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."

Comments

Fair use?

[betterunixthanunix]

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

Re:Fair use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[PopeRatzo]

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?

Re:Fair use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Knowing which screw to turn

[tepples]

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.

Work made for hire

[tepples]

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:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

[bennomatic]

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.