Copyright YouTube rules madness

Comments

  • This world is keeping stranger and stranger, and money is behind all of it.

    I like the comparison about movie schools not being able to show, reenact or discuss actual movies.

  • Thats what happens when Youtube no longer means “You” . and they forgot who made them the platform they are.

  • It's "copy right" gone "copy wrong".

    We see similar constraints with products that use "sampling". I'm imagining @Virsyn working through the exposure of licensing for SF2 and SFZ based packing when they think: just let them find their own samples.

    When I make a good instrument in AudioLayer, I think... do I have the right to share this? And I usually think "No, I don't." I recorded from Apps or found samples with clearly stated
    terms of use.

    Making money with media is still a legal minefield of conflicting rights.

  • Now imagine it is even worse in the EU now, because there all this has to be done “automatically” when a video is uploaded, else YouTube will have to pay millions to Jean-Claude Juncker or “go to jail”. 😉

    Yeah I can’t really say what I think about most of this because I’m also here as a company representative, but... yeeeeaaaahhh... lots of shady thoughts! 😉

  • @SevenSystems said:
    Now imagine it is even worse in the EU now, because there all this has to be done “automatically” when a video is uploaded, else YouTube will have to pay millions to Jean-Claude Juncker or “go to jail”. 😉

    Yeah I can’t really say what I think about most of this because I’m also here as a company representative, but... yeeeeaaaahhh... lots of shady thoughts! 😉

    ... like inofficially paying youtube filter developers for filtering what I want :D
    Dumb people buy more stuff I guess. Education doesn't help :o

  • You don't need a criminal lawyer, you need a criminal... Lawyer.

    Better call Saul!

  • It's time for www2

  • @SevenSystems said:
    Now imagine it is even worse in the EU now, because there all this has to be done “automatically” when a video is uploaded, else YouTube will have to pay millions to Jean-Claude Juncker or “go to jail”. 😉

    Yeah I can’t really say what I think about most of this because I’m also here as a company representative, but... yeeeeaaaahhh... lots of shady thoughts! 😉

    Don’t think so. YouTube will stay overnight with the people in charge will get some special treatments 🤭 ooops did I say that out loud? But you get the idea... some nice contracts and nothing will happen there.

    But the Paul Davids video is sick as it can get. Poor world of latecapitalism 🙈

  • Latest example:

  • I had a youtube copyright violation filed against me for a video of my own original music being performed in my own home studio... After that, I stopped uploading videos.

    OP is right, Youtube is a strange place.

  • Two words: Fair use.

  • As long as they leave my Beatles/Prince mashups alone, I'm cool!

  • edited April 8

    @McD said:
    It's "copy right" gone "copy wrong".

    We see similar constraints with products that use "sampling". I'm imagining @Virsyn working through the exposure of licensing for SF2 and SFZ based packing when they think: just let them find their own samples.

    When I make a good instrument in AudioLayer, I think... do I have the right to share this? And I usually think "No, I don't." I recorded from Apps or found samples with clearly stated
    terms of use.

    Making money with media is still a legal minefield of conflicting rights.

    Open standards are the future of music.

    SFZ is an open standard you can read about it in this Sound On Sound article. The issues then become one of having rights to the samples used by an SFZ file and what SFZ opcodes a particular SFZ player supports.

    I don’t think it’s that hard to read an app’s terms of use to see if you can use it as a source for commercial music. Being able to use it as a source for samples is another question, as is being able to distribute an SFZ file with the samples. Clearly you could always distribute the SFZ file and people can supply their own samples as you’ve suggested.

    For AudioLayer, I think the issue is more one of adding the extra programming to support an SFZ player rather than legal issues as they already support EXS24.

    Auria Pro’s Lyra sampler instrument supports both EXS24 and SFZ. Stagelight supports SFZ as does Audio Evolution.

    On a more basic level if you produce a track and publish it, currently only the posted content is evaluated. If more apps depend upon being able to distribute music produced with them, presumably media content providers could develop a system whereby they can monitor the media content used to produce the track. During the import of media into a project, it could be scanned through a filter to make sure it’s compliant with copyright. The media content providers could apply pressure upon app developers by only supplying access to their content to apps which agree to such a copyright checking filter.

    Presumably media providers could step up their game by allowing content uploaded from apps which meet their copyright standard checks onto social media platforms in a seamless way whereas apps which don’t would be subject to filtering by the social media platform. The social media platform may decide to prohibit or charge extra for doing their own copyright check of your content.

    Even if music creation apps do opt out of adding a copyright filter, the music content providers could put pressure on distributors to use such a system by scrutinizing music that doesn’t use their copyright filter and trying to hold the distributors responsible for any deficiencies. The easiest solution for distributors would then be for them to adopt a content filter into their submission process to minimize their liability.

    The question then becomes one of the appeal process for music rejected by the copyright filter. Small producers would clearly have an uphill battle against the united, organized, and well funded media content providers. Will they go so far as to generate musical content to simply lock up as much musical creativity as they can in their web of influence? Tech companies currently do this with patents to try to gain a competitive advantage.

    Are we headed towards a future where the work of musicians is constantly checked through out the creation and distribution process to make sure they’re not violating copyrights? Will this result in a defacto tax on distributing music as content providers are able to control the legal and thereby economic environment for music production?

  • @SevenSystems :Yes, I just got a PM message from the mighty Korg Kross Jedi, “synthsaurus” as he’s known on YouTube regarding the nightmarish article 13.

  • @InfoCheck said:

    I don’t think it’s that hard to read an app’s terms of use to see if you can use it as a source for commercial music. Being able to use it as a source for samples is another question, as is being able to distribute an SFZ file with the samples. Clearly you could always distribute the SFZ file and people can supply their own samples as you’ve suggested.

    I'm trying to understand this part of your post.

    Does this mean that there are iOS "Instrument or Synth" Apps that use copyrighted samples to make sounds, and music made using the sounds from certain specific Apps cannot be redistributed for sale?

    If that's true, I'd like to find a list of such iOS Apps so I can avoid ever using them.

  • its simple dont use other people shit as a music producer I have had to do this many of time with people using my music in there videos.

  • I dont care if its one second or a remake its not your shit so dont put it in your videos without permision. respect the artist if you want people to do your shit like this then music is doomed

  • @horsetrainer said:

    Does this mean that there are iOS "Instrument or Synth" Apps that use copyrighted samples to make sounds, and music made using the sounds from certain specific Apps cannot be redistributed for sale?

    If that's true, I'd like to find a list of such iOS Apps so I can avoid ever using them.

    There aren't many I think but one I remember is the Gorillaz edition of iElectribe.
    I always make a point of avoiding those types of sample based apps.

  • edited April 8

    TL;DR : If you want to make money on YouTube then it better be 100% your own content.

    It would be nice if the world were not this way... but thats not how it works.

    Essentially this YouTuber is complaining that he is losing advertising revenue from the videos he posts. These are videos which are generally focused on learning a specific copyrighted guitar song.

    If a YouTuber were truly employing the “fair use” law that allows for someone to review or analyse a piece of art for research purposes, then the poster would turn off advertising revenue. Either that, or if it were really for research then any advertising revenue would be irrelevant to the reviewer.

    It is clear that the YouTuber is making the video in order to gain revenue, which goes against “fair use.” If you ask me, the copyright holder has the right to request a take-down of the video.

    Or, the YouTuber should be licensing the rights to use the song for instruction. This guy is making somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000 annually from his YouTube channel... I cannot imagine that is something that fits within the “fair use” policy, though I don’t know the details of that law.

    Sure it sucks, sure he puts a lot of time into his excellently produced videos, sure he’s a really good guitar player, and he definitely has a better beard than I. But he’s making money off of other people’s works... what can you do? Pay up or give up the rights to the video.

    This is where Patreon fits in if you ask me. It allows people to use YouTube for posting “free content” in the legal sense and getting paid completely independent of that content. Patreon is a lot harder to make work but its really the only way other than removing every reference to copywritten material.

  • @Hmtx This person is not playing full songs of other people and gets money for that!

    He invests lots of time to create educative videos and of course uses quotes and short pieces of other people's music, as any teacher for music needs to do.

    If you play some short piece of The Beatles "Yesterday" on your guitar by yourself to teach and show something, this is NOT abusing someone else's rights, in my book.

    Laws that interpreted such things in such a way, are simple wrong and need to be fixed!

    And only WE can make that they get fixed!
    But that needs action from us.

    Sadly we are all busy already.

  • edited April 9

    @tja said:
    If you play some short piece of The Beatles "Yesterday" on your guitar by yourself to teach and show something, this is NOT abusing someone else's rights, in my book.

    Agreed... and someone interested in playing “by yourself to teach and show something” can do that all day long on YouTube. Hundreds of videos, all the hits. Teach the world how to play! :-)

    But this YouTuber is not just doing that only. He wants to be paid for it and he is using the popularity of a specific song to draw a larger audience in order to earn revenue from YouTube ads. His composition becomes a work of art in itself that he is selling (being used to earn money) but he uses someone else’s material to make more money.

    And you just can’t do that, especially not to big companies that are going to demand their right to earn every penny that is owed them. As i said originally, it sucks...

    it sucks because it would be way cooler if music publishers decided to compensate people for this rather than punish them. I mean this guy has 1 million subscribers on YouTube. He could pull out any song, teach us how to play it, and if the publisher lets him put a link to buy the song they get a couple thousand sales that would otherwise never have happened.

    I guess I’m just saying I don’t think this is wrong, at least not on a legal level. Yes, there’s something that needs to be fixed. The problem is how the big music publishers have no clue what is going on with music. I can imagine they have done more damage to their brand by taking down posts from this musician with 1 million followers than they could possibly earn from getting back the ad revenue on the YouTube post they took down...

    That said, I’ve now almost convinced myself that these whiny complaints from YouTubers may actually be a good thing because eventually the music publishers might realize what they are doing and that they need to take a different approach to the situation.

  • @horsetrainer said:

    @InfoCheck said:

    I don’t think it’s that hard to read an app’s terms of use to see if you can use it as a source for commercial music. Being able to use it as a source for samples is another question, as is being able to distribute an SFZ file with the samples. Clearly you could always distribute the SFZ file and people can supply their own samples as you’ve suggested.

    I'm trying to understand this part of your post.

    Does this mean that there are iOS "Instrument or Synth" Apps that use copyrighted samples to make sounds, and music made using the sounds from certain specific Apps cannot be redistributed for sale?

    If that's true, I'd like to find a list of such iOS Apps so I can avoid ever using them.

    Here’s an example of the license associated with the Ampify sounds. The short version is that using the sounds from the app in a musical composition is okay whether it’s commercial or not. Reselling or distributing the sounds as some sort of loop packs or an SFZ with associated sounds would be a violation of their license. The iMaschine 2 app user license has similar terms and conditions.

    In general, app makers do not want people to reuse their app sounds or the sounds they licensed from a third party for their app by themselves whereas using them for creating music is okay. Individual app’s may have different terms of use so you might want to read their EULA before deciding to purchase them.

    All apps on the App Store have a EULA that prohibits users in the U.S. (section g.) from using the apps to manufacture nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

  • wimwim
    edited April 9

    @InfoCheck said:
    All apps on the App Store have a EULA that prohibits users in the U.S. (section g.) from using the apps to manufacture nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

    Dammit! Really? Arg.
    Is Android this restrictive?

  • @wim said:

    @InfoCheck said:
    All apps on the App Store have a EULA that prohibits users in the U.S. (section g.) from using the apps to manufacture nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

    Dammit! Really? Arg.
    Is Android this restrictive?

    I don’t know as I haven’t had an Android device for over 10+ years. Perhaps Apple includes this EULA prohibition because they fear their users are getting too creative in their app usage and want to limit their liability. One nuclear bomb created with an app would likely cause Apple stock to tank if they hadn’t planned ahead. Another advantage might be that since they expressly prohibit apps for creating weapons of mass destruction in their EULA they might not have to train their app reviewers on this topic or maybe they do leaving little time to understand the basics of how AUv3 apps work? Perhaps in other countries where there’s less stigma and laws about these sorts of devices, their App Store policy is different?

  • @wim said:

    @InfoCheck said:
    All apps on the App Store have a EULA that prohibits users in the U.S. (section g.) from using the apps to manufacture nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

    Dammit! Really? Arg.
    Is Android this restrictive?

    Yes, this is realy sad!

    Do I need to stop culturing those nice nuclear bacteria that can emit mustard gas when triggered with Moog Model D?
    They can also produce other chemicals, with the right AudioBus profile!

    But then, I'm from Old Europe, not the US.
    So maybe I can continue and am not forced to use Android :)

  • wimwim
    edited April 9

    @InfoCheck said:

    @wim said:

    @InfoCheck said:
    All apps on the App Store have a EULA that prohibits users in the U.S. (section g.) from using the apps to manufacture nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

    Dammit! Really? Arg.
    Is Android this restrictive?

    I don’t know as I haven’t had an Android device for over 10+ years. Perhaps Apple includes this EULA prohibition because they fear their users are getting too creative in their app usage and want to limit their liability. One nuclear bomb created with an app would likely cause Apple stock to tank if they hadn’t planned ahead. Another advantage might be that since they expressly prohibit apps for creating weapons of mass destruction in their EULA they might not have to train their app reviewers on this topic or maybe they do leaving little time to understand the basics of how AUv3 apps work? Perhaps in other countries where there’s less stigma and laws about these sorts of devices, their App Store policy is different?

    Good points. I hadn’t thought about the app reviewer training aspect. I’m pretty concerned about a few of my own musical pieces now though. I guess if anyone came after me, I could turn around and sue Apple for putting an app with that potential into my hands.

Sign In or Register to comment.