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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 05 2018, @09:29PM (1 child)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @09:29PM (#730966) Journal

    What would happen if a few thousand people submitted copyright violations against Disney, or whomever, whenever they post something to youtube

    You would be interfering with the operations of Disney and YouTube (or whomever). The tort would be Tortious Interference of Business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference [wikipedia.org]
    Per Wikipedia, doing so with malice (i.e. you knew you didn't own their properties and were intentionally messing with them) allows for punitive damages in addition to economic.

    But the professor (and most ordinary Joes) doesn't have the legal budget to do the same.

    That said, TFA says nothing whatsoever if the professor actually followed the procedure to appeal a ContentID claim.

    If you get a Content ID claim on your video that you believe is wrong, you can dispute the claim. When you dispute a Content ID claim, the copyright owner will be notified and they'll have 30 days to respond.
    If you received a copyright strike, use the process outlined in our copyright strike basics, instead of the one described in this article.

    You can dispute a Content ID claim if you believe the system misidentified your video, or if you have all the rights to use that copyright-protected content.

    Even if the composer is long dead, the producer of a specific recording has rights too. I wonder how specific the ID filters are in regards to one over another.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday September 06 2018, @12:34PM

    by Pino P (4721) on Thursday September 06 2018, @12:34PM (#731263) Journal

    Even if the composer is long dead, the producer of a specific recording has rights too.

    From the summary: "the recordings were first published before 1963". I'm guessing this must be a copyright cutoff date in Germany, and it could indicate sound recording copyrights that had already expired before the 2011 sound recording copyright term extension [wikipedia.org] took effect.