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

41–50 of 259 posts

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

#41

Post by michaelcampbell »

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…

> which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry

How did it becoming a huge money maker for people who already have way too much change your views?

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

#44

Post by anigbrowl »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #9

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by: (on behalf of Sony BMG Mus…

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

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

#45

Post by yesenadam »

city41 wrote: post #32
matheusmoreira wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

According to another comment on this page by the GP,

>> ownership of digital products

>There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional.

I'm a musician working on an album at home at the moment. It's a bit odd to hear I'm delusional, or worse, "simply delusional", for thinking that the music I'm making will be in some sense mine! Maybe I should go back to painting, where I'm making an object at least, and maybe not so delusional in the eyes of the GP, not just numbers? Not sure.

p.s. I want to put "my" music on Bandcamp. Jazz and latin stuff mostly. The Australian music licensing org APRA/AMCOS informs me for 3 or more songs, I should pay them a flat fee of $300 per year to cover the licence fees, then more if I sell more than a few hundred. Seems like a lot, to put songs I performed online, but maybe I can just tell them no, that asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional, there's this guy on Hacker News..

Hmm come to think of it, money in a bank is just numbers..

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

#46

Post by lamontcg »

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.

> We should hear from her why YouTube's systemic takedown problem can not be rectified.

We should pass legislation that forces them to rectify it, at the expense of hiring actual humans if they have to.

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

#47

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

I wonder too why there is no option to pre-file an assertion of fair use or public domain material and have it acknowledged as filed by YT. Some people put disclaimers in the opening frames of their video or in the description but there's no indication that YouTube acknowledges this in any way.

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

#49

Post by phendrenad2 »

In previous years, we'd look at stodgy bureaucratic systems like this and think "Just wait until Google and/or venture capital disrupts them!"

But now it is Google and venture capital perpetuating the slow, banal, bureaucratic injustice.

The good news is, there's no reason to believe that Google won't also be disrupted eventually. It's sort of happening already, with people voluntarily deciding to not use music in their videos, which makes YouTube less valuable as an asset, something Google brought upon themselves.

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

#50

Post by matheusmoreira »

torben-friis wrote: post #39
matheusmoreira wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce.

What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense.

To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be allowed to run. I don't think anyone here on HN wants that.

Post reply on HN