Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's New Scheme To Avoid Unlicensed Music

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the walk-the-thin-line dept.

Google 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."

cancel ×

213 comments

Fair use? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#32834384)

Really? I thought collages were fair use; how is it not fair use to combine music with an original video?

Re:Fair use? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834394)

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.

Re:Fair use? (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32834528)

Sections of music, yes, not an entire song.

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?

Nah... (3, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 4 years ago | (#32834622)

does your creativity require you to use "Eye of the Tiger" for every single video of your sports team?

Creativity is rotating through Eye of the Tiger, We Are the Champions, Rock and Roll, part 2 and We Will Rock You.

Re:Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834830)

Don't forget "Sirius" by the Alan Parsons Project

Re:Nah... (1, Funny)

billsayswow (1681722) | about 4 years ago | (#32835208)

Don't forget "The Final Countdown" either!!!

Re:Nah... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32835616)

I cannot believe you didn't include Gonna Fly Now

Re:Fair use? (4, Informative)

achbed (97139) | about 4 years ago | (#32834912)

Sections of music, yes, not an entire song.

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.

Re:Fair use? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835502)

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? (2, Insightful)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | about 4 years ago | (#32835512)

...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:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834996)

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.

Are you part of the MPAA ?

Fair use can extend beyond sections of the music to the entire work !
What is fair is a balancing test, and yes you can have a fair use DEFENSE even when an entire song ! is used.
Let's get the basics right shall we ?

Re:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835382)

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.

and this program will make the distinction?

Re:Fair use? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834418)

it's not FAIR you USE it and not pay. simple.

Re:Fair use? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834440)

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.

Re:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834918)

An aside: do you know the legal basis for synchronization rights? Statutory?

Re:Fair use? (5, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 4 years ago | (#32834456)

It seems that it's not even fair use if you have express permission from the artist. 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. The blog is a music blog reviewing bands, somehow using short clips of music attached to a positive review is seen as copyright infringement.

I don't see how this is not fair use. Then again, record companies seem to love to twist the DMCA to mean anything they want. This stupid act is a waste of time and money, it protects no one and persecutes people doing the right thing. I have no doubt that these laws were developed to remove power from artists and fans.

Work made for hire (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834486)

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:Work made for hire (2, Insightful)

Redlazer (786403) | about 4 years ago | (#32834638)

Really? You don't think they have people just trolling and looking? Or perhaps more likely, some flawed, hacked together piece of software that attempts to do it automatically, with fingerprinting, or even worse, by filename?

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.

Perjury (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834728)

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.

Re:Perjury (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835298)

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:Perjury (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#32835400)

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:Work made for hire (1)

Draek (916851) | about 4 years ago | (#32835064)

Really? You don't think they have people just trolling and looking? Or perhaps more likely, some flawed, hacked together piece of software that attempts to do it automatically, with fingerprinting, or even worse, by filename?

I do. I also believe, however, that they've hired lawyers good enough to make sure they own everything from their artists up to and including their own name, and that they've hired lobbyists good enough to make sure they can find a reason to sue an unborn child if they wanted to.

Never underestimate the sheer capacity for evil of multinational conglomerates.

Re:Work made for hire (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835128)

I do. I also believe, however, that they've hired lawyers good enough to make sure they own everything from their artists up to and including their own name, and that they've hired lobbyists good enough to make sure they can find a reason to sue an unborn child if they wanted to.

Never underestimate the sheer capacity for evil of multinational conglomerates.

Finally the Republican plan is revealed. They intend to get the corporations to sue every unborn child. This will then lead to injunctions against abortions. A clever scheme, brilliant in its intricacies.

Re:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834536)

"Fair use" is an affirmative defense against infringement -- i.e. it concedes that you have infringed, but that the infringement is not illegal.

In your case of a licensed use, there's no infringement, so saying "it's not even fair use", while true, seems to be the opposite of the complaint you're trying to make, and shows that you really don't know what you're on about.

Re:Fair use? (1)

tycoex (1832784) | about 4 years ago | (#32834672)

So what happens to gamespot, do they get in trouble for using "copyrighted" screenshots in their game reviews?

Re:Fair use? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#32835004)

So what happens to gamespot, do they get in trouble for using "copyrighted" screenshots in their game reviews?

More likely the screenshots are provided by the develper/vendor/retailer.

Re:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834470)

AFAIK there is no fair use exception for copyrighted music. See, for instance, the history of lawsuits over sampling. "Fair use" is a legal concept that was hammered out through litigation, not a commonsensical notion of "what is fair."

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834524)

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:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (3, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#32835642)

That's the problem; fair use rules aren't spelled out, so if someone comes after you, you have to defend it. Deep pockets win unless someone like the EFF is willing to take on your fight.

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.

Re:Fair use? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834700)

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.

Re:Fair use? (2, Informative)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | about 4 years ago | (#32834898)

Actually, the latest copyright bill in Canada specifically ALLOWS the use of copyrighted music in YouTube videos.

Re:Fair use? (3, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 4 years ago | (#32834792)

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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834512)

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

Re:Fair use? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 4 years ago | (#32834814)

Using a recording in a personal video and publishing it online is not considered fair use according to law.

I disagree. I think that, depending on the specific circumstances involved, it could be a fair use, though it wouldn't necessarily be.

Would you mind providing specific language indicating that your claim is correct. The statute you linked to just provides a test for determining if a use is fair or not; it doesn't specifically say what you claim it says.

HoweverIt may be considered a derivative work as covered in section: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103 [copyright.gov]

Well, since copyright includes the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, in what way is that useful, even if it is correct?

Re:Fair use? (1)

langelgjm (860756) | about 4 years ago | (#32835406)

This link: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 [copyright.gov] specifies what is considered fair use.

It gives some guidelines, and four factors that are to be considered. Neither are exhaustive; just because a given situation isn't explicitly spelled out in 17 USC Sec. 107 doesn't mean it isn't fair use. Fair use precedent is slippery precisely because it depends on the merits of individual cases, which are very hard to codify.

Re:Fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834578)

Also, if you are explaining or otherwise talking about the song, that would be fair use.

Of course, YouTube, as a private corporation, is legally free to limit the use of its service in any way it prefers.

Morally, ethically, I think Google has an obligation to promote the commons.

Re:Fair use? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 4 years ago | (#32834698)

Easy. Just make a video playing a song, with the artist and song title in plain text showing constantly on the video track. That's not fair use by any sane definition.

Re:Fair use? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834834)

No, motherfucker. Microsoft. That's all that needs to be said.

Windows 7

Windows Phone 7

XBox 360

Internet Explorer

Surface

Exchange

Office

Fucking, respect, bitch. You piece of shit troll assholes with your Google bullshit know the real fucking deal. This is Microsoft, fucksticks and we will wipe our asses with Google and anybody else who stands in our way. Believe that shit.

TED Talk about Youtube on Youtube (1)

vwjeff (709903) | about 4 years ago | (#32835606)

Here is a good video about Youtube's copyright violation detection system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoX-YihV_ew [youtube.com]

We need an unfiltered alternative to Google (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32834386)

Let's hope Iceland's data haven, if they actually get it, can make it possible.

Peer to peer (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#32834402)

If only there were a way to decentralize these things...

Re:Peer to peer (4, Funny)

Pollardito (781263) | about 4 years ago | (#32834680)

you mean sort of a You-and-You-and-YouTube?

Re:We need an unfiltered alternative to Google (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#32834598)

So who do you think is going to pay to stream video for free in iceland?

Re:We need an unfiltered alternative to Google (1)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | about 4 years ago | (#32835286)

The government should pay. I'd happily pay slightly more tax for the service.

Um...reinventing the wheel (5, Informative)

nordee (104555) | about 4 years ago | (#32834404)

This is what Audible Magic does. Exactly.

http://audiblemagic.com/index.asp [audiblemagic.com]

So google is doing it again?

Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (5, Informative)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#32834558)

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.

Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834632)

Youtube uses Audible Magic already.

Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (2, Insightful)

mattventura (1408229) | about 4 years ago | (#32834826)

Maybe they're trying to make a filter that can't be bypassed easily. You can usually just shift the music up or down a note to slip it past the filter, and while audiophiles and the music-obsessed will complain about this, it's barely noticeable to the average viewer if done properly.

Re:Um...reinventing the wheel (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 years ago | (#32835056)

So google is doing it again?

I wonder if Google has larger plans - there's talk about a Google "cloud" music service. A perfect addition to GOOG411 or Google Voice would be "buy this song" where you dial in when a song you like is on the radio and it figures out what it is and adds it to your assets or playlist.

Is this new? (4, Informative)

raving griff (1157645) | about 4 years ago | (#32834416)

Have they not been doing this already for certain artists that have opped into it? I know that Youtube has thrown me an error when attempting to upload a video with licensed music in it before and gave me the option of uploading with a disabled audio track. In fact, this system seems to have been rolled out in 2007. [eff.org]

Re:Is this new? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834438)

This is seriously fucking old, and the editors are seriously fucking retarded. Nothing changes on Slashdot.

Re:Is this new? (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | about 4 years ago | (#32834780)

The system may not be new, but the policies described most certainly are. What is proposed from the article is "presumption of guilt". Ignoring for the moment the awesomely infuriating and wholly unethical statement of "presumption of guilt", there will be some serious problems for such a system once live if these new policies are put into effect.

Personally, I deal with hundreds, sometimes over a thousand, of these notices per day. What is absolutely batshit crazy is that we don't know who the hell these people are and what their music is. Google's (YouTube) system has made thousands upon thousands of mistakes already with just the system I manage. All of the content that is being uploaded has fully licensed music in it. Fully Licensed. We have disputed it a couple dozen times and attached proof. We have yet to hear ANYTHING from Google or YouTube. Nothing. Completely Ignored. We already gave up a long time ago.

My impression is that if you were to walk into YouTube's offices there would be hundreds of phones ringing, emails appearing on desktops, and no human beings anywhere. Like some post apocalyptic movie scene where all human flesh dissolved and the world was left turning without us. A completely automated system running happily on it's own. Like SkyNet, except mentally challenged.

Now if they really do move to this policy where our only options are to swap music or delete the video we might just have to close up shop. I am sure their music selections are going to suck something awful and be wholly unsuitable for us. You know that and.... we actually paid for our fucking music we won't be able to use.

Re:Is this new? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32835672)

Personally I think whatever it takes to provoke people into finding something besides youtube is a good thing. Sorry, but it's time to kill off these kind of monopolies. Let them hang themselves. I'll buy the rope.

Please wake up. (1, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#32834432)

It is time to stop the extortion for waves of air. Air costs nothing, making air move costs nothing, music in it self costs almost nothing to record (sure you can go to a really expensive studio, but you sure as hell don't have to do that to get a great record of moving air). So, the music mafia can go F herself as far as I am concerned. 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. But for that small group of talentless people who get bought into a number 1 place on the charts we all need to suffer? I am done doing that. And saying that, I make my living as a musician and photographer. This all is just idiotic. It is like having a bar and some friendly guy walks in to offer you protection. For a price. And you will need that protection... /end of rag

Knowing which screw to turn (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834472)

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.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834532)

I prefer to see the recording industry's position as closer to that of a technician that continues to charge $999 every time the company needs to turn the screw again, even though they now possess the knowledge and can do it themselves, and then sues them for not continuing to pay for his services.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (3, Informative)

kz45 (175825) | about 4 years ago | (#32834620)

"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)

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#32835014)

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)

And many people, like you perhaps, seem to think its ok to attach the payment to cover the cost of making the album on the point at which you make a copy of the resulting work.

That is a failed business model. The hard part, as we all agree, is making the album. ~That~ is where the valuable and difficult work took place... ~that~ is where payment must be extracted. Pushing the payment out to distribution of individual copies worked when it was actually work to make individual copies.

But over the last couple decades the difficulty, effort, and expense of making those copies has gone to zero, and its no longer a rational or viable point at which to extract payment.

There are other ways of covering the cost of making the album. Its high time to start looking at them.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#32834546)

That's a fair way of seeing songwriters. But I make a difference in songwriters and the performing artists. The 'product' music is a non-existent product. All music does is bring emotion. I already own that emotion. That can be a fun emotion or a bluesy one. The comparison between the screw and plugging in a 50 dollar mic to your 200 dollar pc that will give you better results than anything recorded before 1995 doesn't fit though.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#32834582)

Not all music is viable live. Electronica "concerts" are little more than them standing on stage while the recorded tracks play through the speakers. Epic half-hour post rock arrangements can take weeks to execute perfectly. Ambient doesn't even make sense to perform live.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834616)

Electronica "concerts" are little more than them standing on stage while the recorded tracks play through the speakers.

Surely the electronic genres (techno, trance, jungle, etc.) still have some parts that can be played in real time, such as turning loops on and off or playing some parts directly on a MIDI keyboard controller.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (2, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#32834628)

Yeah I thought about that one, but in real life we can see the top dj's and electro groups do perform live with greater success often than big 'rockbands'. It's ok to sample live. It's ok to press start on winamp, just make sure you give the audience a show. That's what they are paying for and that's where your money comes from. Not the albumsales. Albums are nothing more than commercials to get you into buying a ticket to a live show. But somewhere in the last 10 years some bastard decided that 20 million income from a worldtour just wasn't enough.... Real musicians play music all the time, for free. Because they love to do it and love to share it. This is also the reason imho that there are no more bands like Dire Straights or The Police or the next U2 or Queen. Those bands had a nice income from their albums, but the real money came always from tours. The albums were extra profit. Nice to have, nothing more. Twenty years ago any artist would be delighted to get airtime on the radio... now the big suits behind them want money for the privilege of being given airtime! It's insane! And what does that mean for us? Well, that good musicians won't be on the radio because the guy in the suit wants money for it and the band just isn't big enough yet.

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32834730)

If they have their way, it will be illegal to turn you own screws. Or if you do, you will have to pay a royalty to the American Screw Turning Association

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834894)

Intellectual property simply doesn't meld with libertarianism. It's my pen and my paper and I can do whatever the hell I want with it, including writing a Harry Potter novel on it. It's my disc and my computer and I can do whatever the hell I want with it, including writing a Korn album on it. Obviously, if I like Korn's music I should want to support them by paying for it. If I don't, that's kind of a dick move but it's still completely within my rights to do so. Anyone that thinks otherwise has a very fucked up view of property rights.

Read this if you disagree: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Re:Knowing which screw to turn (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 4 years ago | (#32835534)

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.

I'm not saying this sounds like a desirable way to fund books today -- in fact, I hate the idea that an author is expected to develop some kind of cult of celebrity if he/she wants to earn any money, rather than earning it off the merits of the work itself -- but Charles Dickens used to perform live.

Re:Please wake up. (1)

JustinRLynn (831164) | about 4 years ago | (#32835022)

>That should be the standard, if you can't perform live or sing without autotune, you are not a musician. Actually, they do make a version of autotune that can be used in live performances, and often enough artists do use it, even if they don't admit it.

Re:Please wake up. (1)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#32835138)

Yeah I know. Those aren't very talented artists though. A singer is someone who can sing. A guitarist is someone who can play a guitar. It's really that simple in the end. I have invested many many thousands of hours to get my guitar playing to the level where am I know. And now I benefit of being in a good band that is a bit known and I can make a very nice living from all that hard work. But: i can play the thing... i actually can play that instrument... And people can hear every hour of love I put into it. People who pretend to play guitar (George Micheal in Faith for example) just aren't guitar players. And while George Micheal in fact has a great voice and really can sing, he will never be able to play a guitar and he shouldn't do as if he can imho. Autotune is just the same. An artist like Cher that actually can sing and hit the right tone can use autotune for the musical value it has in a song like "I believe". But an artist like Britney or that Gay fish dude, can't hit the right tones and you have no place on a stage in that case. Well let me tone that down, they might have a place, but it isn't performance art they are doing. I would not call it music, it's playing musician. Pretending they can are rockstars. A lot of kids fall for that in combination with an agressive advertising campaign. It's produced, it's a product. While music is 100% emotion and 0% product. Man, music has always been free until about 30, 40 years ago. And music get it's soul from that hard work those people put into it. That's what makes music great, the soul of the artist. Autotune has no soul and therefore any self claimed artist using it brings soul-less music, and soulness music isn't music. It's a rythme some words about sex on top of it. Anyway: use of autotune as effect: great Use of autotune to make up for a lack of skills: not done.

Re:Please wake up. (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#32835030)

Musicians play live, musicians make their living with their performances.

Except for those who don't.

Re:Please wake up. (1, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#32835174)

But what musician doesn't want to make music? I don't know of anyone... not a single one...... It's the making and performing of music that brings us the pleasure. All musicians know there is a very slim change they will make a living with it. It's an hobby for that matter. And we all love playing. If tomorrow I wouldn't get a single penny anymore for my musical skills, would that stop me from playing? Hell no! I love making music, that's why I do it. And sure, a nice paycheck after a gig is nice. But not necessary for me and any artist who has invested that much time in practicing. It's about music, not money.

Re:Please wake up. (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | about 4 years ago | (#32835200)

Copyfighters who say that art is free and there's a better model to sell music but secretly just don't want to pay for it. Record companies that pretend they're protecting their artists but really just like unreasonable profits.

I wish it was easy and I could just do what Boing Boing tells me to do *sob*

New? (1, Redundant)

mirix (1649853) | about 4 years ago | (#32834450)

I was under the impression they already had this for some time now, at least for certain labels/artists.

Doesn't it say below the video (on occasion) < $SONG_NAME - buy it now at $STORE >?
Obviously the detection is functional if that works.

Claim fair-use (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834560)

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:Claim fair-use (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 years ago | (#32834762)

Thanks.

Note: you can link to specific posts [rcgroups.com] using the top-right post number.

Youtube isn't useful anymore (4, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | about 4 years ago | (#32834562)

I have a bunch of really old student student news shows up on my personal account. The opening used at best 15 seconds of some random pop song du jour. The audio on the video is now completely muted because of god forbid 15 seconds of fair use music.

It's not even worth the effort to edit and upload the videos. Youtube is no longer useful for what its intended purpose was.

Re:Youtube isn't useful anymore (3, Funny)

areusche (1297613) | about 4 years ago | (#32834576)

Odd, I must have a stuttering problem.

Re:Youtube isn't useful anymore (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 years ago | (#32834788)

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.

Thanks.

Note: you can link to specific posts [rcgroups.com] using the top-right post number.

What pisses me off is that they make Youtube waste time "policing" falsely.

Re:Youtube isn't useful anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834964)

Welcome to the realities of copyright law. When it is enforced, it sucks ass.

Not New (4, Informative)

b1ng0 (7449) | about 4 years ago | (#32834626)

This is known as a perceptual hash. We have a perceptual audio hash in pHash [phash.org] , my open source software project that will tell you how similar two media files are to each other. It also features an indexing system to find the best matches from a sample audio clip, a la Shazam. These algorithms are not new by any means, although this patent goes a bit further than simply matching audio samples.

Re:Not New (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 4 years ago | (#32834860)

If you have the talent, you should write a filter to generate an inverse waveform that subtracts the allegedly infringing music but leaves everything else intact. :)

Personal use (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#32834634)

No only Google: you can do it on your own PC!

The Picard Tagger [musicbrainz.org] from MusicBrainz can generate an audio fingerprint (PUID) from all files in a folder and then fetch the correspondent metadata from the community CC licensed music database.

Re:Personal use (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#32835164)

When I tried that, it not only couldn't identify most of my music, but mislabeled so much of it that it was worse than nothing.

Not only would it usually get the album wrong (no, I don't buy compilations or "best of", so please don't suggest them either), but I would like to know what kind of demented algorithm that can mistake Genitorturers for Rihanna.

fair use (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#32834686)

There also needs to be a fair use option. There are cases where one is exercising fair use while using a recording. Also, if the software is too eager to make a match, it may have false negatives for parodies.

Re:fair use (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#32834756)

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.

Google goes copyright absolutist (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 4 years ago | (#32834706)

Google has gone positively copyright absolutist - not just in YouTube (which, of course, grew up on a steady diet of infringement), but also in Adwords and maybe Adsense.

Adwords now disallows ads with phrases like "music videos" or "Internet TV [americafree.tv] ," under the theory that any site advertising such must be guilty of, not just infringement, but "hacking and cracking." As their standard of proof is "guilty until proven innocent," arguing with them is fairly frustrating...

The entertainment companies go too far sometimes (2, Insightful)

Nemilar (173603) | about 4 years ago | (#32834738)

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.

Re:The entertainment companies go too far sometime (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 4 years ago | (#32835118)

That's their product, and it's how they make money; fair enough that they don't want people exploiting it.

Except in most cases the product is created by artists, but for some reason "owned" by the people who print CDs; doesn't actually seem all that fair.

shut it down (2, Insightful)

blueworm (425290) | about 4 years ago | (#32834766)

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:shut it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834878)

There will be no further misuse of this channel. You are
disturbing others who are using it to serious purpose. Access
will be restored when you understand what it is good for. Goodbye.

Interesting. (1)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | about 4 years ago | (#32834798)

Sounds similar to what tools like MusicBrainz can do. http://musicbrainz.org/ [musicbrainz.org]

What about songs that are self released? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834836)

This seems like it will be a moot point when most artists inevitably start self releasing. Zoe Keating's cello album debuted at #7 on the billboard classical charts entirely from bandcamp.com sales with no label. As a media producer, this is really exciting, because theoretically all I would have to do is contact her to use her songs in my creations. No labels involved. The tide is definitely shifting in the direction of self releasing, making the RIAA increasingly irrelevant. Since self released songs are also theoretically protected by some kind of copyright, how will YouTube handle this, or are they only concerned if you use the dribble that major labels put out?

Google music search (1)

Ernesto Alvarez (750678) | about 4 years ago | (#32834866)

This has potential, and the guys at google probably know it too.

If they are able to identify whether a song is under copyright, then they can probably identify the song proper. They could soon be deploying some sort of search system that takes some music as input ad gives you its name.

Re:Google music search (1)

FrangoAssado (561740) | about 4 years ago | (#32835194)

This already exists [midomi.com] .

pitch adjustment (5, Informative)

tlacuache (768218) | about 4 years ago | (#32834920)

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.

Good, I say! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32834944)

Of course, there doesn't seem to be a provision if you're using existing music with permission."

You know what? Great! If a work isn't permissible for Youtube in general, it should be banned altogether. Maybe this will finally give copyright holders some incentive to stop being such colossal dicks about what people do with their music.

What About Incidental Infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835008)

What if you shoot a video of something that has a copywritten track in the background simply because that track was playing out of speakers somewhere where you were shooting your (unrelated) video? I doubt that garbled background sound makes you a prime target to the filter, but I could be wrong. Still, I'm curious, but pessimistic that this type of video would fall under the 'banned' category.

Bypass it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835098)

Just load up the music you want to (fairly) use in Audacity and change the pitch up or down by .5 semitones, enough to be imperceptible by the human ear but just confuse the digital fingerprinting enough to not get picked up.

Ironically enough, there are hundreds of videos about how to do this on YouTube, of all places.

vaporware please (1)

uremog (931065) | about 4 years ago | (#32835308)

Why can't things like this become vaporware instead of useful things like Duke Nukem Forever

TED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835394)

There's a reasonable TED presentation from YouTube's "head of user experience", Margaret Gould Stewart which described how this system works. Not a huge amount of details, but worth the few minutes to watch it

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/margaret_stewart_how_youtube_thinks_about_copyright.html

I am VERY OK with avoiding unlicensed music (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32835454)

...YouTube was the last place where I could be bothered with that unlicensed music.

Now it is gone and the copyright owners have to listen to their music themselves.

Some personal experience (2, Interesting)

theGhostPony (1631407) | about 4 years ago | (#32835546)

I've got a video up right now (over 21,000 views) consisting of a series of photos of an antique car that I'm restoring accompanied by a complete U2 song. Total run time is over 3 minutes. There is a notation under a copyright information button that states...

Your video, Xxxxxxxx, may include content that is owned or licensed by these content owners:
Content owner: UMG Type: Audio content

What should I do?
No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.


The video's been online for over two years.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...