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

61–70 of 259 posts

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

#61

Post by matheusmoreira »

kevincox wrote: post #31
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.

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.

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

Your work is valuable and you should be compensated for it. I just think that should somehow happen before you create the valuable data, not after.

Trying to sell copies of that data in a world where data is trivially copied and distributed worldwide just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It was a good idea before computers and networks existed.

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

#62

Post by tankenmate »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #53
matheusmoreira wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chi…

I think the OP's post was made in the form of "100% de-hydrated desert dessicated sarcasm".

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

#63

Post by t-3 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #55
lamontcg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> They can’t just decide to not uphold the law though.

Why is that? Google is not, nor should they be, a law enforcement agency. There are multiple law enforcement agencies and interested individuals/organizations (the copyright holders) who should bear the responsibility for enforcing copyright. Putting the onus on the "public square" to police speech is the worst solution for all parties with the possible exception of copyright trolls.

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

#64

Post by roughly »

anigbrowl wrote: post #44
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.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

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

#65

Post by RyJones »

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 have a video with a copyright claim by a third party. The music on the video is from the YouTube library they provide creators. You would think YouTube would recognize a library they own?

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

#66

Post by wongarsu »

jimbob45 wrote: post #55
lamontcg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The problem isn't that YouTube uses some automation, it's that they use the absolute minimum support staff they can get away with.

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

#67

Post by contravariant »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #52
EvanAnderson wrote: post #20

Presumably 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. Si…

Presumably we should look at all the good (?) Disney is doing with the money they've earned to truly appreciate why long dead artists should keep their copyright.

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

#70

Post by jcranmer »

tablespoon wrote: post #40

> 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 Pub…

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

That's not the entire story. Sound recordings are a separate category, and pre-1923 sound recordings have a special clause that means they don't enter public domain until 2022.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1401

Post reply on HN