Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective

[Drew Stephenson]

Indeed, a cascade of bots and a collective shrugging of responsibility.
Copyright has long drifted from its original purpose.

[merlyn]

Corporations abusing a lack of regulation? How surprising. In this anecdotal example it seems Sony can do what they like.

'Absurd' is maybe overly polite. 'Corrupt' may be nearer the truth. Sony get away with anything because they've given Google a bung. All perfectly legal, you understand. Sony spend a lot on buying advertising from Google, and Google let them do what they like.

Logically this Bach example doesn't make sense. If there were fifteen labels claiming ownership, why aren't those labels making claims against each other?

[Drew Stephenson]

If there were fifteen labels claiming ownership, why aren't those labels making claims against each other?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question, but for anyone not familiar who's reading along: issuing a DMCA take down is a deliberately simple process (so often automated) that has very small consequences for making an incorrect declaration (which are very, very rarely enforced), and can be targeted directly at end users who will rarely have the influence or resources to challenge it.
Challenging the copyright ownership of another organisation means lawyers and evidence and actual effort. And the consequences of perjury are much more significant.

[merlyn]

Wrapping it in jargon doesn't make any more sense of this. You seem to be operating under the delusion that there is anything reasonable about this system. We're well beyond that. Who said anything about DMCAs? This is Youtube's internal copyright check.

[Drew Stephenson]

To be clear, I'm not defending anything here, just explaining the likely process.
I don't think there's much of anything reasonable about our current copyright laws.
It's not clear from the original post whether it's DMCA or ContentID related, but the fact that there are multiple claims make it more likely to be the former rather than the latter. As far as I'm aware ContentID works on a 1:1 basis with any subsequent splits being down to the registered agent to settle. They might have updated this but not in the way that's being shown here.

[merlyn]

First of all the salient fact here is that Bach is public domain. In case you missed it -- Bach is public domain.

To be clear, I'm not defending anything here, just explaining the likely process.

You do seem to be making excuses, like :

... a cascade of bots and a collective shrugging of responsibility ...

You make it sound like an accident. There is bad intent here, on the part of Sony and fourteen other labels, facilitated by Google. The bad intent is to profit from claiming copyright on public domain music.

I don't think there's much of anything reasonable about our current copyright laws.

The unfortunate fact here is that even though the law is massively tilted in favour of corporations, they still want more. They're not sticking to the law by trying to claim on public domain music.

It's not clear from the original post whether it's DMCA or ContentID related, but the fact that there are multiple claims make it more likely to be the former rather than the latter.

Google's algorithm can pick up cover versions, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

Cui bono -- who benefits? or in the modern world -- follow the money.

[Drew Stephenson]

First of all the salient fact here is that Bach is public domain. In case you missed it -- Bach is public domain.

Bach is, a recording probably isn't.

To be clear, I'm not defending anything here, just explaining the likely process.

You do seem to be making excuses, like :

... a cascade of bots and a collective shrugging of responsibility ...

You make it sound like an accident. There is bad intent here, on the part of Sony and fourteen other labels, facilitated by Google. The bad intent is to profit from claiming copyright on public domain music.

Once again, I am explaining, not excusing.
There absolutely is bad intent, driven by the fact that the major labels and studios designed the process, lobbied for the lack of punishment for abuse of the process, and continue to lobby to make sure it's as one-sided as possible.

I don't think there's much of anything reasonable about our current copyright laws.

The unfortunate fact here is that even though the law is massively tilted in favour of corporations, they still want more. They're not sticking to the law by trying to claim on public domain music.

It's not clear from the original post whether it's DMCA or ContentID related, but the fact that there are multiple claims make it more likely to be the former rather than the latter.

Google's algorithm can pick up cover versions, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

Cover versions are almost always popular songs where the composition is still covered by copyright. YouTube has an agreement with HFA about licensing for covers. If you're not represented by HFA and someone covers your song, a) well done for getting that level of penetration into the market, and b) HFA will probably try and claim they represent you anyway (because of the afore-mentioned bad intent and lack of consequences).
ContentID as a system has always struggled with identifying different recordings of classical pieces, but even so, if it identifies a piece as being a copy of a registered recording it will be on a 1:1 basis.
But all of the main labels have bots running, mostly significantly less developed than ContentID, that will find any recording of a piece, perform a very rough match, and automatically submit a DMCA. Hence if there's multiple claims it's more likely than not to be something other than ContentID that's triggering it.

Cui bono -- who benefits? or in the modern world -- follow the money.

Basically everyone apart from the artist.

[merlyn]

If you want to go all lawyer about it -- it's speculation, and we can strike that from the record.

This de-Bach-al is a symptom of a problem, rather than a problem in itself. Corporations have too much power, and don't stick to the law, even though they wrote it. One law for the rich, and another law for the not-so-rich. The rich get richer and the not-so-rich get more not-so-rich.

If Sony don't respect the law your proposed solution of overhauling copyright law won't make a huge amount of difference.

[Drew Stephenson]

I concur entirely.

But my proposed overhaul of copyright law would also include stronger penalties for copyfraud.

[merlyn]

While we're on the topic of the law ...

... Blurred Lines Decision, I'm looking at you.

Your faith in the American legal system is astonishing. To me the Blurred Lines decision is business as usual. Does the name 'OJ Simpson' mean anything to you?

[Drew Stephenson]

Point taken!

The thing about the Blurred Lines decision though, to extend the OJ metaphor, is that it's like finding someone guilty of murder without there actually being a death in the first place.