Indeed, a cascade of bots and a collective shrugging of responsibility.
Copyright has long drifted from its original purpose.
Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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?
'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?
It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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.
- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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.
It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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.
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.
- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
First of all the salient fact here is that Bach is public domain. In case you missed it -- Bach is public domain.
You do seem to be making excuses, like :
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.
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.
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.
You do seem to be making excuses, like :
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.
blinddrew wrote: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.
blinddrew wrote: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.
It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
Bach is, a recording probably isn't.
You do seem to be making excuses, like :
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.
blinddrew wrote: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.blinddrew wrote: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.
- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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.

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.
It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
I concur entirely. 
But my proposed overhaul of copyright law would also include stronger penalties for copyfraud.

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

- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.
Re: Copyright absurdity - An interesting perspective
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.



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.



- Drew Stephenson
Apprentice Guru -
Posts: 27613 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Contact:
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/