Google's New Scheme To Avoid Unlicensed Music 213
An anonymous reader writes "Complaints about copyright infringement on YouTube keep Google busy. If you have any doubts, just look at the Viacom copyright suit. But the problems aren't just about uploaded videos, but sometimes the music accompanying the videos. A patent application shows that Google has worked on a system to automatically identify infringing music by comparing a digital signature of a soundtrack to signatures of existing music. Users who upload videos could opt to completely remove the video, swap the soundtrack for something approved, or to mute the video. Of course, there doesn't seem to be a provision if you're using existing music with permission."
Um...reinventing the wheel (Score:5, Informative)
This is what Audible Magic does. Exactly.
http://audiblemagic.com/index.asp [audiblemagic.com]
So google is doing it again?
Is this new? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fair use? (Score:2, Informative)
This link: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 specifies what is considered fair use. Using a recording in a personal video and publishing it online is not considered fair use according to law. HoweverIt may be considered a derivative work as covered in section: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK there is no fair use exception for copyrighted music.
Not even in a video about how someone's music is similar to someone else's? A video like this [youtube.com] would, in my view, fall squarely under the spirit of 17 USC 107 [copyright.gov], which specifically mentions "purposes such as criticism [or] comment" . I can see a defense for this under at least factors 1, 3, and 4, and the court in Luther Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music ruled the same way about a spoof of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman".
Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (Score:5, Informative)
Google has been doing this for years, it's a non-story. That's why you see "the soundtrack of this video has been silenced due to a copyright claim from x" all over the place.
Claim fair-use (Score:2, Informative)
It seems that you can resolve copyright issues by claiming fair-use. I came across this post a few days at rcgroups [rcgroups.com]. Scroll down to post #5 for the procedure.
Re:Knowing which screw to turn (Score:3, Informative)
"even though they now possess the knowledge and can do it themselves," ..so you know how to play all of the songs that you download?
Many people like you confuse the hard work that put into making the album (which is not easy) and the split second it takes to copy the resulting work (which any moron on the Internet can do)
Not New (Score:5, Informative)
Re:fair use (Score:5, Informative)
There also needs to be a fair use option.
There is. If YouTube's Audible Magic server detects a match, it lists the video in Content ID Matches [youtube.com], where the uploader can file a dispute. One of the dispute options is "This use does not require the copyright owner's permission", such as fair use.
Re:Claim fair-use (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks.
Note: you can link to specific posts [rcgroups.com] using the top-right post number.
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK there is no fair use exception for copyrighted music.
Sure there is. The statute [cornell.edu] makes it clear that fair use applies to all copyrighted works. There are no exceptions. You're probably thinking of the de minimis doctrine, i.e. that copyright does not protect taking very small amounts of material from other works. Bridgeport, the most notorious sampling case, dealt with that; it didn't even mention fair use, IIRC. See, OTOH, the Pretty Woman case for an example of the Supreme Court supporting fair use in a music case.
"Fair use" is a legal concept that was hammered out through litigation, not a commonsensical notion of "what is fair."
Well... the concept is basically that if a use is fair, it shouldn't be considered infringing. There are tests to determine if a particular use, based on all the relevant circumstances, is fair, but there are no bright-line rules, and the case-by-case nature of the beast makes precedent shaky. While it's not as bad as some things (e.g. the utility doctrine, which is always a crapshoot), it does largely hinge on whether the judge feels in his gut if it's fair or not.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
That's why you'll seldom hear an entire record played on talk radio. The syndicators don't want to pay license fees.
That is actually not true. There is a separate payment structure for short clips used in a blog or talk radio format as opposed to a full-song radio playback of the same songs. There are still rights payments for even short clips, but it is a heck of a lot cheaper (by a factor of 10 or more depending on revenue and profits of the licensing organization).
The problem with this entire scheme is that there seems to be no way to say "I've paid the required fees not let me use the dang song". This kills even legal use of music. Not to mention that there is also no talk about "I'm the author dammit" option.
pitch adjustment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please wake up. (Score:4, Informative)
Except for those who don't.
Re:Perjury (Score:1, Informative)
A statement made under perjury doesn't have to be correct, just believed by the person making the claim. And the perjury portion of that statement in question is that you have the right to make the claim, not that it isn't fair use, which is up to a judge anyway.
Re:pitch adjustment (Score:3, Informative)
From my experience, adjusting the pitch of the audio by +4% (without altering its duration) is enough to fool Google's algorithm without being noticeable/distracting, unless you're playing the original song and the altered song side-by-side.
Yes, 4% faster is already what 24fps material becomes when played on 25/50fps TV systems. Only people with perfect pitch can easily detect the difference, and the TV stations love it because they can fit in 4% more ads. Perhaps Google can detect a simple speed-up, but not when the audio is DSPed to shift the pitch but not the duration like you suggest.
Also, I have seen a music video on YouTube from an unofficial source that reversed the picture left-right. This, perhaps in combination with a pitch shift, may be what has allowed it to survive deletion.
Re:Fair use? (Score:1, Informative)
Yes there is? I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. It's like, sure, if you were right I would be pissed too, but you didn't even bother to check?
Just click dispute copyright. You can just make up some BS and they'll put the song back. In fact, you can look up exactly how to do this on YouTube. That's why some users will have a whole albums uploaded, while some get their audio removed because of crap playing in the background.
Re:Is this new? (Score:4, Informative)
Believe me, I am right there with you.
The problem is, at least for my clients, is brand awareness. In many ways YouTube severely limits their options, but everybody knows what YouTube is. It's like an eCommerce buzzword that puts the management types into orgasmic comas during meetings. My only option is walk out, get a Coke, relax a bit, take a walk, and come back when they are back to normal and used tissues are strewn about the conference table.
YouTube is an absolutely horrible idea. Advertising is disallowed, and unless you are one of the blessed shiny people who get in to see the wizard, the YouTube API is crippled. I would almost go so far as to say maliciously and sadistically designed to inflict maximum pain upon developers. Even as we speak, the YouTube API operates in its own mini-ecosystem. Data that is available through YouTube proper takes an indeterminate amount of time to be available to the API. I have personally seen periods of 24-72 hours before search results returned by the API will contain the data I am looking for, that is instantly available through a search on their own web interface. API limits you to 2,000 total videos uploaded through the it. Some truly stupid and retarded policies and implementations. My only conclusion is that YouTube doesn't give a shit about developers or companies. I mean, it's FREE, so we should just shut up and be grateful for anything.... right?
However, even with all the drawbacks, using YouTube allows businesses such as my client's, to advertise to users and investors that shiny YouTube logo on websites and presentation materials. I can explain the drawbacks all day long, but in the end, other business considerations win out... and YouTube is the choice going forward.
It's Sad. It's Pathetic. It just enables YouTube to continue acting like sociopaths.
P.S - The YouTube API is the most pathetic software ever developed by policy. That is my feeling. The developers on the project are nice enough, they do respond, but it seems like their hands are just tied getting anything done. It's always, "planned", but never released. Almost.. as.. if it was kept in Beta for years on end. Strange.
Re:Perjury (Score:1, Informative)
Can one claim believing it to be true without even having heard the alleged infringement first?
Yes. You just have to believe that your automated tools are effective. Since they are effective, you believe their conclusions.
Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Informative)
Synchronization rights (Score:3, Informative)
Over the years, as publishers tried to maximize their earnings and simplify licensing procedures, they created the idea of synchronization rights, and wrote those into their licensing agreements. So, for example, anybody who pays appropriate fees to a licensing agency such as BMI or ASCAP is buying the right to play the songs they are licensed to provide, but when you read the fine print, you will see that the publisher/owner of the copyright is licensing, through ASCAP to you, only the right to play the song itself in your bar or wherever, not the right to do anything else with it. The license is carefully written to not grant you the license to do other things with the music, such as uploading it, redistributing it to others, or synchronizing it with a motion picture and using it for that purpose. To do that, they sell you a different license which DOES include the synchronization rights, but doesn't include stuff in the ASCAP license.
Re:Please wake up. (Score:2, Informative)