Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#31

Post by kevincox »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.

So if I record a song in a studio I shouldn't be paid because it is easy to copy that recording?

This is like saying I shouldn't be able to sell widgets at a profit to cover the cost of construction my production line or for the effort spent to create the design.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#32

Post by city41 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.

By that logic all software should be free too.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#34

Post by rvense »

smoldesu wrote: post #8
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

We could do something like that, probably. Or we could tell these bloodsucking copyright lawyers to get fucked and reform the whole damn thing so it makes some sort of sense and does something good for the world.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#35

Post by matheusmoreira »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #20

Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.

Yeah. He'll sell his records, make his money. After a while he'll have to create more if he wants to earn more.

It totally won't enable over a hundred years of rent seeking for him, descendants who could inherit his property after he's dead and of course the monopolistic copyright giants.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#36

Post by Levitz »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.

What does "making sense" mean in this scenario? Many lines of work follow that pattern.

Composers, designers, programmers, writers... What would be the equivalent for any of these? Working in real time?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#37

Post by jandrese »

rogers18445 wrote: post #28
1970-01-01 wrote: post #24

The problem isn't that this video was quickly taken down by an algorithm, but that it cannot be restored by the same. Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube. We should hear from her why YouTube's systemic takedown problem can not be rectified.

What incentive does she or anyone at youtube have to improve the situation? Creators aren't going to go anywhere else. And if you are someone who pushes through the changes internally no one who is in any position to benefit you will thank you and if it causes any legal problems you are going to be blamed.

The downside of not having an automated system to restore takedowns: people being angry on twitter.

Downside of having an automated restoration system that puts an actually offending piece of content back up: Multi-billion dollar lawsuits from the media cartels.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#39

Post by torben-friis »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.

>Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed.

So are books. What do we do with writers?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#40

Post by tablespoon »

> Here’s what triggered this: The ceremony includes bits of a recording (of tenor John McCormack singing “Funiculi, Funicula”) made in the year 1914. The Corporate Takedown

> YouTube’s takedown algorithm claims that the following corporations all own the copyright to that audio recording that was MADE IN THE YEAR 1914: “SME, INgrooves (on behalf of Emerald); Wise Music Group, BMG Rights Management (US), LLC, UMPG Publishing, PEDL, Kobalt Music Publishing, Warner Chappell, Sony ATV Publishing, and 1 Music Rights Societies”

So what's going on here? Did some record company reissue the song later on CD, so YouTube is treating it like it was released at a later date than it was?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_St...:

> All works first published or released before January 1, 1926, have lost their copyright protection, effective January 1, 2021.

Google probably should compile a list of public domain recordings to act as a blacklist for YouTube copyright claims. Maybe that should even be legal a requirement for such automatic enforcement systems. If they partner with some library or national archive, such a project could help with media preservation efforts.

Post reply on HN