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

YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

onli wrote: post #27
wbhart wrote: post #21

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…

> Which is totally contrary to how DMCA works, if someone makes a wrong claim there it gets very expensive for them.

No, it doesn't. There is only one part of a DMCA takedown notice that is made under penalty of perjury, and it's not the part that is usually at issue in a false notice.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#82

Post by jerf »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38
izacus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, book publishers are suing Amazon because they added a captioning feature to make audiobooks accessbile for copyright infringement: https://gizmodo.com/is-captioning-an-audiobook-illegal-major... Reply All also has an interesting story about how impossible is it to have ANYONE accountable AT ALL for DMCA takedown machinery that harasses people: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/76h5ro A person got str…

This is all historically bound up. Audiobooks and printed books used to be separate physical things. The publishing rights ecosystem was built assuming this. Now that they're fungible, its not making much sense any more. But millions of publishing contracts exist, that enforce the distinction. What do we propose to do about it? Without dismantling fundamental contract definitions.

20 years ago I made the observation that the whole intellectual property domain was fundamentally based around all of the individual aspects of intellectual property being cleanly and completely distinguishable from each other, e.g., this is a book, this is a song, this is a movie (which is made of this song and this script), etc. But even then it was becoming clear these categories were getting fuzzier and fuzzier and in many cases outright merging, and the categories weren't going to just go together nicely because of the various contradictory assumptions in them.

The worst then, and I think still today, is computer software, which is covered by both patents and copyright. Copyright has always covered them, in the last 20 years, patents have covered more and covered less at times, but still have always covered some of it.

I'm actually a bit surprised that I've still seen no hint of the legal system directly grappling with this problem. It just keeps getting worse. I've been keeping my eyes out but I haven't seen anything.

And this is another example; nobody wrote the copyright laws for the YouTube case. If you get down to it, you have this intricate interplay of video, audio, automated systems generating some content, automated systems checking them, an extra-judicial system for mediation where I will not say the incentives are 100% misaligned, but they are certainly nowhere near 100% aligned with what they should be, with a lot of mismatches between YouTube, the copyright holders, and the video producers in terms of powers and responsibility (that is, there are many places in the system where there is power without responsibility, and responsibility without power), and we're trying to adjudicate it on 20th century law that was already, at times, kinda cobbled together. (Don't look, but we're already 1/5th of the way into the 21st century.) It's madness.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#83

Post by ohiovr »

coliveira wrote: post #17

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.

I own many recordings of Liszt. Some performances are better than others.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#84

Post by la_barba »

donmcronald wrote: post #79
la_barba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would you want anyone to have to pay anything? Google is one of the richest companies. This should be simply the cost of doing business. Google wants to make money by removing humans completely. They should have to pony up the expenses for when their system fails...

The cheaters and liars need to be penalized. If they're spending others' money they won't stop trying.

>The cheaters and liars need to be penalized.

You want Google to adjudicate on more things?! Now you're going to need an appeals process for when they get it wrong here as well.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#85

Post by inflatableDodo »

jerf wrote: post #82
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all historically bound up. Audiobooks and printed books used to be separate physical things. The publishing rights ecosystem was built assuming this. Now that they're fungible, its not making much sense any more. But millions of publishing contracts exist, that enforce the distinction. What do we propose to do about it? Without dismantling fundamental contract definitions.

20 years ago I made the observation that the whole intellectual property domain was fundamentally based around all of the individual aspects of intellectual property being cleanly and completely distinguishable from each other, e.g., this is a book, this is a song, this is a movie (which is made of this song and this script), etc. But even then it was becoming clear these categories were getting fuzzier and fuzzier a…

>I've still seen no hint of the legal system directly grappling with this problem. It just keeps getting worse. I've been keeping my eyes out but I haven't seen anything.

IP is modern capitalism's goose that lays the golden eggs. I suspect that they are somewhat nervous to do the kind of root and branch reforms that would be neccessary to solve the problems you have outlined. Part of the genius of open source licences is that they are built out of some of the aspects of law that capital is most wary of breaking.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#86

Post by danso »

albertsondev wrote: post #65
danso wrote: post #37

I have a slightly tangential question: can someone link to articles and writeups that discuss how YouTube and other platforms efficiently disambiguate between a valid/allowable recording and a prohibited recording, when the content between valid/prohibited is very similar or near identical in the most obvious features (e.g. rhythm and key).

Answer: They don't, and you're guilty until painstakingly proven innocent.

I don't disagree with your cynicism about the flawed and slow disciplinary process. But it's still in their operational best interests to improve and iterate on their auto-classifier algorithms.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#87

Post by SopaDeMacaco »

You idiots are discussing about how to amputate the arms of the zoo visitors that want to pet the alligators, instead of realizing that maybe people shouldn't be able to reach those animals.

Copyright laws are immoral, and shouldn't exist. That's it. Anything else is negotiating with terrorists.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#88

Post by Kye »

ahallock wrote: post #71
dmix wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still sounds like a Youtube problem, not with copyright. The amount of false positives Youtube's copyright system has generated is crazy. It's clearly broken and wide-open for abuse by bad actors. Even with the complications of copyright there are so many examples of people having entirely fair-use videos taken down. It goes well beyond just the difficulties of two works one copyrighted/one not matching.

This is a side effect of having onerous copyright laws. It takes quite a bit of engineering effort that could have been spent on other projects. This means economic loss and frustration for consumers. As an aside, without copyright, we could have both Disney and Sony Spiderman movies. The consumer wins, and there's more than enough money to go around for competing studios.

>> "As an aside, without copyright, we could have both Disney and Sony Spiderman movies. The consumer wins, and there's more than enough money to go around for competing studios."

Wouldn't that be trademark, not copyright?

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#89

Post by Wowfunhappy »

stephen_g wrote: post #58
coliveira wrote: post #17

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.

I don't think it's so much that the algorithms aren't smart enough to tell, it's that Google have had to make the algorithm still match in the case of people altering music with filters/effects, time stretching, pitch shifting etc. - so it's been made deliberately a lot less sensitive to most of the factors that a musician brings into their interpretation. That's fine - it's probably necessary for Google to not be co…

We don't necessarily disagree, but what bothers me is when people blame Google for this, as opposed to focusing on the draconian laws that have forced their hand.

Re: YouTube blocks recording of public domain Schubert/Liszt composition

#90

Post by [deleted] »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #89
stephen_g wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's so much that the algorithms aren't smart enough to tell, it's that Google have had to make the algorithm still match in the case of people altering music with filters/effects, time stretching, pitch shifting etc. - so it's been made deliberately a lot less sensitive to most of the factors that a musician brings into their interpretation. That's fine - it's probably necessary for Google to not be co…

We don't necessarily disagree, but what bothers me is when people blame Google for this, as opposed to focusing on the draconian laws that have forced their hand.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN