51–60 of 111 posts
Have a look at Rick Beato on Youtube
Why?
It's ironic that a system of rules (DMCA) that was designed to help performers not lose revenue is actually causing a performer to lose revenue. Rousseau is one of the most recognised pianists on YouTube. He works tirelessly to perform a new piece about every week. This must be incredibly tiring, and the skill required to be able to do that week in, week out, is absolutely breathtaking. If anyone deserves to be made…
The DMCA is for publishers, not creators. If Rousseau would just conform to the system and give a publisher a cut everything would be fine. Independent creators have always been the enemy. Edit: I am being completely sarcastic w/ respect to the second sentence. I believe that there are people (those who are enriched by the current copyright system) who do believe that, though.
The big problem with classical music is that the compositions are all in public domain, however most performances are not. Given the subtle differences between performances, algorithms are not smart enough to figure out the difference. In fact, even humans would have a hard time to distinguish between two performances of certain classical pieces.
Yes! And Kubrick knew this: for "2001: A Space Odyssey" he bought the right of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" directed by Böhm and replaced it at the last minute by the one directed by Karajan hoping no one would notice.
It's ironic that a system of rules (DMCA) that was designed to help performers not lose revenue is actually causing a performer to lose revenue. Rousseau is one of the most recognised pianists on YouTube. He works tirelessly to perform a new piece about every week. This must be incredibly tiring, and the skill required to be able to do that week in, week out, is absolutely breathtaking. If anyone deserves to be made…
The DMCA is for publishers, not creators. If Rousseau would just conform to the system and give a publisher a cut everything would be fine. Independent creators have always been the enemy. Edit: I am being completely sarcastic w/ respect to the second sentence. I believe that there are people (those who are enriched by the current copyright system) who do believe that, though.
Content ID is never going to be perfect (so there always needs to be an appeal mechanism). But I'd always expected that false matches would be due to some kind of hash collision, not different recordings of the same piece. Because YouTube doesn't know what the composition is, it only compares to other performances (which are under copyright). And the fact that two different pianists could interpret and perform a work…
https://twitter.com/hyperionrecords/status/11623845149849477... From @hyperionrecords regarding a recent unrelated incident. Hyperion's content is the one making the claim against Rousseau's video. They seem aware that ContentID often misidentifies claims, but there doesn't seem to be a public statement on what they proactively can or will do to help fix it.
I'm not sure what to fix. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to Google and say they're constantly revising their algorithms; even then, due to the sheer amount of video uploaded to YouTube every day, there will be some of them that are misidentified, it's simply unavoidable IMHO. I think the improvement can be made on the smoothness and speed of disputing/reviewing these claim, though. This process should be as shor…
It's ironic that a system of rules (DMCA) that was designed to help performers not lose revenue is actually causing a performer to lose revenue. Rousseau is one of the most recognised pianists on YouTube. He works tirelessly to perform a new piece about every week. This must be incredibly tiring, and the skill required to be able to do that week in, week out, is absolutely breathtaking. If anyone deserves to be made…
Content ID is not the DMCA. Content ID got it wrong here, and that happens all the time. It's not a big deal for the claimer. Which is totally contrary to how DMCA works, if someone makes a wrong claim there it gets very expensive for them. Youtube could easily copy that aspect of the DMCA and make it very expensive for mis-claimers, and easy to counteract automatic mis-classification. That they don't has nothing dir…
(However) I find it really difficult to believe the claimant in this case has no control over what YouTube does, as they have previously claimed. It may have been Content ID that got the identification wrong, but the claimant should not issue a block if it is a false claim.
Anyhow, Rousseau found a way around it by uploading a new version that received a copyright claim from a different company, instead of a block. He'll still have to go through the dispute process, at least we can watch the video because YouTube is not obliged to (and does not) take down the video.
The big problem with classical music is that the compositions are all in public domain, however most performances are not. Given the subtle differences between performances, algorithms are not smart enough to figure out the difference. In fact, even humans would have a hard time to distinguish between two performances of certain classical pieces.
That's fine - it's probably necessary for Google to not be constantly dragged into the courts by actual infringement slipping through with small alterations. The issue is that there is absolutely no recourse for an incorrect match. There's no option to say 'no, the algorithm is wrong' or 'the claimant has made a false claim' - the nearest option is to claim fair use, and that kicks it back to the claimant to be able to lie again if it was fraudulent, with no fear of consequences.
There needs to be some process where it can be appealed to a human. I think the best way I have seen suggested is to stake a small amount of money on it to have somebody review it - say, $15 from each party, and then you lose it if it's ruled against you, or get a refund if you win. That should easily pay for half an hour of somebody's time, so they could hire staff to do it.
If the claimant lost and still didn't agree, it could be escalated to DMCA, where there are potential penalties for fraudulent claims (even if it doesn't happen much).
I used to use music from musopen.org that contains recordings that are either public domain or creative commons, typically from the Air Force band, or various small town orchestras or college or even high school orchestras for background music for my little space game videos, but dealing with the copyright claims became too much of a hassle, so now I just rapidly strum some chords on an acoustic guitar and run it thr…
I feel like music education for children starting with pianos, guitars, and recorders is backwards. Get them playing music first. The interest in instruments will come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMCA is for publishers, not creators. If Rousseau would just conform to the system and give a publisher a cut everything would be fine. Independent creators have always been the enemy. Edit: I am being completely sarcastic w/ respect to the second sentence. I believe that there are people (those who are enriched by the current copyright system) who do believe that, though.
I assume you are being facetious. Rousseau doesn't owe anything to any publisher. Just checking you understood this.
I believe we're living in a time when publishers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. They're clawing onto anything they can to retain their position as middlemen and as a tax on commerce.