Slashdot Mirror
Google's New Scheme To Avoid Unlicensed Music
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."
Really? I thought collages were fair use; how is it not fair use to combine music with an original video?
Palm trees and 8
If only there were a way to decentralize these things...
Palm trees and 8
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
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."
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.
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.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.