That relies on their detection actually detecting the right piece.
I once recorded myself playing Beethoven’s “Pathetique” sonata, mvt 2. It gave me a strike for a recording of Beethoven’s “Moonlight” sonata, mvt 1.
edit: of course, in both cases, the thing is public domain, and no company has any right to claim copyright on it. The fact that YouTube lets them is fucking criminal. And it was the piece itself that copyright was being claimed on, not the recording.
I really wish there was some form of user protection in regards to DMCA. The claimant should be required to face penalties for false claims.
IP holders are not damaged by stolen content as significantly as smaller users who have had claims made against them, regardless of legitimacy.
There are protections against false DMCA claims. I think a false DMCA claim is actually perjury.
The thing is though, the vast majority of claims on YouTube are not DMCA. YouTube has their own extra-legal system called Content ID. Where a DMCA claim carries the force of law and requires the allegedly infringing content be removed from the platform, claims under Content ID are essentially a contract with YouTube, and they give the claimant the choice of taking the video down, muting it (if the allegedly infringing content is audio), or monetising it and taking all the money for the claimant. They can also do different things by region, which is why at least historically a lot of videos were taken down in Germany but available elsewhere.
That relies on their detection actually detecting the right piece.
I once recorded myself playing Beethoven’s “Pathetique” sonata, mvt 2. It gave me a strike for a recording of Beethoven’s “Moonlight” sonata, mvt 1.
edit: of course, in both cases, the thing is public domain, and no company has any right to claim copyright on it. The fact that YouTube lets them is fucking criminal. And it was the piece itself that copyright was being claimed on, not the recording.
I really wish there was some form of user protection in regards to DMCA. The claimant should be required to face penalties for false claims. IP holders are not damaged by stolen content as significantly as smaller users who have had claims made against them, regardless of legitimacy.
There are protections against false DMCA claims. I think a false DMCA claim is actually perjury.
The thing is though, the vast majority of claims on YouTube are not DMCA. YouTube has their own extra-legal system called Content ID. Where a DMCA claim carries the force of law and requires the allegedly infringing content be removed from the platform, claims under Content ID are essentially a contract with YouTube, and they give the claimant the choice of taking the video down, muting it (if the allegedly infringing content is audio), or monetising it and taking all the money for the claimant. They can also do different things by region, which is why at least historically a lot of videos were taken down in Germany but available elsewhere.
Wait, you are the doctor
Are you sure? I believe there’s likely copyright also applying to each performance.
Yes, and I own that copyright, because it’s my performance.
The claim wasn’t against the recording though. It was against the composition.
Same happened to me with my own record of a 19th century guitar piece. They lifted it after my appeal but it’s so annoying to be presumed guilty.