How The EU May Be About To Kill The Public Domain: Copyright Filters Takedown Beethoven
from the ending-the-public-domain 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.
After exploring ways to teach his students Beethoven's music, and putting together a collection of public domain recordings, he encountered the following thanks to YouTube's filters:
The first video I uploaded to YouTube promoted the website where my digitized copies of public domain recordings are available to download. In this video, I explained my project, while examples of the music played in the background. Less than three minutes after uploading, I received a notification that there was a ContentID claim against my video. ContentID is a system, developed by YouTube, which checks user uploaded videos against databases of copyrighted content in order to curb copyright infringement. This system took millions of dollars to develop and is often pointed to as a working example of upload filters by rights holders and lawmakers who wish to make such technology mandatory for every website which hosts user content online. However, these claims ignore the widespread reports of its often flawed execution.
That inspired him to test this more thoroughly... and you'll absolutely guess what happened next:
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.
And, again, this is in the strongest situation for filters to test themsevles. Google has spent more resources and money on ContentID than on any other filter. It's been tested much more thoroughly than just about any other filter out there. And music is one of the easiest cases to match. And yet, it still got it all wrong. And it caused significant collateral damage:
I wish I could tell you that the ending to this tale was wholly happy. It is true that many of my contestations of these copyright violations were successful, and the videos were not taken down from YouTube. However, I intended to release all of my videos under a free license, so that they could be used in the future for others to educate and inform students about these beautiful works. Even in cases where my defense to the ContentID claims were successful, the videos were not reverted to this free license, making it much more difficult for others to use and share these digitized works in the way I originally had intended.
Now expand this out to other kinds of content, which aren't as easy to match. Or companies who don't have $60 million to spend on filters. Or where companies don't have the time to review every disputed takedown. And what do you end up with? A serious impact on the public domain (not to mention fair use, parody and more).
And here's the thing: mandatory filters are totally unnecessary. Most large platforms already have invested in ContentID-like systems. It's the smaller sites and the upstarts who can't afford such a thing. So all Article 13 will really do is lock in YouTube/Google as the dominant player. And maybe that's what the RIAA and their friends really want: they believe that as long as there's just one other big company they can sit across a table and demand cash from, that'll somehow cover up for the fact that it sold its members a bill of goods about the internet for the past couple of decades. But, it will do enormous harm to creativity and content creators in the long run.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: article 13, automated filters, beethoven, contentid, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, mandatory filters, public domain
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Beethoven’s Symphony No.5
Copy-righ-ted,content was found,
in your video. The claimant a-llows
its content to be used in your
YouTube video.
However, ad
vertisements
may
be
displayed
thank you for con
tacting Google
Inc. Please note that due to
the large number of enqui
ries, e-mails received
at this address
cannot be
read
and
acknowledged
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the end they will never be able to destroy the public domain or self publishing platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The status-obsessed audience is the problem, nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
So that 'status-obsessed audience' are the ones pushing for laws and systems that stand to do serious damage to smaller platforms(or even larger ones), platforms that allow for self-publishing and therefore bypassing the standard gatekeepers? Not the companies/industries that stand to lose out by having their power and position weakened if not destroyed by open platforms that that allow people to bypass them entirely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the list (behind login wall):
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/8442/consolidated-list-sanctions_en
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Terrorists!"
https://archive.org/details/ConsolidatedListOfSanctions-EuropeanExternalActionService
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Terrorists!"
Welp, you just got added to the no-login anywhere list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh sure. It was originally copyrighted on the album "Wednesday Morning, 3AM" - released October 19th, 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesday_Morning,_3_A.M.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the John Cage Estate starts enforcing their copyrights, w
Ahem ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be expected, sort of.
Which is impressive but fails spectacularly in the case where the original music or worse _some_ recordings are in the Public Domain.
Of course this can be fixed in two stages: stage one takes any _recording_ out of the Public Domain (given when the age of recordings started, that actually isn't all that much), the second is it take all of the little music yet there out of the Public Domain.
Now of course that leaves the question when everything preexisting in any kind of manner gets flagged by ContentId who actually is entitled to get the proceeds.
The wonderful thing is that we have monopolized copyright societies for that. They can just take every cent and then think about how, if at all, they are going to distribute it.
And if they figure out that there is no legit recipient, they can use it for bribing politicians to the cause of better supporting, uh, the artists?
I mean, Beethoven needed burying three times already. And if he keeps rotating in his grave, there might be more to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beethoven’s Symphony No.5
content was found,
in your video. The claimant a-llows
its content to be used in your
YouTube video.
However, ad
vertisements
may
be
displayed
thank you for con
tacting Google
Inc. Please note that due to
the large number of enqui
ries, e-mails received
at this address
cannot be
read
and
acknowledged
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beethoven’s Symphony No.5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not in the PD in the USA
The works might be in the PD in Germany / EU but they are certainly not in the USA. There is a label (Naxos) which re-releases PD classical music in the UK and elsewhere, but specifically excludes the USA as the works are still under copyright here.
So even a recording by Weingartner recorded in 1927 / 1931 is considered unavailable in the United States because it is not in the public domain here:
https://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.110861
"Not available in the United States due to possible copyright restrictions"
Which is ridiculous because afaict the Naxos recordings are the only ones that have been re-released. I know of certain other ones that have been repackaged by their respective labels but many are not.
So this is more of a "PD is not PD everywhere" situation, which only highlights the ridiculous situation with copyright and its misuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not in the PD in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not in the PD in the USA
The works might be in the PD in Germany / EU but they are certainly not in the USA
That's a valid point and one I had thought about including in the post, but really only serves to highlight how broken the system is. Under that basis, the fact that the US does not recognize public domain works in the EU thanks to our longer copyright terms will mean that EU's shorter copyright terms become effectively meaningless, since US-based filters will ignore that in favor of the US's term.
SO, to me that's just as bad. It's the EU effectively legally mandating European's not have access to public domain works in the EU... because the US has longer terms. Why is that good policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not in the PD in the USA
I know this post is a few weeks old so this comment probably won't be seen, but I wanted to mention that I brought this up with my spouse, who is a producer for American Public Media, to which I heard a laugh with a response "That's news? Disputing public domain takedowns and third party monetization notices is a regular part of our job. I got four takedown notices today, and I had eight of them yesterday."
As there is no disincentive for content producers to repeatedly issue takedowns to public domain content; for music producers, such as my spouse, logging into youtube or a music streaming distributor to dispute the takedowns of the day is life in 2018.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't blame the wrong party...
While I am actively opposing the new copyright directive from the EU because it is indeed problematic, don't blame the EU or it's proposed legislation for this fiasco.
Content-ID is already in place, it is already doing this, and not because it wants to be prepared for the EU-directive. It's doing this because it wants to comply with the US DMCA!
Yes, art. 13 of the proposed EU directive would repeat the mistake (and possibly even make it worse), but even if the EU would see the light and completely re-write it as part of a decent and fair copyright legislation, Youtube would still need content-ID to comply with US legislation. And public domain recordings of Beethoven would still be taken down.
Fix that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't blame the wrong party...
Now expand this out to other kinds of content, which aren't as easy to match. Or companies who don't have $60 million to spend on filters. Or where companies don't have the time to review every disputed takedown. And what do you end up with? A serious impact on the public domain (not to mention fair use, parody and more).
The point of the article was to highlight that even a multi-million dollar filter can screw up on something basic like this, which means that if such filters become mandatory thanks to the idiotic law then smaller companies with much less resources will be forced to use/create filters of their own, which are likely to be much, much worse, causing significant damage with false positives all over the place.
Content-ID is already a problem, but it's one limited to a single site. Mandatory filters on all sites would be vastly worse.
It's doing this because it wants to comply with the US DMCA!
Not exactly. Nothing in the DMCA requires a system like Content-ID, rather it was put in place as a defensive measure to (foolishly) try to placate the parasites constantly suing/threatening to sue YT for 'facilitating infringement with YT's platform', with the idea likely being to point out that 'look, we made it much easier to spot your stuff, and you can now set it up to be removed or make money from it, so clearly we're not deliberately facilitating infringement and any that slips through isn't our fault!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't blame the wrong party...
Would have been better off making advance payments on the parasites....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't blame the wrong party...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Congratulations, Copyright, as a tool to promote the arts, is dead!
People created long before copyright was in place, people are creating in spite of copyright in vast quantities now, and as such I feel safe in saying that people would still create were copyright stricken from the books.
I personally am not quite at the 'kill copyright outright' stage(I consider myself a reformer/abolitionist, in that order), but with stories like this popping up on a regular basis demonstrating the harm it can cause I can understand how people get to that stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, as both a concept and a series of laws, would have to be stricken down and redone in its entirety to account for copying technology that was not in existence until well after the concept was first codified into law. (We would also need to account for the shrinking public domain.) A full reformation of copyright would take years—and that assumes at least one major media corporation would even allow reformation to happen.
’tis better to strike it all down and be done with it. At least then, everyone would start on a level playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How to get around it? You'll have to create a program that's constantly uploading permutations of any material, creating nearly infinite possibilities, all infringing or not infringing for the A.I. Create more confusion by swamping the service with DMCA notices for random permutations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
probably in higher resolution (i.e. datapoints) in order to catch short samples.
And of course AcoustID (and ContentID) will screw up when it comes to multiple recordings with different orchestras that all play the same composition. Only, in the case of ContentID you'll disenfranchise the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Bad' by what standard and according to who?
The initial implementation is simple: you run the uploaded file through the hash function and look if there's an entry in the list of bad files.
In addition to the cost and difficulty of making the system in general, a huge problem that those in favor of systems like this seem to 'ignore' is that the legality of a use of a work is very often context based, which you cannot code for at the level of tech we have now, and likely not for a good while.
As an example the exact same song file could be infringing(song uploaded by the artist, without their permission), non-infringing(song uploaded by artist, or by another with permission), or fair use(song uploaded for parody, criticism or as an example in something), and a filter would have no way of telling the difference. Given this to say that a 'copyright filter' would cause collateral damage would be a massive understatement.
There's also the not-so-tiny problem that the database to check files against doesn't exist to my knowledge, and I suspect that a requirement of submitting everything for archiving to check against might not go over too well with a number of people/companies, especially given the complaints I've seen in the past about how registration for copyright would be supposedly a huge, unfair hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
This prof had/has NO problem using the music for his teaching, right? Right. No one is coming after him. Fine.
But then he wants to put it on a COMMERCIAL PLATFORM where a private corporation will gain money from it! In effect charging the public for use of its own material! That's the REAL objection here, which is simply ignored.
This is good result (keeping content off Youtube) for wrong reason (its mighty filters).
Besides: Corporations can block any speech that wish for any or no reason, right? So looks like your real objection here is actually the mere existence of ContentID which limits piracy.
By the way, if anyone new here, I have to use to TOR to comment at all: my home IPA was blocked. That's how "free speech" Techdirt actually is. You're free to agree, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
I expand a point above: corporations are NOT The Public, have zero right to gain money from OUR Public Domain works. No, doesn't matter if is distributed to the public: that argument would apply to any copyrighted work.
Public Domain has never included for corporations to get income from broadcasting*: it's to be provided FREE, or at most little above actual reproduction costs. Youtube gaining from any particular might be reasonable, but in sum it's just grifting on Public Domain, and is too big besides. -- Every time Masnick points up that only big corporations will be able to dodge good rules, it's cause to break them up. Corporations don't have any actual right to Public Domain material, NOR to NOT be harassed and suppressed. The People allow them to exist only to serve our purposes, not to enrich a few.
[ NO, "My Favorite Brunette" and other examples don't dis-prove what I state there: television stations just were able to get away with it,* but have NO basis in law for such as a positive right!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
What are the voices saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now we have incontrovertible proof that you're an uncultured, uneducated buffoon with no respect for the common man, and you live in a delusional state where you rabidly believe whatever nonsense of the day legacy entertainment industries decide to sell you on.
And you still have the gall to wonder WHY no one ever takes you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
Where to even start?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? Shakespeare’s works are all in the public domain, and corporations still make money by selling copies of those works to people. The whole point of the public domain in this regard is that the work is free for anyone to reproduce and monetize. Whether someone can make money by selling copies of a public domain work, however, is still a crapshoot.
Oh lord, you’re taking lessons from Hamilton.
(And to answer that somewhat-leading question: Yes, corporations generally have the legal right to block any form of speech it wants, though whether they are morally/ethically right in doing so is a whole other discussion.)
ContentID also hits innocent bystanders with false-flaggings and does not take Fair Use into account. It dings legal content at least as much as it dings illegally-uploaded content. That is the objection to ContentID and “pre-cog copyright”.
You can disagree with articles and comments here without being a sanctimonious, victim-card-playing asshole about it. Try it sometime, maybe you might see your comments go unflagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
That is exactly what Disney did for many of its successful films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
"But then he wants to put it on a COMMERCIAL PLATFORM where a private corporation will gain money from it! In effect charging the public for use of its own material! That's the REAL objection here, which is simply ignored."
That's an impressive display of ignorance right there. The entire point of the public domain is that anyone is free to do whatever they want with the content, including monetization. Your entire argument is a hilarious fail because you don't have even the simplest understanding of the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphraze Yzma, "why do we even have that support email address?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add monetary disincentives for trolls to legislated mandates ?
I happen to be among those who tilts toward the "copyright should be phased out entirely" school of thought.
However, it's not going away any time soon. I would suggest that present-day goals include
1) Support IP reform to keep the lengths of copyrights reasonable. No "forever and a day" IP of any sort besides trademarks. Something in the 15-25 years range is plenty of time to turn a buck on created works.
2) Support reform to ensure that a) public domain works stay public domain and b) fair use is not diminished.
3) Oppose all legislation that mandates certain technologies be used to "automagically" remove IP violations. That doesn't mean that companies cannot attempt to develop/use such software. But, it should not be mandated that technology that doesn't currently work well (and possibly may never work well) be required. This should be obvious: Don't force anyone to use unproven tech.
4) Any mandated automated systems used to report / remove content MUST a) only be usable by copyright owners (no proxies); b) have a requirement for clear and verifiable attribution of copyright ownership; c) include substantial monetary disincentives that discourage misreporting IP violations and otherwise spamming of take-down requests. Think $5000 (or whatever) for false or failed copyright violation claims.
This last point is the most important. The take-down systems aren't going away, so a goal has to be to make them better. But, that won't happen if there is no incentive for those who actually use them to make them better. If the trolls can happily spam away take-down requests and never see any cost for getting it wrong, why would they ever stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every idea, thought, sound is owned by a mega corporation who gets to collect money forever. The public domain should be killed b/c that is money they could be making if they owned it.
It would be nice if someone were to remind them that the public is also a stakeholder in copyright & we've been denied anything we've been promised to keep only the corporations happy. They have violated the agreement, changed it without listening to our input, perhaps it is time WE demand the law be changed to benefit us and not some fscking cartoon mouse from a long dead man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that what you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS is the problem I've experienced. Creative works under copyright by nobody but me, released with a Creative Commons license, have been posted to YouTube, flagged, contested, allowed, and then when someone re-uses part of it as allowed by the license, THAT gets flagged again. And the frustrating part is that I am still not recognized as the rights holder; it's the same group that false flagged against ME in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO the result is only large websites like youtube, facebook, will able to afford to have a complex filter like this. Even youtube cant see the difference between a piece of music that is pd in some countrys and in copyright in the usa . Smaller websites in the eu will likely block all content uploaded by users . In order to avoid having an expensive filter in place. So this helps big American companys and startups
outside the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all the changes, and advancement..
RIAA has hated Vinyl Records, Hated Tape recordings, CD/DVD..
UNTIL someone ELSE did something with it..
Movie industry HATES updating the Video formats..THEY HATE transcribing those OLD TAPES into forms that are MORE DURABLE..(and only the ORIGINALS SHOULD HAVE CR, a Copy is a copy).. And they USED to own the WHOLE distribution system...AND NOW with digital, they can use the internet, and it costs LESS..and they cant show it COSTS ALLOT to ship the Video's..
Why not track the NOTICE senders, and ASK THEM WHY?? Demand that they EXPLAIN any reasoning for the Notices.. this is NOT hit or miss. And if you can show Google that its hitting EVERYTHING, and not just legal CR works...Google can demand they stop, and will not be acknowledged..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For all the changes, and advancement..
Err... They cam into existence to represent the vinyl recording industry. It's just they hate tape/Cassette because people can make their own recording. They liked factory pressed CD's, but hated Writable CD's....
Do you see the pattern here, if the copying requires a factory, and they can act as gatekeepers to accessing that capability they like it, but if it is suitable for anybody at home to use, they hate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For all the changes, and advancement..
"At first, the discs were commonly made from shellac; starting in the 1950s polyvinyl chloride "
Records have been around along time..but Vinyl, is interesting. BEING a softer material, you can make ANOTHER record very easy.. AND it was done. the Equipment was expensive, and Controlled..
The PROBLEM tends to be WHO controls the MATERIAL and recording devices..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For all the changes, and advancement..
And the RIAA was formed in 1952, long after records staring being made. Indeed it first efforts were the standards for vinyl records. The recording industry can date foundations back to 1877 and the wax Cylinder.
So yes the RIAA is closely associated with vinyl records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: For all the changes, and advancement..
BIG, HEAVY, STIFF, HARD..
And the equipment to make them was VERY VERY expensive, and really hard to find.. you may never know the Maker..it was private..
Once Vinyl came about it became Easier to create A FAKE..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoist the colours!
The video game archives are in jeopardy, as are fair use exceptions and now the public domain as a whole.
Soon, we media pirates and the torrent sector may be the last refuge for historical culture.
You want to listen to Beethoven? You'll have to join us and download it, and accept that you're probably breaking some laws.
Though to be fair, it's not like you aren't breaking laws already.
Hey ho ho
It's one for all for one
And we'll share and share alike with you and love you like a son
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Is Not As Simple As You Think
People confuse the two. I have had people wonder why their public domain pieces are getting pulled and they are getting pulled for similar reason.
Of course the content ID system IS abused, I won't dispute that, but copyright, especially books is a total mess as many books prior to the mid 70s had complicated contracts and since copyright had to be renewed, many books, are very difficult to determine their status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Is Not As Simple As You Think
If it's their performance piece then it shouldn't be getting pulled at all since they own the copyright on it. Unless they issued the takedown themselves. In which case, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Is Not As Simple As You Think
The content filter can not differentiate between a performance recording that is in the public domain and a performance recording that is still under copyright.
The whole point of the post is that the automated system available to a company with more money than God is unable to navigate the absurdly complicated copyright system. Add to that a virtual lack of recourse, it's clear the system is the main flaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Is Not As Simple As You Think
for instance, I can perform a piece of music, by say Brahms and it's public domain. But MY PERFORMANCE of the public domain piece is copyrighted.
That is correct. But meaningless here, as the performance the professor used was public domain as well.
Of course the content ID system IS abused, I won't dispute that, but copyright, especially books is a total mess as many books prior to the mid 70s had complicated contracts and since copyright had to be renewed, many books, are very difficult to determine their status.
Also true. Bu also meaningless.
These were works that were indisputably public domain in Germany. And they were taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before and I'll say it again; The only way this will ever get fixed is if YouTube gets sued by someone with deep pockets. Complaining about it does no good because they don't care. Pointing out the flaws in the system does no good because they don't care. Having 100+ copyright claims reversed does no good because they don't care. Nobody at Google even bothers to pay attention to any of this stuff because they simply don't care.
The only thing that would get their attention is a serious lawsuit that they would be forced to respond to. Failing that, welcome to the new normal of the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]