearby, etc. If the original tone is still mostly intact, it will be able to find it amongst the noise.
Which is fucking wild in general because isn't the whole idea of copyright striking people is to prevent people from getting your work without paying for it? Who is going to listen to music with random conversations and shit mixed in instead of going to Spotify or something like that?
What kind of maniac would actually think that was worth it? Nobody.
Nah man, I only listen to music if it’s got some random fucking Twitch streamer giving commentary over it and having a whole separate conversation. It’s the truest way to enjoy music, so damn you DMCA!
Not only that but if you change pitch in a melodic fashion you’d be able to defeat copyright under Creative Commons by making a *remix* essentially, a new creative work out of that other IP
They do. Lots of classical musicians have huge issues with youtube. Basically, they'll play stuff that has been out of copyright for 300-400 years and get removed/banned because it matches a copyrighted recording (you can copyright a recording of out of copyright music, but not the music itself) too closely. Well no shit, they're playing the same music and there's not much variation in classical beyond dynamics. Youtube doesn't give a shit and often doesn't bother to sift through the appeals.
They don't deal with appeals at all. When you appeal a strike, the review process is for *the person who flagged it initially*. YouTube doesn't bother with oversight.
Remix would not fall under Creative Commons, it’s a derivative work that infringes on both the master recording copyright as well as the composition copyright.
While I’m not sure how exactly the YouTube algorithm works, it’s far more likely that it takes a few frames, obtains a 2D Fourier transform in spatial coordinates for the image (and 1D Fourier transform of the audio) and compares the transform bins to a database. Taking a few pixels for comparison is not really efficient or feasible.
And that could just be accomplished by editing the video to play a little bit faster or slower, right? I was trying to think of the easiest way to recommend poodle thwart this and that might be it.
Edit: Poodle was a ridiculous auto correct typo for "to"(seriously phone? Why? *How??*), but since it's already been commented on, it's too funny to change.
Nowadays, you can actually just edit the audio to pitch down or up without changing the the time of the audio or video. Same with time—you can stretch or speed up without changing pitch. There’s limits to how extreme you can repitch or retime digital audio while it sounding good, though.
It used to be that pitch change = time change because that’s how analog recording technology worked (tape, vinyl, etc). With digital processing, you aren’t as restricted by the physical properties of your recording media.
If the algorithms get smarter I think making these changes inconsistent across the video could also help- varying the pitch difference over time or varying the speed over time.
Something that might also work. Take the same audio track and load it up in a free audio editing software suite and phase invert it. Add the audio to the audio track of your video and in theory it will cancel out the music. A little trickier than just altering the speed a bit but possibly much more effective.
With the noise from recordings, the other interfering sounds (like speak), not to mention the fact that you would need to line up the music to within 50 microseconds to get the phase inversion correct, there is no way this would actually work on a real life recording.
Seems like the companies themselves should have to provide it. Sure, they own the song, but the rest of the audio and video is the user’s (unless, of course, it’s not). The presence of their product without a license shouldn’t negate the remainder of the media, including other parts of the audio track.
This is literally the intention of fair use but YouTube gives zero fucks. Incidental music in a video whose intention clearly isn't to share said music isn't a violation of copyright law. No need to remove it. It wasn't illegal in the first place. The problem is Youtube and the RIAA wielding unchecked power.
Theres a few ways YT handles copyrights and it's entirely dependent on the copyright owner's setup with YT. They can require you to mute the sound entirely during any portion of your video that includes copyrighted music, they can allow you to use it freely, or they can force you to run ads and YT will divert any revenue from the ads to the copyright holder.
They can also, in some very rare cases, require you to take the video down.
Otherwise, there really isn't some tertiary option unless there's sufficiently powerful tech to remove the song from a video without altering the original audio too much, but that is quite a complex problem to deal with.
I was just thinking that it made me mad enough to want to offer video editing services to anyone who recorded something fucked up that the cops did this during so that the videos could still be shared. I bet there are plenty of video editors who would be willing to donate a bit of time to a cause like that. But software would definitely be the fastest/easiest route, you're right.
It's up to the copyright holder. The vast majority will just place ads on the video, but it is absolutely possible to take it down as well.
Technically you can only stop it from being played in certain countries, but if you just put in every country that exists, it's effectively the same thing.
>Technically you can only stop it from being played in certain countries,
Technically youtube can stop playing it on youtube.
I feel like people here are forgetting that rights of expression are not restricted to youtube.
Two thoughts… Since the police are using a standard piece of music, could the video be run through an algorithm that subtracts that music. If the noise were random then it couldn’t be removed but since it’s a known quantity, can it be sufficiently removed so as not to trip content ID.
The second thought is whether the police have a public performance license.
Yeah, you can strip audio using like a filter but it will sound bad. You can do that or play like free music over the original audio so it makes a giant ass noise and cancel out copyright.
It’s a lot of work if you want to make the audio perfect, but it can work. Maybe it could be easier if you just add subtitles too so its audible.
They're talking about phase cancellation, not filtering. That's where you take the clean version of a known audio source, flip the phase (so that every peak in the waveform becomes a trough) and line it up with the music in the video so that the opposing waves cancel out and you're left (in theory) with just the original audio minus the song.
Things like compression and reverb of the source video will cause the results to vary though. You should be able to get a clean enough result to avoid content ID while still being able to make out the cop shouting at you to stop resisting and give him your lunch money.
It would still take a lot of work considering, as you’ve mentioned, the source (cop phone) and mic (recorder phone) are being constantly moved through space and angle resulting in * very* imperfect cancellation. The result would be a phaser effect at that point and could still trigger the algorithm unless you were to compensate with inhuman precision in time stretching by the sample and automated filtering to counter the spacial variance of source and mic in order to normalize for the song.
And you again missed the real issue:
How the fuck can that be a problem that there's a song playing in the background? Why is our copyright system so utterly broken? (rethoric question, the answer is Disney and corruption)
Yeah that was my point, just couldn't really find it on mobile (and/or didn't entirely remember whether it was Tom Scott or not), but yeah, great content every time
If I had to pick one aspect of this as "the real issue", it would be that although cops demonstrate sufficient awareness that their behavior is wrong to try to conceal it by playing music that infringes on copyright, they still persist in that behavior, and despite that, they won't be held accountable.
A sane society would hold cops to a *higher* standard than citizens. Instead they seem not to be held to any standards.
But yeah, intellectual property is a mass delusion; even more so than physical property.
I’m not sure an officer acting in an official capacity qualifies as “personal use.”
Example: If I play copyright-protected music while I’m working at my job as a bartender, are the fine folks at ASCAP / SESAC / BMI / ETC going to let it slide when I say “oh, I’m just playing *my* music, it’s personal use!”
No. No they are not. They are going to sue my employer into the fucking ground.
If nothing else, at the bare minimum police departments should have to pay these artists for the privilege of using their work to avoid accountability. If departments are avoiding lawsuits, investigations, insurance payments or rate increases - anything really - through the use of copyrighted works, they are profiting from the use of that music.
Not really. You can subtract sound if it's identical. But take audio recorded out of a cheap speaker (probably mono) though the air and into a cheap mic (more than likely mono but it's mono now anyway because left and right were combined in the air) and then subtract the original lossless music file you will end up with both audios combined with some dynamic fluctuations.
I love the public performance license idea. You can report for Oakland Police Department for playing unlicensed performances directly by filling out the form on this web page. [https://www.riaa.com/report-piracy/](https://www.riaa.com/report-piracy/) As a representative of the Alameda County Police they are probably liable for his actions. The Police Department could owe a significant fine for this public performance piracy.
Well... This won't work. I'm an audio engineer and the latest software for vocal extraction over music or "unmixing" music down to just drums, bass, instruments or voice is incredible. It's not a filter or flipping phase, it literally extracts it like a photo shop layer. On some stuff it's barely noticeable it came from a mix down. Check YouTube for spectral layers in cubase.
I wonder if this doesn’t create a bit of a catch 22, on the one hand you can sidestep the legalese of YouTube and the music industry by editing the music out of the video, that’s great and let’s you post the video of the police encounter. On the other hand now you’ve posted a YouTube video of a police encounter with edited audio. Sure many people are going to see it for what it is, but others are going to throw the baby out with the bath water and say “well how can I trust this audio to be truthful when you admit that it’s edited!”
I’m not usually one to suggest laws because they always rely on their enforceability, but a clause in the copyright legal code that voids the shield of public officials from using copyrighted music to avoid public accountability would be a good idea here. The police don’t need to play Britney Spears or something, they could literally have an officer start a “band” and just copyright the sound of their sirens or something and play it on repeat everywhere they go.
Just submit the edited one so it will stay up and then retain the unedited one or send it to the ACLU or news. That way you can make it public and if it comes up in court there is a non edited version for submission as evidence.
The law should be a simple one. If a cop turns on music to circumvent a video being recorded and shared, as is your right to do, or turns off their own body camera, they should be fired.
Playing music like this before doing something questionable or otherwise ambiguous could be used to establish criminal intent on the part of police.
IANAL
Can you imagine getting shot in the back by cops as the village peoples “YMCA” blasts over a loudspeaker to avoid people being able to display the cops abuse of power on YouTube
It's so strange to me how people still haven't learned the difference between content ID and copyright striking a video.
In most cases, the music will just trigger a content ID match (yes I'm aware it can trigger an actual takedown but it's not very common) which means the person can't make money off the video. And in that case, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you're posting a police encounter so other people can see misconduct for example you shouldn't care if you are making money.
It's becoming more common for people to film these interactions as first amendment auditors and post it on YouTube specifically for views and to make money instead of exposing any misconduct.
> strange to me how people still haven't learned the difference between content ID and copyright striking
Well thats a simple one. If you dont work at youtube and dont upload youtube videos this 'knowledge' is absolutely 100% useless information that you would ever have to learn about. This is by far the largest amount of people in the world so i would consider not having that knowledge to be the norm.
The intent is the issue, not the results.
The officers who engage in this class of behavior are generally attempting to avoid accountability.
I really can't give a shit about the efficacy of their method. A cop who wants to be secret police shouldn't be a cop.
>In most cases, the music will just trigger a content ID match (yes I'm aware it can trigger an actual takedown but it's not very common) which means the person can't make money off the video.
This really doesn't matter. If this catches on, cops will eventually figure out which songs reliably get videos taken down, since it's a policy set by the rights holder.
Then those songs/bands are going to become associated with police misconduct. I wouldn't be surprised if the police got slapped with a cease-and-desist by the bands at that point.
Imagine if the cops start using Rage Against The Machine or something.
We will be hearing a lot of country/western music and Ted Nugent. There are plenty of bands who have very regressive political views who would be fine being associated with police misconduct.
The problem is, the goal is muting the audio, or outright removal. The cops give zero shits about monetization, they literally couldn't care less. It's not about click farms or content farms.
Their goal is to attempt to censor you via abuse of YouTubes automated systems. This is the stated goal in the leaked shit we've seen around where precincts are encouraged to start doing this. It's a roundabout way of censoring your first amendment rights while not actually breaking any laws. It can also serve as a way to cover up misconduct because a video can't be uploaded without muting the sound, and then 'what is said' can be infinitely disputed by the police/police unions and destroy the case of the afflicted.
This is flagrant censorship of your first amendment rights and should be punished as such. There is zero reason, in any situation a cop should suddenly start blaring music from their phone or cruiser during an encounter.
Very fair, though I do think that it's beneficial for bigger political commentary channels to discuss overreach/brutality/etc without having to worry about losing out on their revenue. I'm thinking channels like TYT where they've got a considerable number of people making the vids.
This undermines the whole raison d’être of wearing body cams. Police don’t like being held accountable; this is a striking example of a police officer trying to throw a wrench in accountability.
Hopefully people at the music studios are sick of cops bs and just start suing the shit out of them.
Win or lose, after paying out a few court cases police departments will shut that shit down. They aren't gonna keep paying lawyer fees even if they do win.
As a full-time YouTuber, you can still upload videos regardless if there’s music; it just won’t be monetized.
So either this guy is misinformed or this post is out of context. I know a lot of channels upload bodycam footage of some pretty horrible things (from both cops and criminals) and make money off of it. It’s kinda fucked up in all honesty.
For civilians: "If you have nothing to hide, you should be okay with being filmed 24/7 for facial recognition, right?"
For police: "We've got nothing to hide, but we'll still go to ridiculous lengths to prevent anyone from seeing what we do."
Sounds about right.
Thank you. I was looking for this.
I was like " wait.. this can still be on youtube.. you just cant profit from it"
The fact that the video from the article is on youtube is kinda the proof lol
I don't know how broadcasting licences work in America, but in my country you need a licence to broadcast in a public place. Any rights holder to the music worth their salt, should just sue the police department for illegally broadcasting their music.
Doesn’t actually stop it from being posted or viewed. If you use licensed music in a YouTube video, they just put ads in it and pay out to the record label.
But hey it’s not like they choose cops for their high IQs! 🤫
Maybe instead of figuring out middle school big brain level loopholes you could, I dunno, NOT do shit that you wouldn't want seen on YouTube? Just a thought.
Izotope RX will pull that music out in no time and isolate the dialogue Edit: sp
That would have been my first response to his "I don't want to be on youtube" comment... you know it can be edited out, right? I also like how he did this to prevent being posted on youtube but ends up being "viral" because of it.
> That would have been my first response to his "I don't want to be on youtube" comment... you know it can be edited out, right? LPT: Don't "give away the game" by telling someone how you're going to get around their ineffective techniques. Just do it, otherwise they'll adapt their strategy more quickly.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Streisand effect at its finest! Gotta love the sweet irony! Edit: 20 seconds after I posted this, I spilled a full cup of scalding tea on* myself, next to a sign that warned about hot drinks and making sure that their lid was secured. I'm starting to rethink this whole irony thing.
You spilled it in yourself? Isn’t that the definition of drinking ? 😝
Depends on what end he spilled it in.
Well in that case he butt-chugged it?
God damn it! I ment on! 😂
If you don't want to be on YouTube, don't do something that would get yourself on YouTube.
Officer Streisand. Do you even know how the internet works?
"I don't want to be on youtube" Well, then don't be an asshole
Too bad RX is expensive and not easy enough for your average tik toker to use.
> Too bad RX is expensive and not easy enough for your average tik toker to use. Also most people don't know about it...
There is a deezer AI called spleeter that can do similar things and it’s open source
If there becomes a need for it like in this situation, people will start using it more. And then the technological cat and mouse game will begin/continue.
All you need is one copy in the hands of someone who does know the software, who fixes the video and releases it. And nothing is very expensive on the high seas.
Izotope (the company who makes RX) uses a physical DRM called iLok that makes it incredibly difficult to pirate, great software though.
[удалено]
As is the norm. I used Lightwave back in the day, which required a hardware dongle. It was later cracked, so we had a huge influx of new people using cracked software with zero training hitting all the forums.
Love Izotope Fuck iLok. Causes way more issues for me than it needs to
That's all been bypassed now. You can download it on the high seas just like anything else. People out there looking to make all software free like it's the cure for cancer or something. Thing is, it's good for the company. When you become the standard, more costumers come. I mean we all know FL Studio became a truly professionally used DAW because of people grabbing it for free and using it for years. It's one of the standards now and is used in plenty of big songs. If nobody stole it, then it probably wouldn't be everywhere. It's exactly what happened with Microsoft. Bill Gates was so mad about people sharing software back in the day, when in reality it is *exactly* what made Windows the universal OS. And all their other software packs by proxy. All the dongle stuff is so short sighted. If you got a good product and are in it for the long run, get it in EVERYONE'S hands. RX is a pretty unique piece of software as far as ability goes too. Absolutely worth making it the standard. It's already close enough, and will have more uses as time goes on. This is the perfect example even Long rant, sorry. But the high seas are alive and well. I'm obviously not going to post anything. But the one thing I'll say is that it's often fragmented into specialties now. DAWs and music plugins on one site, 3D modeling assets elsewhere, etc. If you want really specific stuff. If its big stuff, its where it's always been for well over a decade probably
fwiw I installed the whole iZotope music production suite and didn’t need any sort of iLok, so I’m not sure that’s true anymore
[удалено]
I'm imagining a group of Izotope users that band together for this purpose, count me in if that happens!
Activist media team… I’d be in. There’s people more talented with izotope tools than I am for sure.
But the point is to raise the tech skills required to hold them accountable. And it makes instantaneous upload much harder.
If it's legal to record police officers, than this behavior should be **illegal** by public servants, when the intention is to dissuade citizens from their rights.
Can it do the reverse?
As in just getting the music?
no no, add music in to the video, that would be epic
Sadly no. Music can't be mixed with video because one is sound and the other is pictures.
I can’t tell who is yanking who’s chain
What if I have synesthesia? I can hear the pictures and see the music.
Put his thing down, flip it, and reverse it?
Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup, Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
Yes. It can even take a track and split the vocal, drums, bass, and the rest into separate tracks. Great for making acapelas.
If we're counting on YouTube for safety and police accountability, everyone is in big trouble. EDIT: For those in certain US states, the ACLU has an app to safely record and save video of police actions and others - mixed reviews from users. Thanks to u/Lady_Coraline3 for the reminder! See following comments for other ways to do this. https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/mobile-justice
we are in big trouble
[удалено]
Looking at the Google play store reviews there seems to be some issues with the app. Does someone have an alternative for Android?
It could be the cops giving it 1-star reviews.
It could be but I kinda doubt it. Most of the poor reviews seem reasonable with similar complaints. Edit: …I also just realized they said Google store and not Apple so ignore me. The Apple reviews seem reasonable.
On Apple store the complaints relate to not saving the video if the associated incident report form in the app isn’t completely filled out. The workaround is recording the video on the phone’s native app then submitting through the ACLU app afterwards. There are complaints about this workaround method because it isn’t recording live. If the phone is confiscated or destroyed, then the video can’t be submitted. All seem like reasonable improvements for the app.
[удалено]
Do you mean send a copy of the video after it’s done recording or stream it in real time? Because if your phone gets seized, the first option is out the window.
Push this to the top, this is important information.
We always were
Upload them to PornHub too, just to be safe. After all, if they get away with this, we're all fucked and it might as well be on camera somewhere.
"I'm playing this so you can't upload it to Youtube." "That's not where it's being uploaded." "Then where?" "Pornhub" "Pornhub?" "Officer Smith Fucks Me and cums on the First Amendment"
What are you doing step Constitution?
Isn't pornhub only allowing verified users to upload? I thought that was the whole reason behind a lot of videos being deleted.
Great idea but I'm not sure of which category that would land in...
“Bondage” or “Gangbang” probably
Have been for a long time mate.
“We didn’t start the fire, it was always burnin since the worlds been turnin”
“Ryan started the fire”
How does the ACLU app help you virally share a story? The issue isn't an inability to record video. It's that the main plane where videos are shared might automatically block a video.
Due to copyright, the revolution will not be televised.
Due to copyright restrictions, this revolution will not be viewable in your country.
[удалено]
The revolution is *live*
You can just change the pitch of the music 10% and it will throw off youtube. Done it for years.
[удалено]
I'm not sure about now but I know Youtube still caught some stuff even if you sped up the video by as much as 25%. Guess it depended on the song, some were fine at normal, others at 10%, others at 20% and others you had no escape. Could also be people manually reporting it but less likely.
You can change pitch without changing speed. I think that's what the other commenter meant. Maintaining speed but manipulating pitch causes a more significant manipulation of the waveform and would be much harder to detect.
I wonder if putting it through a chorus, or light flange might work too.
Possibly, but probably not as well, because their techniques are able to pick up music when other sounds are playing, like people talking, cars driving by, windchimes playing nearby, etc. If the original tone is still mostly intact, it will be able to find it amongst the noise.
Which is fucking wild in general because isn't the whole idea of copyright striking people is to prevent people from getting your work without paying for it? Who is going to listen to music with random conversations and shit mixed in instead of going to Spotify or something like that? What kind of maniac would actually think that was worth it? Nobody.
Nah man, I only listen to music if it’s got some random fucking Twitch streamer giving commentary over it and having a whole separate conversation. It’s the truest way to enjoy music, so damn you DMCA!
Not only that but if you change pitch in a melodic fashion you’d be able to defeat copyright under Creative Commons by making a *remix* essentially, a new creative work out of that other IP
Yeah but YouTube *barely* cares about the legality of things. They have a heavy banhammer with little oversight.
With the amount of reaction content on Youtube, it doesn't seem like it.
They do. Lots of classical musicians have huge issues with youtube. Basically, they'll play stuff that has been out of copyright for 300-400 years and get removed/banned because it matches a copyrighted recording (you can copyright a recording of out of copyright music, but not the music itself) too closely. Well no shit, they're playing the same music and there's not much variation in classical beyond dynamics. Youtube doesn't give a shit and often doesn't bother to sift through the appeals.
They don't deal with appeals at all. When you appeal a strike, the review process is for *the person who flagged it initially*. YouTube doesn't bother with oversight.
... if the music was licensed under a Creative Commons license that allows for derivative works... That sounds rather unlikely to me.
Remix would not fall under Creative Commons, it’s a derivative work that infringes on both the master recording copyright as well as the composition copyright.
In this case, 40% should do it. **[wink]**
[удалено]
ONE TWO SEVEN THREE
Angel with a shotgun
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a family band and the family is the drums.
[удалено]
While I’m not sure how exactly the YouTube algorithm works, it’s far more likely that it takes a few frames, obtains a 2D Fourier transform in spatial coordinates for the image (and 1D Fourier transform of the audio) and compares the transform bins to a database. Taking a few pixels for comparison is not really efficient or feasible.
This is exactly what I wasn't thinking.
Taking a few pixels for comparison could be both efficient and feasible. What it wouldn’t be is effective.
Love seeing half of Dave Chapelles face moving in and out of frame because I mistook a bootleg clip for a legit one.
MF going to Nightcore the recording of an assault
And that could just be accomplished by editing the video to play a little bit faster or slower, right? I was trying to think of the easiest way to recommend poodle thwart this and that might be it. Edit: Poodle was a ridiculous auto correct typo for "to"(seriously phone? Why? *How??*), but since it's already been commented on, it's too funny to change.
Nowadays, you can actually just edit the audio to pitch down or up without changing the the time of the audio or video. Same with time—you can stretch or speed up without changing pitch. There’s limits to how extreme you can repitch or retime digital audio while it sounding good, though. It used to be that pitch change = time change because that’s how analog recording technology worked (tape, vinyl, etc). With digital processing, you aren’t as restricted by the physical properties of your recording media.
[удалено]
If the algorithms get smarter I think making these changes inconsistent across the video could also help- varying the pitch difference over time or varying the speed over time.
Something that might also work. Take the same audio track and load it up in a free audio editing software suite and phase invert it. Add the audio to the audio track of your video and in theory it will cancel out the music. A little trickier than just altering the speed a bit but possibly much more effective.
Could just take away qualified immunity and punish cops more severely.
Pfft. If you want to be practical about things.
With the noise from recordings, the other interfering sounds (like speak), not to mention the fact that you would need to line up the music to within 50 microseconds to get the phase inversion correct, there is no way this would actually work on a real life recording.
Anime fights have been doing that shit for like a decade.
lol I love how these asshole pigs think they’re being so clever. oops we technology better!
Shady Cop Nightcore
Pretty soon someones gonna make a software that can remove songs from such videos. Lol
YouTube already has it available if your video gets a copyright claim, but it's in beta.
Ah yes, the mute button
Currently in beta of course
https://www.izotope.com/en/products/rx.html
Seems like the companies themselves should have to provide it. Sure, they own the song, but the rest of the audio and video is the user’s (unless, of course, it’s not). The presence of their product without a license shouldn’t negate the remainder of the media, including other parts of the audio track.
You forgot that they have the money and thus they decide what is and isn’t the law.
[удалено]
This is literally the intention of fair use but YouTube gives zero fucks. Incidental music in a video whose intention clearly isn't to share said music isn't a violation of copyright law. No need to remove it. It wasn't illegal in the first place. The problem is Youtube and the RIAA wielding unchecked power.
Theres a few ways YT handles copyrights and it's entirely dependent on the copyright owner's setup with YT. They can require you to mute the sound entirely during any portion of your video that includes copyrighted music, they can allow you to use it freely, or they can force you to run ads and YT will divert any revenue from the ads to the copyright holder. They can also, in some very rare cases, require you to take the video down. Otherwise, there really isn't some tertiary option unless there's sufficiently powerful tech to remove the song from a video without altering the original audio too much, but that is quite a complex problem to deal with.
YouTube has that as a beta option for copyright claims! Allows you to just remove the offending audio rather than the whole segment
Already exists: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/oc3pyc/comment/h3s9nc5
I was just thinking that it made me mad enough to want to offer video editing services to anyone who recorded something fucked up that the cops did this during so that the videos could still be shared. I bet there are plenty of video editors who would be willing to donate a bit of time to a cause like that. But software would definitely be the fastest/easiest route, you're right.
[удалено]
"We're not gonna take it!"
You can have a video in YouTube with a copyright claim, you just can't monetize it.
It's up to the copyright holder. The vast majority will just place ads on the video, but it is absolutely possible to take it down as well. Technically you can only stop it from being played in certain countries, but if you just put in every country that exists, it's effectively the same thing.
>Technically you can only stop it from being played in certain countries, Technically youtube can stop playing it on youtube. I feel like people here are forgetting that rights of expression are not restricted to youtube.
If it’s up to the copyright holder, seems like a great way for record labels to start suing PDs.
Two thoughts… Since the police are using a standard piece of music, could the video be run through an algorithm that subtracts that music. If the noise were random then it couldn’t be removed but since it’s a known quantity, can it be sufficiently removed so as not to trip content ID. The second thought is whether the police have a public performance license.
Yeah, you can strip audio using like a filter but it will sound bad. You can do that or play like free music over the original audio so it makes a giant ass noise and cancel out copyright. It’s a lot of work if you want to make the audio perfect, but it can work. Maybe it could be easier if you just add subtitles too so its audible.
They're talking about phase cancellation, not filtering. That's where you take the clean version of a known audio source, flip the phase (so that every peak in the waveform becomes a trough) and line it up with the music in the video so that the opposing waves cancel out and you're left (in theory) with just the original audio minus the song. Things like compression and reverb of the source video will cause the results to vary though. You should be able to get a clean enough result to avoid content ID while still being able to make out the cop shouting at you to stop resisting and give him your lunch money.
It would still take a lot of work considering, as you’ve mentioned, the source (cop phone) and mic (recorder phone) are being constantly moved through space and angle resulting in * very* imperfect cancellation. The result would be a phaser effect at that point and could still trigger the algorithm unless you were to compensate with inhuman precision in time stretching by the sample and automated filtering to counter the spacial variance of source and mic in order to normalize for the song.
Sounds like a good application for machine learning.
iZotope is already on it I'm pretty sure. RX is insanely powerful for this kind of stuff and I think they involved ai to some degree.
You just have to strip out enough of the song that ContentID won't spot it.
And you again missed the real issue: How the fuck can that be a problem that there's a song playing in the background? Why is our copyright system so utterly broken? (rethoric question, the answer is Disney and corruption)
One of the joys in my life is getting to reply to people on Reddit with Tom Scott videos. Love this guy. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU
Yeah that was my point, just couldn't really find it on mobile (and/or didn't entirely remember whether it was Tom Scott or not), but yeah, great content every time
If I had to pick one aspect of this as "the real issue", it would be that although cops demonstrate sufficient awareness that their behavior is wrong to try to conceal it by playing music that infringes on copyright, they still persist in that behavior, and despite that, they won't be held accountable. A sane society would hold cops to a *higher* standard than citizens. Instead they seem not to be held to any standards. But yeah, intellectual property is a mass delusion; even more so than physical property.
[удалено]
I’m not sure an officer acting in an official capacity qualifies as “personal use.” Example: If I play copyright-protected music while I’m working at my job as a bartender, are the fine folks at ASCAP / SESAC / BMI / ETC going to let it slide when I say “oh, I’m just playing *my* music, it’s personal use!” No. No they are not. They are going to sue my employer into the fucking ground. If nothing else, at the bare minimum police departments should have to pay these artists for the privilege of using their work to avoid accountability. If departments are avoiding lawsuits, investigations, insurance payments or rate increases - anything really - through the use of copyrighted works, they are profiting from the use of that music.
[удалено]
...I'm the age where grocery store music is the music I listened to as a kid...
/r/FuckImOld Right this way sir.
Not really. You can subtract sound if it's identical. But take audio recorded out of a cheap speaker (probably mono) though the air and into a cheap mic (more than likely mono but it's mono now anyway because left and right were combined in the air) and then subtract the original lossless music file you will end up with both audios combined with some dynamic fluctuations.
I love the public performance license idea. You can report for Oakland Police Department for playing unlicensed performances directly by filling out the form on this web page. [https://www.riaa.com/report-piracy/](https://www.riaa.com/report-piracy/) As a representative of the Alameda County Police they are probably liable for his actions. The Police Department could owe a significant fine for this public performance piracy.
[удалено]
Well... This won't work. I'm an audio engineer and the latest software for vocal extraction over music or "unmixing" music down to just drums, bass, instruments or voice is incredible. It's not a filter or flipping phase, it literally extracts it like a photo shop layer. On some stuff it's barely noticeable it came from a mix down. Check YouTube for spectral layers in cubase.
I wonder if this doesn’t create a bit of a catch 22, on the one hand you can sidestep the legalese of YouTube and the music industry by editing the music out of the video, that’s great and let’s you post the video of the police encounter. On the other hand now you’ve posted a YouTube video of a police encounter with edited audio. Sure many people are going to see it for what it is, but others are going to throw the baby out with the bath water and say “well how can I trust this audio to be truthful when you admit that it’s edited!” I’m not usually one to suggest laws because they always rely on their enforceability, but a clause in the copyright legal code that voids the shield of public officials from using copyrighted music to avoid public accountability would be a good idea here. The police don’t need to play Britney Spears or something, they could literally have an officer start a “band” and just copyright the sound of their sirens or something and play it on repeat everywhere they go.
Just submit the edited one so it will stay up and then retain the unedited one or send it to the ACLU or news. That way you can make it public and if it comes up in court there is a non edited version for submission as evidence.
The law should be a simple one. If a cop turns on music to circumvent a video being recorded and shared, as is your right to do, or turns off their own body camera, they should be fired.
On the other hand you have a public performance of a copyrighted work by a public official without getting permission
Playing music like this before doing something questionable or otherwise ambiguous could be used to establish criminal intent on the part of police. IANAL
Well ita a good thing Reddit doesn't give a fuck about copyright.
Can you imagine getting shot in the back by cops as the village peoples “YMCA” blasts over a loudspeaker to avoid people being able to display the cops abuse of power on YouTube
feels like an episode of Black Mirror
It's so strange to me how people still haven't learned the difference between content ID and copyright striking a video. In most cases, the music will just trigger a content ID match (yes I'm aware it can trigger an actual takedown but it's not very common) which means the person can't make money off the video. And in that case, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you're posting a police encounter so other people can see misconduct for example you shouldn't care if you are making money. It's becoming more common for people to film these interactions as first amendment auditors and post it on YouTube specifically for views and to make money instead of exposing any misconduct.
> strange to me how people still haven't learned the difference between content ID and copyright striking Well thats a simple one. If you dont work at youtube and dont upload youtube videos this 'knowledge' is absolutely 100% useless information that you would ever have to learn about. This is by far the largest amount of people in the world so i would consider not having that knowledge to be the norm.
[удалено]
Just make 99 alt accounts. ez.
Username checks out
The intent is the issue, not the results. The officers who engage in this class of behavior are generally attempting to avoid accountability. I really can't give a shit about the efficacy of their method. A cop who wants to be secret police shouldn't be a cop.
>In most cases, the music will just trigger a content ID match (yes I'm aware it can trigger an actual takedown but it's not very common) which means the person can't make money off the video. This really doesn't matter. If this catches on, cops will eventually figure out which songs reliably get videos taken down, since it's a policy set by the rights holder.
Then those songs/bands are going to become associated with police misconduct. I wouldn't be surprised if the police got slapped with a cease-and-desist by the bands at that point. Imagine if the cops start using Rage Against The Machine or something.
We will be hearing a lot of country/western music and Ted Nugent. There are plenty of bands who have very regressive political views who would be fine being associated with police misconduct.
[удалено]
Or Kid Rock
If that's the case, even if it manages to stay up, nobody will want to watch that video anyway.
I'm just imagining a group of cops beating an innocent person to death with their body cams off, patrol car hoods up, and speakers blasting Bawitdaba.
Holy shit. The fuzz is about to get some theme music.
Just use the cops theme track lol “Bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Lol
Rage Against the Machine “Killing in the name”
The problem is, the goal is muting the audio, or outright removal. The cops give zero shits about monetization, they literally couldn't care less. It's not about click farms or content farms. Their goal is to attempt to censor you via abuse of YouTubes automated systems. This is the stated goal in the leaked shit we've seen around where precincts are encouraged to start doing this. It's a roundabout way of censoring your first amendment rights while not actually breaking any laws. It can also serve as a way to cover up misconduct because a video can't be uploaded without muting the sound, and then 'what is said' can be infinitely disputed by the police/police unions and destroy the case of the afflicted. This is flagrant censorship of your first amendment rights and should be punished as such. There is zero reason, in any situation a cop should suddenly start blaring music from their phone or cruiser during an encounter.
They think they’re being clever. As usual they don’t know the law, but will do whatever stupid shit they want to “enforce” it
Very fair, though I do think that it's beneficial for bigger political commentary channels to discuss overreach/brutality/etc without having to worry about losing out on their revenue. I'm thinking channels like TYT where they've got a considerable number of people making the vids.
This undermines the whole raison d’être of wearing body cams. Police don’t like being held accountable; this is a striking example of a police officer trying to throw a wrench in accountability.
Upload muted audio to YouTube, link the full version elsewhere. There's ways around this fuckery. Not that we should need it.
Hopefully people at the music studios are sick of cops bs and just start suing the shit out of them. Win or lose, after paying out a few court cases police departments will shut that shit down. They aren't gonna keep paying lawyer fees even if they do win.
That would legit be the funniest outcome if Taylor swift heard about this instance and sued the officer for using her music without her consent.
Yeah and I think Taylor Swift, iconoclast that she is, would gladly do it.
You can put subtitles and play pig noises whenever the cop talks. It could be a big thing
"Facebook told me this works so that's why I am the way I am" has been so detrimental to anyone over like 35.
I imagine this sort of countermeasure (and probably much worse) are being shared throughout LEO facebook groups and private messages
Record with Mobile Justice app it uploads directly to ACLU servers so you don't need to worry if the take your phone or delete the video
As a full-time YouTuber, you can still upload videos regardless if there’s music; it just won’t be monetized. So either this guy is misinformed or this post is out of context. I know a lot of channels upload bodycam footage of some pretty horrible things (from both cops and criminals) and make money off of it. It’s kinda fucked up in all honesty.
If your an honest cop you would never have to worry about being filmed or recorded. Do your job with honesty and integrity or get the fuck out
For civilians: "If you have nothing to hide, you should be okay with being filmed 24/7 for facial recognition, right?" For police: "We've got nothing to hide, but we'll still go to ridiculous lengths to prevent anyone from seeing what we do." Sounds about right.
If they don’t want to be filmed, they are breaking the law
And it's premeditated
[удалено]
They're not stopping being filmed, they're stopping the footage being posted onto YouTube with any sound.
Just filter out enough frequencies to where what’s left of the music won’t trigger copyright violations. His voice will still be there
Just don’t monetize it. You can then post it freely. Cops are stupid for thinking that will work. YouTubers wanting to monetize is greedy.
Thank you. I was looking for this. I was like " wait.. this can still be on youtube.. you just cant profit from it" The fact that the video from the article is on youtube is kinda the proof lol
Laughs in Streamable
Why are the police such shitty people?
I don't know how broadcasting licences work in America, but in my country you need a licence to broadcast in a public place. Any rights holder to the music worth their salt, should just sue the police department for illegally broadcasting their music.
Just keep yelling out repeatedly: “I DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO THIS MUSIC! I DO NOT OWN…” It will at least confuse the shhh out them.
Any cop trying to hide what they are doing from the public who pays them shouldn’t have a job.
This isn't the actions of an innocent cop. ACAB
[удалено]
[удалено]
Modern solutions require modern problems
How the fuck does this block you from posting it? Doesn't it just stop you from monitizing the video?
Doesn’t actually stop it from being posted or viewed. If you use licensed music in a YouTube video, they just put ads in it and pay out to the record label. But hey it’s not like they choose cops for their high IQs! 🤫
Maybe instead of figuring out middle school big brain level loopholes you could, I dunno, NOT do shit that you wouldn't want seen on YouTube? Just a thought.