|
Thursday, 6 September 2018
The future is here today: you can't play Bach on Youtube because Sony says they own his compositions
quote [ James Rhodes, a pianist, performed a Bach composition for his Youtube channel, but it didn't stay up -- Youtube's Content ID system pulled it down and accused him of copyright infringement because Sony Music Global had claimed that they owned 47 seconds' worth of his personal performance of a song whose composer has been dead for 300 years. ]
|
Comments
 |
arrowhen said[1] @ 7:31pm GMT on 6th Sep
Sony needs to...
*sunglasses* Bach off! |
|
ethanos said @ 8:40pm GMT on 6th Sep
They stopped me from humming his tune in public.
|
|
Sony said @ 12:27am GMT on 7th Sep
[Score:1 Funny]
|
|
Paracetamol said[1] @ 9:01pm GMT on 6th Sep
This is probably a good case against using YouTube as a service. But the whole law concept is pretty blurry sadly. Not sure if every service needs this kind of self-censorship.
|
|
Anonynonymous said @ 10:57pm GMT on 6th Sep
EU is done for...
|
|
damnit said[2] @ 9:48am GMT on 7th Sep
You can appeal to this and reference the fact it's public domain now. Some company tried claiming my entire video with the Maple Leaf Rag recording in it, which I obtained from a royalty-free site specifically stating it's public domain.
I appealed and they never bothered to respond, which voided their copyright claim. |
|
damnit said[1] @ 9:51am GMT on 7th Sep
Another instance is of a video created by an American dude and his company, which has since been taken down. I have a copy of the whole video and uploaded it to my channel as unlisted.
A TV station in the Philippines used YouTube content ID to claim the video saying they own it. I wasn't making money on the video to begin with but that just really pissed me off. I appealed and wrote that they don't own any part of the video even though they showed a clip of it in one of their news segments. I wrote the name of the original author of the video and the company who released the video prior. They backed off and rescinded their claim. FUCKING ASSHOLES!!! |
|
5th Earth said @ 10:19am GMT on 7th Sep
The problem is that 99% of a monetized video's profit is realized within a few days off its release. If Youtube flags or demonetizes the video in this time frame, the creator loses almost all the money regardless of the validity of the claim.
|
|
damnit said @ 12:34pm GMT on 7th Sep
Right, but if I'm not monetizing the video anyway and some company is trying to make money off a public domain song, I sure as hell will not let them profit off of it.
The whole thing is a mess. I have an error version of a video with a copyrighted song. I privatized it. I uploaded the same video with the same copyrighted song with fixed editing. I made it public. Guess which video has a copyright claim. |
|
5th Earth said @ 10:15am GMT on 7th Sep
Cody's Lab recently had a video flagged for copyrighted material for a section of video that was completely silent.
|
|
damnit said @ 12:36pm GMT on 7th Sep
Is the section silent because the channel made it silent (removed the audio) after the copyright claim? You can do that with a section of your video that is claimed.
|
|
5th Earth said @ 11:07pm GMT on 7th Sep
No, he made a whole video about it. There was no literally no audio track at all in the section that was flagged
|
|
damnit said @ 1:18am GMT on 8th Sep
Oh ok. More likely, an intentional manual copyright claim on that video segment.
|
|
5432 said @ 12:37am GMT on 7th Sep
[Score:-4 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold |
|
Jack Blue said @ 6:26am GMT on 7th Sep
[Score:-3]
filtered comment under your threshold |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
The Damage Continues: Internet Infrastructure Degraded By Copyright Enforcement