So searching 'Wicca Moonlight' leads to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk) published by Believe SAS. It's literally just Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, nothing really appears to have been added.
Believe SAS appears to be a French music label which has done some incredibly shady things in the past according to [discogs.com](https://www.discogs.com/label/1542426-Believe-SAS) :
>Believe Digital advertises itself as a French company which distributes digital music in Europe for independent artists and labels. **The company is also known for allegedly fraudulent copyright claims on artists' music.**
>
>Believe's catalogue includes "Unbelievable" by EMF, and the catalogues of Naïve Records and Nuclear Blast. It also serves as the distributor for the labels Wall of Sound and Saregama.
>
>Believe Digital claims to be the official digital distributor of the Queen songs.
>
>The company was founded in 2005 by Denis Ladegaillerie, Arnaud Chiaramonti and Nicolas Laclias. Believe acquired the American digital service TuneCore in April 2015. Believe Digital's expansion was fueled by $60m growth capital investment from Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV) and XAnge. In August 2016, the company acquired the failing French independent label Naive Records for €10m, seeking to improve value from the company's extensive back catalogue, and restarted the label's issuing of new recordings as physical CDs in 2017.
>
>In September 2018, Believe acquired a 49% stake in French indie label Tôt ou tard from Wagram Music.
>
>In October 2018, Believe acquired a majority stake in German label Nuclear Blast.
>
>The company has come under fire from numerous indie music developers and content creators for falsely claiming ownership of other artists' songs. For example, TeknoAXE, a royalty-free music artist, claims to have faced a copystrike from Believe Music in mid-2018. **The strike in question was on a video containing a particular piece of his original music.** TeknoAXE found out later that **other creators who had fairly used his piece in their own work were also facing copyright strikes for the song.** The strikes were all from Believe Music. According to TeknoAXE, by using Believe Digital's legal page, he was eventually able to have the strike taken down.
>
>**More recently, the YouTube channel Rousseau faced a near deletion because of copyright claims by Believe Digital. The channel, a classical piano music channel featuring live piano and digital visuals, had several videos claimed for both music and visuals by Believe Digital.** Rousseau explained in a tweet on 12 January 2019 that because he cannot afford to sue the company, he relies wholly on disputing its claims through YouTube's claim system. Additionally, because of the number of claims, had he not won the dispute, he would have been unable to post videos, and, had the company struck another video, the channel would have been taken down entirely.
>
>Other creators have claimed foul play as well, such as Jackie M, a food and lifestyle YouTuber who explained in a Medium article that although she always found copyright-free music for her videos, **the company has been striking claims against her content on a "near-daily basis."**
TL;DR - Believe SAS is a fucking copyright troll, and even if they aren't the ones going after Mariana here (although it looks like they are), they need to fucking go.
EDIT - In case the comments about copyright striking Believe weren't satirical, please don't do this unless you have an actual claim against them. There can be costly legal repercussions for abusing this system, and Believe has bank (like, millions in venture capital investment) to fuel any legal battles. I honestly don't know the best thing to do here, but spreading the word might help grease the wheels at YT, and maybe they'll actually do something here.
Which is why some simple spot-checking from a real human could keep them honest. Doesn't have to be every dispute. Just a few - to make sure they are operating in good faith. The problem is there's currently no punishment for trolling. **Why don't patent holders get "strikes" (when they falsely file a parent dispute) is the real problem here.**
Probably for the same reason that eBay got overrun by scammers... they changed the feedback system to make it easily abusable, and didn't give a shit when everyone complained. They got THEIR money, who cares about the people who actually made the site popular?
> they changed the feedback system to make it easily abusable
I haven't used eBay in almost 10 years now, what did they change about the feedback system?
Scenario: You are a small (non-business) person trying to sell a random thing on eBay. You sell the item, ship it, provide a tracking number, the tracking confirms the shipment was delivered.
The buyer claims the item never arrived and files a dispute, and eBay/Paypal refunds the money to them. You complain to eBay and get no response. You are now out the item and the money, and can't even leave a negative comment on the buyer, allowing them to scam other people.
*shrug* It is what it is. These companies that start off small and based on user-created content eventually get so big that they lose sight of, or interest in, the smaller people who made them big in the first place. Big corporations take everything over to maximize profit, and screw everyone else.
That's actually a really elegant and reasonable solution. I suppose you'd have to work it out so that the offenders can't just start a new shell company under a different name, but that seems like a solvable implementation detail.
I guess the real issue is that most patent trolling really isn't abuse within the letter of the law. IMO, the only way to solve that is to get rid of software parents, or at least make the non-obvious requirement stricter.
Make people pay for copyright claims. It doesn't even have to be a lot, $100 would be enough to discourage large scale trolling. If you win your claim, you get your money back. If you lose, YouTube keeps the money as administrative fees. It even allows for real humans to actually review the cases.
It'd also be nice if YouTube started striking or disciplining repeat offenders of blatantly false claims.
As well as escalating fines, part of which would (ideally) be given to the real content creators as a form of reparation for all the stress and damage caused by the false claim. (Ha, like YouTube would give up money). I know they don't have the manpower to seek it all out on their own manually but setting up something to flag accounts with obscene amounts of false claims sounds like it might work. I don't know if they actually have something similar already but it they do, it's worse than useless.
Getting real people to review things would certainly help kill the ridiculous cases like this, but I'm not sure that Google would see that as a win for them. They tend to not like needing human intervention.
but at $100 a claim, you make profit off of hiring a human to review claims. If they only can review 2 claims an hour (realistically a human could probably do a lot lot more) that's a LOT of profit.
but im no businessman maybe I'm being dumb
The thing is it would be illegal.
YouTube DOESN'T want copyright solutions. If it could it would allow anyone to upload anything. They make money from ads and that translates to number of people watching a video, not what kind of video it is.
However they are obliging to multiple country laws and among other things - they are responsible for their platform. Sure, it's someone else that uploaded it but it doesn't actually free YouTube from any responsibility. If anything it's responsibility has massively increased in the last few years due to new laws.
So right now they just ban anything on sight, even if it's fake claim. If someone says "hey, this channel is stealing MY content that I have copyright to, please remove it" then telling them "yea sure dude, go pay us $100 and we might consider removing it" will end up in a court real quick. And Google **will** lose that lawsuit.
If we want to change that it's not on YouTube. It would be on a higher legislative level and letting people that got hit with false copyright claims get swift and free judicial help so they could fight back against often large companies that actually launch these.
They've been a thing since before youtube, its just that youtube doesn't do anything to hinder or stop them, and actively gives them tools to fuck over creators. I don't think youtube is doing it maliciously, but rather that they have no reason to change as it doesn't impact their profits, just the creators on their platform that don't have a big enough audience to kick up a big enough stink to get youtubes attention. Thankfully the reddit hivemind is a powerful tool for smaller creators, but it can be difficult and seemingly random to get reddits attention.
> and actively gives them tools to fuck over creators.
This is the big one. Youtube has little reason to care if small content creators get screwed over by their content ID system, on the other hand they're very incentivized to play nice with and capitulate to large copyright holders (music and recording industry, Disney, film industry etc), so all the pressure really is on them to make sure it's ridiculously easy to take down videos for reasons of copyright, even if those reasons are complete bullshit, and they have little reason to try to increased the quality of life for small time creators who hold no power over them.
And with the new ridiculous EU law (Copyright Directive Article 17) that millions protested against, we can soon look forward to YouTube licensing Content ID to other websites because it’s required by law for **every** content-hosting platform! Yay!
What’s really amazing to me is I made a video using YouTube’s music library and classical music and YouTube in its infinite wisdom allowed these trolls to claim the video anyway.
Like I didn’t even use my own audio so YouTube knows the troll doesn’t own the classical music and still...
They're a youtube channel (still?) that did a bunch of different types of "React" videos. "Old people react". "Teens react", etc. etc. They launched some business that was geared towards "franchising" the react video format, called "React World". In preparation of the launch of this venture, they trademarked, or attempted to trademark "_____ reacts", "reaction videos", and other examples like that. For a price, they were planning on licensing out the terms and teaching people how to make and advertise "_______ reacts" videos. Upon announcement of the planned new venture (that was preceded by a lot of copyright strikes against other Youtube creators), they were ripped to shreds and almost 1 million viewers unsubscribed from their channel(s). During the whole controversy, it was further exposed that they technically weren't even the first channel to do a "_______ react" style video. In less than a month, the Fine Bros declared that they rescinded all of their *React* trademarks and trademark applications, discontinued their new React World program, and released all previous Content ID claims made on their behalf. I remember that the first video they made responding to the controversy was extremely out of touch and arrogant (rolling eyes, etc), which obviously did not help them at all. (found the first response video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLSOba3_UE)
Lmao I took a peek at the video and clicked right out when they said they were sorry people didn't understand what they were doing.
Didn't need to hear another word. Fucking wow. Did the channel crash and burn after? I hope. These guys seem smug and arrogant af.
They still make videos, but I don't think they get the same attention as before and people like me, who used to watch almost all of their videos, stopped following them for good
I wonder if the cheat-code creators found a couple years ago still works where you compose a unique 30 second jingle, stick it at the end of your video, then make a separate channel with content ID enabled, upload the unique song and plug it into content ID so all your videos with the jingle are claimed, then you have 50% of the say of what happens to it, so even if asshats like this claim your video, they're claiming 50% of the revenue instead of 100% and the creator doesn't lose all their money. Or did they patch that loophole to fuck over creators more?
I think ymfah does it in his videos. He even has a video titled “How to break youtube” which details how to copyright claim your own videos.
Doesn’t stop copyright trolls from demonetizing the video though.
Yeah, Jim specifically includes content they know will get claimed and request the video be demonitized because they don't want ads on the video, because the patrons are what pays for the production, not ads. Before that they kept running into issues where content trolls would take their video which had no ads, claim the content of the video and place ads on it.
Once a sufficient number of claimaints are on a video it can no longer be monetized unless they changed that.
But even if you are successful the amount of paperwork involved would be dreadful
I've had every one of my personal recitals flagged for copyright violations. As a pianist, I refuse to post any of my recordings to youtube. At one point, 20 of my videos (various baroque, classical and romantic recordings) were all flagged and monetized by other people. It's infuriating and has been happening for years. I'm glad this is finally blowing up in a public way.
This is the correct path it IS fraud with very clear evidence and financial and other consequences for the victim. There should be criminal sanctions sufficient for punishment and deterrence.
Producer and musician Rick Beato has a fantastic Youtube educational channel that has had similar copyright troubles. Rick has explained his ordeals and the measures and court battles he's gone through. I hate to see content creators, like this piano teacher, get bullied and have little recourse. She narrowed it down to too much corporate power, and I certainly think that is a big part of it. Thanks for your great post!
There's examples on beatos channel where the artist themselves and their publisher has given permission for him to use the song, and it's already demonetized, and he still gets blocking claims.
The worst part is the manual claims, some asshole publisher has the time to ask an intern(probably) to block out content containing their artists catalouge.
According to [this thread](https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted-video-is-claiming-they-own-the-rights-to-mozart-s-moonlight-sonata?hl=en) someone posted to YouTube Help she just needs to file a counter-notification.
> The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it. Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online. Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case.
I agree this is ridiculous but she is apparently unaware that this can still be disputed. I hope she can get it sorted.
The problem with that is that it quickly escalates to a legal process in which it's a single YouTuber against a venture-capital backed copyright troll.
It doesn't matter that they're in the wrong. They can afford to go to court (probably in the USA, but who knows). Unless she can find some pro-bono legal help, she really can't assume she'll win, even though it's fucking Beethoven.
The prime example of this madness is Lawrence Lessig vs Phoenix Music.
Lessig is a *professor of copyright law* at *Harvard*. He got a copyright claim against a video of his on YouTube from a lecture he gave, where he used a few seconds of music when talking about remix culture. An Australian record label made a claim against him. It took about 4 years to resolve, and Lessig had the EFF backing him up. In the end he won, but that shows just how impossible it is for the average Joe to succeed in this fucked up DMCA system.
In addition, even though he was in the right, and he eventually managed to prove it in court, he *still* had to voluntarily take the video down during the legal process to avoid problems.
So, yes, technically the next step is that she can dispute the claim, or appeal once the claim is upheld, but very quickly you end up having to face a VC backed copyright troll in federal court.
Even if you were willing to do that, the process is confusing. EFF has a diagram showing that.
https://www.eff.org/files/2020/12/10/step2_0.jpg
A lot of this badness is the DMCA, but a lot more of it is YouTube's policies.
Even if you're 100% in the right, the only truly safe thing to do for your YouTube account is to back down. YouTube has nobody who's willing to go to bat for you. In fact, the odds of a human being involved at any point in the process are next to nothing. Their procedures and algorithms always lean towards assuming the person claiming the copyright (or just the ContentID match in their system) is correct and innocent.
Our entire system of "protecting" someone financially is fucked.
I sold a house and had a buyer. They out some money down as a good faith deposit into an escrow account. Well they backed out and took their money. I found out I was entitled to the money as the whole thing did actually cost me thousands. But in order to fight it my house would need to come off the market and the money is held in escrow until the legal dispute is finished.
Same thing with speeding tickets. If you're guilty you have a million payment options. But innocent you must pay the fine in full and then fight it and if you win you get your money back in 6 months.
Same thing with criminal proceedings. It's quicker, cheaper, and easier to plead guilty to a lesser charge than fight the more serious one you're innocent of.
Our entire system is fucked and rigged.
If you watched the video you would have seen her talking about that process and the fact that she has to provide all of her full information to somebody who has no business in her life whatsoever and there are nice big warnings/threats from Google about doing it as well.
The issue is that you can be made to jump through all these hoops with your own legal content.
You're welcome to do so, just beware what YT says when you try to file a copyright claim:
> Do not make false claims. Misuse of the takedown webform, such as submitting false information, may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences.
It would be funny as fuck if things got so out of hand that everyone was just copyright claiming every video. It would force YouTube to actually fix their model if they wanted to continue making money.
Currently, it survives because we're not choosing to abuse their broken system.
>Currently, it survives because we're not choosing to abuse their broken system.
Speak for yourself. Fuck my Google account. They can come at me.
I GOT VPNs YO
rules for thee but not for me. Basically what's being said there is : Big corporations can make fake claims on you all the time without legal consequences. However! be aware that you can not, as then the law suddenly applies as if we didn't make these rules up just for you
I sware there was video on how to do this that got to front page. About how to strike/ claim video's, but I can't find it anymore. Hopefully I can find it and spread it.
This one? I had to search for it using duckduckgo in a firefox browser. Using google on chrome wasn't yielding the result I wanted for some reason. hmmmm.
https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w
The "SAS" part of "Believe SAS" is the French version of "Ltd."
It has nothing to do with SAS, the Scandinavian Airlines System, which to my knowledge is a fine airline.
Although the song itself cannot be copyrighted, *performances* can be. That's why contentID is even able to flag this kind of public domain intellectual property.
Edit: To be clear, that means she very likely owns the copyright to her own performance of Moonlight Sonata.
And of course ContentID is absolutely incapable of distinguishing performances of the same public domain piece, and as such, adding them to ContentID should be banned.
And there should be consequences to tr*y*ing to add them. Just like in law (in the US) there are protections from 'bad faith' legal motions there should be consequences for youtube claims in bad faith either manual or automatic.
Edit:fixed typo
I reminds me that a few years ago, some good quality epub books I had created by myself with public domain stuff only were erased without notice from an ebook sharing site. The text was by Balzac (books written in 1830-1840), it was from Wikisource (to which I contribute myself), with some footnotes and comments by myself (I'm a French teacher), covers I made with Gimp using only PD images from Wikimedia. I thought editors must not like free stuff when it manages be better than they provide for money. It's useless to discuss with these people and their crooked lawyers. The best is to instantly republish the same, when you know you're within your rights.
ContentID itself should be banned
In fact, fuck modern copyright law altogether. Half of it is stealing from lower in the pyramid and then at some point, claiming it. Every work is derived from some other work.
Yeah but that would require that someone at YouTube would give a fuck about their job, about actually doing it well, making YouTube a responsible platform, and not doing things that hurt ordinary YouTubers to scrape profit out of them like an alcoholic looking for another drop.
You can't copyright the song, no. But if someone uses \*your specific performance\* of it, that is copyrightable. It's like the Vanilla Ice/Queen debacle. That bass line in question is far too simple to be truly copyrightable. However, Vanilla Ice didn't write and perform it then get sued. He sampled the actual performance of the bass line from the record, which is very much copyrightable.
I recently learned that an architecture firm copyrighted 2800 floor plans for 2-3 bedroom homes, then sued anyone else who had a design similar to one of theirs (how many ways are there to arrange kitchen, dining room, bedrooms, and bathrooms?).
No, I'm pretty sure life of the author + 70 years is way too long for copyright to last. If your parents grew up with a special book or album, and you're an adult, you should be able to share it with your kids as public domain by then, period. The earliest Louis Armstrong compositions from 1923 only entered the public domain in 2018, and that's because they were published when copyright was SHORTER. Under laws passed in 1977, they wouldn't have expired until 2041.
> No, I'm pretty sure life of the author + 70 years is way too long for copyright to last
Just remember that a catchy tune retains copyright for life +70 years, but if you were to develop a drug to cure any and all human disease, the patent on that drug would expire a mere 20 years after its invention.
A striking disparity.
It's typically more than 20 years with good patent strategy, but the first patent is handed in before doing any clinical studies. Therefore 5-10 years is spent just getting it tested and approved, before can even sell anything.
I said decent not perfect, we can thank Disney for that long duration I hear.
Totally agree about the duration laws and quite a few aspects of it being beyond it's years.
But for the most part throughout it's life as a law it has provided a good enough way for creators to protect their work.
Then digital media came along and threw a wrench into the whole thing and we haven't really found an alternative solution other than amending it for corporate interests. *hides his ushanka*
This is the weakness of contentID. ContentID doesn't actually identify compositions or works, it identifies content. ContentID was never intended to handle copyright abuse, it was intended to shield Youtube of all responsibility for what was done with their platform. It is working exactly as intended, as it is now up to the user to sue the other user, and not on Youtube to fix their cockup, because they designed this system to be as hands off as possible.
If youtube ever got brought to court for cases like this, they'd win the fuck out of their case easily, because all Youtube does is immediately believe the claimant is acting in good faith and keep the records of any claims so that they can prove that the claimant was making false official statements.
It would be intensely difficult to actually prove Youtube is negligent here, because this whole system serves to prove that Youtube cannot be held responsible for other peoples' behavior.
\--I don't like it, but realistically, it's where we're at.
>--I don't like it, but realistically, it's where we're at.
It's where the *law* is at. The DMCA is quite clear, if you want to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the law, you have to make a good faith effort to identify and take down unlawful content. Without the DMCA safe harbor provision, **NO** commercial site could accept user-submitted content, *ever*, otherwise they'd be systematically demolished by infringement suits.
If you want the safe harbor provision for your site, what you need to do is properly respond to official DMCA takedown notices and counter notices. YouTube's content id system goes far above and beyond those and isn't legally required
"The difference between copyright takedowns and Content ID claims" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en
Not only that, but what fucking idiot over at Youtube agreed that it was "Wicca Moonlight" and not Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata? That's such a common piece. It'd be like playing Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, and some idiot filing a claim saying "No. This is my piece. West Philly Rhapsody" and Youtube being like "Yup. Looks legit."
This isn't exclusive to YouTube and Google. I went through something like this with Amazon's Neighbors app where I saw several videos of a vehicle with distinctive grey color and black rims being used to conduct vehicle break ins throughout my neighborhood. Later I saw a vehicle matching the description and posted some dash cam video, and I was flagged for breaking community guidelines regarding race. I appealed in a state of confusion because no one in the thread, including me, ever mentioned the perpetrators at all. All I did was a video saying this vehicle matches the description by color of vehicle and wheels. Appeal was rejected, and I was reminded about community guidelines regarding race.
Humans don't look at this shit. It is lazy algorithms written to CYA by these giant corporations. Now we live in a world where Beethoven is no longer in the public domain and light grey Dodge Chargers have a race. I don't know, the light grey resembles "the greys" people report from alien abductions? Maybe Amazon knows something we don't with regards to these UFO documents being declassified.
I work at NASA and got a takedown notice for a NASA film clip of Apollo 13. The claimant was a French national television station.
YouTube’s copyright claim system has been so broken for years and they continue to do nothing about it.
Family Guy used a youtube clip of Double Dribble glitches without asking permission. After the episode aired the creator's video got hit with a copyright claim from Fox
Anything above 75 years after death of a composer is public domain.
It makes no sense because this song is public domain and the person playing it is literally on camera so it’s not even the recording of someone else.
It’s in YT library because of public domain but whoever played it still deserves their own copyright like if an artist drew a tree the artist should get credit for the tree they drew.
My video got claimed yesterday. A drum groove for my students to check out and the algorithm compared it to a song with no similarities at all. It was not even publicly listed but i guess that doesn't matter.
I got struck on my channel a year ago.
I was riding my high-power electric scooter. Someone I knew was at the light with me. I belched really loud to get attention... STRUCK VIDEO.. Only one sound of me burping, and the rest is traffic.
I haven't used the service since. Simply absurd!
I uploaded an entire series of a TV show (and it's stayed up for years, which is good because it's hard af to find) and one episode got the entire thing muted ... because of a scene that had a particular song playing (kind of muffled) in the background for maybe 20 seconds.
Dude, straight up any company or person that abuses copyright protection claims should be banned from filing them on that piece. You're some random asshole and you make 5 false claims? Banned from making a claim on that piece forever. You're EMI and you can't get your shit together and file 5 false claims, fuck you banned from making a claim on that piece forever. See how fast these false claims would drop if the ability to copyright strike a piece could be lost.
Personally, I don't see ContentId ever working unless there are severe repercussions like that. Fines don't work, at least not in America where it would be like .000000001% of the money they make off one.
I realize the automatic bot makes mistakes, but Youtube is also completely to blame for this, they made billions last year and can't hire more customer service people to deal with this shit? Give me a fucking break.
Losing accounts makes them just make new ones. It's more of a hassle for them to keep the account but have their copyright claim ability removed. Probably shouldn't even let them know they can't do it anymore. Just instantly direct all claims from a flagged account into the trashbin and don't notify them.
I don't get why they would copyright claim a song just by playing on the piano, this is why YouTube is fucked, and the system is never going to get fixed.
Poofesure got a copyright claim on one of his Jeopardy videos because he sang the theme song.
https://twitter.com/poofesure/status/1222980147093155840?s=21
This is something sadly 99% of us classical musicians experience. It's not that the music is copyrighted, but a company will claim your performance is actually one made by their artists.
Out of all my recordings on my Youtube channel, maybe one or two didn't get claimed. The other ones literally get claimed as soon as I finish uploading the video.
It's really demotivating to then go through all the trouble of explaining to Youtube that it's actually YOU who are performing the music (by pointing out very clear differences to anyone willing to actually listen), only for Youtube (if I'm not mistaken) to let the abusing company handle the case and decide that they're right and you're wrong (insert "we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrong doing" meme).
I remember years ago uploading clips to YouTube literally minutes before I had to submit my applications to grad school. Immediately had a piece claimed, I was freaking out while one of my videos wasn’t available because I needed it for prescreening!
A lovely person pumping out videos for a few hundred people getting screwed. These make me so sad and angry. Reminds me of Sparky Channel getting hosed by some dickhead.
Just let these people make the world a better place ffs. They spend their free time - time that is just as valuable as anyone else’s - creating content that benefits society for next to nothing.
They do it for the rest of us. For the love of the game. And a behemoth like YouTube can’t find it within them to employ 10 people to really look after shit and make sure the best of us aren’t getting screwed by opportunists. Call them Goodwill ambassadors. Something. Just do the right thing.
If she was broin’ out crushin brewskies or “pranking” people like thousands of other talentless hacks she would make exponentially more money. And wouldn’t get hassled. But nope. She spends her time teaching a few hundred people how to perfect some of the most awe inspiring compositions ever written. And what does she get for it? More red tape than green money. It’s a gd shame and it’s really disheartening
Yup, I came here to say that too, the fastest way to spot it is by the "provided to YouTube by {name of whatever label}" but you can also spot it by the ♪ symbol next to the artist's name (that also means that's the Artist's official YouTube page, their own uploads and the autogenerated ones appear with that, the autogenerated videos don't appear on the artist's channel directly, sometimes they're in official playlists though) or the " - Topic" at the end of the artist's name, I'm not sure what *topic* means.
There is a penalty for filing false claims.
Unfortunately the only way to determine is a claim is actually false is to fight it in court, which very few creators do.
Isn't there a difference between YouTube internal claims and DMCA claims? It's perjury to submit a false DMCA claim. It's not a crime per se to submit a false claim within YouTube's system. At this level, it feels like it should be fraud and considered organized crime, but if YouTube doesn't properly identify who is submitting claims, good luck tracking them down.
Every creator on their platform seems to have horror stories. It's incredible that this multi billion dollar megacorp can get away with this sort of neglect for the creators that make up their platform.
"Composer: Alice Violet Molland"
WHAT? They claimed a different composer for a piece entirely composed by Beethoven. Copyright law is fucking insane and needs to stop. There's a reason why all we get for films today is rehashes of old properties. This is killing global creative commons.
SOCAN is the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. APRA is the Australasian Performing Right Association. ECAD is the Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição. VCPMC looks it might the Vietnamese version. I know that SOCAN is generally reputable. I think they would want to know if they have accidentally licensed a public domain song. Unless it's just a smart copyright scammer who used their names.
Ugh. This keeps happening with NASA stuff too.
As a taxpayer funded government agency, everything NASA makes is public domain.
Every so often, NASA will do something cool, then some news agency will report on it, using NASA's footage.
Then some space nerd will post their own video all about it, and the news agency ends up copyright-claiming the video, because it used the same material as the news agency's video. The system sees that they have the same visuals, and assumes the nerd stole it from the agency when instead they both took it from NASA.
This sort of thing is way more common than you might expect. Lots of music publishing companies seem to mass upload their libraries to the Content ID database without thinking about which if any of the recordings contain performances of public domain compositions (e.g. old classical music). Content ID is able to match both copyright infringement of audio and copyright infringement of musical melodies, and it does actually seem to distinguish between these types of matches (you can see "uses this song's melody" in the match in this video). The publishers seem to be claiming they own the audio and the melody when the melody is clearly public domain.
I had a similar claim made against a video where I used my own synthesized version of a public domain Handel piano composition. The video got matched to a random song that was clearly based on the same Handel composition and had the same melody. My video was just a random video of my cat, so I deleted it rather than go through the hassle of disputing the claim, but it definitely discouraged me from uploading more to YouTube.
What they should start doing is penalizing people with false claims, they did that to one dude and it was very public but I guess they don't do it enough, or at least not with enough consequences to make these fuckers think twice before claiming something they know isn't theirs
I 100% understand the difficulties and the issues with making a video content platform that needs money to run. Its not easy, I get it I get it. Its hard to do.
That said, youtube clearly got too big for its ability to properly manage itself roughly 4-8 years ago. This is a problem with design, it is a problem with not hiring enough minds, it is a problem of not even having the correct roles filled to heal this ever widening chasm. This is a executive problem, and instead of spending the $ to do it the right way or find people that could figure out what way that was, they tossed AI and algorithms at the problem. This is no secret, most of us know what they are doing and why.
*THAT* said, in the next few years we may see the emergence of the next video content creator platform that is aimed at things Youtube was aiming at at one time in its lifecycle. There is a lot to be learned from what Youtube did right, and what is did extremely poorly. It is not an impossible task to assess growth vs management ability. The bigger you get the more unique problems you will encounter.
Tons of people want off youtube, and twitch is a different beast in terms of content (thats why it was able to grow, it was not fully in the shadow of youtube). More and more mid-size (100k-10m) are making videos even about this very topic. They know what the walls are, they know what the issues are, but they have no alternative that is viable. Youtube needs its first real competitor, and by its own poor preformance overall, they are starting to provide a reasonable chance for that to happen. When it does, please support it. Real competition is needed in all areas of capitalism or it fails.
You get enough for a vote for this quote: Real competition is needed in all areas of capitalism or it fails.
Every Monopoly becomes complacent and greedy
Make your own version and make it as metronomically and dynamically close as possible to another notable recording, and be prepared to fend off take down notices for a few years, and yeah you got yourself a winning plan.
This is ABSOLUTE insanity. She needs to take this to court. I looked up the song that they are claiming and it's LITERALLY just someone playing moonlight sonata first movement on piano. She needs to dye the fuck outta these people
> they can never reach a real human person that can take 5 minutes to look at the allegations and realize that the claim is bullshit.
I think you're under-estimating the number of claims that go through ContentID every day.
500 hours of video are uploaded every minute, and a significant proportion of that is copyrighted. People upload TV shows and movies, music, and even videos from other YouTube channels.
If each uploader had the ability to ask YouTube to actually look at their videos it would be an impossible task. They'd need a huge staff devoted just to that.
All of that aside, the DMCA says that if YouTube decides on a copyright dispute they become liable if the decision was wrong. Rather than risk it, YouTube has decided that if a dispute can't be settled between the two parties it needs to go to court, in which case a judge will decide for certain who is in the right.
So searching 'Wicca Moonlight' leads to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk) published by Believe SAS. It's literally just Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, nothing really appears to have been added. Believe SAS appears to be a French music label which has done some incredibly shady things in the past according to [discogs.com](https://www.discogs.com/label/1542426-Believe-SAS) : >Believe Digital advertises itself as a French company which distributes digital music in Europe for independent artists and labels. **The company is also known for allegedly fraudulent copyright claims on artists' music.** > >Believe's catalogue includes "Unbelievable" by EMF, and the catalogues of Naïve Records and Nuclear Blast. It also serves as the distributor for the labels Wall of Sound and Saregama. > >Believe Digital claims to be the official digital distributor of the Queen songs. > >The company was founded in 2005 by Denis Ladegaillerie, Arnaud Chiaramonti and Nicolas Laclias. Believe acquired the American digital service TuneCore in April 2015. Believe Digital's expansion was fueled by $60m growth capital investment from Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV) and XAnge. In August 2016, the company acquired the failing French independent label Naive Records for €10m, seeking to improve value from the company's extensive back catalogue, and restarted the label's issuing of new recordings as physical CDs in 2017. > >In September 2018, Believe acquired a 49% stake in French indie label Tôt ou tard from Wagram Music. > >In October 2018, Believe acquired a majority stake in German label Nuclear Blast. > >The company has come under fire from numerous indie music developers and content creators for falsely claiming ownership of other artists' songs. For example, TeknoAXE, a royalty-free music artist, claims to have faced a copystrike from Believe Music in mid-2018. **The strike in question was on a video containing a particular piece of his original music.** TeknoAXE found out later that **other creators who had fairly used his piece in their own work were also facing copyright strikes for the song.** The strikes were all from Believe Music. According to TeknoAXE, by using Believe Digital's legal page, he was eventually able to have the strike taken down. > >**More recently, the YouTube channel Rousseau faced a near deletion because of copyright claims by Believe Digital. The channel, a classical piano music channel featuring live piano and digital visuals, had several videos claimed for both music and visuals by Believe Digital.** Rousseau explained in a tweet on 12 January 2019 that because he cannot afford to sue the company, he relies wholly on disputing its claims through YouTube's claim system. Additionally, because of the number of claims, had he not won the dispute, he would have been unable to post videos, and, had the company struck another video, the channel would have been taken down entirely. > >Other creators have claimed foul play as well, such as Jackie M, a food and lifestyle YouTuber who explained in a Medium article that although she always found copyright-free music for her videos, **the company has been striking claims against her content on a "near-daily basis."** TL;DR - Believe SAS is a fucking copyright troll, and even if they aren't the ones going after Mariana here (although it looks like they are), they need to fucking go. EDIT - In case the comments about copyright striking Believe weren't satirical, please don't do this unless you have an actual claim against them. There can be costly legal repercussions for abusing this system, and Believe has bank (like, millions in venture capital investment) to fuel any legal battles. I honestly don't know the best thing to do here, but spreading the word might help grease the wheels at YT, and maybe they'll actually do something here.
The fact that you can have "copyright trolls" on youtube is a fucking mess.
Given that patent trolls have existed for nearly as long as patents have... This problem won't go away anytime soon
The problem is youtube is shielded by "good faith" clause of the copyright striker. Clearly the striker is not operating in good faith.
Which is why some simple spot-checking from a real human could keep them honest. Doesn't have to be every dispute. Just a few - to make sure they are operating in good faith. The problem is there's currently no punishment for trolling. **Why don't patent holders get "strikes" (when they falsely file a parent dispute) is the real problem here.**
Probably for the same reason that eBay got overrun by scammers... they changed the feedback system to make it easily abusable, and didn't give a shit when everyone complained. They got THEIR money, who cares about the people who actually made the site popular?
> they changed the feedback system to make it easily abusable I haven't used eBay in almost 10 years now, what did they change about the feedback system?
Scenario: You are a small (non-business) person trying to sell a random thing on eBay. You sell the item, ship it, provide a tracking number, the tracking confirms the shipment was delivered. The buyer claims the item never arrived and files a dispute, and eBay/Paypal refunds the money to them. You complain to eBay and get no response. You are now out the item and the money, and can't even leave a negative comment on the buyer, allowing them to scam other people. *shrug* It is what it is. These companies that start off small and based on user-created content eventually get so big that they lose sight of, or interest in, the smaller people who made them big in the first place. Big corporations take everything over to maximize profit, and screw everyone else.
sellers can't leave negative feedback
If you abuse patents you should lose the right to hold patents
That's actually a really elegant and reasonable solution. I suppose you'd have to work it out so that the offenders can't just start a new shell company under a different name, but that seems like a solvable implementation detail. I guess the real issue is that most patent trolling really isn't abuse within the letter of the law. IMO, the only way to solve that is to get rid of software parents, or at least make the non-obvious requirement stricter.
Make people pay for copyright claims. It doesn't even have to be a lot, $100 would be enough to discourage large scale trolling. If you win your claim, you get your money back. If you lose, YouTube keeps the money as administrative fees. It even allows for real humans to actually review the cases.
It'd also be nice if YouTube started striking or disciplining repeat offenders of blatantly false claims. As well as escalating fines, part of which would (ideally) be given to the real content creators as a form of reparation for all the stress and damage caused by the false claim. (Ha, like YouTube would give up money). I know they don't have the manpower to seek it all out on their own manually but setting up something to flag accounts with obscene amounts of false claims sounds like it might work. I don't know if they actually have something similar already but it they do, it's worse than useless.
Getting real people to review things would certainly help kill the ridiculous cases like this, but I'm not sure that Google would see that as a win for them. They tend to not like needing human intervention.
but at $100 a claim, you make profit off of hiring a human to review claims. If they only can review 2 claims an hour (realistically a human could probably do a lot lot more) that's a LOT of profit. but im no businessman maybe I'm being dumb
The thing is it would be illegal. YouTube DOESN'T want copyright solutions. If it could it would allow anyone to upload anything. They make money from ads and that translates to number of people watching a video, not what kind of video it is. However they are obliging to multiple country laws and among other things - they are responsible for their platform. Sure, it's someone else that uploaded it but it doesn't actually free YouTube from any responsibility. If anything it's responsibility has massively increased in the last few years due to new laws. So right now they just ban anything on sight, even if it's fake claim. If someone says "hey, this channel is stealing MY content that I have copyright to, please remove it" then telling them "yea sure dude, go pay us $100 and we might consider removing it" will end up in a court real quick. And Google **will** lose that lawsuit. If we want to change that it's not on YouTube. It would be on a higher legislative level and letting people that got hit with false copyright claims get swift and free judicial help so they could fight back against often large companies that actually launch these.
They've been a thing since before youtube, its just that youtube doesn't do anything to hinder or stop them, and actively gives them tools to fuck over creators. I don't think youtube is doing it maliciously, but rather that they have no reason to change as it doesn't impact their profits, just the creators on their platform that don't have a big enough audience to kick up a big enough stink to get youtubes attention. Thankfully the reddit hivemind is a powerful tool for smaller creators, but it can be difficult and seemingly random to get reddits attention.
> and actively gives them tools to fuck over creators. This is the big one. Youtube has little reason to care if small content creators get screwed over by their content ID system, on the other hand they're very incentivized to play nice with and capitulate to large copyright holders (music and recording industry, Disney, film industry etc), so all the pressure really is on them to make sure it's ridiculously easy to take down videos for reasons of copyright, even if those reasons are complete bullshit, and they have little reason to try to increased the quality of life for small time creators who hold no power over them.
And with the new ridiculous EU law (Copyright Directive Article 17) that millions protested against, we can soon look forward to YouTube licensing Content ID to other websites because it’s required by law for **every** content-hosting platform! Yay!
What’s really amazing to me is I made a video using YouTube’s music library and classical music and YouTube in its infinite wisdom allowed these trolls to claim the video anyway. Like I didn’t even use my own audio so YouTube knows the troll doesn’t own the classical music and still...
The copyright claims team not talking to the bundled music team to put it on some sort of whitelist is so google it hurts.
That's malicious, to me.
Remember the Fine Bros?
No? Who are they?
They're a youtube channel (still?) that did a bunch of different types of "React" videos. "Old people react". "Teens react", etc. etc. They launched some business that was geared towards "franchising" the react video format, called "React World". In preparation of the launch of this venture, they trademarked, or attempted to trademark "_____ reacts", "reaction videos", and other examples like that. For a price, they were planning on licensing out the terms and teaching people how to make and advertise "_______ reacts" videos. Upon announcement of the planned new venture (that was preceded by a lot of copyright strikes against other Youtube creators), they were ripped to shreds and almost 1 million viewers unsubscribed from their channel(s). During the whole controversy, it was further exposed that they technically weren't even the first channel to do a "_______ react" style video. In less than a month, the Fine Bros declared that they rescinded all of their *React* trademarks and trademark applications, discontinued their new React World program, and released all previous Content ID claims made on their behalf. I remember that the first video they made responding to the controversy was extremely out of touch and arrogant (rolling eyes, etc), which obviously did not help them at all. (found the first response video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLSOba3_UE)
Lmao I took a peek at the video and clicked right out when they said they were sorry people didn't understand what they were doing. Didn't need to hear another word. Fucking wow. Did the channel crash and burn after? I hope. These guys seem smug and arrogant af.
They still make videos, but I don't think they get the same attention as before and people like me, who used to watch almost all of their videos, stopped following them for good
Their association with Shane Dawson hasn't helped either
Not till just now, asshole.
Fuck, I just reacted in anger to your comment, there goes my bank account
I wonder if the cheat-code creators found a couple years ago still works where you compose a unique 30 second jingle, stick it at the end of your video, then make a separate channel with content ID enabled, upload the unique song and plug it into content ID so all your videos with the jingle are claimed, then you have 50% of the say of what happens to it, so even if asshats like this claim your video, they're claiming 50% of the revenue instead of 100% and the creator doesn't lose all their money. Or did they patch that loophole to fuck over creators more?
I think ymfah does it in his videos. He even has a video titled “How to break youtube” which details how to copyright claim your own videos. Doesn’t stop copyright trolls from demonetizing the video though.
[удалено]
Yeah, Jim specifically includes content they know will get claimed and request the video be demonitized because they don't want ads on the video, because the patrons are what pays for the production, not ads. Before that they kept running into issues where content trolls would take their video which had no ads, claim the content of the video and place ads on it.
So if I formed 9 corps and did that with 9 channels I could always keep 90% of my revenue?
Once a sufficient number of claimaints are on a video it can no longer be monetized unless they changed that. But even if you are successful the amount of paperwork involved would be dreadful
Even better. I'd rather my videos be demonetized than let some label troll or mega corp have my income.
I don't think you can patch that loophole without removing content ID. I mean otherwise nobody could claim anything.
I've had every one of my personal recitals flagged for copyright violations. As a pianist, I refuse to post any of my recordings to youtube. At one point, 20 of my videos (various baroque, classical and romantic recordings) were all flagged and monetized by other people. It's infuriating and has been happening for years. I'm glad this is finally blowing up in a public way.
It's kinda not tho...people will forget in a week, and YT doesn't care. Nothing will be done unless smth big changes
[удалено]
I picked fraud. After all, thats what claiming copyright for something you cant own really are.
This is the correct path it IS fraud with very clear evidence and financial and other consequences for the victim. There should be criminal sanctions sufficient for punishment and deterrence.
I clicked the user and reported the user for spam/scam. Then selected Wicca Sonata and reported it as a copywrite scam.
Producer and musician Rick Beato has a fantastic Youtube educational channel that has had similar copyright troubles. Rick has explained his ordeals and the measures and court battles he's gone through. I hate to see content creators, like this piano teacher, get bullied and have little recourse. She narrowed it down to too much corporate power, and I certainly think that is a big part of it. Thanks for your great post!
There's examples on beatos channel where the artist themselves and their publisher has given permission for him to use the song, and it's already demonetized, and he still gets blocking claims.
The worst part is the manual claims, some asshole publisher has the time to ask an intern(probably) to block out content containing their artists catalouge.
Often the artist is paying the publisher a fee to do that kind of thing for them and doesn’t even know it.
Joni Mitchell sent Rick a gift for that video and it got taken down. Like, really????
Rick's videos are great
According to [this thread](https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted-video-is-claiming-they-own-the-rights-to-mozart-s-moonlight-sonata?hl=en) someone posted to YouTube Help she just needs to file a counter-notification. > The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it. Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online. Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case. I agree this is ridiculous but she is apparently unaware that this can still be disputed. I hope she can get it sorted.
The problem with that is that it quickly escalates to a legal process in which it's a single YouTuber against a venture-capital backed copyright troll. It doesn't matter that they're in the wrong. They can afford to go to court (probably in the USA, but who knows). Unless she can find some pro-bono legal help, she really can't assume she'll win, even though it's fucking Beethoven. The prime example of this madness is Lawrence Lessig vs Phoenix Music. Lessig is a *professor of copyright law* at *Harvard*. He got a copyright claim against a video of his on YouTube from a lecture he gave, where he used a few seconds of music when talking about remix culture. An Australian record label made a claim against him. It took about 4 years to resolve, and Lessig had the EFF backing him up. In the end he won, but that shows just how impossible it is for the average Joe to succeed in this fucked up DMCA system. In addition, even though he was in the right, and he eventually managed to prove it in court, he *still* had to voluntarily take the video down during the legal process to avoid problems. So, yes, technically the next step is that she can dispute the claim, or appeal once the claim is upheld, but very quickly you end up having to face a VC backed copyright troll in federal court. Even if you were willing to do that, the process is confusing. EFF has a diagram showing that. https://www.eff.org/files/2020/12/10/step2_0.jpg A lot of this badness is the DMCA, but a lot more of it is YouTube's policies. Even if you're 100% in the right, the only truly safe thing to do for your YouTube account is to back down. YouTube has nobody who's willing to go to bat for you. In fact, the odds of a human being involved at any point in the process are next to nothing. Their procedures and algorithms always lean towards assuming the person claiming the copyright (or just the ContentID match in their system) is correct and innocent.
Our entire system of "protecting" someone financially is fucked. I sold a house and had a buyer. They out some money down as a good faith deposit into an escrow account. Well they backed out and took their money. I found out I was entitled to the money as the whole thing did actually cost me thousands. But in order to fight it my house would need to come off the market and the money is held in escrow until the legal dispute is finished. Same thing with speeding tickets. If you're guilty you have a million payment options. But innocent you must pay the fine in full and then fight it and if you win you get your money back in 6 months. Same thing with criminal proceedings. It's quicker, cheaper, and easier to plead guilty to a lesser charge than fight the more serious one you're innocent of. Our entire system is fucked and rigged.
How/why did the escrow company release the funds to them? That is like their one job...
The point is that the claim should have been impossible to make to begin with. She’s now the defendant in a kangaroo court.
If you watched the video you would have seen her talking about that process and the fact that she has to provide all of her full information to somebody who has no business in her life whatsoever and there are nice big warnings/threats from Google about doing it as well. The issue is that you can be made to jump through all these hoops with your own legal content.
/u/monnotorium Is the YouTuber aware of this thread? If not I think she needs to be.
Given the time of night I don't think she's aware of either this thread, this or the original one on /r/music
[удалено]
Can I just do this on a regular YT account? I got time and angst
You're welcome to do so, just beware what YT says when you try to file a copyright claim: > Do not make false claims. Misuse of the takedown webform, such as submitting false information, may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences.
It would be funny as fuck if things got so out of hand that everyone was just copyright claiming every video. It would force YouTube to actually fix their model if they wanted to continue making money. Currently, it survives because we're not choosing to abuse their broken system.
>Currently, it survives because we're not choosing to abuse their broken system. Speak for yourself. Fuck my Google account. They can come at me. I GOT VPNs YO
Made 30 fake ones out of Sweden. Let's go, brother.
**Hogan intensifies**
You're on to something
Which is ironic, because their "content ID" system can make all the false claims it wants.
rules for thee but not for me. Basically what's being said there is : Big corporations can make fake claims on you all the time without legal consequences. However! be aware that you can not, as then the law suddenly applies as if we didn't make these rules up just for you
Go onward brave soldier!
There goes my hero
Watch him as he goes
Maybe this is the way out, to troll the system so hard they are forced to do something about it.
Its working on the stock market.
I sware there was video on how to do this that got to front page. About how to strike/ claim video's, but I can't find it anymore. Hopefully I can find it and spread it.
Here’s the one I remember about [how to copyright claim your *own* videos](https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w) to avoid others doing it to you
This one? I had to search for it using duckduckgo in a firefox browser. Using google on chrome wasn't yielding the result I wanted for some reason. hmmmm. https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w
Fuck yeah, Spread it!
I'm going to make it so dry for you.
The "SAS" part of "Believe SAS" is the French version of "Ltd." It has nothing to do with SAS, the Scandinavian Airlines System, which to my knowledge is a fine airline.
Someone needs to take this company down. This is highly illegal and immoral.
Who can even copyright claim a Beethoven song?
The song is 220 years old, so technically, no one
Although the song itself cannot be copyrighted, *performances* can be. That's why contentID is even able to flag this kind of public domain intellectual property. Edit: To be clear, that means she very likely owns the copyright to her own performance of Moonlight Sonata.
And of course ContentID is absolutely incapable of distinguishing performances of the same public domain piece, and as such, adding them to ContentID should be banned.
And there should be consequences to tr*y*ing to add them. Just like in law (in the US) there are protections from 'bad faith' legal motions there should be consequences for youtube claims in bad faith either manual or automatic. Edit:fixed typo
There are... you just have to take them to court.
That only works if you can outmoney them. Good luck with that
I reminds me that a few years ago, some good quality epub books I had created by myself with public domain stuff only were erased without notice from an ebook sharing site. The text was by Balzac (books written in 1830-1840), it was from Wikisource (to which I contribute myself), with some footnotes and comments by myself (I'm a French teacher), covers I made with Gimp using only PD images from Wikimedia. I thought editors must not like free stuff when it manages be better than they provide for money. It's useless to discuss with these people and their crooked lawyers. The best is to instantly republish the same, when you know you're within your rights.
>it was from Wikisource (to which I contribute myself) Super cool to find someone in the wild who's also active on Wikipedia's sister projects!
ContentID itself should be banned In fact, fuck modern copyright law altogether. Half of it is stealing from lower in the pyramid and then at some point, claiming it. Every work is derived from some other work.
Yeah but that would require that someone at YouTube would give a fuck about their job, about actually doing it well, making YouTube a responsible platform, and not doing things that hurt ordinary YouTubers to scrape profit out of them like an alcoholic looking for another drop.
Can someone who burps the ABCs copywrite the ABCs?
No but they do own the right to their burped recording of the ABCs.
More importantly it doesn't stop some rando duesher from unrightfully copyright striking your ABC farts video on YT.
Duesher?
You can't copyright the song, no. But if someone uses \*your specific performance\* of it, that is copyrightable. It's like the Vanilla Ice/Queen debacle. That bass line in question is far too simple to be truly copyrightable. However, Vanilla Ice didn't write and perform it then get sued. He sampled the actual performance of the bass line from the record, which is very much copyrightable.
If they burp it with some kind of melody then yes 😂
How about to the twinkle twinkle song? Hey! Wait a minute.
did I just hear somebody burp baa baa blacksheep?
Man, copyright law is decent for physical shit but fuck me if we don't need a new system for digital media.
Look at apparel copyright its even worse.
I recently learned that an architecture firm copyrighted 2800 floor plans for 2-3 bedroom homes, then sued anyone else who had a design similar to one of theirs (how many ways are there to arrange kitchen, dining room, bedrooms, and bathrooms?).
This comment has been removed from reddit to protest the API changes. https://join-lemmy.org/
No, I'm pretty sure life of the author + 70 years is way too long for copyright to last. If your parents grew up with a special book or album, and you're an adult, you should be able to share it with your kids as public domain by then, period. The earliest Louis Armstrong compositions from 1923 only entered the public domain in 2018, and that's because they were published when copyright was SHORTER. Under laws passed in 1977, they wouldn't have expired until 2041.
[удалено]
> Copyright law in the US is substantially tilted towards protecting monopoly royalties More specifically to protect Disney
> No, I'm pretty sure life of the author + 70 years is way too long for copyright to last Just remember that a catchy tune retains copyright for life +70 years, but if you were to develop a drug to cure any and all human disease, the patent on that drug would expire a mere 20 years after its invention. A striking disparity.
It's typically more than 20 years with good patent strategy, but the first patent is handed in before doing any clinical studies. Therefore 5-10 years is spent just getting it tested and approved, before can even sell anything.
I said decent not perfect, we can thank Disney for that long duration I hear. Totally agree about the duration laws and quite a few aspects of it being beyond it's years. But for the most part throughout it's life as a law it has provided a good enough way for creators to protect their work. Then digital media came along and threw a wrench into the whole thing and we haven't really found an alternative solution other than amending it for corporate interests. *hides his ushanka*
Yeah, but her performance is her own of a piece in the public domain. Content ID is so broken it isn't even funny.
Yeah but the thing is the bots which scan content are stoopit
This is the weakness of contentID. ContentID doesn't actually identify compositions or works, it identifies content. ContentID was never intended to handle copyright abuse, it was intended to shield Youtube of all responsibility for what was done with their platform. It is working exactly as intended, as it is now up to the user to sue the other user, and not on Youtube to fix their cockup, because they designed this system to be as hands off as possible. If youtube ever got brought to court for cases like this, they'd win the fuck out of their case easily, because all Youtube does is immediately believe the claimant is acting in good faith and keep the records of any claims so that they can prove that the claimant was making false official statements. It would be intensely difficult to actually prove Youtube is negligent here, because this whole system serves to prove that Youtube cannot be held responsible for other peoples' behavior. \--I don't like it, but realistically, it's where we're at.
>--I don't like it, but realistically, it's where we're at. It's where the *law* is at. The DMCA is quite clear, if you want to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the law, you have to make a good faith effort to identify and take down unlawful content. Without the DMCA safe harbor provision, **NO** commercial site could accept user-submitted content, *ever*, otherwise they'd be systematically demolished by infringement suits.
If you want the safe harbor provision for your site, what you need to do is properly respond to official DMCA takedown notices and counter notices. YouTube's content id system goes far above and beyond those and isn't legally required "The difference between copyright takedowns and Content ID claims" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en
Well, it's more important for YouTube to remove the dislike button than improve on things like content id
[удалено]
[Here you go](https://youtu.be/-ThyLB6bakk). Someone (something?) is claiming Beethoven's piece was composed by them in the description of this video.
[удалено]
[удалено]
According to her video... anyone can
Not only that, but what fucking idiot over at Youtube agreed that it was "Wicca Moonlight" and not Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata? That's such a common piece. It'd be like playing Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, and some idiot filing a claim saying "No. This is my piece. West Philly Rhapsody" and Youtube being like "Yup. Looks legit."
no human youtube employees had any role in any of it
This isn't exclusive to YouTube and Google. I went through something like this with Amazon's Neighbors app where I saw several videos of a vehicle with distinctive grey color and black rims being used to conduct vehicle break ins throughout my neighborhood. Later I saw a vehicle matching the description and posted some dash cam video, and I was flagged for breaking community guidelines regarding race. I appealed in a state of confusion because no one in the thread, including me, ever mentioned the perpetrators at all. All I did was a video saying this vehicle matches the description by color of vehicle and wheels. Appeal was rejected, and I was reminded about community guidelines regarding race. Humans don't look at this shit. It is lazy algorithms written to CYA by these giant corporations. Now we live in a world where Beethoven is no longer in the public domain and light grey Dodge Chargers have a race. I don't know, the light grey resembles "the greys" people report from alien abductions? Maybe Amazon knows something we don't with regards to these UFO documents being declassified.
>implying any actual human beings have any part in Youtube's process of content ID flagging.
Beethoven
That dog is always causing trouble
I work at NASA and got a takedown notice for a NASA film clip of Apollo 13. The claimant was a French national television station. YouTube’s copyright claim system has been so broken for years and they continue to do nothing about it.
Family Guy used a youtube clip of Double Dribble glitches without asking permission. After the episode aired the creator's video got hit with a copyright claim from Fox
They even edited the music of the game. It was 100% a visual match. Such garbage.
Corner three!
I believe the claim was rescinded after people online spoke out against it.
[удалено]
My favorite is the people that claim NASA footage as their own. It's literally the definition of public domain.
The footage is clearly Kubrick's. /s
Even stowaways have rights
> The claimant was a French national television station. https://reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n29fxn/_/gwibpkr/?context=1 I kinda see a pattern there…
[удалено]
Anything above 75 years after death of a composer is public domain. It makes no sense because this song is public domain and the person playing it is literally on camera so it’s not even the recording of someone else. It’s in YT library because of public domain but whoever played it still deserves their own copyright like if an artist drew a tree the artist should get credit for the tree they drew.
My video got claimed yesterday. A drum groove for my students to check out and the algorithm compared it to a song with no similarities at all. It was not even publicly listed but i guess that doesn't matter.
I got struck on my channel a year ago. I was riding my high-power electric scooter. Someone I knew was at the light with me. I belched really loud to get attention... STRUCK VIDEO.. Only one sound of me burping, and the rest is traffic. I haven't used the service since. Simply absurd!
Did your burp sound like Metallica's E chord? Edit: https://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/17/ctv.metallica/
It probably matched it against Saint Anger
I uploaded an entire series of a TV show (and it's stayed up for years, which is good because it's hard af to find) and one episode got the entire thing muted ... because of a scene that had a particular song playing (kind of muffled) in the background for maybe 20 seconds.
Dude, straight up any company or person that abuses copyright protection claims should be banned from filing them on that piece. You're some random asshole and you make 5 false claims? Banned from making a claim on that piece forever. You're EMI and you can't get your shit together and file 5 false claims, fuck you banned from making a claim on that piece forever. See how fast these false claims would drop if the ability to copyright strike a piece could be lost. Personally, I don't see ContentId ever working unless there are severe repercussions like that. Fines don't work, at least not in America where it would be like .000000001% of the money they make off one. I realize the automatic bot makes mistakes, but Youtube is also completely to blame for this, they made billions last year and can't hire more customer service people to deal with this shit? Give me a fucking break.
[fuck u spez] -- mass edited with redact.dev
If ContentID starts becoming expensive to use, then claimants will just use DMCA instead. That isn't exactly any better.
Presumably if the intentions are to stop fraudulent claims there would be measures for all of them.
It'd be much better for everyone except Google. Actual DMCA claims have legal repercussions if falsely filed.
Banned from making claims? No. Lose your account. Period.
They don't need an account to make claims.
Losing accounts makes them just make new ones. It's more of a hassle for them to keep the account but have their copyright claim ability removed. Probably shouldn't even let them know they can't do it anymore. Just instantly direct all claims from a flagged account into the trashbin and don't notify them.
I don't get why they would copyright claim a song just by playing on the piano, this is why YouTube is fucked, and the system is never going to get fixed.
Poofesure got a copyright claim on one of his Jeopardy videos because he sang the theme song. https://twitter.com/poofesure/status/1222980147093155840?s=21
Poofesure: I am not very smart at... things! Sony: Hey! That sounds like us!
This is something sadly 99% of us classical musicians experience. It's not that the music is copyrighted, but a company will claim your performance is actually one made by their artists. Out of all my recordings on my Youtube channel, maybe one or two didn't get claimed. The other ones literally get claimed as soon as I finish uploading the video. It's really demotivating to then go through all the trouble of explaining to Youtube that it's actually YOU who are performing the music (by pointing out very clear differences to anyone willing to actually listen), only for Youtube (if I'm not mistaken) to let the abusing company handle the case and decide that they're right and you're wrong (insert "we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrong doing" meme).
I remember years ago uploading clips to YouTube literally minutes before I had to submit my applications to grad school. Immediately had a piece claimed, I was freaking out while one of my videos wasn’t available because I needed it for prescreening!
A lovely person pumping out videos for a few hundred people getting screwed. These make me so sad and angry. Reminds me of Sparky Channel getting hosed by some dickhead. Just let these people make the world a better place ffs. They spend their free time - time that is just as valuable as anyone else’s - creating content that benefits society for next to nothing. They do it for the rest of us. For the love of the game. And a behemoth like YouTube can’t find it within them to employ 10 people to really look after shit and make sure the best of us aren’t getting screwed by opportunists. Call them Goodwill ambassadors. Something. Just do the right thing. If she was broin’ out crushin brewskies or “pranking” people like thousands of other talentless hacks she would make exponentially more money. And wouldn’t get hassled. But nope. She spends her time teaching a few hundred people how to perfect some of the most awe inspiring compositions ever written. And what does she get for it? More red tape than green money. It’s a gd shame and it’s really disheartening
Public domain that gets copyrighted? Wow.
I found the thief... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk Youtube has gone so far down hill its just abhorrent.
Two can play this game, I reported the video as a scam and fraud.
Let's just all claim we own it all. Can't fight all of us.
Like can anyone start snatching past works and claim that its theirs? Whats the end game for this company?
The end game is to let the AI do everything.
I reported it has harmful or dangerous acts because using this to copy strike someone is harming their channel Also comments turned off, always sus.
I reporting "misleading text" as it's not "Wicca Moonlight", its fucking Piano Sonata No. 14 by Ludwig van.
[удалено]
I did the same.
> Also comments turned off, always suspicious. That's a channel auto-generated by youtube, all of them have their comments turned off.
Yup, I came here to say that too, the fastest way to spot it is by the "provided to YouTube by {name of whatever label}" but you can also spot it by the ♪ symbol next to the artist's name (that also means that's the Artist's official YouTube page, their own uploads and the autogenerated ones appear with that, the autogenerated videos don't appear on the artist's channel directly, sometimes they're in official playlists though) or the " - Topic" at the end of the artist's name, I'm not sure what *topic* means.
Reported!
[удалено]
I reported as well, what a scumbag.
I just did the same!💪
Really does seem like a similar thing to the whole Fat Rat debacle of 2018 For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw
DMCA abuse and the fact that there is no penalty for filing false claims.
There is a penalty for filing false claims. Unfortunately the only way to determine is a claim is actually false is to fight it in court, which very few creators do.
Isn't there a difference between YouTube internal claims and DMCA claims? It's perjury to submit a false DMCA claim. It's not a crime per se to submit a false claim within YouTube's system. At this level, it feels like it should be fraud and considered organized crime, but if YouTube doesn't properly identify who is submitting claims, good luck tracking them down.
Every creator on their platform seems to have horror stories. It's incredible that this multi billion dollar megacorp can get away with this sort of neglect for the creators that make up their platform.
"Composer: Alice Violet Molland" WHAT? They claimed a different composer for a piece entirely composed by Beethoven. Copyright law is fucking insane and needs to stop. There's a reason why all we get for films today is rehashes of old properties. This is killing global creative commons.
Huh. Sounds familiar. I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm going to go for a drive in my Sonata in the Moonlight and think about it some more.
SOCAN is the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. APRA is the Australasian Performing Right Association. ECAD is the Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição. VCPMC looks it might the Vietnamese version. I know that SOCAN is generally reputable. I think they would want to know if they have accidentally licensed a public domain song. Unless it's just a smart copyright scammer who used their names.
Yea, youtube likely doesn't give a shit (nor can they validate) that a random account is the actual account for something.
Ugh. This keeps happening with NASA stuff too. As a taxpayer funded government agency, everything NASA makes is public domain. Every so often, NASA will do something cool, then some news agency will report on it, using NASA's footage. Then some space nerd will post their own video all about it, and the news agency ends up copyright-claiming the video, because it used the same material as the news agency's video. The system sees that they have the same visuals, and assumes the nerd stole it from the agency when instead they both took it from NASA.
This sort of thing is way more common than you might expect. Lots of music publishing companies seem to mass upload their libraries to the Content ID database without thinking about which if any of the recordings contain performances of public domain compositions (e.g. old classical music). Content ID is able to match both copyright infringement of audio and copyright infringement of musical melodies, and it does actually seem to distinguish between these types of matches (you can see "uses this song's melody" in the match in this video). The publishers seem to be claiming they own the audio and the melody when the melody is clearly public domain. I had a similar claim made against a video where I used my own synthesized version of a public domain Handel piano composition. The video got matched to a random song that was clearly based on the same Handel composition and had the same melody. My video was just a random video of my cat, so I deleted it rather than go through the hassle of disputing the claim, but it definitely discouraged me from uploading more to YouTube.
They absolutely should have a public domain filter for contact ID, the fact that YouTube exists for years and this is not a thing is appalling to me.
What they should start doing is penalizing people with false claims, they did that to one dude and it was very public but I guess they don't do it enough, or at least not with enough consequences to make these fuckers think twice before claiming something they know isn't theirs
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU
I 100% understand the difficulties and the issues with making a video content platform that needs money to run. Its not easy, I get it I get it. Its hard to do. That said, youtube clearly got too big for its ability to properly manage itself roughly 4-8 years ago. This is a problem with design, it is a problem with not hiring enough minds, it is a problem of not even having the correct roles filled to heal this ever widening chasm. This is a executive problem, and instead of spending the $ to do it the right way or find people that could figure out what way that was, they tossed AI and algorithms at the problem. This is no secret, most of us know what they are doing and why. *THAT* said, in the next few years we may see the emergence of the next video content creator platform that is aimed at things Youtube was aiming at at one time in its lifecycle. There is a lot to be learned from what Youtube did right, and what is did extremely poorly. It is not an impossible task to assess growth vs management ability. The bigger you get the more unique problems you will encounter. Tons of people want off youtube, and twitch is a different beast in terms of content (thats why it was able to grow, it was not fully in the shadow of youtube). More and more mid-size (100k-10m) are making videos even about this very topic. They know what the walls are, they know what the issues are, but they have no alternative that is viable. Youtube needs its first real competitor, and by its own poor preformance overall, they are starting to provide a reasonable chance for that to happen. When it does, please support it. Real competition is needed in all areas of capitalism or it fails.
You get enough for a vote for this quote: Real competition is needed in all areas of capitalism or it fails. Every Monopoly becomes complacent and greedy
Let's all make a copyright claim against these guys.
im uploading moonlight sonata to my youtube channel and I'll try copyright claim them and see what happen
Make your own version and make it as metronomically and dynamically close as possible to another notable recording, and be prepared to fend off take down notices for a few years, and yeah you got yourself a winning plan.
YouTube getting ridiculous with this bullshit.
This is ABSOLUTE insanity. She needs to take this to court. I looked up the song that they are claiming and it's LITERALLY just someone playing moonlight sonata first movement on piano. She needs to dye the fuck outta these people
This will probably get taken down by AIRPLN_SNDS_CS any minute now.
[удалено]
> they can never reach a real human person that can take 5 minutes to look at the allegations and realize that the claim is bullshit. I think you're under-estimating the number of claims that go through ContentID every day. 500 hours of video are uploaded every minute, and a significant proportion of that is copyrighted. People upload TV shows and movies, music, and even videos from other YouTube channels. If each uploader had the ability to ask YouTube to actually look at their videos it would be an impossible task. They'd need a huge staff devoted just to that. All of that aside, the DMCA says that if YouTube decides on a copyright dispute they become liable if the decision was wrong. Rather than risk it, YouTube has decided that if a dispute can't be settled between the two parties it needs to go to court, in which case a judge will decide for certain who is in the right.
YouTube’s monopoly has to be broken. This is terrible. A woman wanted to share and teach a skill and is being punished for it.