And so you have an end result where important historical documentation of huge and important protests, focused on police brutality against black Americans, is being blocked and erased from history, due to the copyright on music created by black musicians.
That cannot and should not be the point of copyright. And yet, it is what we have today.
Unicorn Riot (understandably) is complaining that Facebook and YouTube have "algorithmically interfered" with their reporting, but the reality is that it's copyright to blame here. And we should not confuse the two.
That’s unfortunate. If the song is being played live, it can at least be removed from the pauses between sentences and words. It will sound like shit though. And while I sympathize with the...
That’s unfortunate. If the song is being played live, it can at least be removed from the pauses between sentences and words. It will sound like shit though.
And while I sympathize with the content creators, that’s quite the hyperbole:
is being blocked and erased from history, due to the copyright on music created by black musicians
There are video hosts other than YouTube as well as other file hosts and several alternative means to archive this material for posterity.
I don't believe this is true. Many rules and regulations are suspended when reporting facts, and I would think this falls into that bag. You don't need copyright permission to document what's...
but the reality is that it's copyright to blame here.
I don't believe this is true. Many rules and regulations are suspended when reporting facts, and I would think this falls into that bag. You don't need copyright permission to document what's happening. The news doesn't need to get song releases when they have a reporter on the street and someone drives by blaring a song. They don't need to get model releases from every person at the event. They don't need to pay royalties if they're filming an incident and the people involved walk past a famous photograph or painting. Fair use is a thing for exactly this reason. I don't see why this is any different?
Of course, that doesn't mean that Facebook's and YouTube's horrible systems for attempting to find copyright violations will do the right thing. But this has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with YouTube's and Facebook's broken systems.
It's really disappointing to see TechDirt (someone to whom I have donated for their coverage of tech and rights) write such a terrible headline and article and not parse this out correctly.
As a note, this is a value neutral way to make sure a live event cannot be archived on YouTube. From Vox: The idea that something as inane as the Mouseketeer anthem or the DuckTales anthem can be...
As a note, this is a value neutral way to make sure a live event cannot be archived on YouTube. From Vox:
Protesters encouraged one another to play, specifically, music from Disney films and musicals, so that any video footage Bennett uploaded would trigger Disney’s copyright flag.
The idea that something as inane as the Mouseketeer anthem or the DuckTales anthem can be used as a hard block on being recorded terrifies me, but not as much as it amuses me.
Edit: I want to write the cyberpunk novel where a band of thieves gain access to a leaked Disney project, and then play in the background of their heists in order to knock out surveillance equipment or cause a media blackout.
That’s unfortunate. If the song is being played live, it can at least be removed from the pauses between sentences and words. It will sound like shit though.
And while I sympathize with the content creators, that’s quite the hyperbole:
There are video hosts other than YouTube as well as other file hosts and several alternative means to archive this material for posterity.
Of course. But they did not mention the ability to publicize the content in that bit, but rather the need for historical preservation.
I don't believe this is true. Many rules and regulations are suspended when reporting facts, and I would think this falls into that bag. You don't need copyright permission to document what's happening. The news doesn't need to get song releases when they have a reporter on the street and someone drives by blaring a song. They don't need to get model releases from every person at the event. They don't need to pay royalties if they're filming an incident and the people involved walk past a famous photograph or painting. Fair use is a thing for exactly this reason. I don't see why this is any different?
Of course, that doesn't mean that Facebook's and YouTube's horrible systems for attempting to find copyright violations will do the right thing. But this has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with YouTube's and Facebook's broken systems.
It's really disappointing to see TechDirt (someone to whom I have donated for their coverage of tech and rights) write such a terrible headline and article and not parse this out correctly.
As a note, this is a value neutral way to make sure a live event cannot be archived on YouTube.
From Vox:
The idea that something as inane as the Mouseketeer anthem or the DuckTales anthem can be used as a hard block on being recorded terrifies me, but not as much as it amuses me.
Edit: I want to write the cyberpunk novel where a band of thieves gain access to a leaked Disney project, and then play in the background of their heists in order to knock out surveillance equipment or cause a media blackout.