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."
Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I thought collages were fair use; how is it not fair use to combine music with an original video?
Sections of music, yes, not an entire song.
Peer to peer (Score:3, Insightful)
Please wake up. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a thing called "sync rights" - it's why you need to have permission / a contract to use music in TV / film.
Beside the point, however - even if it *was* fair use (which it isn't) the MAFIAAs prefer to pretend that such a right doesn't exist, at least until they bribe enough pols to actually make it vanish.
Knowing which screw to turn (Score:5, Insightful)
Air costs nothing, making air move costs nothing, music in it self costs almost nothing to record
It costs little to turn a screw, but it costs plenty to know which screw to turn [ryanyam.com].
Musicians play live, musicians make their living with their performances. That should be the standard, if you can't perform live or sing without autotune, you are not a musician. Simple as that.
I prefer to see a songwriter's position as closer to that of a magazine columnist or a book author: arranging words (or music) on a page and not necessarily expecting to have to perform them live.
Work made for hire (Score:5, Insightful)
My fiancée has had DMCA takedown notices from recording companies even after having express permission to use music on her blog from the artists themselves.
Whether those are valid depends on whether the artist had assigned the sound recording copyrights to the label in a contract. A composer or recording artist can't license rights that he had already sold to someone else.
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why you'll seldom hear an entire record played on talk radio. The syndicators don't want to pay license fees.
But the simplest solution is to use music from the enormous amount of music that's licensed under Creative Commons.
Or does your creativity require you to use "Eye of the Tiger" for every single video of your sports team?
Re:Knowing which screw to turn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Work made for hire (Score:2, Insightful)
Fair use rules need to be expanded to work with the digital world. Adding a whole song to a video of your team (of whatever) playing a sport will in no way impact the original piece of work, it is very clearly a derivative, and should fall wholly and completely under fair use terms.
All of the Big Content guys have sued or DMCA'ed anyone they possibly could, regardless of fair use. They constantly fail "checks" that people put online - work that is absolutely fair use, and it still gets DMCA'ed.
I submit to you that in this situation, it is far more likely Viacom (or whoever) merely submitted a batch of DMCA's through an automated process that wrongfully flagged the same fair use (in this case, permitted) case.
This is money grubbing bullshit. Counterfeiting and idea theft are NOT the same as personal use.
Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is in Canada, but they are trying hard to extinguish that right, with very DMCA oriented laws, and the ACTA treaty.
FUCK YOU USA. I used to admire your freedoms, but since you don't produce shit, and bully and bribe everyone to force your laws on others, I think you are sort of like... a certain country you had a revolution to free yourself from.
The US was founded largely on copyright infringement, the free flow of ideas, and ignoring British Business Patents (monopolies).
Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Perjury (Score:3, Insightful)
it is far more likely Viacom (or whoever) merely submitted a batch of DMCA's through an automated process that wrongfully flagged the same fair use (in this case, permitted) case.
OCILLA takedown notices are made under penalty of perjury. That'd be helpful if the FBI actually cared about copyright perjury.
The entertainment companies go too far sometimes (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely "get it" that the entertainment companies need to protect their copyrighted material. That's their product, and it's how they make money; fair enough that they don't want people exploiting it.
But here's an example of them going too far: The other day I was watching clips from The West Wing on Youtube. I'm not sure how exactly I got there, but regardless, it was one of my favorite shows back in the day, even though the West Wing franchise never got a dime from me either through product purchases or ads. But after seeing a couple of clips, I was reminded of how much I liked the show, and started to consider purchasing the DVD set -- until I clicked on a clip that had no sound. Then I saw that great "this video contains audio not approved by..." on the top of the screen.
Needless to say, that killed the viewing experience right there. I think when the entertainment companies revisit the sheer dollars and cents, they might see that it's beneficial to leave a lot of this copyrighted material up there -- it might generate a few sales.
shut it down (Score:3, Insightful)
Google should say, "Because it is too difficult in the United States, the land of freedom, to offer a public venue for the sharing of creative works and the preservation of culture, we have opted to shut down youtube entirely. We sincerely hope that such services can return in a time less plagued by corruption and greed."
Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please wake up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perjury (Score:3, Insightful)
Can one claim believing it to be true without even having heard the alleged infringement first? That appears to be the case with the automated takedown notices, and I find it very strange that judges let that pass. If not outright perjury, at the very least I'd expect them to see it as contempt for the law.
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm happy to hear these complaints. People will stop using copyrighted music, and the companies trying to suck blood from a stone will go broke with that much less exposure.
Perhaps it's time to make a big push for ONLY public domain music to be used?
Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)
...the simplest solution is to use music from the enormous amount of music that's licensed under Creative Commons...
Or does your creativity require you to use "Eye of the Tiger" for every single video of your sports team?
it's not always about creativity, it's about what associations and ideas using popular materials brings to your work.
if I record a video of myself running up the stairs, or take video of me punching a guy and freeze framing it right before fists connect, the connection I am reaching for might still be vague, adding "Eye of the Tiger" will instantly make my audience think of the Rocky franchise. If that is the connection I wish my audience to make, then yes, creativity does require the use of that particular song. Nothing else will do, no other song will make that same connection.
This technique is called appropriation, and it can be a very powerful tool for artists.
that being said, if they are using it just because 'eye of the tiger' is a good track for a sports event, then yea, it's lame and lazy; but there are times when using one specific element over another is necessary to make an artistic point.
Re:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this is a somewhat different topic, but it's still under the heading of ridiculous copyright BS. Here's one for the books; I recall that John Fogarty's old record label (from when he was with Creedence) sued him for copyright infringement because his solo stuff sounded too much like the stuff he'd written under contract with them. The dork only knows three chords and two rhythms; it was his signature, and when he went solo, they decided he couldn't take his signature with him.
That's what they want... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they shouldn't. That's exactly what the RIAA wants. They want to monopolize all the money being made from music.
What they should *really* do is to compare all of the RIAAs songs with one another to point out exactly how unoriginal they are (especially if they compare them to old songs where the lyrics arrangement, if not the recording rights, should be in the public domain). After all, there's not much that's truly original and Hollywood was founded by people evading Edison's patent enforcers.
Given their attitudes, they would start a war of litigation amongst themselves, leaving them with less money and fewer lawyers to bother the rest of us with. Also, it would be interesting to point out exactly where certain haughty folks got their ideas from. There are only just so many notes and with the small number required for a court to find infringement, I can't help but think that they'd infringe upon *something.*
A map of who has "stolen" (to borrow their word) from whom would be quite interesting, as well.