White Noise Video on YouTube Hit By Five Copyright Claims (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White Noise Video on YouTube Hit By Five Copyright Claims (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday January 5, 2018 @04:44AM from the not-the-onion dept.

Chris Baraniuk, reporting for BBC: A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise -- indistinct electronic hissing -- has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him. Sebastian Tomczak, who is based in Australia, said he made the video in 2015 and uploaded it to YouTube. The claimants accusing him of infringement include publishers of white noise intended for sleep therapy. "I will be disputing these claims," he told the BBC. In this case, those accusing Mr Tomczak are not demanding the video's removal, but instead the reward of any revenue made from advertising associated with it. Without the claims, Mr Tomczak would receive such revenue himself. "I am intrigued and perplexed that YouTube's automated content ID system will pattern-match white noise with multiple claims," he said.

147 of 219 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

White noise can be copied too by JoeyRox · 2018-01-05 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
1. Re:White noise can be copied too by admin7087 · 2018-01-05 04:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Doubtful. There is no expression of a creative idea and the work is also not original. Both are requirements for copyright. Otherwise I could just copyright the word "and" and get my free income for the rest of my life.
2. Re:White noise can be copied too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Copied does not mean a copyright violation.
  White noise is by definition random and thus cannot be protected as a creative work.
3. Re:White noise can be copied too by JoeyRox · 2018-01-05 05:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".
4. Re:White noise can be copied too by cirby · 2018-01-05 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  He's a MIDI and electronic music guy who hand-builds his own tone sources.
  He probably has several noise generators of his own already.
5. Re:White noise can be copied too by sg_oneill · 2018-01-05 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  If its actually proper white noise then no, no you can not. The defining feature of white noise is that its truly random and contains all frequencies simultaneously (limited of course by hardware).
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
6. Re:White noise can be copied too by Shoten · 2018-01-05 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".
  Yes, but creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song. The courts have already ruled on that concept.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
7. Re:White noise can be copied too by mopower70 · 2018-01-05 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
8. Re:White noise can be copied too by JoeyRox · 2018-01-05 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
9. Re:White noise can be copied too by dunkindave · 2018-01-05 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
  Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.
10. Re: White noise can be copied too by TheOuterLinux · 2018-01-05 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  George Lucas gets paid every time a company uses the word "droid," TV ads or whatever.
11. Re:White noise can be copied too by Thelasko · 2018-01-05 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
  Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data. If so, then the algorithm is setting a false positive. However, a randomly generated set of data will be extremely unique. If it's copied, you should be able to tell.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
12. Re:White noise can be copied too by DickBreath · 2018-01-05 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You mean copyright infringement.
  
  You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it. Copyright is to protect intellectual works. There is already case law that, for example, the facts present in a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted.
  
  Someone who created white noise cannot file a claim against someone else who might actually in fact copy it all, because, the original white noise cannot be copyrighted.
  
  In this case, I think it is automated copyright enforcement bots run amok.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
13. Re:White noise can be copied too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Doubtful. There is no expression of a creative idea
  Justin Beiber is proves that this is not a requirement.
14. Re: White noise can be copied too by TuballoyThunder · 2018-01-05 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  White noise != Gaussian White noise has a flat spectrum not shaped like a Gaussian.
15. Re:White noise can be copied too by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-01-05 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song.
  Well, no, it really isn't. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations doesn't say anything at all about the number of differences between a particular variant and another already in existence.
  
  creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations.
  Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality is. Selecting a specific arrangement of white noise isn't conceptually different in that regard than selecting a specific arrangement of words, musical notes, etc.
16. Re:White noise can be copied too by Bengie · 2018-01-05 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  What's the definition of an "author"? What's the difference between recording whitenoise and recording other parts of nature. Both are naturally occurring photons, yet somehow recording monkeys in the wild is covered by copyright?
17. Re:White noise can be copied too by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-01-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought some artist copyrighted blank canvas. But found this, saying, blank space is not copyrightable. https://www.copyright.gov/circ...
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
18. Re:White noise can be copied too by Rob+Riggs · 2018-01-05 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms. [Ed: Emphasis mine.]
  That is true of uncompressed audio. Once you compress the audio, the noise is going to look pretty much the same. Much of the phase information which is necessary to distinguish one sample from another is gone, and all that is left is the frequency domain which is pretty much the same from one white noise source to another.
  
  --
  the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
19. Re:White noise can be copied too by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-05 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  John Cage's estate successfully sued and got damages over someone violating the copyright on 4'33", Cage's famous silent piece.
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul...
  
  Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement with representatives of the late avant-garde composer John Cage, for a rumoured £100,000. The man behind the Wombles' hits of the late 1970s, Batt stood accused of copyright infringement. What made his case special, though, was that he had been accused of stealing precisely nothing.
  Earlier this year, on his classical/rock fusion album Classical Graffiti (played by octet the Planets), he included a self-explanatory track called A One Minute Silence. Credited to Batt/Cage, it seemed a deliberate but innocuous echo of 4'33", the four minutes and 33 seconds of silence with which Cage once outraged audiences. (First performed at a concert in Woodstock in 1952, 4'33" required the performer merely to sit motionless at any instrument for the allotted time.)
  Classical Graffiti soared to the top of the classical charts, where it remained for a lucrative three months. Eight weeks into this reign, however, Cage's publishers, Peters Edition, contacted Batt and declared that he had, as it were, no right to silence. The rest is now (legal) history.
  Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
  Not only was One Minute Silence not intended to be taken remotely seriously, says Batt, it in fact began life as a space-filler. "It was me taking the mickey out of John Cage - although he was probably taking the mickey in the first place. For most of the CD, the Planets play fusion music, and at the end of the album I wanted to add some purer classical tracks. So I put a minute's space between the two sections, I just thought, wouldn't it be fun if I called it One Minute Silence, and credited it to Batt/Cage?"
  Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
  I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
  There are, says Riddle, precedents for this scenario - for example, Frank Zappa made a recording of 4'33" that was credited to John Cage, and for which royalties were paid. Indeed, for him the case was less about the highbrow question of whether or not silence can be copyright, but about whether or not this was actually a performace of Cage's piece. Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
  Either way, a vital part of Batt's payout was that no future money from the CD would go to the Cage camp. Batt explains: "We're going to sell more records, we've had fun with this, and I thought, I'll pay some money over to show goodwill - but of course the royalties remain mine for the future."
  Given silence can by copyright, it's likely white noise can too.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
20. Re:White noise can be copied too by Lije+Baley · 2018-01-05 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  "But they were all active in the PRNG scene and frequenters of the PRNG discussion on reddit. The infringer stole a special seed -- 123456789 -- that was known to produce the highest-quality white noise, pushing the brain into enhanced delta-wave activity sooner than noise created with less ingenious seeds."
  
  --
  Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
21. Re:White noise can be copied too by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-01-05 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
  Five separate claims against him suggest either that four of the claimants also stole their white noise from the original author (whichever one of the five it was), or they're all full of crap....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
22. Re:White noise can be copied too by Rick+Schumann · 2018-01-05 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I (and hopefully others) understand you're being funny, but (sadly) it seems to be over some people's heads. ;-)
23. Re:White noise can be copied too by Midnight+Thunder · 2018-01-05 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
  That is probably fair, but if he generated the white noise and this white noise isa far longer, non repeating sequence, then surely the others are "infringing"?
  A quick look shows anyone can generate their own sequence of white noise, in less than 10 lines of code:
  https://noisehack.com/generate...
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
24. Re:White noise can be copied too by dgatwood · 2018-01-05 06:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, works created by random selection without any contribution by a human author are not eligible for copyright protection. It is highly unlikely that white noise could be copyrighted even if you took someone else's white noise.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
25. Re:White noise can be copied too by Dragonslicer · 2018-01-05 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality is.
  Creativity may be the second line from the bottom, but it's still a requirement. It's the reason that the listings in a phone book aren't protected by copyright. Something that is the result of simple mechanical operations and involves no significant decisions, such as sorting names in alphabetical order, is not a creative work.
  
  If the white noise is only random frequencies created by a computer, then there was no creative effort, and the audio is no protected by copyright. If the algorithm that creates the white noise involves selecting from certain frequencies, or selecting certain frequencies more often, in order to generate "better" white noise, then it would be an interesting discussion. Most likely, a judge would have to decide if there is enough creativity involved.
26. Re:White noise can be copied too by dryeo · 2018-01-05 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think with the monkeys, it is the arrangement that is copyrighted. Much like you can't copyright a guitar playing notes, only arrangements of notes. Think of the monkeys as an instrument.
  I guess under that logic, arrangements of white noise could be copyrighted.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
27. Re: White noise can be copied too by Dragonslicer · 2018-01-05 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  George Lucas gets paid every time a company uses the word "droid," TV ads or whatever.
  I believe that's a trademark, not copyright.
28. Re:White noise can be copied too by king+neckbeard · 2018-01-05 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure that merely uploading the white noise to youtube would create enough artifacts that it would be a different permutation of white noise.
  More importantly, the similarity of all accurately labeled white noise is probably within the scope of Youtube's aggressive content ID system. So, the assumption of direct copying is unfounded.
  Also, regarding originality in regards to copyright, it was in contrast to "effort," not "creativity." Feist v. Rural ruled that the white pages phone books were not eligible for copyright because they are not original, even though they took a lot of work. It's an uphill battle arguing that white noise is more original than the phone book.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
29. Re:White noise can be copied too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, your story does NOT confirm that the silence video is copyrighted product via the court system. There are many reason why "out-of-court settlement" is done. Often times, it is from the pressure of the plaintiff and the defendant attorney folded. Anyway, if the case was not decided by a court, it is still not proven that the video is copyrighted.
30. Re: White noise can be copied too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I read the full article on this a few days ago and if you look at YouTubes panel screenshot of this the "match" for each one is like within 3-5 seconds long at most for each match. The author just let white noise generate itself so the "matches" are probably because YouTubes algorithm allows for some wiggle room and the white noise gaps in the matching "songs" just hit it by luck.
  Some possible fixes for YouTube:
  - Don't let plain white noise count as a match; or
  - If white noise does happen to match, make it binary identical and not allow any fuzziness to count
  - Only allow white noise to match if it's identical for longer periods of time, say, at least 10 or 30 seconds
31. Re:White noise can be copied too by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-01-05 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anyone in this thread said anything about unrepeatable "random selection without any contribution by a human author" -- I certainly didn't. Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.
  To be clear, I'm not taking a strong stance that something like that would be copyrightable -- just pointing out that it's not nearly as clear-cut as folks might think.
32. Re:White noise can be copied too by Holi · 2018-01-05 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  "Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement " The first line states this is not a ruling, no precedence is set by an out of court settlement.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
33. Re:White noise can be copied too by Dragonslicer · 2018-01-05 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data.
  You can't really call that the first step, since all requirements must be met in order for someone to be liable for copyright infringement. If the first thing you do is show (i.e. convince the judge) that the original isn't eligible for copyright protection, then it doesn't matter if you copied it.
34. Re:White noise can be copied too by Strider- · 2018-01-05 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on intent, I think. You could argue the same thing for John Cage's 4'33" (Four Minutes, 33 seconds) which is a orchestral piece comprising completely of rests. The basic idea is that it turns the orchestra into a performance piece, with the orchestra paging through their scores, and the only sounds present are the ambient sounds within the performance venue.
  The copyright over that score has been successfully defended, and rightfully so imho. The only problem is that it should have expired at some point.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
35. Re:White noise can be copied too by DaveV1.0 · 2018-01-05 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument. If there are an infinite number of permutations, then all versions are either independent works OR all versions are derivative works. As white noise existed as public domain for a long time before anyone got a copyright on any particular version, the burden of proof falls on the supposed copyright holder to show that the work in question violates his work and does not derive from teh public domain work. Good luck with that.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
36. Re:White noise can be copied too by DaveV1.0 · 2018-01-05 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  More accurately, it would be like taking a public domain song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming copyright over it and trying to sue anyone who also made a derivative work from the public domain song.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
37. Re:White noise can be copied too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  You'll notice the lawyer for Cage's estate says in this piece "not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which is difficult to regard as copyright under British law".
  So, even those pursuing didn't think that silence was copyrightable, just that attributing it to John Cage is probably a bad idea. Of course, this is British law. For strange edge cases like this, every jurisdiction is likely to differ.
38. Re:White noise can be copied too by dgatwood · 2018-01-05 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.
  The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible. There generally has to be at least a minimal creative component for copyright eligibility. That is, after all, the purpose of copyright—to protect creative works of authorship.
  Even if someone took the time to hand-seed the PRNG with various values and compare the calming qualities, it would still be an almost laughable stretch to argue that picking that number is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection on that particular output of a commonly available algorithm, because other people's computers will randomly choose that particular number once in a while and create that output without the supposed creativity.
  Now if somebody creates their own PRNG, that's a different story. Anything below that threshold seems dubious at best. That's not saying that some judge might not misinterpret the copyright act, or that somebody might not decide to sue in hopes of a pre-trial settlement, but the law is IMO pretty clear on the matter. Random noise cannot plausibly be copyrighted, and that is by design. Any abuse of the law that leads to any other interpretation is an indication of a flaw in the law rather than an intended outcome.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
39. Re:White noise can be copied too by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.
  The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible.
  Would that also make algorithmically-generated music not capable of copyright either? People like Brian Eno use this technique. Or is there assumed creativity in the selection of the elements of the algorithm? Or is there something copyrightable in the output. Or does creating the algorithm itself, rather than using an existing algorithm (or PRNG) make it copyrightable?
40. Re:White noise can be copied too by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  People settle out of court because they've been advised they'll lose more if it goes to trial
  
  Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
  I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
  Of course crediting the composition to John Cage/Batt rather than "Batt/Cage" might have influenced things.
  
  Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
  He apparently wrote the music for The Wombles. If I were him, I'd be terrified of some slick QC reading this out in an ominous voice as evidence of my flagrant plagiaristic tendencies
  https://www.songlyrics.com/the...
  
  Underground, overground, Wombling free
  The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
  Making good use of the things that we find
  Things that the everyday folks leave behind
  Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days
  When he wasn't behind the times
  With his map of the world
  Pick up the papers and take them to Tobermory
  Wombles are organised, work as a team
  Wombles are tidy and Wombles are clean
  Underground, overground, Wombling free
  The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
  People don't notice us, they never see
  Under their noses a Womble may be
  Womble by night and we Womble by day
  Looking for litter to trundle away
  We're so incredibly utterly devious
  Making the most of everything
  Even bottles and tins
  Pick up the pieces and make them into something new
  Is what we do
  Underground, overground, Wombling free
  The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
  Making good use of the things that we find
  Things that the everyday folks leave behind
  Emphasis mine.
  "The things that everyday folk - like for example John Cage - leave behind, Mr Batt?"
  Also in the 80's countless British children died from HIV caught from junkie's needles attempting to 'womble' without wearing CDC approved anti infection gear - two layers of latex gloves, sterilized with bleach after use, NBC suits, gas masks and so on. Ironically children so dressed would have looked a bit like Wombles.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
41. Re:White noise can be copied too by danbert8 · 2018-01-05 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Except that is a restriction on two-dimensional useful articles, three-dimensional works of artistic craftsmanship, and models. There are no such uncopyrightable limitations on WORKS OF THE PERFORMING ARTS AND SOUND RECORDINGS in 406 Limitations on copyrightability.
  White noise probably can be copyrighted under the bullshit system in which John Cage copyrighted not creating any sound:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
42. Re:White noise can be copied too by danbert8 · 2018-01-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how you can claim copyright over sitting still and not playing an instrument... I mean, the idea of calling that a "performance" is novel, but the act of not playing happens inadvertently and intentionally all the time and that does not make it infringing. As far as I am aware, the only "successful" litigation over 4'33" have been over a video recording of the "performance" and a settled without resolving the issue payment over a CD that included 1 minute of silence and had the name "Cage" on the CD.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
43. Re:White noise can be copied too by Solandri · 2018-01-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Otherwise I could just copyright the word "and" and get my free income for the rest of my life.
  In keeping with the white noise copyright claim in TFA, you should be copyrighting whitespace characters like space and tab.
44. Re:White noise can be copied too by AlwinBarni · 2018-01-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Others already explained, however I have a new and quite an interesting comparison:
  Lets imagine I published a list of English words in a random order, then (according to your logic) I could claim copyrights violation on any published book, article story etc. - just a permutation of words, right?
45. Re:White noise can be copied too by swillden · 2018-01-05 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
  I doubt anyone copied anyone. If the audio track recognition algorithm looked for exact copies, it would miss a huge percentage of actual infringement, and be trivial to work around. So it does something cleverer and looks for audio tracks that sound sufficiently alike. White noise tracks all sound alike, even if they don't have a single bit in common.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
46. Re:White noise can be copied too by ThanatosMinor · 2018-01-05 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work.
  This is true, but wouldn't it be weird if that were the case? Is one minute of white noise repeated 600 times somehow worse or measurably different from five separate one-minute clips concatenated then repeated 120 times? Is the human ear+brain discriminating enough to notice that the almost-entirely-uniform static in the first example repeats with a shorter period than the second? Wouldn't that indicate poor randomness to begin with?
47. Re:White noise can be copied too by Solandri · 2018-01-05 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author
  You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
  
  The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims. The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.
48. Re:White noise can be copied too by AlwinBarni · 2018-01-05 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for my post above - is not correct in this context, I tried to delete, but there was no way.
49. Re:White noise can be copied too by Z00L00K · 2018-01-05 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with wave form identification on white noise.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
50. Re:White noise can be copied too by dunkindave · 2018-01-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't trying to say the musician copied, just that the parent's assertion doesn't logically hold that this shows at least three of the four claimants must have copied their material since they all claim copyright infringement against the same piece. I understand the fuzzy matching problem that probably caused the claims.
51. Re:White noise can be copied too by dgatwood · 2018-01-05 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Creating the algorithm makes it copyrightable. The creativity is in developing an algorithm that produces an interesting output, and therefore they used significant creativity in constructing the output, albeit indirectly (but IMO no more indirectly than, for example, using an electronic synthesizer that uses algorithms to make note sounds when you press a key).
  A somewhat more complicated and interesting question is whether those works are copyrightable if they publish the algorithms that created them before they publish the music. At the point where the output becomes reproducible by anyone, is the output still a creative work, or is it merely the algorithm itself that is really the creative work? Clearly you can use copyright to prevent reproducing that work by not allowing others to copy the algorithm or by deliberately preventing the use of the specific values that you used in your own work. But if you waive that right, do you also implicitly waive the right to those works that you programmatically constructed by using that algorithm? That's the point where the lines get blurry, and it becomes legally interesting, IMO. :-)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
52. Re:White noise can be copied too by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-01-05 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The key element in the case was this:
  
  Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
  Had Batt not credited "Cage", Riddle himself suggests that he would not have had a case. In other words, it is Batt's intent to quote Cage that was the violation, not the silence itself.
53. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-05 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it.
  https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...
  All white noise is not the same. It has characteristics. I'm not claiming that necessarily qualifies it for copyright, but the "it's just random numbers" argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
54. Re: White noise can be copied too by Zero__Kelvin · 2018-01-05 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  White Noise is by definition random. If there is a version of the signal that is more or less soothing, then by definition it isn't white noise. If 5 companies are claiming this recording infringes then either all or wrong or one is wrong, so unless they all go after each other they can't in good faith argue that they believe their claims. There is literally no way they can win this if he doesn't cave.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
55. Re: White noise can be copied too by Zero__Kelvin · 2018-01-05 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Even if that happened they are either falsely marketing their product as white noise (it isn't random) which opens them up to a class action lawsuit or there is no way to prove it because it is random.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
56. Re:White noise can be copied too by jellomizer · 2018-01-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  They both didn't bother creating a random seed.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
57. Re:White noise can be copied too by thegarbz · 2018-01-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it
  So we're talking about a random number generator that is generating repeating set of patterns of random numbers? Or you think someone's white noise is acoustically different to someone elses?
58. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
  Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...
  I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.
  
  The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.
  Of course there is.
  http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/c...
  
  The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.
  No, it doesn't. The way it works on Youtube is that if you dispute the claim, the submitter has to respond with legal action within a given period or the claim is removed. No proof is necessary to dispute the claim.
59. Re:White noise can be copied too by Moof123 · 2018-01-05 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  What if both sources use white noise generated using the same LFSR taps from publically available sources (i.e. match and engineering texts), or both used the same software program to generate the psuedo-random samples? Most white noise is far from truly as random as you think if you dig into the details.
  Should white noise from non-novel generators even be copyrightable at all?
60. Re: White noise can be copied too by serviscope_minor · 2018-01-05 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  White noise != Gaussian White noise has a flat spectrum not shaped like a Gaussian.
  Gaussian doesn't mean the spectrum is a Gaussian, it means the numbers are drawn from a Gaussian.
  If you draw numbers at random from a Gaussian distribution, a uniform distribution or even the discrete distribution +/- 1, the result is white noise.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
61. Re: White noise can be copied too by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-05 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  What about all the wombling deaths he caused? Surely you agree he can be hanged for those?
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
62. Re:White noise can be copied too by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-01-05 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually,Âworks created by random selection without any contribution by a human author are not eligible for copyright protection.
  You'd think that, but I wouldn't be so sure. If birds singing in the background of a nature video can supposedly be, then why not white noise.
63. Re:White noise can be copied too by Notabadguy · 2018-01-05 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
  Youtube doesn't care.
  I used to make songs - original compositions, written by me, sung by me, uploaded to youtube and linked around the web in places where my music was relevant. It didn't stop DMCAs or from youtube automatically taking down my work because the faggots at Warner Brothers claimed it was theirs.
  The protest system is ridiculous, the assumption of guilt is ridiculous, and I stopped uploading content.
64. Re:White noise can be copied too by david_thornley · 2018-01-05 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose I hold the copyright to something, and you post something on YouTube. In the DMCA request, I have to hold the copyright or represent the copyright holder, and that's under pain of perjury. If I claim copyright on Frozen, for example, I'm committing perjury and that can send me to prison. I also have to claim that you've infringed on my copyright, and that's just required to be good faith, which in practice means absolutely nothing. I can legally claim copyright on this Slashdot post, which I do have copyright on, and say that your cat video on YouTube infringes. I'm completely wrong, but it isn't clear to me I've done anything illegal.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
65. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-05 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm completely wrong, but it isn't clear to me I've done anything illegal.
  Ignorance of the law is not a defense. We are bound by laws whether we've had someone explain them to us, or not. Thank god.
66. Re:White noise can be copied too by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-01-05 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think it does make sense to argue that the piece intentionally was crafted in a specific manner that it would appear to be a piece of John Cage's work. Which is at least a leg to stand on in the court of law. I expect a song called Billy Gene by Micheal Jackson that sounds really similar to a particular old hit might run into trouble as well. Arguing "oh, it's an homage to a great artist I admire" may not be a great defense.
67. Re:White noise can be copied too by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-01-05 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose. But that seems to imply an argument that this arrangement of white noise is similar to that arrangement of white noise by specifiable nameable qualitiies, that do not devolve into a claim on all white noise.
68. Re: White noise can be copied too by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-01-05 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  I almost snorted my soda there. Props!
69. Re:White noise can be copied too by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-01-05 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  If I were a juror, I would seriously consider an argument along the lines of "This white noise is very similar to that white noise. He are some frequency distributions. Compare to these other examples of white noise. This specific similarities are not arbitrary. This is infringement because it is purposefully close copying." But that requires naming identifiable properties beyond "I own white noise".
70. Re:White noise can be copied too by TheGratefulNet · 2018-01-05 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  White noise tracks all sound alike
  #whitenoisematters
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
71. Re:White noise can be copied too by dryeo · 2018-01-05 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I could see it if they were playing a beat with white noise, but plain white noise, no. Even a straight recording of monkeys shouldn't be copyright-able. Things are insane, even this message will be protected for 50-70 years after I drop dead and it isn't exactly a creative work and I'd write it even with no copyright.
  Copyright is supposed to advance learning, not be a means of collecting rent on culture for ever.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
72. Re:White noise can be copied too by freeze128 · 2018-01-05 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Encrypted data is indistinguishable from white noise. Without the proper decryption key, you wouldn't even know it was data, yet encrypted data can be copyrighted. Now is the white noise you hear actually random background white noise, or is it encrypted data? YouTube's algorithm cannot tell, so it has to err on the side of caution.
73. Re:White noise can be copied too by EMN13 · 2018-01-05 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think you should consider whether those guidelines are really followed in contemplative silence. Around 4'33" would do just nicely.
74. Re:White noise can be copied too by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-05 20:37 · Score: 2
  
  And currently they are all stealing his money. Money earned during the claim isn't returned, it stays with the people who made the fraudulent claims.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
75. Re:White noise can be copied too by SuricouRaven · 2018-01-05 21:49 · Score: 2
  
  No. All white noise *is* the same - it has to have a uniform distribution of frequency intensity. What that site generates isn't white noise, it's colored noise. Off-white noise.
76. Re: White noise can be copied too by joemck · 2018-01-06 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Does this mean I could upload a one second long video of silence, pay YouTube for the auto Content Match thing, and have them mass flag any videos that contain a second or longer gap of silence? It's a clear exact copy of my entire work, even if you look at the waveform.
77. Re: White noise can be copied too by JoeyRox · 2018-01-06 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you think copying a book whose pages are all empty is the same as copying a book whose pages are filled.
78. Re:White noise can be copied too by david_thornley · 2018-01-08 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of the facts can be. I can legally express an opinion which is completely wrong.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
79. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-08 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  You've been trolled by the clickbait title.
  There's white noise the mathematical definition, then there's white noise the commonly understood definition. White noise, to most people, means background noise. People refer to nature sounds as white noise.
  Common sense would point to the fact that what's copyrighted here is a particular mix of white noise, not pure random numbers in the audible frequency range. That doesn't make the DCMA claim valid ... which by the way it wasn't. The video is still up meaning the DCMA claim was either dropped or the claimer didn't respond in time (the former is more likely since not enough time has passed).
  I'm guessing what happened here is that the the white noise video was tagged by automated system, and was quickly dropped upon review. Nothing to see here. Move on folks.
80. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-08 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that it is not a "legal" defense tells you all you need to know about the "justice system."
  Sure does. It tells me that it's practical. How exactly would things work if everyone could simply claim "I didn't know that" whenever they were accused of a crime? Pretty hard in most cases to prove what's in someone's brain. Or maybe we convict people are not based on how good they can fake stupidity.
  In this case, yeah, if you make a false DCMA claim, I'm good with raking you over the coals if you are too dumb to look into what you are even doing beforehand.
81. Re:White noise can be copied too by farble1670 · 2018-01-08 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  And as a side note, no one is going to jail for filing a false DCMA claim. In practice, public apologies patch things up (for a first offense).
I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR by TomR+teh+Pirate · 2018-01-05 04:52 · Score: 1

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is an excellent source of information and white noise. All you scientists need to cease and desist, or pay me money. My goodness the world is getting stupid...
1. Re:I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR by Tablizer · 2018-01-05 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Scientists didn't create CMBR, God did. I'd like to see Google and music companies sue God.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
It has also happened to me by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 04:52 · Score: 1

I set up a new youtube page one time and ran a live stream test to it. The page ended up recording and publishing the default white noise video. Then it was automatically flagged for posting copywritten material, then the page was basically unable to upload new content for a long time due to the "strike" against a new page lol. I ended up deleting it and recreating it. This all happened in the span of a few hours but it had something to do with live streaming white noise.
1. Re:It has also happened to me by tsqr · 2018-01-05 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Then it was automatically flagged for posting copywritten material
  Seriously? Whose writes were you accused of violating (or was it really copyreading you were accused of)?
fool me once by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 04:52 · Score: 1

like I'm going to click a link to "bbc.com"
you guys used to get me all the time with the gaotse links
not this time
Re:DMCA requires this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 04:53 · Score: 1

The general plebs can promote whatever they want, they'll still be bent over by Our Betters. The oligarchs know best, citizen. You should trust the studios and record companies will do the responsible thing with unchecked power and on-allegation takedowns.
Or don't trust them; it doesn't really matter.
Why is he concerned exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 04:54 · Score: 1

"I am intrigued and perplexed that YouTube's automated content ID system will pattern-match white noise with multiple claims,"
What is so "perplexing" about YouTube's automated system actually working properly and accurately identifying that his white noise is similar to other white noise sounds? It sounds like it's working properly.
Check the entropy by cellocgw · 2018-01-05 04:55 · Score: 1

Shannon would be (I suspect) greatly amused by this infringement claim.
OTOH, perhaps I can write a short Adagio&Fugue, and claim infringement by anyone else who writes a piece in adagio-fugue form!

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Re:Check the entropy by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2018-01-05 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I've already copyrighted sine waves, middle C, and 3/4 time. Your fugue would infringe on my intellectual property.
2. Re:Check the entropy by russotto · 2018-01-05 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about Adagio&Fugue, but I'd bet anything containing the first note, or certainly the first three bars, of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor garners many infringement notices.
Reminds me of an album of silence by flatulus · 2018-01-05 04:59 · Score: 1

Google is not being helpful for me today. I have a recollection of some artist publishing an entire album consisting of silence, in an act of malicious compliance in order to fulfill a multiple album contract. Does anyone know what this might have been? I did find "Sleepify", but I don't think this was what I'm remembering.
1. Re:Reminds me of an album of silence by SuiteSisterMary · 2018-01-05 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  You might be thinking about 4'33.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
2. Re:Reminds me of an album of silence by EvilSS · 2018-01-05 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think this is what you are thinking of: https://www.classicalmpr.org/blog/classical-notes/2015/12/02/can-silence-be-copyrighted
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
3. Re:Reminds me of an album of silence by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  You mean if someone tells to Shut the F up, i can answer "Sorry, I can't, silence is copyrighted"?
science is more "hmmm" than "EUREAKA!" by Thud457 · 2018-01-05 05:00 · Score: 1

That brings to mind chapter 3 of Lem's "His Master's Voice" where Swanson was sued because his random number tables weren't as random as he purported them to be.

Also, the estate of John Cage just took an interest...

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by thegreatbob · 2018-01-05 05:01 · Score: 1

Ceci n'est pas une commentaire.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
I was hit too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:06 · Score: 1

I was hit with copyright claims too, the music I was using was Youtube's own royalty free music!
The particularly shitty bits:
- There was no notification email to let me know they were stealing all my revenue.
- The link to report back to contact Youtube about it was 404 not found.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by Nidi62 · 2018-01-05 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:DMCA requires this by Entrope · 2018-01-05 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.
what is next - silence? by kiviQr · 2018-01-05 05:15 · Score: 2

please tell me there are no patents on 10h of silence!
1. Re:what is next - silence? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-01-05 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  John Cage's lawyers would like to have a talk with you...
  Exactly!
Re:Whats the correlation? by Entrope · 2018-01-05 05:17 · Score: 1

Of course it correlates with the other white noise. All signals in the same domain correlate with each other. The real question is how strongly they correlate with each other, and over what duration.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by DickBreath · 2018-01-05 05:20 · Score: 1

Infinite monkeys at the keyboard and lining up at the copyright office to register their works. Now, how to make that approach scalable.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:26 · Score: 2, Funny

better than having to listen to their poetry
He needs to fight the claims by eclectro · 2018-01-05 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
Here is an expired patent describing such a device. And there were a number of devices before that. And schematic diagrams and circuits in magazines for white noise/sleep generators long ago.
It's a shame that people are so full of themselves that they think they are truly that special that they somehow made a unique creation here. But actually it's likely worse in that people think they found an easy target and want to take what they can with a bad faith claim.
This is a time where counter claims under the DMCA need to be filed against these bad faith claims and collect damages to help prevent further abuse.
Maybe even make google a co-defendant.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
1. Re:He needs to fight the claims by DRJlaw · 2018-01-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
  I'd like to see that alleged ruling, particularly since "patentable" and "patented" mean two quite different things, you've linked to prior art that would show that any subsequent devices producing those sounds may not be "patentable," and you haven't shown that the sounds were produced by a device that was "patented."
  That's even before reaching the problem that a particular recording of sound is not a patentable item.
2. Re:He needs to fight the claims by swillden · 2018-01-05 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
  I understand these words, but they make no legal sense when strung together this way. Patent and copyright are two entirely different things. Patents cover ideas, copyrights cover expressions fixed in a tangible medium. I see no way that any patentable item could ever be covered by copyright, or how expiration of any patent could in any way be relevant to any copyright.
  The case in question is a copyright issue. Assuming he made the white noise himself (whatever sort of machine he used to make it), and assuming that white noise is copyrightable at all (which I strongly doubt), then he owns the copyright in his recording. The fact that Google's algorithm found that it is highly similar to tracks owned by others (again, assuming they actually can be copyrighted) does not mean that his track is an infringing copy, just that it sounds similar.
  Anyway, yes, he should file a dispute and explain the situation.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Brown noise by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:30 · Score: 1

Not to be confused with a Brown note, a mythical sound that causes a human to defecate upon hearing it.
Youtube own provided music by slazzy · 2018-01-05 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was hit with a copyright claim using Youtube own provided music! What really sucks: - I got no notification email to let me know they started stealing all my revenue - The link to contest the action was 404 not found

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
1. Re:Youtube own provided music by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  We don't care. We don't have to. We're the search company!
2. Re:Youtube own provided music by swillden · 2018-01-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Did YouTube give you a license to copy and distribute the music they provided for you to use in your video?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
3. Re:Youtube own provided music by Z00L00K · 2018-01-05 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  I just tells you to not add any music to your videos. Many videos that have music added is actually pretty annoying.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
4. Re:Youtube own provided music by misnohmer · 2018-01-05 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure it wasn't a phishing attempt to get you to click on the link (maybe 404 was after loading a malicious script in your browser, or maybe the hacker's site was down by the time you clicked it)?
If more than one person claims a video by rsilvergun · 2018-01-05 05:35 · Score: 1

Nobody gets it and all adverts are removed. Jim Sterling useless this trick to prevent Konami and Nintendo from claiming his vids (which don't have ads) and putting ads on them.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Copyrighting the Big Bang by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-01-05 05:39 · Score: 1

Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
If that is true in the TV frequency bands, then I would assume that the same is true of the audio band as well.
So, essentially, these yay-hoos are attempting to "Copyright" a naturally-occurring (or Divinely-Created) phenomona; which I am pretty damned sure is not allowed, even under the brain-dead DMCA.
1. Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang by wonkey_monkey · 2018-01-05 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
  Only a small percentage of it.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-01-05 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
  Only a small percentage of it.
  So, does "God" get at least co-author credit?
3. Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang by asylumx · 2018-01-05 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  He gets a 10% royalty....
4. Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-01-05 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  He gets a 10% royalty....
  I see what you did there. ;-)
5. Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang by Moof123 · 2018-01-05 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Background noise of the universe is 3 Kelvin (K). Your TV antenna sees the ground as much as the air, so sees about 150 K (half from the 300 K ground and half from the 3 K sky). The first amplifier is probably 5-6 dB NF, so it has a noise temperature of about 800 K. So out of the total noise temperature of 950 K, about 0.15% is the background noise of the universe.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2018-01-05 05:46 · Score: 1

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.
Aww, leave off. He seems to be having tremendous difficulty with his lifestyle.
Re:you are an idiot by Falos · 2018-01-05 06:05 · Score: 1

> claims require evidence
Not only has this been waived to shit for the oligarchs, but commoners have also stopped bothering.
Further info needed by forrie · 2018-01-05 06:14 · Score: 1

I surmise they used a digital signature to determine whether it was a clip from something they published. For example, they could have embedded something inaudible to mark the track. Barring that, it would be interesting to see where they got their sample(s) from, too. White noise is such a generic term -- how can they define and differentiate how their "white noise" is different from any other? For that matter, is there even a legal definition of "white noise"? LOL
It sounds frivolous to me, akin to copyrighting the sound of wind blowing through a tree.
Absolutely absurd by Rick+Schumann · 2018-01-05 06:32 · Score: 1

You can't possibly 'copyright' a block of pseudorandom numbers. That's what white noise is, in the digital sense. ANYONE can generate white noise digitally, it's easy. I suppose you could claim someone copied your file full of random numbers, but spectrally it's going to be exactly the same regardless of whether you copied it or generated it yourself.
Re:DMCA requires this by swillden · 2018-01-05 07:12 · Score: 1

The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.
More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners. The strict DMCA process would be a pain for content owners (but the big ones would still do it!) and would result in Google taking videos down completely, rather than just reassigning revenue. The system isn't perfect, not only because the automated matching is imperfect, but also because it doesn't serve small content owners as well as big ones. But for the majority of cases it's a better solution than merely following the law.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Fart. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 07:17 · Score: 1

What next, people issue DMCA claims if I record my own fart because someone thinks it's similar to their own "Trump Dump?"
Bah! by Excelcia · 2018-01-05 07:42 · Score: 1

By the definition of copyright law in the US this can't possibly infringe in the first place. It sounds exactly like Trump's speeches and tweets, and by law as works of the federal government those are in the public domain.
No claim on pre-origin by TheHawke · 2018-01-05 07:42 · Score: 1

The creation of white noise precedes everyone in this room, even their ancestors, hell even the ancestors of the dinosaurs heard it. White noise was created at time 0.1 of the universe as we know it when one atom of matter met one atom of antimatter. There's no claim on naturally created noise, there can't be.

--
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Re:you are an idiot by Shotgun · 2018-01-05 07:52 · Score: 1

Citation needed.
Sorry, dude. Couldn't resist.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:DMCA requires this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 08:00 · Score: 1

The DMCA doesn't allow for take downs to occur without actual evidence. They are attempting to commit fraud by submitting false claims and should be sued or jailed.
I LIKE SHORT SONGS by Thud457 · 2018-01-05 08:07 · Score: 1

I much prefer the arrangement 2'33" , not recorded by Black Flag in 1983.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:I LIKE SHORT SONGS by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-05 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Punk rock songs seem to work best under three minutes.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
2. Re:I LIKE SHORT SONGS by Hognoxious · 2018-01-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  I have that as my ringtone when my phone is in silent mode.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:DMCA requires this by Hognoxious · 2018-01-05 08:20 · Score: 1

The strict DMCA process would be a pain for content owners
I'm playing a really tiny violin.
My own composition, before you ask. Not that it's stopped them before.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:DMCA requires this by farble1670 · 2018-01-05 08:21 · Score: 2

More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.
To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by thegarbz · 2018-01-05 08:41 · Score: 1

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I don't say this often but... thank god for Slashdot's lack of Unicode and emoji support.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by msk · 2018-01-05 09:14 · Score: 1

Someone had better feed a sandwich to that dog.
Bizzare by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-01-05 12:07 · Score: 2

I can generate white noise easily, and it has been doable for a long, long time. Back in the 1970's I used white noise generators. Now I just use a computer software program to get close, and if I need something better, a card would do.
I think these folks trying to demand that they have the sole ability to utilize white noise might think twice about trying to assert that theory, because they will be set upon like wildebeests crossing a crocodile filled river.
It's pretty much a signal with zero mean and statistically uncorrelated finite variance. If these people can prove that he somehow infringed upon any rights they have they will have to prove that their signal isn't white noise, and prove that he used their non-white noise signal.
This is right up there with the time that Harley Davidson tried to copyright the sound their motorcycles make. They lost that case http://articles.latimes.com/20...

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
White/Pink Noise generator projects in magazines by Traf-O-Data-Hater · 2018-01-05 12:41 · Score: 1

Back in the 70s electronics magazines such as Practical Electronics used to run project articles on building simple white and pink noise generators, I recall they only used two or three transistors, a 9V battery and were built in little project boxes with a switch for white/pink and a headphone jack.
One could find or build one of those original circuits, record its output and put it on Youtube.
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr by Hognoxious · 2018-01-05 15:13 · Score: 1

It's got to be tough - PHP and Ruby came along after he spent all those years honing his Perl skills.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:DMCA requires this by slashrio · 2018-01-06 00:34 · Score: 1

populace, you idiot

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Re:DMCA requires this by swillden · 2018-01-06 03:53 · Score: 1

More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.
To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.
Sure, it works better for everyone, including Google.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:DMCA requires this by swillden · 2018-01-06 03:55 · Score: 1

The DMCA doesn't allow for take downs to occur without actual evidence.
Go read the law. The DMCA requires takedowns to occur without evidence. If a host receives a DMCA takedown notice, which is nothing more than a letter asserting ownership, the host is required to take the material down. Of course, the uploader can file a counter-notice, in which case the host can (but is not required to) put the material back up. And then the claimant and the uploader go to court, where actual evidence comes into play.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:DMCA requires this by swillden · 2018-01-06 03:56 · Score: 1

You ignored the rest of the sentence you quoted. You should read it, since it's the real point.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re: DMCA requires this by swillden · 2018-01-06 17:46 · Score: 1

I'm curious, how does one file a counternotice to Googletube? I'll go to court all day. Fuck it I'm bored.
Same as anywhere else. Registered letter from your attorney.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.