Ingroove is known to be a fraudulent troll. They have been doing this to massive amount of creators, in many cases asserting rights to music they do not own the rights to.
YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
51–60 of 259 posts
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#52Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.
It's also galling that this recording was made under a copyright regime that granted substantially shorter federal copyright terms and required renewal to achieve the maximum term. Creators, at that time, knew "the deal" and accepted it.
The intellectual commons has been (and is), literally, subject to "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." scenarios. That shouldn't have ever been acceptable. Since no "normie" has ever given a damn about copyright terms only those who were financially incented to care (read: holders of copyrights) got a say. They used their lobby to make the change happen.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#53Presumably 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.
That's obviously facile. He's dead, and unable to make decisions anymore.
I, on the other hand, am alive and would definitely have decided to become a world-renowned operatic singer, if only copyright wasn't so short that I couldn't pass on the rights to my artistic creations to my children's children's children's children's children's children's children. I could pass it on to my children's children's children's children's children's children, but I worry about their kids. Copyright isn't sufficiently long enough for that so I decided to produce no art at all instead, and become an engineer to produce trade secrets that can last indefinitely.
We definitely need an extension to copyright to incentivize long-term planners like me to create more art.
/s
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#54This 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…
From what I understand, when multiple parties are claiming a video nobody gets the money. I can’t remember what popular YouTuber discovered this, but he basically “weaponized” it because he was tired of them going after his ad revenues even when he was within fair use, so he just started putting as much conflicting material as possible instead.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#55The 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.
Until copyright length is something more sensible, there’s really very little YouTube can do to rectify the situation.
When they’re looking at policing copyright on basically all modern works versus just the last 20 years worth of works, there has to be some automation involved. When you involve automation, you’re inevitably going to see dehumanizing situations like this. They can’t just decide to not uphold the law though.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#56The 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.
She let’s you use her service as she sees fit. Best you can do is embarrass her, which is in the works.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#57This 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…
From what I understand, when multiple parties are claiming a video nobody gets the money. I can’t remember what popular YouTuber discovered this, but he basically “weaponized” it because he was tired of them going after his ad revenues even when he was within fair use, so he just started putting as much conflicting material as possible instead.
You're correct. The Youtuber is James Stephanie Sterling. She called it the "Youtube Deadlock" mechanic. Though the trick seems to be less successful now.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#58Earlier 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.
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.
[deleted]
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case BMG might have a claim to ownership over the recording in question for the next 3 months... in the US. In the US, sound recordings used to be handled under state copyright law. That's a phrase which should give any lawyer younger than 60 an aneurysm, as there is no such thing today - sound recording rights were brought into federal law in the 1970s, and preemption[0][1] means that states can't extend cop…
So did this act assign copyrights for recordings that had already fallen into the public domain? That doesn't seem right. Or is this only for recordings that had existing copyrights?
It may not seem right, but it wouldn't be the first time.
For example It's a Wonderful Life went into the public domain in 1974 when copyright registration was not renewed. After which it became popular on TV. But it went back under copyright when the USA signed the Berne Convention in 1989. And starting in 1993 Republic Pictures began collecting royalties from TV networks that showed it.
Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, when multiple parties are claiming a video nobody gets the money. I can’t remember what popular YouTuber discovered this, but he basically “weaponized” it because he was tired of them going after his ad revenues even when he was within fair use, so he just started putting as much conflicting material as possible instead.
You're correct. The Youtuber is James Stephanie Sterling. She called it the "Youtube Deadlock" mechanic. Though the trick seems to be less successful now.
That’s them! I could remember the details just not the name, they rely primarily on Patreon supporters for their revenue.
EDIT: changed pronouns, been a while since I last looked into this creator.