Youtube nukes 7 hours' worth of science symposium audio due to background music during lunch break


#1

[Permalink]


#2

I’ve found this pretty irritating and somewhat arbitrary in other videos - but if they own the original videos, why don’t they just edit out the lunchbreak music? In other news, I may now start playing copywritten music whereever I go, in an attempt to stop anything dumb I say in future appearing on Youtube…


#3

Great idea… Until you get sued for public performance royalties.


#4

Well thank goodness these pirates didn’t get away with their scheme to rob somebody!


#5

Screw YouTube and their algorithm for finding copyrighted audio. The policy causes more trouble than anything… when game developers, the people who OWN the IP suggest people streaming to turn off audio as a way to avoid the robo-muting there’s a problem.


#6

There should be some sort of penalty for false positives.

Also, aren’t there streaming providers that don’t do this crap?


#7


#8

Tangent: so this is the kind of thing that really bugs me - crappy copyright enforcement and senseless policies. And it happens all the time. Today for instance I was excited to learn that DirecTV has this app that lets you play your recorded programs on any PC on the same network. But they’ve implemented it in a way that stops playback on any PC that has a video card that doesn’t stop screen-grabbing. Well both my PCs don’t have that, apparently, so now I can’t use that service. I’m sure there’s a workaround but I can’t be bothered. Pirates can though, which is why there’s no shortage of video on TPB. So the only thing that the DRM stops is honest folk like me, and all it does is encourage us to seek illegal sources for our video. And of course once we’ve figured that out, why do we even need DirecTV at all? Silly business model really; when they outlaw DRM-free streaming video, only criminals… well, you know the rest.

/rant


#9

So basically, all you have to do to silence a political speech is to play popeye the sailor man at some appropriate point?

Result.


#10

If you don’t like what Youtube is doing, you can find another video site or host them on your own site. But then you wouldn’t be ale to use reams of free storage and bandwidth. Youtube has too much content to have anybody go through it manually, and it’s too easy for people to just repost an actual infringing video after the ones they are notified about get taken down. There has to be some kind of automated algorithm.


#11

So re-uploading the video minus the “lunch break” is out of the question?

As interesting as a 7-hour-long video is, I’d suggest breaking it up into chunks for each presenter just so it’s easier for everyone to find and listen to on Youtube.

And this isn’t really Youtube’s fault; if the DJ didn’t have permission to “record a performance of those songs” (which it sounds like he/she didn’t have), then it is infringement as per the law. Write your congressmen/women if you disagree.


#12

Or Happy Birthday, for god’s sake. Sheesh.


#13

[quote=“zebra_hunter, post:11, topic:46949”]As interesting as a 7-hour-long video is, I’d suggest breaking it up into chunks for each presenter just so it’s easier for everyone to find and listen to on Youtube.[/quote]Indeed, this is rather baffling. The only Youtube videos I’ve ever heard of that are that long are ambient loops.


#14

“And this isn’t really Youtube’s fault;”

Totally, it’s not like YouTube’s ContentID system goes above and beyond what is required by the DMCA…

Oh, wait, it totally does! Never mind my earlier agreement. It is YouTube’s fault for caving to the silly demands of the entertainment industry.

Also, did the DJ make the recording in the first place? And how would ContentID know if the person making the recording had permission when it doesn’t check for that at all?

I at least do agree with the suggestion to write your congressperson if you disagree, and to include a campaign donation at least equivalent to, if not exceeding, the amount provided by the entertainment industry lobbyists.

And how does ContentID automagically consider the four factors to determine if the use is fair use which the law states should be considered before claiming copyright infringement? Oh right, it doesn’t because this isn’t a DMCA process, because, again, YouTube/Google caved to the silly demands of the entertainment industry…


#15

Maybe the Riaa and Mpaa are trying to make absolutely everything impossible until the public gives in to a pre-clearance copymight system.


#16

How about when it’s not as per the law?

I had one video where I’d used a CC-licensed performance of Bach’s Prelude in C as a background. Blocked by Sony BMG… That’s an interesting copyright claim, don’t you think?

If the legal system is supposed to be built upon presumption of innocence, don’t you think the burden of proof should be on the accuser? And shouldn’t there be, given the ridiculous amounts that they claim for these things, some way of punishing those making fraudulent claims?


#17

Because we have no other copy of the video. We live-streamed it with Hangout on Air, and trusted YouTube to record it.


#18

Hi Ben,
the music was played by a professional DJ. I’m sure he had appropriate license(s) for the public performance.


#19

@zebra_hunter @Jorpho I’d be happy to cut out the lunch break if that was possible, but we can’t re-upload the video because we have no other copy. We were live-streaming it using Hangout on Air, and trusting YouTube to do the recording. We haven’t yet gone through the fine print of our DJ’s licenses, but neither did YouTube. He is a professional DJ. Certainly, I could have unplugged the stream audio during lunch, but I just had no idea this would be an issue.


#20

Intellectual Property™, helping the little guy and encouraging creative innovation since 1867 never.