Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the sol-sol-la-sol-do-si dept.

Over in the EU Parliament, they're getting ready to vote yet again on the absolutely terrible Copyright Directive, which has serious problems for the future of the internet, including Article 13's mandatory censorship filters and Article 11's link tax. Regrading the mandatory filters, German music professor Ulrich Kaiser, has written about a a very disturbing experiment he ran on YouTube, in which he kept having public domain music he had uploaded for his students get taken down by ContentID copyright claims.

[...] I decided to open a different YouTube account “Labeltest” to share additional excerpts of copyright-free music. I quickly received ContentID notifications for copyright-free music by Bartok, Schubert, Puccini and Wagner. Again and again, YouTube told me that I was violating the copyright of these long-dead composers, despite all of my uploads existing in the public domain. I appealed each of these decisions, explaining that 1) the composers of these works had been dead for more than 70 years, 2) the recordings were first published before 1963, and 3) these takedown request did not provide justification in their property rights under the German Copyright Act.

I only received more notices, this time about a recording of Beethoven’s Symphony No.5, which was accompanied by the message: “Copyrighted content was found in your video. The claimant allows its content to be used in your YouTube video. However, advertisements may be displayed.” Once again, this was a mistaken notification. The recording was one by the Berlin Philharmonic under the direction of Lorin Maazel, which was released in 1961 and is therefore in the public domain. Seeking help, I emailed YouTube, but their reply, “[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address support-de@google.com cannot be read and acknowledged” was less than reassuring.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:30AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:30AM (#730619)

    In the US for a number of years, I have noticed this trend where companies provide no way to contact a person who works there.
    At BEST, you may get to fill out an online form that gets sent who knows where to be read by a program.
    It's absolutely bizarre that the company can gather all this info from you, but you can't talk to THEM! What arrogance.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Mainframe Bloke on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:42AM (1 child)

    by Mainframe Bloke (1665) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:42AM (#730622) Journal

    I have to admit this is a personal bugbear of mine as well: the arrogance of refusing direct contact with a human, and only providing a form. Sometimes you're lucky enough to get a phone number or an email address, which I use after I fill in the form if I am steamed up enough.

    It's gotten to the point where I will now only do business with companies that provide a real contact point, preferably in Oz where they will understand my accent.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:54PM (#730752)

      What's even worse is when my customers expect me to provide tech support for services like Google Calendars and Docs, services which I don't recommend and sometimes even warn customers away from because they will not meet the customer's needs. (Employer isn't an outsource help desk so I see no reason why I should even attempt help desk.)

      My standard response is a referral to Google's customer service department.

      I hope to get across in the most laconic way possible that perhaps they should choose a vendor who has a customer service department.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:03AM (2 children)

    by TheReaperD (5556) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:03AM (#730624)

    Remember, you're not the customer, you're the product. They can't have products be making demands of them, can they? They're real customers typically get a real contact.

    --
    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 05 2018, @02:56PM (1 child)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @02:56PM (#730770) Journal

      Don't use youtube.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 05 2018, @06:08PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 05 2018, @06:08PM (#730863) Journal

        From sig

        The eyes are the windows to the soul.

        Your search queries are the windows to the sale.

        --
        The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday September 05 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 05 2018, @06:06PM (#730861) Journal

    At BEST, you may get to fill out an online form that gets sent who knows where . . . . but you can't talk to THEM! What arrogance.

    Be happy.

    What if you got your wish?

    Vogon poetry while on hold.

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:30PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:30PM (#731014)

    Get an attorney. They'll probably be in touch with an employee before the 'reply-by' date of the demand letter.