Why do Youtube pirates flip horiz. the video, or resize smaller subsection

[GoodEnough]

This fools computers, but obviously not humans. This tells me there are algos that check vids against copyrighted material. What is the architecture? For example, does YT have every copyrighted video that exists and cross references pixels for a match? This seems highly unlikely, so how does it actually work?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah there are algorithms that can detect it, and they actually do have a central database of all copyrighted works. In fact some music artists even get their own videos taken down at times because of that. I've made videos that use a small clip of something, usually parody or misc videos that I don't really care about and they randomly get taken down, while some don't. It's really sporadic. They end up being taken down randomly, anywhere from minutes to years. By slowing down the music or flipping video it fools the algorithm.

There are even full length sound tracks and films that don't get taken down, but a 10 second clip can get taken down. I actually got a strike on my account for a 5 second clip once. It's quite ridiculous really.

 

[GoodEnough]

How does the algo compare? By pixels?

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's my guess. I'm not sure if it's verbatim, like it checks that each pixel is the same, or if it's some kind of averaging. Actually, it's probably the same algo as the google image search. Why reinvent the wheel right?

For the sound, I think it's actually an algo developed by another company, I recall reading a bit about it. I find it interesting that speeding up or slowing down works, as you'd think they could get it to work at any speed. Guess it would use too much power to do that. It probably looks for certain signatures in the audio/frequency/waveform or something.

 

[SKORPI0]

Took a 5 minute walking video at work while music was playing in the building, uploaded it as a private video. YouTube said that the music was copyrighted and suggested that I change it to something generic which they provided. :\

 

[John Connor]

Took a 5 minute walking video at work while music was playing in the building, uploaded it as a private video. YouTube said that the music was copyrighted and suggested that I change it to something generic which they provided. :\

Isn't that just ridiculous? I once had to take "copyright school" for a video I had uploaded years ago and just got taken down two years ago. COPYRIGHT SCHOOL!

Fuck these assclowns! This Copyright shit is destroying everything. Since when did the decisions of a few go against the majority? Oh wait. :hmm:

 

[CZroe]

They match video and audio fingerprints to a database, much like Shazam recognizing a song. Copyright holders regularly submit their stuff to this database. When Family Guy recently used two YouTube videos in the show, one of the originals got pulled with a copyright claim! That's because Fox automatically submits each episode of Family Guy to the DB and it found a previously-existing match.

It was two different videos of people playing classic NES (original Nintendo) games: Tecmo Bowl and Double Dribble. The Double Dribble video is the one that got taken down despite it being uploaded from the original player.

 

[brianmanahan]

my cousin made a youtube video that took him weeks to create. he finally uploaded it and it started to get a lot of views.

within a month, someone downloaded his video, sped it up %8 to avoid it looking/sounding exactly the same to youtube's analysis, then uploaded it as their own.

he found it though because they used the same name for the video. then he reported them and they got a strike from youtube. they were begging him to undo the strike, lol.

 

[luv2liv]

how about Vimeo?
i noticed a lot of wedding videos on vimeo has songs from popular singers like Taylor Swift but the videos are still there...

 

[CZroe]

how about Vimeo?
i noticed a lot of wedding videos on vimeo has songs from popular singers like Taylor Swift but the videos are still there...

Videos are usually "still there" on YouTube too. Often it just means that you can't monetize it and they can. IOW, they will get ad revenue from your video and will insert ads whether you want them to or not.

 

[Chiropteran]

Took a 5 minute walking video at work while music was playing in the building, uploaded it as a private video. YouTube said that the music was copyrighted and suggested that I change it to something generic which they provided. :\

Seems like there should be a way to use this to your advantage.

Wear a shirt with a copy-written artwork on it, rob a bank. When the bank tries to prosecute you with video evidence, claim copyright infringement and get the evidence thrown out of court.

 

[CZroe]

Seems like there should be a way to use this to your advantage.

Wear a shirt with a copy-written artwork on it, rob a bank. When the bank tries to prosecute you with video evidence, claim copyright infringement and get the evidence thrown out of court.

There has to be harm or illegal profit from the use to be prosecutable. It's why a kid can legally draw Bugs Bunny but he can't put it on a T-Shirt and sell it.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I hummed a song while doing my business on the toilet and uploaded it to YT. I got a warning saying my load was a piece of artwork and to take it down.

First, how often is your poop and art of work. Second, isn't already going down [the toilet]?

 

[Red Squirrel]

my cousin made a youtube video that took him weeks to create. he finally uploaded it and it started to get a lot of views.

within a month, someone downloaded his video, sped it up %8 to avoid it looking/sounding exactly the same to youtube's analysis, then uploaded it as their own.

he found it though because they used the same name for the video. then he reported them and they got a strike from youtube. they were begging him to undo the strike, lol.

See THIS Is what copyright should actually be for. Simply ripping off somebody else's work and claiming it as your own to try to get credit (and money) for it IS wrong.

Simply using a song as the background music or a small clip for something you created or recording something in near a source of music like a radio should not be considered infringement.

 

[brianmanahan]

agreed, it is just tough because "fair use" is in the eye of the beholder

and youtube has tended to listen to the beholder who is a billions-of-dollars industry

 

[CZroe]

See THIS Is what copyright should actually be for. Simply ripping off somebody else's work and claiming it as your own to try to get credit (and money) for it IS wrong.



Simply using a song as the background music or a small clip for something you created or recording something in near a source of music like a radio should not be considered infringement.

You keep saying this but it's completely backwards and incorrect.

If you can use my song for free, then why would anyone ever pay me to use it in their movie, commercial, YouTube video, etc? Copyright is to protect it as a valuable product that can me sold as much as it is about spurring future innovation. I agree that copyright is MUCH too long, but it blows my mind that so many people think it is or should be a "credit" thing.

Believe it or not, people DO pay to use licensed music in their videos, especially the commercial/monetized ones. What good is giving me credit if I still can't sell or profit from my work?!

 

[Red Squirrel]

You keep saying this but it's completely backwards and incorrect.

If you can use my song for free, then why would anyone ever pay me to use it in their movie, commercial, YouTube video, etc? Copyright is to protect it as a valuable product that can me sold as much as it is about spurring future innovation. I agree that copyright is MUCH too long, but it blows my mind that so many people think it is or should be a "credit" thing.

Believe it or not, people DO pay to use licensed music in their videos, especially the commercial/monetized ones. What good is giving me credit if I still can't sell or profit from my work?!

And that's the problem, people are trying to take art and turn it into a commercialized product. If I made something, and someone likes it, and they actually use it for something, I'd be honoured by it. Meanwhile you have these copyright zealots that want to restrict their work from being used by anyone else. I'm not talking about TV commercials or movies, I agree they should pay given their sole purpose is to make money out of the work, but a simple fan video that does not have monetary gain as it's main goal should not be restricted. I think fair use even covers this, but fair use is not really a thing anymore.

 

[Jeff7]

Isn't that just ridiculous? I once had to take "copyright school" for a video I had uploaded years ago and just got taken down two years ago. COPYRIGHT SCHOOL!

Fuck these assclowns! This Copyright shit is destroying everything. Since when did the decisions of a few go against the majority? Oh wait. :hmm:

They're not.
They're favoring the majority...of the ones with the most money.

agreed, it is just tough because "fair use" is in the eye of the beholder

and youtube has tended to listen to the beholder who is a billions-of-dollars industry

...an industry that seems to refuse to acknowledge that the spread of Internet access to everyone has radically altered the marketplace.

 

[CZroe]

And that's the problem, people are trying to take art and turn it into a commercialized product. If I made something, and someone likes it, and they actually use it for something, I'd be honoured by it. Meanwhile you have these copyright zealots that want to restrict their work from being used by anyone else. I'm not talking about TV commercials or movies, I agree they should pay given their sole purpose is to make money out of the work, but a simple fan video that does not have monetary gain as it's main goal should not be restricted. I think fair use even covers this, but fair use is not really a thing anymore.

Ridiculous. You seem to forget that some people are professional artists who do it for a living and can only continue to do it as a livelihood as long as it is protected. You are imagining that all art is owned by a conglomerate or a corporation and that all any individual artist wants is honor/recognition. That is laughable. Even where it is signed away to a major corporation or record label it's usually done so for the protection/enforcement and distribution/revenue they provide.

Remember what U2/Bono told Tim Cook?

Do you think Matt and Trey want you pirating South Park as long as you give credit? No. They want you to sign up for Hulu.

Taylor Swift doesn't even want you listening to it without artists getting paid (not just her music).

You think you are on the artists' side, but you're actually on the-freeloader-who-wants-to-use-it-and-doesn't-have-to-make-a-living's side.

 

[Ns1]

n/m

 

[Childs]

Youtube and the content holders should create a simple and reasonably priced way to license content for non commercial works. So for example, if I wanted to upload a video of my daughter dancing to Taylor Swift, maybe there should be an option to license the song for like $20-50, as long as its not used commercially (no ads for profit). A free option could be to automatically put ads on the video and the profits for the views goes to the content holder. Sometimes it does work that way, but many content holders dont realize they are leaving money on the table.

I would think most people who upload youtube just want to share something, not make money. Content holders should use that as free promotion.

 

[CZroe]

Youtube and the content holders should create a simple and reasonably priced way to license content for non commercial works. So for example, if I wanted to upload a video of my daughter dancing to Taylor Swift, maybe there should be an option to license the song for like $20-50, as long as its not used commercially (no ads for profit). A free option could be to automatically put ads on the video and the profits for the views goes to the content holder. Sometimes it does work that way, but many content holders dont realize they are leaving money on the table.

I would think most people who upload youtube just want to share something, not make money. Content holders should use that as free promotion.

Luckily, that's how it usually works out for me. They monetize my video. I've had my share of unjust copyright claims though, including a record company who thinks they own the rights to Ninja Gaiden NES music just because some artist on their label made a remix of it.

 

[lamedude]

If you want to read on how Shazaam and presumably content ID works.

 

[John Connor]

If you want to read on how Shazaam and presumably content ID works.

The Shazam patent holders lawyers are sending me emails to stop me from releasing the code and removing this blogpost, read the story here.

Unfuckingbelievable.