It seems to me that the content identification works as advertised: it's the metadata that is missing essential information due to inadequate process.
If Youtube knew that the author is Bach and not Sony it would know not to flag the soundtracks featuring Bach songs.
However, the problem is that at some point Sony lied to Youtube and claimed ownership of these songs even though they are in public domain. So there should be reviews or penalty for flagging copyright on someone else's works.
Sony could claim they have copyright on the very Bach recording they uploaded themselves but if content id system can't differentiate between Sony's Bach and anyone's Bach, then for practical purposes there probably aren't much basis for the recording to be eligible for a copyright by Sony.
Not just that, the AI also can't recognise fair use.
The only legitimate (read: non-overbearing, not publishing individual creators by erring on the side of registered rights holders) implementation of this process would be if the registered rights holders were merely notified (with an easy option of forcing a takedown or demonetization) of every potentially infringing upload but the uploads themselves were not demonetized or otherwise punished.
Automated content filters will always be more restrictive than the letter of the law if they have to make automated judgments and the publishing is time sensitive.
That said, Content ID basically allows rights holders to tap all the power of a DMCA takedown without the legal risk of committing a felony by filing an illegitimate claim.
> However, the problem is that at some point Sony lied to Youtube and claimed ownership of these songs even though they are in public domain. So there should be reviews or penalty for flagging copyright on someone else's works.
There is no technical solution to this problem because it is not a technological problem. It is a social problem. Fascinatingly, there is a great social solution to this problem:
* Monetary penalties - asserting an incorrect ownership should create a very strong bite against the entity making such assertion. Make it $500k per incident. If after 10 people upload a slightly different Bach performance that they themselves did Sony's bank accounts decreases by 5 million the erroneous assertions would as if by magic go away.
Huh? If Youtube’s black box AI can’t tell the difference between recordings by Glenn Gould and Murray Perahia they should be equivalent in the eyes of copyright law?
Constructions like this are living proof that maybe the system we've decided to implement isn't as smart as we thought it was. Humans have a knack for thinking they can control things they don't actually understand -- and we end up with contradictions like this situation. I'll leave these here:
> I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
-- Jefferson
> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
> ...proof that maybe the system we've decided to implement isn't as smart as we thought it was.
I'd say it's a lot simpler than that - it's proof that systems that don't penalize false positives will have lots of false positives.
I mean, imagine if YouTube announced that content owners would be subject to the same "three strikes" policy as uploaders, and music companies could be kicked off the site for making baseless copyright claims. One suspects that the dumb systems you're talking about would get a lot smarter.
Headline seems demonstrably untrue [0]. Better framing should be, "contentID incorrectly identifies YouTube sample as being part of a totally legally copyrighted recording of a Bach work". (Bracketing for now the rightness or copyright at all, I suppose)
Been there. I was, and still am, surspised that we allow for automatic algorithms to do copyright claims. non-free algorithms deciding about the faith of real people sounds like the stuff from dystopian scifi novels, but that is what we already allow to happen in real world.
Is there any penalty for being overzealous regarding the protection of your copyrights? I understand that individuals could litigate, but I would assume that to be a long winded process.
That's a hard problem to solve. So every content-id system out there hacks around that - by not solving it, and merely pretending that whoever claims the rights first actually has them. Convenient for the platform and whoever has deeper pockets for lawsuits.
On the other hand YT is full of various Peppa Pig videos (inverted colors, mirror images and all kinds of other weird transformations). YouTube's algorithm apparently can't detect such copyright violations. And the really annoying part is that these videos often rank higher than the original ones.
I have to wonder - isn't the response to this kind of ridiculousness to simply not post on YouTube, for example: http://allofbach.com/en/ ? Yes it's not going to get you the audience YouTube might, but if their platform isn't serving legitimate artists then what good is it anyway?
> I have to wonder - isn't the response to this kind of ridiculousness to simply not post on YouTube
Apparently not. From the article:
In one week, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal to force all online services to implement Content ID-style censorship, but not just for videos -- for audio, text, stills, code, everything.
Eyeballs, basically. The eyeballs are on YouTube already, so if you want an audience and you're off YouTube, you're fighting an uphill battle.
But classical music, sad to say, largely is a niche pursuit. Niche content can always find a home somewhere and users will seek it out.
And I haven't followed the news closely, but if the EU is indeed going to mandate Content-ID style systems, theoretically these niche sites that don't have one will be under some level of legal and regulatory exposure? Not quite sure how any of that would work in practice.
It's not like just anyone can put a video on AllOfBach. That site is entirely the Netherlands Bach Society's project.
If you're saying everyone should make their own AllOfBach... the website clearly has taken tons of development effort, its first iteration was unusably difficult to navigate, it's still not great at accessibility, and if I wanted a portable version of their recordings I have even fewer options than I would with YouTube.
I'm glad AllOfBach exists but there's a reason people want to stick to the music services they are already familiar with.
The last time I reviewed copyright law, fraudulently claiming ownership of someone else's work is a very big deal. This is something that can be handled with a class action lawsuit.
That's an empirical question, not theoretical, so it's "has been", not "can be". Interesting question. Like the Bust Beaver function, apparently unknown.
The government keeps introducing new laws all the time. The system is becoming bloated and exceedingly restrictive. Maybe they should focus on removing old laws.
Or at least focus on adding more laws to restrict the rights of corporations instead of people.
[+] [-] yason|7 years ago|reply
If Youtube knew that the author is Bach and not Sony it would know not to flag the soundtracks featuring Bach songs.
However, the problem is that at some point Sony lied to Youtube and claimed ownership of these songs even though they are in public domain. So there should be reviews or penalty for flagging copyright on someone else's works.
Sony could claim they have copyright on the very Bach recording they uploaded themselves but if content id system can't differentiate between Sony's Bach and anyone's Bach, then for practical purposes there probably aren't much basis for the recording to be eligible for a copyright by Sony.
[+] [-] pluma|7 years ago|reply
The only legitimate (read: non-overbearing, not publishing individual creators by erring on the side of registered rights holders) implementation of this process would be if the registered rights holders were merely notified (with an easy option of forcing a takedown or demonetization) of every potentially infringing upload but the uploads themselves were not demonetized or otherwise punished.
Automated content filters will always be more restrictive than the letter of the law if they have to make automated judgments and the publishing is time sensitive.
That said, Content ID basically allows rights holders to tap all the power of a DMCA takedown without the legal risk of committing a felony by filing an illegitimate claim.
[+] [-] notyourday|7 years ago|reply
There is no technical solution to this problem because it is not a technological problem. It is a social problem. Fascinatingly, there is a great social solution to this problem:
* Monetary penalties - asserting an incorrect ownership should create a very strong bite against the entity making such assertion. Make it $500k per incident. If after 10 people upload a slightly different Bach performance that they themselves did Sony's bank accounts decreases by 5 million the erroneous assertions would as if by magic go away.
[+] [-] fipple|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasbesoin|7 years ago|reply
Watch your abuses decline precipitously, after enacting such policy.
Lawyers take an oath to uphold the law -- not just their employer's policy. Enforce this.
[+] [-] anonytrary|7 years ago|reply
> I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
-- Jefferson
> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-- Declaration of Independence
[+] [-] fenomas|7 years ago|reply
I'd say it's a lot simpler than that - it's proof that systems that don't penalize false positives will have lots of false positives.
I mean, imagine if YouTube announced that content owners would be subject to the same "three strikes" policy as uploaders, and music companies could be kicked off the site for making baseless copyright claims. One suspects that the dumb systems you're talking about would get a lot smarter.
[+] [-] pavanlimo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haser_au|7 years ago|reply
Source: https://twitter.com/JRhodesPianist/status/103696020877651968...
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfooti|7 years ago|reply
0: https://youtu.be/ddbxFi3-UO4
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlang23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martin-adams|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokyodude|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petermcneeley|7 years ago|reply
That being said does any remember Napster and the good old days? Makes me feel old and yearn for a more innocent time.
[+] [-] gamesbrainiac|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasta|7 years ago|reply
1. The music (score)
2. The recording of a performance of the music
For old music nr.1 has expired. But nr.2 can still be copyrighted.
The question is: how does Facebook know the performance is under copyright by Sony? I guess they don't..
[+] [-] Piskvorrr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frgewut|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|7 years ago|reply
* Video has higher dimensionality
* Distorted videos often have distorted audio (usually dialog) that would ruin the work if the audio was the primary value of the work.
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poulsbohemian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphor|7 years ago|reply
Apparently not. From the article:
In one week, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal to force all online services to implement Content ID-style censorship, but not just for videos -- for audio, text, stills, code, everything.
[+] [-] metafizikal|7 years ago|reply
But classical music, sad to say, largely is a niche pursuit. Niche content can always find a home somewhere and users will seek it out.
And I haven't followed the news closely, but if the EU is indeed going to mandate Content-ID style systems, theoretically these niche sites that don't have one will be under some level of legal and regulatory exposure? Not quite sure how any of that would work in practice.
[+] [-] nugget|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rspeer|7 years ago|reply
If you're saying everyone should make their own AllOfBach... the website clearly has taken tons of development effort, its first iteration was unusably difficult to navigate, it's still not great at accessibility, and if I wanted a portable version of their recordings I have even fewer options than I would with YouTube.
I'm glad AllOfBach exists but there's a reason people want to stick to the music services they are already familiar with.
[+] [-] ars|7 years ago|reply
I'm not going to search for it elsewhere because it's not a core interest of mine.
Devoted fans will find content anywhere, but casual viewers will just look in the default spot.
[+] [-] bovermyer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xntrk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|7 years ago|reply
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/copyright-trademark-titles-wo...
[+] [-] tomhoward|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17884215
[+] [-] buboard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jondubois|7 years ago|reply
Or at least focus on adding more laws to restrict the rights of corporations instead of people.
[+] [-] em0ney|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]