Universal And Warner Block Time Live Streaming Its Time 100 Event Because Copyright Censors
from the but-filters-work,-right? dept
You know how supporters of Article 13 in the EU keep insisting that just because Article 13 (now Article 17) says not to take down non-infringing content that any worries about taking down non-infringing content are misplaced? About that... This week there's been a lot of fuss about the whole "Time 100" thing that purports to highlight the 100 most influential people in the world. This bit of backslapping among the famous starts off with glowing magazine profiles, followed by a big party, the Time 100 Gala and the Time 100 Summit, which is the conference version of the backslapping. Time Magazine livestreamed the Summit yesterday via YouTube.
As Manish Singh pointed out, it appears that both Warner Music and Universal Music Group got the video pulled on copyright grounds.
YouTube has blocked (!!!) Time's official video feed for its 100 Summit from yesterday because it apparently infringed on content from Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. CC @mmasnick pic.twitter.com/peWsHPxYPH
— Manish Singh (@refsrc) April 24, 2019
It's not clear exactly why this happened, though lots of people are talking about Taylor Swift performing, and she's now on Universal, so that's one possibility. Except she performed at that Gala, and it appears that it's the Summit that got blocked. It's possible that the venue music that likely plays in between speakers could have tripped up ContentID as well.
Either way, it's yet another demonstration of how filters are terrible at this kind of thing, and why laws like the EU Copyright Directive will inevitably lead to censorship of perfectly legal material, rather than "piracy."
Now, some will respond that under the EU Copyright Directive, YouTube may just choose to officially license all music uses, and then no longer have to block incidental uses such as this, but that highlights the other problem we've discussed: almost no one other than YouTube can do that. And thus, even if that were the case, YouTube would then become the only player anyone could ever use for livestreaming events like this if they don't want them blocked. For all the talk of how we needed the EU Copyright Directive to take down Google and Facebook's power, the fact that it might just lock them into their dominant positions seems like it should be a concern.
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: censorship, contentid, copyright, filters, live streaming
Companies: time, universal music group, warner music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BUT THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DID NO ONE WARN US!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps its time to listen to the people who know how all of this works rather than the legacy players who are sure 1 more law will solve the problems they helped create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I can say is Hahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or they could have warned YouTube in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who warned YouTube of what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One could tell Youtube, in advance, that one is going to post a video/stream that might contain some music, and that the music has been properly licensed. It seems silly but also realistic given what's happening in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ContentID neither knows nor cares if the music has been licensed. If it matches, it matches, regardless of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Time should get a "Get out of Content ID free card." Who else should get it? Why should they get it? Can I get it? I'd love to have one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just one problem with that; YouTube is completely on autopilot. There's nobody to contact. The whole thing is run by A.I. and Google has gone to great lengths to make sure you can't contact the company in any meaningful way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
aww yes they could have just called youtube's make an exception to contentID's hotline. What was that number again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming that such licenses will be granted on a world wide basis, and not by some labels and in some countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licensed Music
There is no inherent different between licensed and unlicensed music. So the automatic content ID blocked it. Why is this surprising?
Block copyrighted works. Success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Licensed Music
As yesterday's article highlights, if you put something in the public domain, it has a high likelihood of being re-purposed in a copyrighted work, causing ContentID to block other copies of the copyrighted work AND anyone else re-purposing the public domain work in their own copyrighted work, PLUS any copies of the original work.
So essentially, if it's music, it will likely eventually be blocked. And it's more likely to be blocked if it isn't copyrighted, as nobody's going to be trying to foil ContentID to publish works in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Licensed Music
Or, you know, rain:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyri-1821804093
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading on Facebook that Universal and Warner did nothing of the kind. That YouTube did this on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, you mean Mike Masnick is being intellectually dishonest again? I’m simply shocked! Shocked I say, by such an occurrence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, you mean that you are being intellectually dishonest again? I'm simply not shocked! Not shocked I say, by such an everyday occurrence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You trust Facebook, and then expect us to trust you quoting Facebook (not that you actually quoted it, but referenced it without bothering to list cites)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not trusting Facebook, but read the article- there's no actual source that this wasn't just YouTube f***ing with the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ContentID matches happen because the labels put their content into the ContentID database and the automated system spits out matches regardless of context. The labels (among other media conglomerates) wanted ContentID; this is the end result of their desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, it sounds like YouTube was fucking with the labels. That should end well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube did not “fuck with the labels”. If the system backfires like this, that is not YouTube’s fault; the labels asked for automated copyright claims and YouTube is giving the labels exactly what they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because what YouTube should have done is get sued by Universal and Warner after Universal and Warner released their content to the world, just like the time Viacom sued YouTube for content Viacom put up themselves.
You're the chucklefucks who believe that filters are God and everyone else should kiss your feet in acceptance of this "fucked if you do, fucked if you don't" scenario.
Not only do you want carte blanche permission to rape whoever you want, you want this to be approved in law and pre-emptively bar any complaints about it.
Seriously, get bent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well Mike, maybe the labels should just pull everything from YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like the Spanish and German newsgroups chose to pull out of Google News by including robots.txt in their websites, right?
You'd think that given your deep-seated loathing of YouTube your first priority would be to get the hell away as far as you can. Yet you don't. Now why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would the labels pull everything from YouTube? They already shut down their streaming platform to solely host their videos on YouTube because it's so lucrative for them to do that instead of running their own site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens_razor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, if there was no specific request, then what happened was that YouTube blocked the stream because the ContentID system they were essentially forced to put into place by those same labels was doing its job as they demanded.
Even if you try putting it all on YouTube, this is still the labels getting what they said they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
PaulT if the ContentID system was put in place, practically all YouTube videos would be wiped out in mere minutes, because it’s as faulty as that cringe-y Emoji movie.
If you want to know a summary of how stupid the EU is, take a look at my comment below titled EU trying to get things right is like:
Also how the heck do I bold/underline text in this comment section?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
" if the ContentID system was put in place"
It's not? What keeps flagging all these videos then?
"Also how the heck do I bold/underline text in this comment section?"
Click on "markdown" under the comment box for instructions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Click on “markdown” under the comment box for instructions
Oh I see now. Thanks.
What keeps flagging all these videos then?
The companies that are filing the copyrights of course. That’s why there are still thousands of videos on Youtube. If Content ID/licensing filters were already put in place, YouTube won’t have any videos to display because all of our videos would be wiped out in mere minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"hat’s why there are still thousands of videos on Youtube"
Hundreds of millions, actually.
But, hey, since you're such an expert why not point to your evidence that all this is due to manual filing and not ContentID. No, your bare assertions about something silly does not suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PaulT I’m only 19 years old, ok? I’m not as experienced as the rest of you so just bare with me. I know I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them.
As long as my fat fingers don’t mess me up that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I know I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them"
OK, no problem. Your mistake here was making some bare assertions you couldn't back up. There's plenty of evidence out there that ContentID is being used. If you have evidence to the contrary then supply it. But, don't make bare assertions and not expect to be challenged if it doesn't fit with what's already been established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. Thanks.
Also PaulT what did u think of my Game Grumps reference. Ironically the comment is almost right underneath this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still no clue about politics?
It is a time-honored tradition that the assumption of a political office or enactment of a law is to be marshalled by a celebratory essay of political fan fiction loosely related to the procurement in order to give the victims something to laugh about all the way to the bank they are not allowed to enter because it could get them thinking about withdrawing their assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU trying to get things right is like:
So I fired again
Then I missed, and then I missed again
And then I fired and I fired
And I missed. I missed both times.
This went on for several hours
Then I fired and I fired
And I missed.
I ran out of energy
Then I became sad.
I had a popsicle.
I passed out in the snow.
Then I woke up,
And I reloaded (lobbying)
And I fired. But I missed.
I fired again. I hit something, but it wasn’t what I was going for (MEPs voting for the wrong thing) so I guess I missed.
I had another popsicle.
I reached into the fridge for another popsicle, I missed. Grabbed the cabbage. Tried to put it back, but I missed. It hit the floor.
I reached to grab a Sprite, I Sierra Mist
...
Long story short. MISSED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU trying to get things right is like:
For those of you wondering, this is a Game Grumps reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU trying to get things right is like:
And according to the RIAA and MPAA and others, the only metric that matters is how many times you fired. Look how successful you were in taking all these shots/ issuing all those takedown notices!
(Who cares if you missed the target/ issued takedowns for the wrong thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EU trying to get things right is like:
True, considering I referenced a Game Grumps video called “Shot and Missed.” You should watch the video if you want to understand the reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who the fuck cares if its in the background, the god damn labels are morons. No one says, Hey I want to listen to Taylor Swift, rather than watching the official video that plays ads, I'm gonna watch the video of the guy working on his car in the garage while its on the little shop radio in the background, that's the best sound.
I love how you can watch Youtube these days and never hear music in the background because all the youtubers make sure there is nothing that can get a video blocked. Its like a new reality, a world without pop music, just generic instrumentals. No dancing or having fun listening to music. Free advertising and they just pissed it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody does, and yet, that's the kind of logic these assclowns operate under, up to suing. Since businesses pay for cleaning supplies and security measures to improve their business operations, obviously music coming from a free-to-air radio station or a CD that's already been paid for requires lining the pockets of record label executives.
Because obviously the amount of oversaturated pop music over the air is clearly a major influence in whether or not I choose to visit the dentist, just like how sanitary it is or how unlikely it is to get broken into. And obviously not because I require oral hygiene maintenance; the free music is obviously why I visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral of the story: Don't use YouTube to stream live video events. They're not set up for handling product licensing. Their only tool is an axe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The axe has a tendency to explode after 3 uses, obliterating channels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only YOU can prevent premature explosions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...filters are terrible...'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...filters are terrible...'
"Wish we had filters. " - Flint Michigan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how do they license "all" music? How did they license the song written by Bob down the street? How did they license the tune created by Stella's 10 year old granddaughter on her keyboard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]