I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But then it started getting harder and harder to contest them and I even lost the ability to upload. It got so bad that one day several (3 or 4, don't remember anymore) notices were filed and Google didn't rule on them fast enough.
I had to close the channel because my account was locked for one full day and I couldn't do a thing. I had too many emails inside of Gmail and didn't want to lose them so I gave up. I'm still pissed about it and how Youtube and Google run things.
I always found it interesting that under YT rules content creators have the "3 strikes and you're banned" rule hanging over their heads but those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity. I still remember one company that ended up falsely claiming copyright over 10+ of my videos and they did so against one or two videos per week. Nothing was ever done about them.
Same experience from me: they run thing really bad.
A TV company came to our office doing a report. They gave us the video, and I uploaded it to YouTube as a private video to share it internally. After a week the private video has maybe 20 views. Months later I receive a copyright claim from the TV network. Their contact email obviously didn't work, and since I'm not a content creator I don't really care about my YouTube channel. So my account ended up being locked/limited during 6 months for a private video that had 0 views since several months...
Advertisers, and not content creators or viewers are Youtube's real customer, and their policies align with that. The whole existence of a take down procedure separate from, and more favorable to the take down issuer is evidence of that
As a viewer, it's routine to see classical recordings on YouTube claimed as/attributed to/ categorized as the wrong thing. It doesn't help that differences in two different recordings of, say, the same piano piece can be so similar in some respects, so as to trip up automatic systems. "Widespread systematic failure" is probably the best way to describe the current state of affairs.
This issue needs special attention, and classical videos ought to be treated as a special case, IMHO.
Worth noting that the reverse is also possible, i.e. recordings being altered only slightly, being able to fool human listeners into hearing them as being different, see for instance the fraudulent recordings attributed to Joyce Hatto.
YouTube copyright enforcement is bizarre. Claims against you seem unfounded if your playing classical works and if anyone could claim copyright of your performance is you, as it's a new performance and arrangement makes that your copyright.
I have used commercial tracks on videos I've posted and YouTube has authorised saying the copyright owner allows me too in exchange for me accepting adverts on my video.
I know they don't check copyright much, as I once got locked out of an old YouTube account I had, forgot the password and didn't have access to the email I signed up with. But I wanted the only video on the channel taken down, so I did a copyright complaint against myself, YouTube accepted it!
Ah that sounds like such a frustrating experience. It may be selection bias since I'm on HN a lot, but this sounds like a common situation.
If you were a developer at YouTube, what do you think could be done to fix this? Personally, I think a starter is only suspending a user from the specific service they "violated" the TOS on instead of their who freaking account. I don't know how content-id works, but preventing double jeopardy for a flag sounds like a good starting point. Obviously getting human support is a train-wreck and it goes without saying that needs to be fixed.
> those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity
False accusations should be given the same punishment as the accused would have faced. The "flag" and "report" buttons are abused on every single platform, as any mod can tell us.
Would something like Media Goblin [1] work for you? It's easy to host, you can share the media how you see fit, and you control copyright, and they're are many ways to deploy to keep costs down.
I'm not saying this is easier than yt, but there are some trade offs worth making if you want to really have that level of control.
>those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity
It's a different enforcement mechanism. DMCA requires by law that YouTube affords people a way to report things. If it gets abused that's on the government to correct, YouTube hands are tied.
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner" makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.
Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades (I'm being kinda generous, some songs are old after a few months / one to five years). I hate the state of copyrighted works. Movies can stay copyrighted for a good 40 to 50 years, anything else is crazy. Books maybe 50 years too, but again, it's just crazy and clear that the extended years of copyright only benefit record labels and other publishing corporations, and not truly the artists / authors who get decent money, but it's mostly chump change.
Ten years of free protection, then costing $10 × 1.5 ⁿ ⁻ ¹ for each subsequent year. Year 10 costs $0, year 20 about $380, year 30 about $22,000, year 40 about $1,300,000, year 50 almost $75,000,000—and few fifty-year-old things will be worth $75,000,000 per year and growing to retain copyright to.
Because without Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (granting many extra years of copyright), Mickey Mouse would be public domain. Simple as that - the agenda is obvious. Expect similar "extension" push as 2024 approaches.
> Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades
You say that but the Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson are all artists that had their heyday 30-60 years ago and are still the top selling artists. A lot of them are dead now because of varying reasons, but some are still alive and kicking and giving new performances of their 40 year old music.
Are you going to tell them they have no right to their own work anymore 20 years after they had one of their most successful releases?
One thing I find bewildering is how the ownership of a song is far longer than the ownership of a recording.
I remember reading about (very liberal) Randy Bachmann supporting a very conservative copyright plan, and being confused... but it was explained that his earlier recordings were going to be public domain while he still lived. That was his worry - that he would cease to own his first albums. Not the songs, which are covered constantly, but the actual albums.
To me, it's exactly backwards that recordings have a short shelf-life (X0 years), while writings compositions have a long one (X0 years after death of author). It seems far more important to me to allow new artists to iterate on old art, than it does to set the actual original recorded performance of that art free.
Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist.
After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem sales spike, a celebration of now freely available music for all to enjoy would be a much better hommage.
As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. What the current laws create in most cases are lazy rich children who spend the rest of their lives managing the copyright legacy of their parent. That doesn't benefit society in any way. Either they work like normal people or they make their own art but they're not entitled to the copyright of their parents. If the parents don't want to leave them in poverty, they can still leave the money they earned with this copyright over the years for their children.
Also, with the minimum 50 years duration, they could still inherit the copyright if their parent dies at an early age. However, a term of life PLUS a ludicrous amount of years is a really bad idea for the cultural development of our society.
There's really only one viable solution. If you want stuff to stay up, put it somewhere that won't let anyone take it down. No matter what. And isn't vulnerable to coercion. YouTube is not such a place, of course. For most purposes, torrents are good enough. Maybe BitChute. Or for sensitive stuff, sites on Tor .onion servers. Not Freenet, though, because that is a trip to jail, just waiting to happen.
Edit: OK, about Freenet. Yes, it is uncensorable distributed storage. And yes, it is arguably impossible to prove which nodes are storing what, and which nodes are accessing what. But it is possible to establish what a given node is sending and receiving, based on hashes. And if you get busted, you will be faced with the prospect of paying an expert to explain some seriously complicated stuff to a jury. And you will likely end up making a plea bargain. Even if you were entirely innocent.
If you're curious about Freenet's opennet content, there's only one "safe" way to access it. Do everything via Tor, and access Tor via nested VPN chains. Get yourself some Bitcoin, and mix it very well. Then use it to anonymously lease a VPS. Install Freenet on the VPS in headless mode, with its webGUIs as Tor .onion services. Now you can safely access whatever you like. Maybe the VPS will get busted, but tracking that back to you will be very hard. Also, to be safe, use Tor via Whonix. Work in a clone of the workstation VM, and nuke the clone after each use. And of course, have LUKS on the host machine. Maybe use a dedicated host machine, and wipe it when you're done, just in case. Seriously, Freenet is that radioactive.
The solution, of course, is to make legal arguments a class of intellectual property.
If a lawyer wants to cite a precedent, he's got to pay. Using a parallel argument without explicitly citing the precedent is a tort, and may be subject to lawsuit.
This will tie up all the intellectual property lawyers who will start suing each other. At that point the rest of us can go on with our lives.
(At least in countries with a common law based legal system...)
Devil's advocate here: why give welfare to artists (really, the labels they sign their rights over to) when so many great pieces of art actually exist that were made by artists who died penniless? Van Gogh, Gauguin,
I just don't buy the notion that extending copyrights way, way past death help the artist in any way. Why fight for labels' rights, when they largely amount to copyright trolls? Their artificial fears have made their way into YouTube, which just has to take those legal recordings down (they don't), because they're just so scared (they should not be) that this might be something that belongs to a troll.
When the real musicians get their content taken down after Big Label overtly steals it, we're getting trolled.
I personally work with music copyright claims for an internet company and as i see a lot of folks here (including the author) are missing the copyright thing.
They are not claiming for the fingerprinted music, they are claiming for what the big publishing companies are saying, and they are the ones making the rules.
This is how it works more or less, YT fingerprints a piece, they run their algorithms on new content and if they match the fingerprint, also using metadata, if its right and guess what, most of the time its not, they look at what the MULTIPLE publishers claims on the same stuff.
Publishers can claim whatever they want, they need just to face other publishers if they abuse their power (and bare with me, this is mad because there is no central authority!), there is no such way as YouTube able to rule on copyrighted content.
So as an example, if i upload a video with the 5th of Beethoven, the algorithm can fingerprint it correctly, next YT looks at what publishers are claiming and if there is someone with a valid recording of that piece at a "performance" level, they need to pay for the content otherwise stated.
And just to add something more, there are three different type of "claims" in the music industry, mechanical, synchronization and performance share, more about the aforementioned here http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-licensing-public-perform...
Copyright should probably be about 5 years long, total, non-extendable.
This achieves 95% of the asserted benefits of the existing copyright system and gets rid of 99% of the problems. The boost to national innovation would be tremendous.
But of course it's about money (copyright is a just a privatized tax) and anyone advocating this would find themselves marked for death by the copyright industry.
> “[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address [email protected] cannot be read and acknowledged”
Firstly, the assumption by google should be innocence rather than the guilt of the youtube creator. The burden should be on the accuser and not the accused.
Secondly, if 3 copyright violations gets the accused banned, then 3 false copyright accusations should get the accuser banned. Under youtube's current model, it actually incentivizes companies to claim everything since there are no consequences.
Thirdly, with what youtube is doing, it seems like they just want to be a platform for corporate media. It seems like they are heavily pushing established media like CNN, Late Night Shows, SNL and celebrities like ( Kevin Hart, Will Smith, etc ). I'm seeing so many more corporate media recommendations on youtube than ever before. If that's the case, what's the point of youtube? If all they want is for me to see CNN or Kimmel clips, what do I need youtube for? I can just go watch CNN and Kimmel on TV.
Youtube's selling point was that it wasn't TV. It was different. That's the case less and less now. I still have hope for youtube and I still like a lot of the non-corporate content there, but I hope youtube really reassesses their handling of claims.
Edit: And as for copyright, there should be less, not more of it and it should be for limited time. It stifles creativity and it pretty much enriches the few ( most of whom had nothing to do with the creation of art ).
> However, I intended to release all of my videos under a free license, so that they could be used in the future for others to educate and inform students about these beautiful works. Even in cases where my defense to the ContentID claims were successful, the videos were not reverted to this free license, making it much more difficult for others to use and share these digitized works in the way I originally had intended.
If you don't own the copyright of the thing or have a license to it, how can you "release it under a license" any license at all?
Is the OP just not saying it clearly, and what they really wanted to do was to mark it as in the public domain?
Or does Youtube actually have no way to do this?
Our entire cultural practices, corporate policies, and software feature lists, are set up ignoring public domain use cases. People don't even realize how this stuff works legally, which doesn't help. But you can't release something under a license if you don't own it (or have a license to re/sub-license it).
Easy and stupid solution: Make it illegal to falsely claim copyright on a piece of media and additionally make transparent and fair processes around Notice&Takedown required for all larger platforms.
Youtube's DMCA mechanism is a black box, you get told you did some bad and you can say "no I didn't do bad" at which point the black box will do things and after a few days agree or not.
If someone files a copyright claim on my video I want to know who did it, why they did it, what they expect as a resolution and if the claims turn out to be false more than three times, ban them from claiming already uploaded videos of mine or even future videos.
There needs to be hurtful punishment for abusing these processes but there isn't so lots of media corporations abuse it without end.
Powerful entities are getting less and less liable to the public every day. And it's mostly because of us: we don't make them pay any mistake, so they carry on as long as it profit them.
Google is not your friend. It's a for profit company that protect its interests.
Basically, they won't do anything because:
- they don't care. They never did. They used to pretend they did when they were not the leader. Now they are.
- they won't gain anything from changing the status quo.
- they won't lose anything because of it. You content is just a tiny small drop in the sea, and they own the biggest and most popular ocean. And the fish never rebels.
> Make it illegal to falsely claim copyright on a piece of media and additionally make transparent and fair processes around Notice&Takedown required for all larger platforms.
I wouldn't be surprised if those things are already illegal, but enforcing them turns out to be too hard. Laws you can't enforce are meaningless.
Things are seriously whack in regards to posting anything regarding classical music online.
I had a short 1-minute video that I made last year to demo a product. I used the intro to Beethoven's Ninth, second movement, from a recording made in the 50s as background music.
Nobody would post it due to copyright issues. Heck if I could figure it out, and like all things fucked up about having algorithms tell me what I can and can't do online, I ignored it and moved on. Not worth fighting over something I shouldn't have to fight about.
I wonder, however, how many other people do the same thing that I do -- and how that's all going to end up over the long term. Not good, I expect.
[+] [-] Jerry2|7 years ago|reply
I had to close the channel because my account was locked for one full day and I couldn't do a thing. I had too many emails inside of Gmail and didn't want to lose them so I gave up. I'm still pissed about it and how Youtube and Google run things.
I always found it interesting that under YT rules content creators have the "3 strikes and you're banned" rule hanging over their heads but those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity. I still remember one company that ended up falsely claiming copyright over 10+ of my videos and they did so against one or two videos per week. Nothing was ever done about them.
[+] [-] Savageman|7 years ago|reply
A TV company came to our office doing a report. They gave us the video, and I uploaded it to YouTube as a private video to share it internally. After a week the private video has maybe 20 views. Months later I receive a copyright claim from the TV network. Their contact email obviously didn't work, and since I'm not a content creator I don't really care about my YouTube channel. So my account ended up being locked/limited during 6 months for a private video that had 0 views since several months...
What a mess.
[+] [-] ocharles|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotancohen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnopgnip|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pervycreeper|7 years ago|reply
This issue needs special attention, and classical videos ought to be treated as a special case, IMHO.
Worth noting that the reverse is also possible, i.e. recordings being altered only slightly, being able to fool human listeners into hearing them as being different, see for instance the fraudulent recordings attributed to Joyce Hatto.
[+] [-] taneq|7 years ago|reply
Does this include any linked Gmail accounts? Because that's heinous if so.
[+] [-] me8|7 years ago|reply
I have used commercial tracks on videos I've posted and YouTube has authorised saying the copyright owner allows me too in exchange for me accepting adverts on my video.
I know they don't check copyright much, as I once got locked out of an old YouTube account I had, forgot the password and didn't have access to the email I signed up with. But I wanted the only video on the channel taken down, so I did a copyright complaint against myself, YouTube accepted it!
[+] [-] oh_sigh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strig|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mooman219|7 years ago|reply
If you were a developer at YouTube, what do you think could be done to fix this? Personally, I think a starter is only suspending a user from the specific service they "violated" the TOS on instead of their who freaking account. I don't know how content-id works, but preventing double jeopardy for a flag sounds like a good starting point. Obviously getting human support is a train-wreck and it goes without saying that needs to be fixed.
[+] [-] anonytrary|7 years ago|reply
False accusations should be given the same punishment as the accused would have faced. The "flag" and "report" buttons are abused on every single platform, as any mod can tell us.
[+] [-] voicedYoda|7 years ago|reply
I'm not saying this is easier than yt, but there are some trade offs worth making if you want to really have that level of control.
[1] https://mediagoblin.org/
[+] [-] mirimir|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|7 years ago|reply
It's a different enforcement mechanism. DMCA requires by law that YouTube affords people a way to report things. If it gets abused that's on the government to correct, YouTube hands are tied.
[+] [-] tallanvor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismorgan|7 years ago|reply
Ten years of free protection, then costing $10 × 1.5 ⁿ ⁻ ¹ for each subsequent year. Year 10 costs $0, year 20 about $380, year 30 about $22,000, year 40 about $1,300,000, year 50 almost $75,000,000—and few fifty-year-old things will be worth $75,000,000 per year and growing to retain copyright to.
[+] [-] Piskvorrr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|7 years ago|reply
You say that but the Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson are all artists that had their heyday 30-60 years ago and are still the top selling artists. A lot of them are dead now because of varying reasons, but some are still alive and kicking and giving new performances of their 40 year old music.
Are you going to tell them they have no right to their own work anymore 20 years after they had one of their most successful releases?
[+] [-] Pxtl|7 years ago|reply
I remember reading about (very liberal) Randy Bachmann supporting a very conservative copyright plan, and being confused... but it was explained that his earlier recordings were going to be public domain while he still lived. That was his worry - that he would cease to own his first albums. Not the songs, which are covered constantly, but the actual albums.
To me, it's exactly backwards that recordings have a short shelf-life (X0 years), while writings compositions have a long one (X0 years after death of author). It seems far more important to me to allow new artists to iterate on old art, than it does to set the actual original recorded performance of that art free.
[+] [-] ConceptJunkie|7 years ago|reply
That only applies to crappy pop music. Good music endures for decades and centuries.
[+] [-] laumars|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325
[+] [-] yeloboy|7 years ago|reply
After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem sales spike, a celebration of now freely available music for all to enjoy would be a much better hommage.
As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. What the current laws create in most cases are lazy rich children who spend the rest of their lives managing the copyright legacy of their parent. That doesn't benefit society in any way. Either they work like normal people or they make their own art but they're not entitled to the copyright of their parents. If the parents don't want to leave them in poverty, they can still leave the money they earned with this copyright over the years for their children.
Also, with the minimum 50 years duration, they could still inherit the copyright if their parent dies at an early age. However, a term of life PLUS a ludicrous amount of years is a really bad idea for the cultural development of our society.
[+] [-] sklivvz1971|7 years ago|reply
They took down the song because I could not "prove" I was the owner.
I guess my name being on the cover and my picture was not enough...
I.e.
- they don't check even if you point out it's a mistake - they always side with the copyright owner by default
[+] [-] kartan|7 years ago|reply
Because it is not about rights, it is about power.
[+] [-] mirimir|7 years ago|reply
Edit: OK, about Freenet. Yes, it is uncensorable distributed storage. And yes, it is arguably impossible to prove which nodes are storing what, and which nodes are accessing what. But it is possible to establish what a given node is sending and receiving, based on hashes. And if you get busted, you will be faced with the prospect of paying an expert to explain some seriously complicated stuff to a jury. And you will likely end up making a plea bargain. Even if you were entirely innocent.
If you're curious about Freenet's opennet content, there's only one "safe" way to access it. Do everything via Tor, and access Tor via nested VPN chains. Get yourself some Bitcoin, and mix it very well. Then use it to anonymously lease a VPS. Install Freenet on the VPS in headless mode, with its webGUIs as Tor .onion services. Now you can safely access whatever you like. Maybe the VPS will get busted, but tracking that back to you will be very hard. Also, to be safe, use Tor via Whonix. Work in a clone of the workstation VM, and nuke the clone after each use. And of course, have LUKS on the host machine. Maybe use a dedicated host machine, and wipe it when you're done, just in case. Seriously, Freenet is that radioactive.
[+] [-] JackFr|7 years ago|reply
If a lawyer wants to cite a precedent, he's got to pay. Using a parallel argument without explicitly citing the precedent is a tort, and may be subject to lawsuit.
This will tie up all the intellectual property lawyers who will start suing each other. At that point the rest of us can go on with our lives.
(At least in countries with a common law based legal system...)
[+] [-] arh68|7 years ago|reply
I just don't buy the notion that extending copyrights way, way past death help the artist in any way. Why fight for labels' rights, when they largely amount to copyright trolls? Their artificial fears have made their way into YouTube, which just has to take those legal recordings down (they don't), because they're just so scared (they should not be) that this might be something that belongs to a troll.
When the real musicians get their content taken down after Big Label overtly steals it, we're getting trolled.
[+] [-] rbrtdrmpc-|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jellicle|7 years ago|reply
This achieves 95% of the asserted benefits of the existing copyright system and gets rid of 99% of the problems. The boost to national innovation would be tremendous.
But of course it's about money (copyright is a just a privatized tax) and anyone advocating this would find themselves marked for death by the copyright industry.
[+] [-] maaaats|7 years ago|reply
Google's support in a nutshell.
[+] [-] qubax|7 years ago|reply
Secondly, if 3 copyright violations gets the accused banned, then 3 false copyright accusations should get the accuser banned. Under youtube's current model, it actually incentivizes companies to claim everything since there are no consequences.
Thirdly, with what youtube is doing, it seems like they just want to be a platform for corporate media. It seems like they are heavily pushing established media like CNN, Late Night Shows, SNL and celebrities like ( Kevin Hart, Will Smith, etc ). I'm seeing so many more corporate media recommendations on youtube than ever before. If that's the case, what's the point of youtube? If all they want is for me to see CNN or Kimmel clips, what do I need youtube for? I can just go watch CNN and Kimmel on TV.
Youtube's selling point was that it wasn't TV. It was different. That's the case less and less now. I still have hope for youtube and I still like a lot of the non-corporate content there, but I hope youtube really reassesses their handling of claims.
Edit: And as for copyright, there should be less, not more of it and it should be for limited time. It stifles creativity and it pretty much enriches the few ( most of whom had nothing to do with the creation of art ).
[+] [-] astura|7 years ago|reply
Someone uploaded white noise they recorded to YouTube and got five copyright claims. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523
[+] [-] jrochkind1|7 years ago|reply
If you don't own the copyright of the thing or have a license to it, how can you "release it under a license" any license at all?
Is the OP just not saying it clearly, and what they really wanted to do was to mark it as in the public domain?
Or does Youtube actually have no way to do this?
Our entire cultural practices, corporate policies, and software feature lists, are set up ignoring public domain use cases. People don't even realize how this stuff works legally, which doesn't help. But you can't release something under a license if you don't own it (or have a license to re/sub-license it).
[+] [-] jwilk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaarn|7 years ago|reply
Youtube's DMCA mechanism is a black box, you get told you did some bad and you can say "no I didn't do bad" at which point the black box will do things and after a few days agree or not.
If someone files a copyright claim on my video I want to know who did it, why they did it, what they expect as a resolution and if the claims turn out to be false more than three times, ban them from claiming already uploaded videos of mine or even future videos.
There needs to be hurtful punishment for abusing these processes but there isn't so lots of media corporations abuse it without end.
[+] [-] sametmax|7 years ago|reply
Google is not your friend. It's a for profit company that protect its interests.
Basically, they won't do anything because:
- they don't care. They never did. They used to pretend they did when they were not the leader. Now they are.
- they won't gain anything from changing the status quo.
- they won't lose anything because of it. You content is just a tiny small drop in the sea, and they own the biggest and most popular ocean. And the fish never rebels.
[+] [-] ConceptJunkie|7 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be surprised if those things are already illegal, but enforcing them turns out to be too hard. Laws you can't enforce are meaningless.
[+] [-] JetSpiegel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|7 years ago|reply
I had a short 1-minute video that I made last year to demo a product. I used the intro to Beethoven's Ninth, second movement, from a recording made in the 50s as background music.
Nobody would post it due to copyright issues. Heck if I could figure it out, and like all things fucked up about having algorithms tell me what I can and can't do online, I ignored it and moved on. Not worth fighting over something I shouldn't have to fight about.
I wonder, however, how many other people do the same thing that I do -- and how that's all going to end up over the long term. Not good, I expect.
[+] [-] phkahler|7 years ago|reply
Of course it's not simple. We need a decentralized platform for this and social media, but the questions on how to achieve that are many.
[+] [-] Rotdhizon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddtaylor|7 years ago|reply