The problem is it’s not that simple. I’ve had two copyright claims on my videos of original material on YouTube from completely random people relating to content that is not even similar. There’s a whole cottage industry of shitebags claiming the rights to just about everything on YouTube, mostly as a response to YouTube’s ridiculous policies. The policy itself is well meaning, theoretically giving a simple route for people to resolve rights disputes, as long as all parties are acting honestly. the problem is that this is the internet, where honesty died in 1996.
I was able to resolve both disputes quicky (probably because the claimant realized there was no money to be made from monetising my video). For a lot of others, many of whom have asked and credited artists for using their material, this is becoming a real problem.
With so many hours of material to deal with, Google are going to find it very difficult to do anything other than uphold every claim (whether or not it’s bogus) or remove every video subject to a claim, making it increasingly difficult for anyone, especially rights holders, to monetize their material without the backing of large institutions that are able to better control access to copyrighted media.
YouTube is always going to side with the claimant, especially if that claimant is a massive multinational organisation that can cause YouTube a real headache if it pisses them off, so YouTube indulges their aggressive need to own everything anyone says about anything on the internet. Article 13 basically ensrines this in law.
creating original content, using others’ stuff with proper permissions and paying original authors are right by themselves, but new copyright law makes some assumptions that are clearly wrong:
—like whatever content in internet is copyrighted in some restrictive manner by default (wrong)
—like public domain in human culture exists only by mistake (wrong).
forcing internet to work this way is clearly not a good idea. because human culture does not work this way, and never did.
I really do believe academic work will be exempt (excempt?! EXCLUDED!) from this…
otherwise, we are fucked. deeply fucked.
can you imagine the new type of lobbying that would arise from having to license academic citations?! ^^
-> “oh you want to use my scientific research to prove that climate change is real? TOO BAD I SOLD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO EXXON HAHAHAHAH fuck you.”
I think the problem with this is that often the road and cost to clearing music means that essentially they either won’t use music, or they’ll use free/cheap to licence music from libraries.
And if they are organised and funded enough to licence music, and have the budget then it becomes much easier to deal with the majors (huge catalogue, one deal to do) than independent labels which you have to deal with one by one.
We all think artists deserve to get paid. But we really need something like blockchain to make this work for independent artists/creators, otherwise the currently insanely complicated/incomplete nature of mechanical and publishing rights restricts what people can afford the time/money to do.
(e.g. - there isn’t even a single central place to find out who owns the publishing rights at the moment.)
overcomplicated right managing is important part of the game.
the whole copyright system is not about making creators happy/rich, but organizations that manage the rights. anything that makes such organizations necessary is good for them, and overcomplication is very effective for this goal.
P.S. in software world, problems of this kind are more or less solved by free / open source software licenses. but musicians in general are not that smart and still tend to hope that someday music industry is going to come back to 60s/70s. (but this won’t happen)
Absolutely this
What do you mean? There is open source for music, no? Creative Commons licenses, art and software are two different things obviously. Noone wants 60is back, what people want is stopping other people using audio and video content they did not create for free like it’s normal.
in 2 words — licenses are available, but very few people are willing to create anything valuable under those licenses. this is the main difference.
If you asked me if I could make millions of dollars from my music and it and all other media are on lock down or I can make nothing and all art and music would be free for the people I’d choose the later in less than a heartbeat… Art and creativity are things of natural beauty and shouldn’t be hampered by the economic situation of the times we live in, it does not do justice to creative expression.
How do you make this happen, one persons choice at a time. Even if it takes a thousand years you got to start somewhere. Money and the economy is not sustainable for the planet and it won’t be around forever or it will be the major player in the demise of the species…
Those are my thoughts, just one persons voice, but I’m not going to waiver… I have great hope and my prayers are that the human race begins to act more and more out of love and kindness especially for the sake of others instead of selfish desire. We can do it! Slowly but surely. The choice is Love!
I don’t know about that. On places like patchstorage you can choose to upload under GNU or MIT licenses, most do. So creators are aware tgat open source type intellectual property rights could apply to music. And even many of those who aren’t steeped in to the discussion still actually welcome use of their work, short of blatant ripoffs of course. Those are just ideas who need to get more traction. The industry reps who pushed those clauses I’m not sure time is working for them. The big streaming plattforms have their own agenda, so not even big businesss is completely aligned atthis point.
Or I’m wrong, and they extend copyright protection another fifty years before say michael jacksons catalogue becomes public domain, like they did when the 60ies stuff was due to get out of their clutch. (:
fight’s not over.
PewDiePie
Wow it’s impressive that a 9 year old figured out how to use elektron gear
I almost spit out my tea. Hahah
I want to take a new approach to sampling (it’s not, but to me). As of now I create most of my own samples, guitars, drums, other synths and such.
But the other day I was in a local thrift shop that was some cheap electronic mixed tape. I’m not a proffesional producer or music player. I probably will never sell, or produce a cd to sell. Can I chop this mixed taped? I know people do this everyday, I googled various copyright laws, and such, but never got an answer I understood or liked.
Can I use copyright music to make my own samples and still share my songs on social media and at clubs… thx…
Like to know peoples take on this.
Do it , let the dark side take over! lol, I run some tape into OT for some sweet Lo-fi slices , after some FX and mangling no ones going to be able to tell within 100 years.
better to ask for forgiveness than permission these days on projects you are describing. chop away!
what everyone else said. just be tasteful (or the opposite)
stop right there criminal scum this is the sound police, a squad car has been sent to your location