Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
rcmaehl

The internet gets dry-docked - US Copyright office proposes to remove or reduce copyright safe harbors from Online Service Providers

Recommended Posts

On 5/23/2020 at 7:20 AM, VegetableStu said:

required viewing:

 

 

I actually subbed to mumbo, i still think it is outrageous what happened to him. Because of one sample that makes literally a few seconds of his videos they took all of his revenue on those videos. Now that is literally theft..... I think it would be a perfect time to cut back on the copyright holders powers to abuse the system as they see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I actually subbed to mumbo, i still think it is outrageous what happened to him. Because of one sample that makes literally a few seconds of his videos they took all of his revenue on those videos. Now that is literally theft..... I think it would be a perfect time to cut back on the copyright holders powers to abuse the system as they see fit.

Sampling is one of those things where I believe no copyright should be permitted, since samples are part of all digital audio workstation software. Unless you're physically sampling dialog, any musical instrument sample should not be in copyright unless it's taken from a physically unique analog instrument (eg a homemade instrument that you can't physically make with off-the-shelf materials in 10 minutes.) This goes double for "synth"'s, since any synth can produce the same sounds given the same input variables. You can replicate a Moog entirely in software, and moog even sells an app that does that.

 

I'm not sure what the exact sample in dispute was here, but that is one of those cases where "only the original copyright holder can make a claim" would be needed (eg the artist, or the estate of the artist) , the one who licensed the content can't override them. Now if it does happen to be true, that the publisher owns the copyright to the song, and the one Mumbo Jumbo licensed didn't happen to clear it correctly (or at all) , that really should have been a dispute between the two intermediaries, not Mumbo Jumbo and Warner Chapelle. I've actually encountered something like this nearly every time I involved music with Youtube. I always use music that I'm absolutely certain is PD, or copyright-free when not dealing with games, but usually what happens is someone inevitably has a copyright claim on it it because they used it first on youtube.

 

As a really fun example that people should try, just to see it from the creator's point of view. Start a youtube stream on youtube account you don't upload videos to. Then just play your music playlist while doing anything, 30 seconds at a time. Watch how nothing happens until you end the stream. Then suddenly you will get multiple copyright claims, sometimes for the exact same music, easily hitting a dozen claims after maybe 5 or so songs that you only used 5-10% of. It's literately unsafe to have any music, what-so-ever, at any volume, and stream on youtube, twitch, etc. You have to seek out music that is known to be royalty-free, free to use commercially, or write the music yourself using only synthetic instruments (eg chiptunes, synths), or classic analog instruments (guitar, piano, flute, trumpet) that don't sample anything. Or if you just don't care about making money on youtube, let the claims stand and do nothing, hopefully nothing you upload goes viral.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kisai said:

You would hope. But some people view Youtube as a dumping ground for any random video they found/stole from another site, or as a way to archive music/videos they themselves personally ripped, but didn't get permission, under the basis of "better to forgive than forget"

 

 

 

If someone wants to upload a video that outright violates copyright (like a music video) then it will still be targetable, they just won't be able to make any money for the video until the CR material is removed.  I think that is am much fairer approach than swapping revenue to the complainant without review.  IF the uploader can't remove the content because it is all CR like a music video then they had no rights to it int he first place so they are losing nothing of their own work by not being able to reupload it.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is certainly going to backfire.


Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 7 2700X @ 4.2Ghz          Case: Antec P8     PSU: G.Storm GS850                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition @ 2Ghz

                                                                                                                             

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

If someone wants to upload a video that outright violates copyright (like a music video) then it will still be targetable, they just won't be able to make any money for the video until the CR material is removed.  I think that is am much fairer approach than swapping revenue to the complainant without review.  IF the uploader can't remove the content because it is all CR like a music video then they had no rights to it int he first place so they are losing nothing of their own work by not being able to reupload it.

Honestly, what would solve a lot of problems on Youtube alone would be to quarantine new video uploads to "private only" for 24 hours and give it enough time to get content id reviewed before switching it to public. If it gets something that would normally result in losing the revenue, it would require the uploader to do a "yes, that's fine, I understand I will not receive any revenue for this video", and youtube will never take the video down due to a ContentId flag before making it public. If it passes with no flags, it can go public immediately. If it would trip a flag that normally results in a strike, then the user gets a chance to withdraw/delete the video without receiving the strike, unless the account is flagged as a throw-away (eg the only activity on it is uploading that video.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×