I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...in case any of them are asking 😬 New FREE Instrument ► bit.ly/vtvolts Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/patrons Get the Music from this video ► venustheory.bandcamp.com/
good thing AI is ridiculously easy to trick and it rarely comes up with a actionable answer on its own anyhow...it can just copy and process, copy and process, copy and process, all according to its ruleset. Super predictable for most humans if you watch one for a few seconds.
@@russellzauner Agreed. I don't even capitalize the i in Ai, as it hasn't earned that yet, nor do I expect it to-- but here's to the convincing the world, right!? Autonomic intelligence still.
AI is just a tool that allows for instant sampling and collaboration, everyone sampled and the people who programmed the musicality into the AI and the "prompter" should all be given song writing credits...but good luck enforcing that when you guys already let everyone download & stream for free.
The strangest one I got was on twitch, which part of the stream got muted for "Unknown track" and "Unknown artist" and I was like "..if you don't know what it is -how are you claiming it?"
Fair use is weird. A charity event was being held digitally during the lockdown and certain songs would crash the stream. Think in a way Fair use is outdated and needs to be revamped as the digital world changes.
We have had claims on videos that just have wind, rain, or cricket sounds. They will claim anything you put out. We stopped making videos. We only ever had one legit claim and we had borrowed it from someone that had posted it as royalty free. Turns out it wasn't. You can't win.
@@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMineCertain streaming websites will automatically detect copyrighted works in the live stream and crash the stream in response. Its not a technical issue, its a copyright detection issue.
I’ve been copyright claimed several times on videos of recorded livestreams of me creating the actual tracks that i’m being claimed with. it’s a disaster.
@@frajeeli yeah I hear you. but if Native Instruments / Black Octopus / Loopmasters / Vengeance are out there copyright striking under shell company names then boy are we f*cked 😂 (I avoid Splice and similar platforms like the plague and avoid using melodic/harmonic loops without extensive manipulation).
@turtletheorytv I would watch out for Vengeance packs, I heard that they used copyrighted material ripped from old record for certain packs. Apparently this is fine under German law but not anywhere else. Same reason to never use Rave Generator vst
@@M2Texas yeah I never started out recording and live streaming with the intent to use it as copyright defense but it’s serendipitously evolved into that. one would hope being able to produce dated recordings of the creation process and the actual project file is enough ammo to shoot down any future claims
Last week I had a track taken down for third party copyright infringement! The third party claimant was myself for a track I uploaded to stores, I appealed, explained it was me, also gave them a link to a screen recording of me creating the track from scratch, and still lost the appeal? I now have a community guidelines warning for creating and uploading my own music..
I feel you hard on that one. I fought with UA-cam for YEARS because Venus Theory was claiming Venus Theory for using music by Venus Theory and UA-cam said 'stop using music by Venus Theory, Venus Theory'.
Not sure if this applies to you but it worked for me so I figured I'd share: Depending on what platform you released the track through, you need to either contact that platform or check your settings on their site for how/where they enforce your copyright to get them to stop claiming your music on UA-cam. When I released through CDBaby, they would flag my music in my own videos until I updated my preferences after which it stopped entirely.
UA-cam isn't the one who confirms or denies the appeals, whoever made the claim in the first place is. UA-cam just enforces the claim. It's a terrible system.
@KaiBurley for the time being i dont mind the distributor claiming my youtube content, because those royalties still go to me, whereas being my profile is not big enough for monitisation i would not otherwise be paid for my content.
Several years ago my wife and I started a channel creating humorous content that we co-wrote and she presented. We used opening theme music from a licensed library we had access to. One of her videos took off in popularity and within a couple of days we had a copyright violation claim from a German company that said the music violated the copyright of an artist they represented. They referenced the piece of music it supposedly copied and the music sounded absolutely nothing like the music we used. I have a degree in music and spent decades as a professional musician so this is not a layman's opinion. When I contacted UA-cam about this it's much as you described. They said there was nothing they could do and I needed to contact the company making the copyright violation claim. I did, but you can probably guess that did nothing. It soured me on creating content for UA-cam.
I went through the exact same thing when I posted a video I made with music that I recorded myself. Same thing with the German company. They claimed for a Swedish band I had never heard of, and yes, their music sounded nothing like my self-produced music. I refuted the claim with UA-cam and won.
@@CD-vb9fi If you are too incompetent to make a blog or get insurance in this day and age, then you should really focus on more important things than becoming a content creator.
One thing I have always found unfair about the ContentID system is that people who dispute a copyright strike and lose will face consequences for disputing it, but there are no consequences for parties that send false copyright claims on a large scale, meaning that if their strikes get disputed and people *win* regularly, nothing happens. The claim just gets discarded, and there's no reimbursement for damages because the funds were held in an escrow. This makes it a very easy tool for abuse against videos that certain parties don't want published. There are many bot accounts who blatantly copy the original video, publish it, and claim a copyright on the original they copied in the first place. That is plain malicious behavior.
You face no consequences for disputing a claim. You MAY get a strike if you escalate to an appeal where you only give them 7 days to review the contents of the video. That's another matter.
I got a copyright claim on a 500-year old piece I played on the lute! YT said I nicked a recording from a CD that was made 30 years ago. It wasn't even in the same key! They withdrew the claim but it's all greed and silliness.
I had a claim on the engine sound of a Fendt tractor working a hillside with a plow in Farming Simulator 19. Something literally illegal to claim that also wasn't music. UA-cam exists to enable fraud.
I've gotten a "denied for publishing" thing few times as well from Spotify, as their "Content ID" system flagged my 140-145 bpm trance tracks, also in a different key and with a totally different melody, against some ambient/downtempo tracks and there was pretty much nothing I could do (their support was pretty abysmal on the matter, they basically didn't give af). I ended up just releasing the tracks on other platforms. This just as a reminder that it's not just YT, it can happen pretty much on any platform nowadays, in different ways, and it can also be totally up to luck and doesn't even need to have anything to do with AI or anyone being a dick.
This has been going on with some classical music for well over 10 years. There were videos of people playing Chopin's piano music - which is public domain everywhere in the world - getting flagged as copies of copyrighted recordings.
It's equally distressing when these cases do go to court, and end up in front of a judge who has no knowledge of or interest in music. They throw up their hands, say "it all sounds the same to me" and that's that.
"because UA-cam, a literal multi billion dollar corporation" Slight addendum, not correction: "because UA-cam, a literal multi billion dollar corporation *_under the umbrella of a literal multi trillion dollar umbrella company_* " There we go.
Thank you! This is the comment I was looking for. The problem is not AI or laws. The problem is YT and it's stupid, opaque censorship knee-jerk reaction
I didn't even use AI music. I had some AI channel pop up out of nowhere that claimed 2 of my videos. Neither video used songs they had rights to. They simply made a channel to start claiming for revenue. This cannot be allowed to slide. Even using music I have permission for, I can lose out on all earnings because of this.
Write a cool song without AI Song is added to an AI training set without your consent AI model spits out something similar enough to your song to flag the original in a contentID system Some jerk uploads the AI generated song to a streaming service/contentID database You end up in a copyright fight with the people and technology that stole your own work The future is very good and cool
One of the only ways I can see this getting any better is requiring evidence of human creation with manual review if you want to put something in ContentID. If you're going to claim that a piece of media is yours and you should have exclusive rights to it, prove that you made it
It ends with live performances becoming the only way to stop the a.i. from sucking up your work..oh wait people and phones....it ends with enjoying your own performances alone in the woods so that your not stolen from. None one hears your work and your satisfied.
For a homework at college, a teacher assigned us to investigate an AI music platform. I did the homework and when I checked the pricing section of the platform it confused me so much that they told you that the copyright wasn't yours if you used the platform for free. I wondered "it's slop made by a machine, who owns it then? Machines are soulless, they cannot own anything". This video really puts me in alert and man, the future is looking gray. Least thing we can do is keep looking out for each other and try to fight this AI garbage as best as we can. From the deepest part of my soul: *Fuck AI.*
I'd say "it's ok, you're a naive college student and will grow up soon" but I'm a college student too, so I don't know what to say. Not only did you somehow not expect the free tier to give rights to them (why wouldn't it, be honest, that is actually reasonable... Their tool made the song and you didn't pay for it, so why should it be yours) but you're acting like an old person in cognitive decline who writes off new tech completely because he doesn't understand it. AI is going to create medications that you will use later in your life, and we are probably finally getting photorealistic video games within the next decade thanks to AI. Are you also triggered if someone waves a vintage 20q game in front of you? That's AI too, just 30 year old primitive AI that runs on a toy. You would have written off telephones if you were born in the early 20th century.
@@awesomeferret Fair point, and it's on me for not specifying. I don't hate "AI" as in _all of Artificial Intelligence ever,_ but specifically Generative AI. Artificial Intelligence is not a new concept, it just boomed lately in the tech world, and I'm glad the technology exists to help us develop in areas of investigation and technologic advances. But I do mean it when I say Fuck _Generative_ AI. Its results are just regurgitated data put together without any sense, thought or soul put into it. And if "art" has no soul, it's not art for me.
i once got copyrighted on yt for me literally saying "well then" without any music in the bg, because somebody content ID'd some bollywood movie, vocals only version - apparently i either just happened to say the same sentence as their guy, or my voice sounds simmilar... but its scary that this voiceclip was labelled as copyrighted melody and one small word / phrase singlehandedly wouldve made the entire 9 hour vod ineligible for monetization, if i monetized vods...
Yeah the false copyright accusation is getting crazier and crazier over time. I bet that even the pure silence without any sounds could get copyrighted as well
@@sihamhamda47 I actually tried to test this once by uploading a video that's just the 10 minutes of silence before the hidden track on Nirvana's album Nevermind, but thankfully the copyright robots don't know how to claim that yet
I once used a track in a video that was EXPLICITLY public domain, like, it wasn't just released in the public domain, but the track itself was ABOUT being released to the public domain. The album was titled Public Domain... The artist created the entire album as a commentary about copyright. Still, I contacted them and let them know I was going to use it, and I included the appropriate licensing information and attribution. Then it got copyright claimed. Not long after that I just quit uploading to youtube. It destroyed any desire I had to continue trying to grow my channel.
Definitely an artistic move by whoever did that, but holy shit, it just feeds how badly the system works already and fucks with smaller creators that use public domain media. I lost all my desire too after constantly getting copyright issues with my german UA-cam Poop Channel in 2018. Although my Videos have been so over-edited, both visually and additively without any outside input of any famous jingles, voicelines or imagery like in the average english ytp, the contentID system still ignores fair use and fucks you over everywhere it can. Putting 30h of work into a 4 minute video at max just for youtube fucking you over definitely kills of any motivation for creating something. Even though it never was made for the money to begin with.
0:18 - The answer to this question is "Whoever is most skilled at gaming the legal system, or whoever hires the attorneys most skilled at gaming the legal system, owns that copyright".
@@Unethical.FandubsGames You do know that those two are two separate aspects? While related, they are not the same nor replacements to each other. Trying to put it simply, I'd say the judge is the only person that in a Venn Diagram sits in the intersection of those two circles.
If UA-cam supposedly doesn't have the resources (i.e too lazy) to enforce or verify Copyright infringement, then WHY IN THE FK DO THEY HAVE A COPYRIGHT SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Thanks for saying this. It was a question forming in my head. Like what kind of country would have laws without verification of a crime or enforcement? Wild west indeed.
@@dsnodgrass4843 Yes but do you realize how asinine it is? It's like having police in a city because you have to deal with criminals, but then not having any court system to actually prosecute them. So the police chief just arbitrarily decides who gets put in prison and who gets released.
People have been using my music to train AI and extend it just to have a few extra minutes of listening, cuz they won’t wait for me Now I’m getting copyright claimed for my game OST releases An AI generated channel by the name “Sonic Forge - topic” redistributed my same music under AI generated titles and images, and they released them on both UA-cam under a topic channel, and on Amazon music. I’ve striked the AI channel 29 times for each reupload but the channel hasn’t been taken down even tho the videos are down, it still copyright claims me and everyone who used my music in their videos UA-cam told me they can’t do anything, that this is legal matter I’m so fed up and I don’t know what to do anymore I want it gone from my life
@@joshhickson7551 In this case a lawyer would eat up serious amount of money and the process will be torturously slow. UA-cam is an extremely hostile environment for artists
@@PatrizzaEatsApizza i think hiring someone to find the identity of the thief and sending them a cease and desist letter might do something, but I couldn't afford that either
@@joshhickson7551 Getting the name and address of a copyright claimant is easy, barely an inconvenience. The claimant already needs to put down their legal address for a disputed copyright claim. If you dispute a claim, youtube gives you the adress, because at that point it's a legal matter outside of google's hand. Also, don't you people have legal protection insurance?
Here's an easy fix. PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PERSON CLAIMING THE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. If someone says you stole their music, you just check, "No, I didn't." And move on. If that person, or more likely super-rich media conglomerate has an actual case, they can then take you to court. They can afford it. They have teams of lawyers just sitting around waiting to do so. And that threat is enough to keep the normal person honest. If they claim your video, and you know you used their music, you say, "My bad." and concede their claim.
Sounds like an easy fix but it's like putting a band-aid on a failing dam. Never mind that it introduces problems where the legitimate copyright holder can be trolled by copyright thieves. The system we have now is geared for UA-cam to absolve themselves of all responsibility and moderation.
The sad thing, the burden of proof actually is on them, legally speaking, but somehow they have created a whole sphere of exceptions and technicalities which seems to be there only to invert that burden of proof - and if not de jure, then at least de facto.
@@Nattytom500 It depends. I think the part of recognition as the author, that can be pretty much endless. But exclusive right of distribution? 2 Years does not sound unreasonable for that at all - depending on the type of media.
The "You only gets to die once, so make sure it was worth it" hits hard and has been my motive to do exactly what I want ever since my mother passed, regardless of whether it's the 'clever' thing to do. Following your heart is the greatest good.
As an attorney starting to work in the AI space, I really enjoyed your video. I’m actually putting together a presentation on copyright and ai. It is a big mess right now and we’re waiting in the US courts. Thanks for your insights and opinions.
You guys need to call out sneaky UA-cam strike system, this is commy mommy tactics, also 230 section, in fact, why isn't UA-cam not apart of google anticompetitive practice lawsuit.
Went to conservatory for violin performance . Ended up in IT because classical music wants you to play stuff The Correct Way and not bring ideas into it. Slid into electronic music for something entirely different just to let that fire roar again, and maybe make music for my own videos. Just canceled my licensed music service last week since I felt ready to make my own stuff for future videos and…god damn this is disheartening. I don’t even care about money, I just don’t want other people making money off my stuff. Sorry for the rant. Fantastic video, as all of yours are. 💞
I went to a conservatorium for French Horn. Hop-skipped over to become a jazz singer after a year, because creativity and improvisation are the lifeblood of music, not performing by rote. If you ever wanted to pick up your instrument again, jazz violin is really damn cool.
Why not play Baroque then, if you like classical? Improvisation and interpretation are a large part of Baroque music. Ever heard of figured bass? In any baroque ensemble at least one musician is improvising over a bass line. There's no "correct way" because the pieces aren't even written out note for note. The ornaments are all meant to be improvised, and the symbols are merely suggestions. Bach's organ improvisation is well known, and there are still people today improvising in that style. I'm a harpsichordist, and when people talk about classical music being inflexible, I have no idea what they're talking about. I didn't go to conservatory though, I learned privately as an adult, so maybe it's just a problem with conservatory.
This was already a problem even before AI people have been cutting the audio off of UA-camr music production livestreams and uploading that to contant match even before there life stream has finished. The only solution is to not do those stream live and just show a pre made or pre planned recording or set up of music you have already registered to content ID before the stream. The bad thing is the better sounding aand unique your music is them the more its gona be a target to be ripped off of especially if your a small UA-camr they know you don't have the money or resources to stop it. I have had people copy and rip off My music 15 years ago some guy I was supposed to be making custom music for told Me He is just going to get his friend to copy My music so He doesn't have to pay Me anything. I threatened him with Legal action and He stopped but most people who rip you off are not actually going to tell you to your face. One of My pieces of music was ripped off of My UA-cam and has over a billion played and 100k downloads on a Chinese Royalty free music site. That music was never Royalty free and I haven't been payed a penny, I only found the website by accident.
Brilliant!!💯 It's totally crazy like you said. What can we do...Keep going, keep making music and deal with whatever happens when it happens. Hopefully someday this / these problems will all go away (in favor of the artist). ✌❣
there are copyright claims of people just talking for 2 hours with only their voice in an isolated room and still get a copyright claim or strike. And most of the time its some shady chinese company without contact details
I think it should fall under the same rule as that case where the monkey took a selfie. "...based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain."
Man...the number of sponsorship offers I've been getting to promote these AI music "tools" has been crazy. Thank you for covering such an important topic Cameron!
OP, the word tools means what it means and needs no punctuation, let alone incorrectly quoting nobody at all. 'Tools' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly, because you imply they aren't useful tools. 🕊️
I mean in all fairness, it is a tool. People have been abusing it to such a harsh degree however that its doing more harm than good. For example, a hammer is a tool. But should there be a ban on hammers if the only thing people use them for is smashing into stores and breaking kneecaps? You would probably answer no since the hammer is still needed for demolition and construction. AI generation was originally ment to help with visualization of ideas, artist block, or just something for fun. In other words, you generate something, use it to get ideas, then delete the generated work because it served its purpose. Sometimes you hire other people to replace it but it remains the same. Very few have been following the last two or three steps and its very concerning on where its going.
Very informative in a brutal and brilliant way, thank you. I believe every change starts with an alert and yours is perfect. I am not a musician but just a music and music making lover and I dreamed of publishing a few songs of mine - now I have to think twice. I will make sure to share your video with the local community in my country - at least among those who speak English. Greetings from Brazil.
Even refraining from using music doesn't work, I have a couple works that were forced to be taken down from my channel, and I didn't include any music at all.
I once got copyright claimed by the most random artist/song ever and when I checked what it was, it was basically just a very simple track made with samples and loops made from very common sample packs. I suspect the intent was mass upload a bunch of low effort tracks using common samples and then copyright strike any other song that also uses those samples.
its basically the same as has happened to me years ago by using "copyright free" music from either machinima and another website that used to distribute royalty free music. only for them to either be bought by another company that changed the non copyright to copyrighted or maybe they decided this themselves so tens of videos I had on my channel using that royalty music is now suddently claimed and I had to take them down or put them to private
It's absolutely disgusting that someone could take a sample of our audio and throw it into an AI generator. Then file a copyright claim against us and claim credit for our work they stole from.
@@BestHakase Some people don't want copyright on their songs (such as our stock music king Kevin Macleod), but that then gets abused by people wanting to steal the money that would've been made by registering a slightly edited version under copyright so the Content ID system thinks that the actual artist's songs belong to the thief.
Cameron you should talk to Rick Beato. We all know who he is but his channel has a lot of influence in the music industry and he has so many connections, hes testified before congress. I think it would be worth you guys working on a legislative solution. That would be amazing I would help in any way that I can, I have some connections to other various media organizations like the Washington Post and some other online media as well. Lets do this or we can just watch it crash around us
> steal data from artists > feed them to slop model to generate more slops > claim original artists for sounding like their tracks ThAt'S HoW ThE LaW "WoRkS".
15:09 - As somebody just listening to this video without watching, I literally had no idea that the song had even changed. I was sitting there like, "Okay... when's he going to play the second clip?" Had to stop what I was doing to make sure I didn't miss something. Crazy.
I think that's why it isn't that big of a problem yet, i tried it and its basically exactly the same as the original, definitely not "different enough to where its technically a new ID".
@@qinng4350 But it is, by all means. Audio fingerprinting technology works by analysing different parameters on the phonogram: frequency content, amplitude, and all that. Thus, two versions of the exact same song with the exact same notes and chords, length, etc, but different mastering (i.e.) will yield a different fingerprint, because the frequency content is different, although they are the same composition. Also, technically that would be a different phonogram, but that's another story. And that's the key here: if you pick up a song by anyone and just process it by detuning it, most automatic content recognition systems will catalogue it as a different phonogram than the original. This has been a problem for copyright owners for a while, as it is impossible to manually review the insane amount of tracks that are uploaded everyday to streaming services, and pirates use this tricks a lot to steal revenues. Now, on top of that we have generative AI, making it even harder to fight this problem.
@@qinng4350 Then it becomes a problem of if it's a tool making the evaluation or a human, likely will be a tool 1st, and it might just be mathematically different enough to not be the same. For a human it's a blatant ripoff tho.
Human beings can’t even get the legal issues right on *human* intellectual ‘property.’ I quit releasing my music and pivoted to other kinds of music income, after Spotify and the other streaming services destroyed my quarterly publishing and royalty revenue (i used to make money quarterly on my music, for about 15 years, which all came to a grinding halt around 2008). The thing is, there’s no easy solution for this because a vast majority of people simply will not pay creatives for their work. The same people who claim they support human artists over AI are fine paying Spotify, who *doesn’t pay human artists.* Everybody loves the idea of paying human creatives… as long as it’s someone else who’s paying. To all you wonderful folks out there supporting artists on Patreon, and actually buying music on Bandcamp: bless you.
In my time with musicians and in music, anyone that wasn't super famous made money with live performances and selling music directly at the performances and merch. I met almost no artist that wasn't super famous that made decent money just off track or record sales unless they were a very talented studio musician. That was in the 90s, was there some kind of golden age after that where artists were making all their money off digital tracks and thought that would last forever? Not trying to be snarky, just putting my experience and my uncles experience and my mothers experience and every garage band I knew and every band trying to break out and every rapper I knew and trying to figure out what I guess we all missed?
@@liwojenkinsPlenty of non super famous musicians earned decent income … television is riddled with songs created nearly exclusively by non super famous artists… as an example.
@@liwojenkins I wasn’t super famous, but I made a living with my music before 2008. Had an international cult following who bought my music on vinyl and download. Gigged internationally. After 2008, it simply wasn’t worth doing. So, are you actually supporting the status quo of Spotify and Apple Music?? 🤢 Question for you: How long is your ‘time with musicians and in music?’ Anybody who doesn’t remember what the world was like before Spotify and Apple Music took the value of the work of all musicians for themselves, has no concept of the true value of music, before tech corporations owned music culture. When things were stacked against the musicians, but still somewhat equitable if the musician was willing to work hard and own their own publishing. This nonsense of ‘you just aren’t willing to tour 99% of the year, so you don’t deserve to be picked up by a major and get famous enough to be upper-class’ has to go. We don’t demand that accountants destroy their mental and physical health to do their job. We pay them for their skills. The problem is, everyone wants music and art, but absolutely nobody wants to pay for it. Same problem as always, for human creatives who have historically never been appreciated or respected. The difference is, now Spotify is in there, digitally c@£k-blocking every musician on the planet.
@@sub-jec-tiv Unless an alternative comes to light that offers the wide catalogue of music and cheap cost of entry. Spotify nor Apple Music or any platform of the sort isn't going anywhere. Of course it sucks to the musicians and creators of music, but the reality is that the sentiment of supporting artists isn't ever going to be enough on its own to get people off those platforms. It's just not realistic to ask people to pay more for less. The consumer cares about themselves first and foremost after all.
Your comment at about 21:00 is going to be further exacerbated, at least here in the US, by the direction our government and courts are taking -- leaning more and more to protecting the rich and/or large corporate interests at the expense of those of use with shallow pockets.
I love your ‘touch grass’ appeal at the end of the vid, it’s very moving! I’m a data/software person (unaffiliated), and I’m interested to know whether content ID really *would* strike “similar” music. I would absolutely love to see you do a little test to try to recreate the AI music with your own instruments, and see if UA-cam would Copyright flag your song. As a data person, “exact” match and “close enough” are a world apart. Picture a DNA test showing a “close enough” match to a crime scene, and the criminal’s cousin gets sent to jail. If a ‘similar’ song gets copyright claimed, then if I make songs that are just fairly unoriginal, am I likely to get copyright claimed by… anyone?? Another way I wonder if people abuse the copyright ID system, is registering someone else’s song (ex. a lesser-known artist’s song) as their own, and then charging the actual songwriter for copyright infringement. Anyways, if you read this, thanks for reading! Keep up the good work!!
I love how this man can be so wholesome even when talking about the bleakest of subjects. He always gives off such good vibes like in that little bit at the end.
The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed. People copied each other and started selling of said copies to the point where the fakes became more popular than the originals. AI just made an old issue worse. We still need a real solution tho.
"The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed" - And once Google came around, governments (specifically, the U.S. government) effectively legalized copyright violation when it was done by large corporations.
I think the solution is that the arts need to be treated like engineering. Software engineers don't bank on bodies of work and its copyright, they get hired for their knowledge and expertise, and they're thriving in a world where AI can do a large portion of their job. Artists need to start selling their skills, not their output.
@@Dave-rd6spLOL we software engineers are just lucky that AI sucks at our job so far. That's the only difference. You can make passable-though-shitty music and it will still be music-ish enough to work. Passable-though-shitty code just doesn't work.
17:17 you dont need ai generated music for this scam, just copy the file and claim you created it first. Boom, copyright claim, this is done for years, AI plays no role in this
@@dunar1005 but with AI you might (depending on a judge/ future laws) actually have the copyrights for a "work" that you intentionally told the AI to make similar to someone else's work -> and later strike them when they make something similar enough to what the AI made.
This shit takes all the joy out of creating. Content ID only ever gave me trouble, and when it came to defend my own copyrights I got screwed over by the system anyway with nothing left to do except going to court...
I'm in all four categories: music, photography, visual art, and writing. In principle, you're right: the problem is a problem for many artists and creative endeavors. In reality, the issues covered by Cameron in this video are infinitely less problematic for non-music creative content because there is no overarching "art industry" equivalent to the "music industry." Think about that for a minute. The lawyers and bean counters (i.e. PEOPLE) running big money music corporations have found lawmakers and policy police (more PEOPLE) who are completely willing to prostitute themselves for a quick buck. Nothing new there, some people just want to see the world burn; but THAT is what enabled and created this entire mess - and it ALL goes back to the industry's complete ignorance about switching to digital-music, and the subsequent total cluster-F'k mishandling of music file sharing back in the day. JM2C
@@TheImageDoctor Yep. You can also be sure that a ton of the music industry artists affected by this are also currently using AI generated image content for their thumbnails, album art, music videos, etc. Everyone is affected. Creativity is tokenized! The technology is very cool but the problem still is a human problem. It just makes it that much easier for bad actors at the top to fuck over the creators.
That is scary. and here was I feeling bad for a mate of mine. His story is back in the 90s he and a DJ mate of his wrote an album (Using an Ensoniq EPS and a Juno106) which would now fit the genre of Drum & Bass in a time before it really existed. As he couldn't find a record company who would touch it at the time. They decided to have it mastered and paid for a small run on Vinyl (500-1000). And then found a distributor. They eventually sold all the copies just about broke even and chalked it down to experience. Rolling on 30 odd years he was watching you tube and his music was being used. After some searching he discovered that there were several channels using his music as incidental music whilst others were playing the tracks in full and titling name and artist. This turned out to also be happening overseas. He managed to track down the distributor who eventually admitted that he may have done a couple of reruns a few years later ( around 10K copies). When he tried to claim the music he was told that he couldn't as it was listed as royalty free and wasn't his music.
This absolutely makes me want to quit being an artist entirely. What the fk can we even do to stop culture, law, and livelihoods being ripped to shreds when I cant even afford groceries as an artist anymore. Fk dude
Haha god no. Except the portion used to demo Suno ripping me off this is all music made of the flesh o' venus. What flesh, I'll leave for you to imagine.
i bought a royalty stock music track off Envato (AudioJungle) a few years ago, to be used in a UA-cam video. 3 years pass without any issues. This year, I get a copyright claim for that same jingle I purchased. So what the hell did I pay $20 for this "royalty free" stock music for? Ridiculous.
Many have had the same experience with Envato, me included. But you can contest it, upload your Envato license for the track to the dispute form, and it will eventually be sorted out. I've done it multiple times and it works, although it's always a hassle.
One major change that needs to happen is if the video is posted before the copyright/content ID registration date, then it doesn’t get flagged, or at least doesn’t get an automatic claim. Because obviously it’s not impossible that something gets stolen before the original creator gets it on content ID. But 90% of the time it won’t. This would at least protect you if you made videos years ago and someone registers a new AI song sounding similar to one you used back then.
I disagree with your final reflection: to me, it’s not about stopping or continuing to make our music or our art. It’s about no longer participating or uploading content on these platforms. It’s an action with a collective impact, and that’s why it’s difficult-we live in an individualistic world that has lost its sense of community. Of course, we will all die someday-that’s the only thing we’re assured of. But we can die in less ridiculous ways.
I made some AI songs, they came out good. I did it because there is no longer any money or meaningful movements in rock music. If we want the old days back we need to not allow free downloading or streaming at all. Then we need to create unions of musicians, so all the real artists are in 2 or 3 places making real money again and using lawyers to go after pirates and streamers. That's just reality.
@@battokizu I'm aware that record labels want in on the AI, they are right, however those are the corporate giant artists. However they already let everyone steal & stream, and that gutted everything for the new non corporate musicians. You can't let people steal, it is really that simple.
Ai can’t claim art, whole lawsuit about it too, so music should be the same since music, writing and other creative forms are a form of art. UA-cam is just messed up and it’s broken
The simple answer is, in the US, AI generated works cannot be copyrighted because no human was involved in the creation. The fucked up answer is, UA-cam sides with the accusers and simply doesn't give a fuck if the claims are legitimate or not.
The problem with this is, who determines if the work was made by AI if not another AI? There's nothing stopping people from claiming they didn't use AI to make something. If someone makes something that seems like it was made by AI, this system would prevent them from copyrighting it. Companies use AI to fight AI and in the end, we lose.
It's not even that simple in the US. Though they word it differently, both the US and EU have the same essential stance of "if an AI made the entire thing, it can't be copyrighted...but if a human had a 'significant' input in it's creation then yes, in principle, that's a copywritable piece of work". This is still very new, and there isn't any case law about what counts as significant input. On top of that, the Content ID system isn't able to conduct that verification (I don't know how it even could) and UA-cam has no interest in mediating disputes, so simply goes by what Content ID has picked up even if that's got no legal standing, letting the creator(s) argue it out between them - but with the default position being in favour of whoever has uploaded something to Content ID. I'm speaking from the "dark side" here, as a creator that openly uses AI in works to varying levels, but with a significant element of human input. However, I deliberately *don't* upload anything into Content ID and upload everything I make under Creative Commons in UA-cam, so nothing I make will cause headaches for other people. Ironically, doing that puts me at greater risk of some other eejit deliberately or accidentally copyright striking me using my own music. I suspect the existing rules and processes will change and adapt to better cope with AI in the coming years, but in the meantime Venus Theory's right to describe it as a Wild West. And one which favours bad actors over good ones.
UA-cam created TOSes that make filing a fraudulent copyright claim absolutely risk-free while punishing the receiver for even have it filed against them. If you file a claim, you aren't investing anything into it: no time, money or credibility since UA-cam will mostly keep yor claim anonymous. If you receive a claim, you immediately lose your monetization and have to pray to God that UA-cam cares enough to actually review your case instead of filing it under the "Yup, that's copyright infringement, we'll let you contest it but don't give a fuck if you ever do" folder.
It is beyond time for the US (and others) to update and clarify their copyright laws for the modern internet. The DMCA turned 26 this year, and the internet it was designed to protect copyright in no longer exists. For the first time in human history, art can be created that is impossible to attribute to a single person or distinct group of people. It's become abundantly clear that "modern" copyright law is wholly incapable of dealing with the modern internet, let alone the introduction of AI generation. We're so cooked, but that won't stop me from continuing to create.
Modern copyright law has been detrimental for ages down to the fact that the period of time copyright subsists in a work keeps increasing. The ridiculously long times (70 or 90 years after the death of the author) helps no-one and just creates many orphaned works - work where the copyright holder is no longer known. But such is the nature of corporate greed that we now have this situation (Disney and others, who would love copyright to never expire).
@@cbnewham5633 Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of and live a beautiful and rich life off of, after he is gone. Why should an artists have to give up ownership of a thing they created, even at death ? Why ?
@richardthelionheart01 why should they give it up? Because they are dead. Why should their descendants, who have done bugger all, continue to profit? What's worse is that it takes creative works out of the public domain in the future. That's bad - eventually everything would be copyrighted and a huge number of things would be orphaned works (no known copyright holder - which does NOT make those works public domain). I couldn't think of a worse world to live in. I've authored several things myself (feel free to Google me) and I'd be happy with a mere 25 year copyright (as it originally was until the likes of Disney started getting unjustified extensions).
@@richardthelionheart01 *" Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of*" Erm maybe that's the problem? Copyright is supposed to be temporary - copyrights expired well within an author's lifetime for good reason (regarding the necessity of enriching the public domain). Why should it being some family of a huge star somehow make the behavior excusable?
The process described @18:05 doesn't even require AI. You could download existing songs from the free background websites, claim those and start sending strikes. Only defense is if those websites already register the music. In which case you can just strike them.
At around 13:20, they mention "one thing to sound like another thing" and causing an uproar. This reminds me of the infamous Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure" debacle.
Wanna hit back at their AI systems? Look for any youtube videos by youtube, google, or affiliates (also large revenue streams for google) - Generate audio that could flag them in their own system - upload it - and start trying to copyright striking their work - make sure to list the work as an act of protest... You could also do this for platforms like Suno that promote AI generated content. Will it work? who knows... but worth a try.
Doesn't work that way. You can't just upload any audio to ContentID, it has to be music, and if it's too similar to any other song already in ContentID it gets rejected. UA-cam can't do anything because that's part of the DMCA act, every copyright dispute has be solved between the 2 parties, UA-cam can't intervene by law. Also this channel says that his own music is getting claimed by himself, that's totally normal, he uploaded his music to ContentID and now it gets claimed, all the revenue still goes to him but is paid by his music distributor, and a claim is not a strike, it doesn't affect the UA-cam account. The big problem is scammers registering free songs to ContentID, the only solution for musicians is to really do it themselves first. If you are releasing your music to the internet and you didn't register it to ContentID you just open yourself to get your own music stolen, but still you can fight back, you can dispute every claim and usually the scammer account will just get banned from whatever music distributer they used, the problem is that the next guy can do the same and the next and the next... so really just register your stuff first to avoid all this trouble
nah, what would have to happen is you kinda have to piss off tailor swift or something. A lot of places ban NSFW image generation not because they hated that, but because it was making generations of the ELITE... >.>
@@TodayontheKoreanServer the only problem is that registering with ContentID can start to cost a lot in reoccurring annual fees depending on how much music you have (thinking specifically of Distrokid here) - unless there's something I'm missing?
There's been people who have had copyright claims from people who did covers of other works, copyrighted and with permission or not under copyright protection. And their work was a legal cover of the original work. There's a video that exists/existed (not sure which now, but I assume still exists) of a guy who had to insert a break/silence into one long note they played on an instrument because it got a copyright claim. $$$ influenced the changes in copyright, and still does, usually because, and in favor of, some huge deep pocket entity/corporation who wants to milk it for all they can.
I am convinced that these mega corporations are all engaging in collision to protect AI even while breaking every law to do it simply because they know no one else has the money to challenge... Except them of course, hence the need for collusion.
it's fraud.. wire fraud to be specific.. Wire fraud, or fraud by radio, wire or television, is defined in 18 U.S. Code section 1343. The law makes it illegal to: create a scheme or artifice (or intend to do so) that is designed to use false or fraudulent pretense to obtain money or property create writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds that contain pretenses, misrepresentations or false promises in furtherance of that scheme use wire, radio or television communication to transmit this information in interstate or foreign commerce If you violate this law by engaging in prohibited fraudulent communications, you could be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years.
My solution: When the copyright system first started getting abused, I deleted all of my content off of UA-cam, and I refuse to upload anything else there ever again. I do recognize that this isn't a solution for most people, but I wasn't making any money. Why expose myself to legal shenanigans when I'm not making so much as a cent?
What if we said no to UA-cam and all went to a new video platform? But I guess it would take a real behemoth to be able to compete at this point... and unfortunately most of them would run things the same way. edit: I highly recommend uploading video content to multiple websites so you aren't just relying on UA-cam for distributing your videos. This also encourages people to actually use alternative platforms, because there will be more content there to view instead of... basically crickets.
22:00 man, I needed that reminder. I started following my music dream later in life than I'd hoped too and it was just in tome for all this AI and copyright trash, and it's been stalling my desire to dive in. But you're so right. We only have a limited time, and I dont want to leave the planet not having backed myself enough to give it a red hot try. Thankyou
Nobody gets the copywrite anyway, since "copywrite" doesn't exist. "Oh, yeah, spelling" No, stupidity IN THE FACE OF THE LAW. Legal matters rely on absolute precision. If you can't stomach or muster that, GTFO. Oh, and you also have no idea about any of this. *ANY* of this. Your level of not understanding this is almost Guiness-worthy.
Musician writes a song. Robot steals it, masters his vibe, and floods the charts. Musician fights back with a new track-robot copyrights it and takes the win. Now the musician is broke, the robot cashes royalty checks, drops a hit single entitled "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V: My Journey to Originality" and tops the Billboard charts.
stock stuff gets claimed all of the time. It's why you can't use the default beats on things like a kaossilator, Garageband loops, etc etc and post on youtube. This has been a thing for a long time, well before AI.
It's why I always have avoided using stuff created by other people on the internet. Some people aren't even nefarious, they just mislabel things by accident sometimes.
I knew AI would break the current copyright system: If you follow the copy aspect of copyright AI can work around it. If you broaden the scope so that copyright extends to match everything having even seemingly similar vibe could help to fight against AI but you'll end up copyrighting whole styles of music (which could even extend to some instruments) in the process. Both these scenarios are a disaster: there's just no winning here with the current model of copyright.
The issue with copyright is that it can be used for anything that isn't "too vague". But that in and of itself is too vague. It should be used for illegal reuploads/distributions and nothing more. Because while people can pitch change a movie and reupload it(should be illegal), there are original works being claimed over a tune(shouldn't be legal).
Well, like most things that have ever happened, this one was predicted by a science fiction writer. The funny thing about science fiction is that, in the end, it’s often no longer fiction. In 2008, Jacek Dukaj, one of the best Polish sci-fi writers (and, in my opinion, one of the best sci-fi writers in the world), wrote a short story titled "Kto napisał Stanisława Lema" ("Who Wrote Stanisław Lem"). As some of you may know, Stanisław Lem is one of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time (just google Lem’s "Solaris"). In this short story, Dukaj, back in 2008, predicted all the legal issues surrounding AI and copyright problems that you’re referring to. And it goes even further-trust me, the ending is truly mind-bending. It only takes about 20 minutes to read, but sadly, it’s available only in Polish. However, you can buy the e-book for about 1 Euro and translate it with AI (which makes it even funnier). It’s absolutely worth it!
Recently I did a drum cover of a Celine Dion song. I posted the cover and the drum only version. The drum only version got a copyright claim from another artist for a song that isn't remotely close to the groove I was playing... I hope it's not Content ID doing stupid stuff because I don't see how a normal artist could try to claim this... it's just drums! There is no melody, chords or any melodic instruments... just a drum groove and I'm pretty sure there is no copyright on drums at this moment. If there were, Clyde Stubblefield would be millionaire with his drum groove on "The Funky Drummer" by James Brown...
Aren't some drum riffs when you're learning even named after artists and songs they're from (like funky drummer)? When it comes to a riff it's attributed to the person who popularized it, you can't even say they 'invented' it to begin with - but if we can claim down to that level, every part of every musical piece is going to be 'owned' by someone, somewhere. --By definition, capitalists would love that though - turning everything into capital that generates money. I can imagine they wouldn't see any reason NOT to do that. Why NOT parcel out each chord progression and beat to those who had the most success with it? If you can have every piece of music generating money based on each of its parts, isn't that more efficient than trying to write whole songs originally every time and just leave its money-generation to hoping it's popular? All you'd have to do is push the button, and music with a certain amount of value-per-play will come out. Then you could probably min/max the value of compositions over time. This feels like what they're trying to do, ultimately. I don't want to be that guy, but this is the logical endpoint to unrestrained capital. I'm never saying we have to abolish capitalism, but we've definitely passed a certain reasonable threshold where it's still compatible with human beings. And I'm thinking that may have been a while ago...
@danielgraham6610 well for now there is no copyright on drum groove that I'm aware of. That would be kind of silly. The guy who created the first ever disco beat would also be billionaire by this point haha! Same with chord progression. How many blues does have the same chord progression in the same tonality? But I've seen some video from Adam Neely talking about copyright case for songs having similar chord progression and that's clearly a dangerous thing! I think it was about an Ed Sheeran song? Clearly capitalism and Art in general doesn't go well together...
your drumsticks are also copyright striked! You're using the same sticks as that drummer as well! And the same app that you used to capture the audio. you're a cheater!
There are so many problems with the Internet and in society such as copyright, and still politicians and corporations don't even want to address the issues... "Sad to be you"
I make telephone calls during my live stream and I get copyright claims on the sound of the ringing sound you here when dialing someone, and I've had the sound of trees get copyright claimed and people saying "Hello". So I can imagine it only getting worse by these automated systems.
Someone should start a trend of classifying their vlogs as spoken verse, so the automated systems will get trained to copyright strike speech. This has the potential of completely breaking down any ability to post videos. Maybe then, when the whole system fails, someone would be forced to look into how unsustainable this whole enforcement model is?
The best analogy for me is copyright laundering, by example of money laundering, there is no reason why it should be legal. But the process is very similar, much like with money you are trying to mix dirty money with a bunch of legit money and take out the same amount of it afterward. AI just mixes a bunch of other people's music together and claims that it's mixed enough that the result is "clean unique music" Then using tags you can "take out" someone else's music as your own.
Also, some people dont understand how art is created, they argue well thats the same things people do, but no it is not. Humans can and do reference other art and artists, and blend things together to create a new work. But this is not how AI works, it literally just rips an exact song, and makes it as different as it needs to be soley by making the song worse. So the AI music is not a new creation, just like you said with the laundering, its just the same song as someone else but made just enough worse that it counts as a different song. And there is no way AI is gonna figure out how to create popular original works, hell, we as a collective have no idea what we will like before it comes out, humans are constantly changing and evolving, especially in art. The only truly original music AI creates is either garbage, or just some random arpeggiator with a drum loop ( which the tech has already existed since before the digital era)
There's no reason to make a happy false hope video. People should be prepared for what's to come, not just mentally, but also for the sake of employment plans etc.
This very problem struck illustrators first two years ago and nobody gave a flying... All of the insane implications of AI generative tools existing in a modern copyright environment were extensively discussed way before music AIs evolved enough to be useful and again, nobody cared enough to stop this madness. Since the very beginning generative AIs were nothing else than an unprecedented copyright theft due to how those models work and again, nobody cares because large enough money can be made. There are only two ways out if this - accept that copyright law has become obsolete or ban generative AIs. Nothing in between can work in practice, because at the end of this path the only difference between human made and AI made art will be origin history.
The problem is no one seems to approach the debate honestly. AI training retains very little from individual works in the dataset, often as little as a single byte. This can be proven mathematically and is a key piece of information that needs to be considered when discussing this topic, but it's often dismissed or buried, and people are insulted or accused of lying when the point is raised (despite the math being simple enough for grade school kids). Even this video slipped a few times into spreading the misinformation that the models retain most of the original work.
@@Dave-rd6splargely agreed, though there's the noteworthy exception of midjourney 6, which was finetuned on a small enough dataset that it did (does?) near-replicate several well-known images (look up "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - IEEE Spectrum")
@@xinpingdonohoe3978 I'm still struggling with this conundrum myself (sometimes I think the idea of "claiming ownership" over an Idea is asinine; the concept of forgery... other times I tend to think about the fact that "not being able to make a living from your ideas" means that there's little to no incentive to continue producing your works: pirating.). 🤔 It's a very difficult question (but it is quickly becoming one that is being decided for us/ "out of our hands," just like a hand weaver trying to control/ compete with an industrial loom "like the mennonites," or the "Paul Bunyan" allegory.
@@Visigoth_ There will still always be incentive to continue producing: The fact that it is fun, or that it's something you want to do because you just want to do it, not because it makes you money.
The pleasure to say "first" and the sadness of already knowing why we are fucked after just one minute. So many emotions and I didn't watched the video yet.
The "what can you do?" when it comes to unfair laws, always, is "contact your representatives". People always forget how important it is to tell their representatives what you want them to do. After all, you're their boss, not the other way around!
That thing you're describing about people providing free audio strategically to pull the rug later - that's not an AI issue. That exploit has existed for years.
This was already happening. There were already scam artists uploading sounds from free sample packs to copyright claim people. This just makes it even MORE simple. I hope UA-cam just stops all of these copyright claims for small "indie labels"
@@GidarGaming probably just an all ranging, in general bias pick. It's basically like the phrase you'd hear when in reference to Muslim and terrorists; “all Muslims are Terrorists”. (INB4 it got taken out of context, *NO*. “Terrorists” classified in the news just happened to be mostly Muslims in recent years.)
What's the most infuriating about this situation is how the CopyId- system doesn't even compare the upload dates before approving the claim as valid. How can you copy something that was uploaded AFTER your work was.
one thing I don't get.. how can a third party copyright strike me if my content was uploaded first? If they upload something that was based on my content, how can they claim copyright if their content never existed until mine was made first?
Because it's about who registers theirs first - and then the legal obligation to prove being the original creator falls on the victim - including all the insane legal fees and time required for a lawsuit. Copyright is not a protection service - it just validates whether you can sue, or not.
@@warchildsilver copyright requires no registration, it attaches upon creation. but the US decided to be weird about it, and require registration to file a lawsuit.
@@Marvin_R This is also what I learned back in law class during college (I attended art college) your art/content's copyright is yours the moment you announce it to the public, posting it to the internet is counted as announcing your creation to the public. Anything that came after it that plagiarizes or even _steals_ your art or content can be brought to justice, at least in my country (Indonesia) there's a bigass fine to pay under the law, and it still yours as long you're still alive and kicking and 70 years after your death. This is why A.I still have issues with the "learning source" since the content source is still unethically scrapped from the internet without the creator's consent. . trademarks and patents are different, those are the first to register one.
@@warchildsilver UA-cam copyright allows for trolling in ways over things much larger than just AI content. There's a long history of people filing claims on videos that straight up contain no copyrighted content from the rights holder, forcing the creator to give them their mailing address to dispute the claim, which was the real goal all along. To get a doxx.
They also argue that you might face liability if your song is too similar to some other artist's music, in other words they tell you NOT to copy other musicians' works.
Which in the US should contradict the courts decision that anything AI generated isn't a subject of copyright because mostly it wasn't made by humans. So, Suno can say anything, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. I think the best solution for now is that AI outputs are basically public domain, you shouldn't be able to claim you exclusively own an AI generated something but you are free to use it, including commercially
@@Grigoriy1996 let's be real here. Is there any AI generator with true public domain / open access dataset available, that is capable to some level of the top in class AI generators? Pretty sure the answer is no... there are some projects that tried to build an OSS AI Generator, but it's still an infant and barely working.
To make the system even slightly fair, youtube needs to adopt a similar policy for claimants. As in claimants should have a three strike policy too to try and limit frivolous bogus copyright claims.
Wow, thank you for your video. Very helpful and informative. I discovered your channel by accident. I’m new to Music Production. I’ve got a couple of tracks that I’ve created with FL Studio and my Casio Keyboard.
0:08 - I almost went for this Volt thing, but when I saw the small print that said "No strings attached" I balked. It should have violins, violas, cellos, and string basses, or I'm not interested.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...in case any of them are asking 😬
New FREE Instrument ► bit.ly/vtvolts
Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/patrons
Get the Music from this video ► venustheory.bandcamp.com/
You forgot to thank Beyoncé 😢
Important questions to be asking and concepts to be considering in this age. I appreciate you doing that in front of us. Wise endings, too.
good thing AI is ridiculously easy to trick and it rarely comes up with a actionable answer on its own anyhow...it can just copy and process, copy and process, copy and process, all according to its ruleset. Super predictable for most humans if you watch one for a few seconds.
@@russellzauner Agreed. I don't even capitalize the i in Ai, as it hasn't earned that yet, nor do I expect it to-- but here's to the convincing the world, right!? Autonomic intelligence still.
AI is just a tool that allows for instant sampling and collaboration, everyone sampled and the people who programmed the musicality into the AI and the "prompter" should all be given song writing credits...but good luck enforcing that when you guys already let everyone download & stream for free.
The strangest one I got was on twitch, which part of the stream got muted for "Unknown track" and "Unknown artist" and I was like "..if you don't know what it is -how are you claiming it?"
But... isn't the problem when it's a KNOWN track by a KNOWN artist? If you ALSO can't use UNKNOWN music then what CAN you use?!
Fair use is weird. A charity event was being held digitally during the lockdown and certain songs would crash the stream. Think in a way Fair use is outdated and needs to be revamped as the digital world changes.
We have had claims on videos that just have wind, rain, or cricket sounds. They will claim anything you put out. We stopped making videos. We only ever had one legit claim and we had borrowed it from someone that had posted it as royalty free. Turns out it wasn't. You can't win.
@@Jimpipecigarbear You are talking about technical issues. Fair use is a legal concept - it has nothing to do with technology.
@@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMineCertain streaming websites will automatically detect copyrighted works in the live stream and crash the stream in response. Its not a technical issue, its a copyright detection issue.
I’ve been copyright claimed several times on videos of recorded livestreams of me creating the actual tracks that i’m being claimed with. it’s a disaster.
Not attacking here, but I'm curious if that is due to using sample packs and sound libraries specifically.
@@frajeeli yeah I hear you. but if Native Instruments / Black Octopus / Loopmasters / Vengeance are out there copyright striking under shell company names then boy are we f*cked 😂 (I avoid Splice and similar platforms like the plague and avoid using melodic/harmonic loops without extensive manipulation).
@turtletheorytv I would watch out for Vengeance packs, I heard that they used copyrighted material ripped from old record for certain packs. Apparently this is fine under German law but not anywhere else. Same reason to never use Rave Generator vst
Yet it's the only way going forward: to create live and fight this nonsense in court. Welcome to the future. Sorry about that.
@@M2Texas yeah I never started out recording and live streaming with the intent to use it as copyright defense but it’s serendipitously evolved into that. one would hope being able to produce dated recordings of the creation process and the actual project file is enough ammo to shoot down any future claims
Last week I had a track taken down for third party copyright infringement! The third party claimant was myself for a track I uploaded to stores, I appealed, explained it was me, also gave them a link to a screen recording of me creating the track from scratch, and still lost the appeal? I now have a community guidelines warning for creating and uploading my own music..
I feel you hard on that one. I fought with UA-cam for YEARS because Venus Theory was claiming Venus Theory for using music by Venus Theory and UA-cam said 'stop using music by Venus Theory, Venus Theory'.
@@VenusTheory This is an extremely sad state of affairs.
Not sure if this applies to you but it worked for me so I figured I'd share:
Depending on what platform you released the track through, you need to either contact that platform or check your settings on their site for how/where they enforce your copyright to get them to stop claiming your music on UA-cam. When I released through CDBaby, they would flag my music in my own videos until I updated my preferences after which it stopped entirely.
UA-cam isn't the one who confirms or denies the appeals, whoever made the claim in the first place is. UA-cam just enforces the claim. It's a terrible system.
@KaiBurley for the time being i dont mind the distributor claiming my youtube content, because those royalties still go to me, whereas being my profile is not big enough for monitisation i would not otherwise be paid for my content.
Copyright in general is absolutely broken.
Disney broke it 20 years ago.
Several years ago my wife and I started a channel creating humorous content that we co-wrote and she presented. We used opening theme music from a licensed library we had access to. One of her videos took off in popularity and within a couple of days we had a copyright violation claim from a German company that said the music violated the copyright of an artist they represented. They referenced the piece of music it supposedly copied and the music sounded absolutely nothing like the music we used. I have a degree in music and spent decades as a professional musician so this is not a layman's opinion. When I contacted UA-cam about this it's much as you described. They said there was nothing they could do and I needed to contact the company making the copyright violation claim. I did, but you can probably guess that did nothing. It soured me on creating content for UA-cam.
Easy fix, make your own blog or get legal insurance.
@@FifinatorKlon Not an easy fix, you know nothing.
I went through the exact same thing when I posted a video I made with music that I recorded myself. Same thing with the German company. They claimed for a Swedish band I had never heard of, and yes, their music sounded nothing like my self-produced music. I refuted the claim with UA-cam and won.
@@CD-vb9fi If you are too incompetent to make a blog or get insurance in this day and age, then you should really focus on more important things than becoming a content creator.
@@rbenroper1654 Maybe UA-cam has improved their process since it happened to me. How long ago did this happen to you?
One thing I have always found unfair about the ContentID system is that people who dispute a copyright strike and lose will face consequences for disputing it, but there are no consequences for parties that send false copyright claims on a large scale, meaning that if their strikes get disputed and people *win* regularly, nothing happens. The claim just gets discarded, and there's no reimbursement for damages because the funds were held in an escrow.
This makes it a very easy tool for abuse against videos that certain parties don't want published. There are many bot accounts who blatantly copy the original video, publish it, and claim a copyright on the original they copied in the first place. That is plain malicious behavior.
DMCA is the reall issue and has been the REAL ISSUE since 01.
You face no consequences for disputing a claim. You MAY get a strike if you escalate to an appeal where you only give them 7 days to review the contents of the video. That's another matter.
@@Unethical.FandubsGames
You do face consequences for disputing a claim if the claim gets reasserted. And the initial strike remains even if you win.
@@VestedUTuberwhat consequences
@@sgillman16
You risk your account getting suspended or terminated by Google, and you risk getting dragged into court by the claimant.
I got a copyright claim on a 500-year old piece I played on the lute! YT said I nicked a recording from a CD that was made 30 years ago. It wasn't even in the same key! They withdrew the claim but it's all greed and silliness.
I had a claim on the engine sound of a Fendt tractor working a hillside with a plow in Farming Simulator 19. Something literally illegal to claim that also wasn't music. UA-cam exists to enable fraud.
I've gotten a "denied for publishing" thing few times as well from Spotify, as their "Content ID" system flagged my 140-145 bpm trance tracks, also in a different key and with a totally different melody, against some ambient/downtempo tracks and there was pretty much nothing I could do (their support was pretty abysmal on the matter, they basically didn't give af). I ended up just releasing the tracks on other platforms. This just as a reminder that it's not just YT, it can happen pretty much on any platform nowadays, in different ways, and it can also be totally up to luck and doesn't even need to have anything to do with AI or anyone being a dick.
You're clearly not trying hard enough. Get back in the Delorian and nick something older ffs.
This has been going on with some classical music for well over 10 years. There were videos of people playing Chopin's piano music - which is public domain everywhere in the world - getting flagged as copies of copyrighted recordings.
UMG copyright claimed me on dropping the needle on to a vinyl record. And would not release the claim 😆 so i just nuked the whole video.
It's equally distressing when these cases do go to court, and end up in front of a judge who has no knowledge of or interest in music. They throw up their hands, say "it all sounds the same to me" and that's that.
"because UA-cam, a literal multi billion dollar corporation"
Slight addendum, not correction:
"because UA-cam, a literal multi billion dollar corporation *_under the umbrella of a literal multi trillion dollar umbrella company_* "
There we go.
Thank you! This is the comment I was looking for.
The problem is not AI or laws. The problem is YT and it's stupid, opaque censorship knee-jerk reaction
dont forget that google is also under another multi-trillion dollar corporation (alphabet)
@@vendetta.02
Eh, Alphabet's just a shell corp, most likely to try and dodge anti-monopoly legislation. Google still holds all the money.
@@VestedUTubera
Alphabet is allegedly part owned by the
see eye aye.
YT made 29B dolls hairs
22/23
I didn't even use AI music. I had some AI channel pop up out of nowhere that claimed 2 of my videos. Neither video used songs they had rights to. They simply made a channel to start claiming for revenue. This cannot be allowed to slide. Even using music I have permission for, I can lose out on all earnings because of this.
Write a cool song without AI
Song is added to an AI training set without your consent
AI model spits out something similar enough to your song to flag the original in a contentID system
Some jerk uploads the AI generated song to a streaming service/contentID database
You end up in a copyright fight with the people and technology that stole your own work
The future is very good and cool
Wowww
You keep dreaming of an apocalypse that will never happen, if you don't control it, it will happen. But if you do. It won't.
The end isn't here.
One of the only ways I can see this getting any better is requiring evidence of human creation with manual review if you want to put something in ContentID. If you're going to claim that a piece of media is yours and you should have exclusive rights to it, prove that you made it
It ends with live performances becoming the only way to stop the a.i. from sucking up your work..oh wait people and phones....it ends with enjoying your own performances alone in the woods so that your not stolen from. None one hears your work and your satisfied.
For a homework at college, a teacher assigned us to investigate an AI music platform. I did the homework and when I checked the pricing section of the platform it confused me so much that they told you that the copyright wasn't yours if you used the platform for free. I wondered "it's slop made by a machine, who owns it then? Machines are soulless, they cannot own anything". This video really puts me in alert and man, the future is looking gray. Least thing we can do is keep looking out for each other and try to fight this AI garbage as best as we can.
From the deepest part of my soul: *Fuck AI.*
Yeah it's a difficult/different timeline to navigate right now.
I'd say "it's ok, you're a naive college student and will grow up soon" but I'm a college student too, so I don't know what to say. Not only did you somehow not expect the free tier to give rights to them (why wouldn't it, be honest, that is actually reasonable... Their tool made the song and you didn't pay for it, so why should it be yours) but you're acting like an old person in cognitive decline who writes off new tech completely because he doesn't understand it. AI is going to create medications that you will use later in your life, and we are probably finally getting photorealistic video games within the next decade thanks to AI. Are you also triggered if someone waves a vintage 20q game in front of you? That's AI too, just 30 year old primitive AI that runs on a toy. You would have written off telephones if you were born in the early 20th century.
@@awesomeferret Fair point, and it's on me for not specifying. I don't hate "AI" as in _all of Artificial Intelligence ever,_ but specifically Generative AI.
Artificial Intelligence is not a new concept, it just boomed lately in the tech world, and I'm glad the technology exists to help us develop in areas of investigation and technologic advances.
But I do mean it when I say Fuck _Generative_ AI. Its results are just regurgitated data put together without any sense, thought or soul put into it.
And if "art" has no soul, it's not art for me.
i once got copyrighted on yt for me literally saying "well then" without any music in the bg, because somebody content ID'd some bollywood movie, vocals only version - apparently i either just happened to say the same sentence as their guy, or my voice sounds simmilar... but its scary that this voiceclip was labelled as copyrighted melody and one small word / phrase singlehandedly wouldve made the entire 9 hour vod ineligible for monetization, if i monetized vods...
Yeah the false copyright accusation is getting crazier and crazier over time. I bet that even the pure silence without any sounds could get copyrighted as well
@@sihamhamda47imagine infringing on 4'33" by John Cage
@@sihamhamda47 I actually tried to test this once by uploading a video that's just the 10 minutes of silence before the hidden track on Nirvana's album Nevermind, but thankfully the copyright robots don't know how to claim that yet
I once used a track in a video that was EXPLICITLY public domain, like, it wasn't just released in the public domain, but the track itself was ABOUT being released to the public domain. The album was titled Public Domain... The artist created the entire album as a commentary about copyright. Still, I contacted them and let them know I was going to use it, and I included the appropriate licensing information and attribution.
Then it got copyright claimed. Not long after that I just quit uploading to youtube. It destroyed any desire I had to continue trying to grow my channel.
Definitely an artistic move by whoever did that, but holy shit, it just feeds how badly the system works already and fucks with smaller creators that use public domain media.
I lost all my desire too after constantly getting copyright issues with my german UA-cam Poop Channel in 2018. Although my Videos have been so over-edited, both visually and additively without any outside input of any famous jingles, voicelines or imagery like in the average english ytp, the contentID system still ignores fair use and fucks you over everywhere it can.
Putting 30h of work into a 4 minute video at max just for youtube fucking you over definitely kills of any motivation for creating something. Even though it never was made for the money to begin with.
I have now subscribed to you
So instead of making stink and monetizing that stink, you gave up. And I'm supposed to clap for you because...
@@awesomeferret Who kicked you as a child?
@@awesomeferret And I'm supposed to clap for you because you made fun of someone for giving up on something they cared about?
0:18 - The answer to this question is "Whoever is most skilled at gaming the legal system, or whoever hires the attorneys most skilled at gaming the legal system, owns that copyright".
Our legal system needs a massive overhaul.
The future holds the collapse of the system, not copyright lawyers for everyone.
@@GidarGaming That's why it's called a "legal" system and not a "justice" system.
@@Unethical.FandubsGames You do know that those two are two separate aspects? While related, they are not the same nor replacements to each other. Trying to put it simply, I'd say the judge is the only person that in a Venn Diagram sits in the intersection of those two circles.
That will be the Ai's themselves before long
0:20 Legally, nobody. Anything created by AI is non-copyrightable, by default. (Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023)
Yet Human imput is necessary for all AI generation a-priori. Voiding the entire case.
@@timothylcrowe1 asking for a pizza in the pizzeria doesnt make you the owner of the recipe
If UA-cam supposedly doesn't have the resources (i.e too lazy) to enforce or verify Copyright infringement, then WHY IN THE FK DO THEY HAVE A COPYRIGHT SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
One more time for the people in the back 📢
Thanks for saying this. It was a question forming in my head. Like what kind of country would have laws without verification of a crime or enforcement? Wild west indeed.
They're legally required to.
Because the major record labels require them to, as a condition for allowing their music properties to be uploaded here?
@@dsnodgrass4843 Yes but do you realize how asinine it is? It's like having police in a city because you have to deal with criminals, but then not having any court system to actually prosecute them. So the police chief just arbitrarily decides who gets put in prison and who gets released.
People have been using my music to train AI and extend it just to have a few extra minutes of listening, cuz they won’t wait for me
Now I’m getting copyright claimed for my game OST releases
An AI generated channel by the name “Sonic Forge - topic” redistributed my same music under AI generated titles and images, and they released them on both UA-cam under a topic channel, and on Amazon music.
I’ve striked the AI channel 29 times for each reupload but the channel hasn’t been taken down even tho the videos are down, it still copyright claims me and everyone who used my music in their videos
UA-cam told me they can’t do anything, that this is legal matter
I’m so fed up and I don’t know what to do anymore
I want it gone from my life
Sadly gotta say you should lawyer up, it will be worth it in the long run
@@joshhickson7551 In this case a lawyer would eat up serious amount of money and the process will be torturously slow. UA-cam is an extremely hostile environment for artists
@@PatrizzaEatsApizza i think hiring someone to find the identity of the thief and sending them a cease and desist letter might do something, but I couldn't afford that either
@@joshhickson7551 Getting the name and address of a copyright claimant is easy, barely an inconvenience. The claimant already needs to put down their legal address for a disputed copyright claim. If you dispute a claim, youtube gives you the adress, because at that point it's a legal matter outside of google's hand.
Also, don't you people have legal protection insurance?
@@joshhickson7551 imagine the person sits in China ;.;
Here's an easy fix. PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PERSON CLAIMING THE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. If someone says you stole their music, you just check, "No, I didn't." And move on. If that person, or more likely super-rich media conglomerate has an actual case, they can then take you to court. They can afford it. They have teams of lawyers just sitting around waiting to do so. And that threat is enough to keep the normal person honest. If they claim your video, and you know you used their music, you say, "My bad." and concede their claim.
Sounds like an easy fix but it's like putting a band-aid on a failing dam.
Never mind that it introduces problems where the legitimate copyright holder can be trolled by copyright thieves.
The system we have now is geared for UA-cam to absolve themselves of all responsibility and moderation.
Here's a even easier fix, copyright shouldn't exist past 2 years.
@@dragonproductions236 2 years is far too radical
The sad thing, the burden of proof actually is on them, legally speaking, but somehow they have created a whole sphere of exceptions and technicalities which seems to be there only to invert that burden of proof - and if not de jure, then at least de facto.
@@Nattytom500 It depends. I think the part of recognition as the author, that can be pretty much endless. But exclusive right of distribution? 2 Years does not sound unreasonable for that at all - depending on the type of media.
The "You only gets to die once, so make sure it was worth it" hits hard and has been my motive to do exactly what I want ever since my mother passed, regardless of whether it's the 'clever' thing to do. Following your heart is the greatest good.
As an attorney starting to work in the AI space, I really enjoyed your video. I’m actually putting together a presentation on copyright and ai. It is a big mess right now and we’re waiting in the US courts. Thanks for your insights and opinions.
When you say we're waiting in the US courts, do you mean a case is already filed, waiting to be heard, that may address the issue?
Lawyers doing tech can only end badly. Just think about all the cookie consent modals that popped up once lawyers learned about cookies.
@@Sebastian-hg3xc It is better than giving sites the rights to collect any info they want on you just for clicking thier site once
I'm an artist and writer who's being affected by this. I really hope you and others can change the system for us.
You guys need to call out sneaky UA-cam strike system, this is commy mommy tactics, also 230 section, in fact, why isn't UA-cam not apart of google anticompetitive practice lawsuit.
Copyright isn't a protection, it's an industry.
Intellectual Property is just Inclosure of Commons 2.0. It will exist as long as capitalism does.
And intellectual property isn't property it's censorship.
Went to conservatory for violin performance . Ended up in IT because classical music wants you to play stuff The Correct Way and not bring ideas into it. Slid into electronic music for something entirely different just to let that fire roar again, and maybe make music for my own videos. Just canceled my licensed music service last week since I felt ready to make my own stuff for future videos and…god damn this is disheartening. I don’t even care about money, I just don’t want other people making money off my stuff. Sorry for the rant. Fantastic video, as all of yours are. 💞
I went to a conservatorium for French Horn. Hop-skipped over to become a jazz singer after a year, because creativity and improvisation are the lifeblood of music, not performing by rote. If you ever wanted to pick up your instrument again, jazz violin is really damn cool.
Disheartening, exactly.
I want to share but not throw everything up for grabs.
It's a blow to beauty.
Please don't use God's name to cuss.
Why not play Baroque then, if you like classical? Improvisation and interpretation are a large part of Baroque music. Ever heard of figured bass? In any baroque ensemble at least one musician is improvising over a bass line. There's no "correct way" because the pieces aren't even written out note for note. The ornaments are all meant to be improvised, and the symbols are merely suggestions. Bach's organ improvisation is well known, and there are still people today improvising in that style.
I'm a harpsichordist, and when people talk about classical music being inflexible, I have no idea what they're talking about. I didn't go to conservatory though, I learned privately as an adult, so maybe it's just a problem with conservatory.
This was already a problem even before AI people have been cutting the audio off of UA-camr music production livestreams and uploading that to contant match even before there life stream has finished. The only solution is to not do those stream live and just show a pre made or pre planned recording or set up of music you have already registered to content ID before the stream. The bad thing is the better sounding aand unique your music is them the more its gona be a target to be ripped off of especially if your a small UA-camr they know you don't have the money or resources to stop it. I have had people copy and rip off My music 15 years ago some guy I was supposed to be making custom music for told Me He is just going to get his friend to copy My music so He doesn't have to pay Me anything. I threatened him with Legal action and He stopped but most people who rip you off are not actually going to tell you to your face. One of My pieces of music was ripped off of My UA-cam and has over a billion played and 100k downloads on a Chinese Royalty free music site. That music was never Royalty free and I haven't been payed a penny, I only found the website by accident.
Brilliant!!💯 It's totally crazy like you said. What can we do...Keep going, keep making music and deal with whatever happens when it happens. Hopefully someday this / these problems will all go away (in favor of the artist). ✌❣
there are copyright claims of people just talking for 2 hours with only their voice in an isolated room and still get a copyright claim or strike. And most of the time its some shady chinese company without contact details
Why aren't they being copyright striked by Alvin Lucier's estate? And John Cage could claim silent movies.
Someone got *multiple* copyright complaints on a couple hours of… noise. Yes, noise. Pure randomness (kinda, don't recall which kind of noise it was).
I think it should fall under the same rule as that case where the monkey took a selfie. "...based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain."
Hoping this new administration deals with AI as “derivative works” which might curtail a lot of this fuckery.
Man...the number of sponsorship offers I've been getting to promote these AI music "tools" has been crazy. Thank you for covering such an important topic Cameron!
Gotta get that tax writeoff from grifting money from venture capital firms somehow.
Thanks for not covering them
OP, the word tools means what it means and needs no punctuation, let alone incorrectly quoting nobody at all. 'Tools' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly, because you imply they aren't useful tools. 🕊️
@@thekeysman6760the only tools here are the aibros
I mean in all fairness, it is a tool. People have been abusing it to such a harsh degree however that its doing more harm than good.
For example, a hammer is a tool. But should there be a ban on hammers if the only thing people use them for is smashing into stores and breaking kneecaps? You would probably answer no since the hammer is still needed for demolition and construction.
AI generation was originally ment to help with visualization of ideas, artist block, or just something for fun. In other words, you generate something, use it to get ideas, then delete the generated work because it served its purpose. Sometimes you hire other people to replace it but it remains the same.
Very few have been following the last two or three steps and its very concerning on where its going.
Very informative in a brutal and brilliant way, thank you.
I believe every change starts with an alert and yours is perfect.
I am not a musician but just a music and music making lover and I dreamed of publishing a few songs of mine - now I have to think twice.
I will make sure to share your video with the local community in my country - at least among those who speak English.
Greetings from Brazil.
As always there are only the two typical solutions:
1. Don't use any music at all
2. Be a huge corporation having billions of Dollars for lawyers.
or the 3rd Route. Be Untraceable, uncontrollable. Anon forever.
@@snintendog Well but if you are trying to run or promote a professional business that is not really an option.
Form a union with other creators? I'm not saying it'll be simple but hey at least it's something
Even refraining from using music doesn't work, I have a couple works that were forced to be taken down from my channel, and I didn't include any music at all.
@@LongJohnson-f9l art shouldnt be a business it should be for art
I once got copyright claimed by the most random artist/song ever and when I checked what it was, it was basically just a very simple track made with samples and loops made from very common sample packs. I suspect the intent was mass upload a bunch of low effort tracks using common samples and then copyright strike any other song that also uses those samples.
are you fucking serious
Did you get claimed tho... (I mean you got ID'd but how it resolved?)
I love that you make videos in widescreen, never even realised it but now that im watching on my phone it fits perfect lol
Gotta add that extra bit of spice to show people I'm serious haha.
@@VenusTheory Honestly, though... I friggin' love the custom aspect ratios. Those 16:9s have begun to feel dull after 20+ or so years..
@@atp19xxaspect ratios feel dull? Interesting.
@@atp19xxwe didn't use that aspect ratio 20 years ago...
@@VenusTheory ultrawide desktop monitor user here, the spice is nice. thanks for caring enough about your process to do things like that
its basically the same as has happened to me years ago by using "copyright free" music from either machinima and another website that used to distribute royalty free music. only for them to either be bought by another company that changed the non copyright to copyrighted or maybe they decided this themselves
so tens of videos I had on my channel using that royalty music is now suddently claimed and I had to take them down or put them to private
It's absolutely disgusting that someone could take a sample of our audio and throw it into an AI generator. Then file a copyright claim against us and claim credit for our work they stole from.
Music needs a way to poison it just like images.
No art should get abused like this
Hey, they don't want you to own anything.
They can just take your song without any changes and do the same thing, no AI needed.
You have to register your own songs first.
@@BestHakase Some people don't want copyright on their songs (such as our stock music king Kevin Macleod), but that then gets abused by people wanting to steal the money that would've been made by registering a slightly edited version under copyright so the Content ID system thinks that the actual artist's songs belong to the thief.
You can just hire someone from fiver to make a sound-a-like without AI. This is something people have been doing for years before AI was a thing.
Cameron you should talk to Rick Beato. We all know who he is but his channel has a lot of influence in the music industry and he has so many connections, hes testified before congress. I think it would be worth you guys working on a legislative solution. That would be amazing I would help in any way that I can, I have some connections to other various media organizations like the Washington Post and some other online media as well. Lets do this or we can just watch it crash around us
I hope he listens to this.
Unfortunately, Rick's turned into the old man shouting at pop music shaped clouds these days
@drdoom8793 I disagree
@@drdoom8793 Check out this band called the Beatles and get back to us.
@@drdoom8793this isn’t true:(
> steal data from artists
> feed them to slop model to generate more slops
> claim original artists for sounding like their tracks
ThAt'S HoW ThE LaW "WoRkS".
There is NO STEAL !
AI "steals" music/art about as much as ChatGPT steals words.
@@avalerionbassChat GPT does steal words. Was that your point?
I’m going to try this,
@@dirkhintze explain that to graphic creators using Adobe, and this issue was not too long ago...
You can't copyright AI generated content, Suno can claim they can but they can't.
there is already Court precedent over this.
You can copyright if the lyrics you use to create the song are written by you.
15:09 - As somebody just listening to this video without watching, I literally had no idea that the song had even changed. I was sitting there like, "Okay... when's he going to play the second clip?" Had to stop what I was doing to make sure I didn't miss something. Crazy.
I think that's why it isn't that big of a problem yet, i tried it and its basically exactly the same as the original, definitely not "different enough to where its technically a new ID".
@@qinng4350 But it is, by all means. Audio fingerprinting technology works by analysing different parameters on the phonogram: frequency content, amplitude, and all that. Thus, two versions of the exact same song with the exact same notes and chords, length, etc, but different mastering (i.e.) will yield a different fingerprint, because the frequency content is different, although they are the same composition. Also, technically that would be a different phonogram, but that's another story.
And that's the key here: if you pick up a song by anyone and just process it by detuning it, most automatic content recognition systems will catalogue it as a different phonogram than the original. This has been a problem for copyright owners for a while, as it is impossible to manually review the insane amount of tracks that are uploaded everyday to streaming services, and pirates use this tricks a lot to steal revenues. Now, on top of that we have generative AI, making it even harder to fight this problem.
Ai got that sub right
@@qinng4350 Then it becomes a problem of if it's a tool making the evaluation or a human, likely will be a tool 1st, and it might just be mathematically different enough to not be the same. For a human it's a blatant ripoff tho.
@@qinng4350I heard some white noise and tonality difference that made it sound worse but it was so similar
Human beings can’t even get the legal issues right on *human* intellectual ‘property.’ I quit releasing my music and pivoted to other kinds of music income, after Spotify and the other streaming services destroyed my quarterly publishing and royalty revenue (i used to make money quarterly on my music, for about 15 years, which all came to a grinding halt around 2008). The thing is, there’s no easy solution for this because a vast majority of people simply will not pay creatives for their work. The same people who claim they support human artists over AI are fine paying Spotify, who *doesn’t pay human artists.* Everybody loves the idea of paying human creatives… as long as it’s someone else who’s paying. To all you wonderful folks out there supporting artists on Patreon, and actually buying music on Bandcamp: bless you.
Yup Bandcamp is where you can still respect musicians.
In my time with musicians and in music, anyone that wasn't super famous made money with live performances and selling music directly at the performances and merch. I met almost no artist that wasn't super famous that made decent money just off track or record sales unless they were a very talented studio musician. That was in the 90s, was there some kind of golden age after that where artists were making all their money off digital tracks and thought that would last forever? Not trying to be snarky, just putting my experience and my uncles experience and my mothers experience and every garage band I knew and every band trying to break out and every rapper I knew and trying to figure out what I guess we all missed?
@@liwojenkinsPlenty of non super famous musicians earned decent income … television is riddled with songs created nearly exclusively by non super famous artists… as an example.
@@liwojenkins I wasn’t super famous, but I made a living with my music before 2008. Had an international cult following who bought my music on vinyl and download. Gigged internationally. After 2008, it simply wasn’t worth doing.
So, are you actually supporting the status quo of Spotify and Apple Music?? 🤢 Question for you: How long is your ‘time with musicians and in music?’ Anybody who doesn’t remember what the world was like before Spotify and Apple Music took the value of the work of all musicians for themselves, has no concept of the true value of music, before tech corporations owned music culture. When things were stacked against the musicians, but still somewhat equitable if the musician was willing to work hard and own their own publishing.
This nonsense of ‘you just aren’t willing to tour 99% of the year, so you don’t deserve to be picked up by a major and get famous enough to be upper-class’ has to go. We don’t demand that accountants destroy their mental and physical health to do their job. We pay them for their skills. The problem is, everyone wants music and art, but absolutely nobody wants to pay for it. Same problem as always, for human creatives who have historically never been appreciated or respected. The difference is, now Spotify is in there, digitally c@£k-blocking every musician on the planet.
@@sub-jec-tiv Unless an alternative comes to light that offers the wide catalogue of music and cheap cost of entry. Spotify nor Apple Music or any platform of the sort isn't going anywhere. Of course it sucks to the musicians and creators of music, but the reality is that the sentiment of supporting artists isn't ever going to be enough on its own to get people off those platforms.
It's just not realistic to ask people to pay more for less. The consumer cares about themselves first and foremost after all.
Your comment at about 21:00 is going to be further exacerbated, at least here in the US, by the direction our government and courts are taking -- leaning more and more to protecting the rich and/or large corporate interests at the expense of those of use with shallow pockets.
I love your ‘touch grass’ appeal at the end of the vid, it’s very moving!
I’m a data/software person (unaffiliated), and I’m interested to know whether content ID really *would* strike “similar” music. I would absolutely love to see you do a little test to try to recreate the AI music with your own instruments, and see if UA-cam would Copyright flag your song.
As a data person, “exact” match and “close enough” are a world apart. Picture a DNA test showing a “close enough” match to a crime scene, and the criminal’s cousin gets sent to jail. If a ‘similar’ song gets copyright claimed, then if I make songs that are just fairly unoriginal, am I likely to get copyright claimed by… anyone??
Another way I wonder if people abuse the copyright ID system, is registering someone else’s song (ex. a lesser-known artist’s song) as their own, and then charging the actual songwriter for copyright infringement.
Anyways, if you read this, thanks for reading! Keep up the good work!!
I love how this man can be so wholesome even when talking about the bleakest of subjects.
He always gives off such good vibes like in that little bit at the end.
The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed. People copied each other and started selling of said copies to the point where the fakes became more popular than the originals. AI just made an old issue worse. We still need a real solution tho.
"The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed" - And once Google came around, governments (specifically, the U.S. government) effectively legalized copyright violation when it was done by large corporations.
$ = \sqrt{evil}
I think the solution is that the arts need to be treated like engineering. Software engineers don't bank on bodies of work and its copyright, they get hired for their knowledge and expertise, and they're thriving in a world where AI can do a large portion of their job. Artists need to start selling their skills, not their output.
Yeah it just became hundreds of times easier to do that.
@@Dave-rd6spLOL we software engineers are just lucky that AI sucks at our job so far. That's the only difference. You can make passable-though-shitty music and it will still be music-ish enough to work. Passable-though-shitty code just doesn't work.
17:17 you dont need ai generated music for this scam, just copy the file and claim you created it first. Boom, copyright claim, this is done for years, AI plays no role in this
They do it to all kind of videos. Seen it done to nature videos filmed by the channel owner. No music involved. Got claimed by as asian channel.
@@dunar1005 but with AI you might (depending on a judge/ future laws) actually have the copyrights for a "work" that you intentionally told the AI to make similar to someone else's work -> and later strike them when they make something similar enough to what the AI made.
This shit takes all the joy out of creating. Content ID only ever gave me trouble, and when it came to defend my own copyrights I got screwed over by the system anyway with nothing left to do except going to court...
Same problems for the photographers, illustrators, artists…😢
I'm in all four categories: music, photography, visual art, and writing. In principle, you're right: the problem is a problem for many artists and creative endeavors. In reality, the issues covered by Cameron in this video are infinitely less problematic for non-music creative content because there is no overarching "art industry" equivalent to the "music industry." Think about that for a minute. The lawyers and bean counters (i.e. PEOPLE) running big money music corporations have found lawmakers and policy police (more PEOPLE) who are completely willing to prostitute themselves for a quick buck. Nothing new there, some people just want to see the world burn; but THAT is what enabled and created this entire mess - and it ALL goes back to the industry's complete ignorance about switching to digital-music, and the subsequent total cluster-F'k mishandling of music file sharing back in the day. JM2C
If ai music was used then maybe there should be no copyright allowed.
No photographer would be able to take a group photo with a bunch of people having 3 to 6 fingers on a hand each)
@@TheImageDoctor Yep. You can also be sure that a ton of the music industry artists affected by this are also currently using AI generated image content for their thumbnails, album art, music videos, etc. Everyone is affected. Creativity is tokenized! The technology is very cool but the problem still is a human problem. It just makes it that much easier for bad actors at the top to fuck over the creators.
@@jenkem4464 exactly !!!
That is scary. and here was I feeling bad for a mate of mine.
His story is back in the 90s he and a DJ mate of his wrote an album (Using an Ensoniq EPS and a Juno106) which would now fit the genre of Drum & Bass in a time before it really existed. As he couldn't find a record company who would touch it at the time. They decided to have it mastered and paid for a small run on Vinyl (500-1000).
And then found a distributor. They eventually sold all the copies just about broke even and chalked it down to experience. Rolling on 30 odd years he was watching you tube and his music was being used. After some searching he discovered that there were several channels using his music as incidental music whilst others were playing the tracks in full and titling name and artist. This turned out to also be happening overseas.
He managed to track down the distributor who eventually admitted that he may have done a couple of reruns a few years later ( around 10K copies). When he tried to claim the music he was told that he couldn't as it was listed as royalty free and wasn't his music.
This absolutely makes me want to quit being an artist entirely. What the fk can we even do to stop culture, law, and livelihoods being ripped to shreds when I cant even afford groceries as an artist anymore. Fk dude
Sounds like he has an easy legal case.
I like the background music in this one, I honestly hope it's not Suno's Venus theory-type beat
Haha god no. Except the portion used to demo Suno ripping me off this is all music made of the flesh o' venus. What flesh, I'll leave for you to imagine.
@@VenusTheory The wenis, obviously.
@@GabrielBlight Wenis Theory
Just wait until this starts happening on a massive scale to super popular artists, things will happen. Whether they're good things, I'm not so sold on
i bought a royalty stock music track off Envato (AudioJungle) a few years ago, to be used in a UA-cam video. 3 years pass without any issues. This year, I get a copyright claim for that same jingle I purchased. So what the hell did I pay $20 for this "royalty free" stock music for? Ridiculous.
Many have had the same experience with Envato, me included. But you can contest it, upload your Envato license for the track to the dispute form, and it will eventually be sorted out. I've done it multiple times and it works, although it's always a hassle.
@dailyphilosophy thanks. I will try that!
ROFL might want to search for what royalty free is.
Sorry, I can't read AudioJungle without Jerma's voice
This is so depressing. Even hitting the like button is depressing.
On AI UA-cam, Copyright Claims You!
One major change that needs to happen is if the video is posted before the copyright/content ID registration date, then it doesn’t get flagged, or at least doesn’t get an automatic claim. Because obviously it’s not impossible that something gets stolen before the original creator gets it on content ID. But 90% of the time it won’t.
This would at least protect you if you made videos years ago and someone registers a new AI song sounding similar to one you used back then.
you should've just used sneaky snitch on loop for the entire video. The old fashioned way 😌
maybe the real solution to all of this is to delete all music ever made and force everyone to only ever use kevin macleod songs for all eternity
4:14 friendly reminder that before GradeAUnderA complained about this, the money went to the complainant during the dispute.
I disagree with your final reflection: to me, it’s not about stopping or continuing to make our music or our art. It’s about no longer participating or uploading content on these platforms. It’s an action with a collective impact, and that’s why it’s difficult-we live in an individualistic world that has lost its sense of community. Of course, we will all die someday-that’s the only thing we’re assured of. But we can die in less ridiculous ways.
This is what I was thinking too. The answer is to wake up and act as a community. We owe these platforms nothing.
I made some AI songs, they came out good. I did it because there is no longer any money or meaningful movements in rock music. If we want the old days back we need to not allow free downloading or streaming at all. Then we need to create unions of musicians, so all the real artists are in 2 or 3 places making real money again and using lawyers to go after pirates and streamers. That's just reality.
@@RoryElis Guess the RIAA's legal fights never happened.
@@battokizu I'm aware that record labels want in on the AI, they are right, however those are the corporate giant artists. However they already let everyone steal & stream, and that gutted everything for the new non corporate musicians. You can't let people steal, it is really that simple.
@@RoryElis they all did this by creating streaming and not really producing physical media, which people still want.
Ai can’t claim art, whole lawsuit about it too, so music should be the same since music, writing and other creative forms are a form of art. UA-cam is just messed up and it’s broken
The simple answer is, in the US, AI generated works cannot be copyrighted because no human was involved in the creation.
The fucked up answer is, UA-cam sides with the accusers and simply doesn't give a fuck if the claims are legitimate or not.
The problem with this is, who determines if the work was made by AI if not another AI?
There's nothing stopping people from claiming they didn't use AI to make something.
If someone makes something that seems like it was made by AI, this system would prevent them from copyrighting it.
Companies use AI to fight AI and in the end, we lose.
It's not even that simple in the US.
Though they word it differently, both the US and EU have the same essential stance of "if an AI made the entire thing, it can't be copyrighted...but if a human had a 'significant' input in it's creation then yes, in principle, that's a copywritable piece of work". This is still very new, and there isn't any case law about what counts as significant input. On top of that, the Content ID system isn't able to conduct that verification (I don't know how it even could) and UA-cam has no interest in mediating disputes, so simply goes by what Content ID has picked up even if that's got no legal standing, letting the creator(s) argue it out between them - but with the default position being in favour of whoever has uploaded something to Content ID.
I'm speaking from the "dark side" here, as a creator that openly uses AI in works to varying levels, but with a significant element of human input. However, I deliberately *don't* upload anything into Content ID and upload everything I make under Creative Commons in UA-cam, so nothing I make will cause headaches for other people. Ironically, doing that puts me at greater risk of some other eejit deliberately or accidentally copyright striking me using my own music.
I suspect the existing rules and processes will change and adapt to better cope with AI in the coming years, but in the meantime Venus Theory's right to describe it as a Wild West. And one which favours bad actors over good ones.
What if the lyrics were written by a human and only the voice and music was written by AI? Do they share?
@@imaginosdesdinova1130voice? written? written voice? 😂 huh ? you mean lyrics
UA-cam created TOSes that make filing a fraudulent copyright claim absolutely risk-free while punishing the receiver for even have it filed against them.
If you file a claim, you aren't investing anything into it: no time, money or credibility since UA-cam will mostly keep yor claim anonymous.
If you receive a claim, you immediately lose your monetization and have to pray to God that UA-cam cares enough to actually review your case instead of filing it under the "Yup, that's copyright infringement, we'll let you contest it but don't give a fuck if you ever do" folder.
It is beyond time for the US (and others) to update and clarify their copyright laws for the modern internet. The DMCA turned 26 this year, and the internet it was designed to protect copyright in no longer exists. For the first time in human history, art can be created that is impossible to attribute to a single person or distinct group of people. It's become abundantly clear that "modern" copyright law is wholly incapable of dealing with the modern internet, let alone the introduction of AI generation. We're so cooked, but that won't stop me from continuing to create.
Modern copyright law has been detrimental for ages down to the fact that the period of time copyright subsists in a work keeps increasing. The ridiculously long times (70 or 90 years after the death of the author) helps no-one and just creates many orphaned works - work where the copyright holder is no longer known. But such is the nature of corporate greed that we now have this situation (Disney and others, who would love copyright to never expire).
@@cbnewham5633 Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of and live a beautiful and rich life off of, after he is gone. Why should an artists have to give up ownership of a thing they created, even at death ? Why ?
@richardthelionheart01 why should they give it up? Because they are dead. Why should their descendants, who have done bugger all, continue to profit? What's worse is that it takes creative works out of the public domain in the future. That's bad - eventually everything would be copyrighted and a huge number of things would be orphaned works (no known copyright holder - which does NOT make those works public domain). I couldn't think of a worse world to live in. I've authored several things myself (feel free to Google me) and I'd be happy with a mere 25 year copyright (as it originally was until the likes of Disney started getting unjustified extensions).
the dmca wasnt meant to protect the internet from people, it was designed to protect the entertainment industry FROM the internet.
@@richardthelionheart01 *" Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of*"
Erm maybe that's the problem? Copyright is supposed to be temporary - copyrights expired well within an author's lifetime for good reason (regarding the necessity of enriching the public domain). Why should it being some family of a huge star somehow make the behavior excusable?
The process described @18:05 doesn't even require AI. You could download existing songs from the free background websites, claim those and start sending strikes. Only defense is if those websites already register the music. In which case you can just strike them.
At around 13:20, they mention "one thing to sound like another thing" and causing an uproar. This reminds me of the infamous Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure" debacle.
This is possibly the dumbest timeline we're in, isn't it?
Idiocracy in its making.
New world order
i like money
*Best times, with downsides
Twas the best of times, twas the worst of times... Right before the fucking revolution.
Wanna hit back at their AI systems?
Look for any youtube videos by youtube, google, or affiliates (also large revenue streams for google) - Generate audio that could flag them in their own system - upload it - and start trying to copyright striking their work - make sure to list the work as an act of protest...
You could also do this for platforms like Suno that promote AI generated content. Will it work? who knows... but worth a try.
nah, youtube will just drop any claims against bigger channels and leave the smaller channel in the hell of automation.
They’ll punish u for trying
Doesn't work that way. You can't just upload any audio to ContentID, it has to be music, and if it's too similar to any other song already in ContentID it gets rejected. UA-cam can't do anything because that's part of the DMCA act, every copyright dispute has be solved between the 2 parties, UA-cam can't intervene by law.
Also this channel says that his own music is getting claimed by himself, that's totally normal, he uploaded his music to ContentID and now it gets claimed, all the revenue still goes to him but is paid by his music distributor, and a claim is not a strike, it doesn't affect the UA-cam account.
The big problem is scammers registering free songs to ContentID, the only solution for musicians is to really do it themselves first. If you are releasing your music to the internet and you didn't register it to ContentID you just open yourself to get your own music stolen, but still you can fight back, you can dispute every claim and usually the scammer account will just get banned from whatever music distributer they used, the problem is that the next guy can do the same and the next and the next... so really just register your stuff first to avoid all this trouble
nah, what would have to happen is you kinda have to piss off tailor swift or something. A lot of places ban NSFW image generation not because they hated that, but because it was making generations of the ELITE... >.>
@@TodayontheKoreanServer the only problem is that registering with ContentID can start to cost a lot in reoccurring annual fees depending on how much music you have (thinking specifically of Distrokid here) - unless there's something I'm missing?
How can a thing that steals copyighted work flag others for copyright infringement. What in the actual fu*k???!!
That's to protect itself and make the owner more money.
There's been people who have had copyright claims from people who did covers of other works, copyrighted and with permission or not under copyright protection. And their work was a legal cover of the original work.
There's a video that exists/existed (not sure which now, but I assume still exists) of a guy who had to insert a break/silence into one long note they played on an instrument because it got a copyright claim.
$$$ influenced the changes in copyright, and still does, usually because, and in favor of, some huge deep pocket entity/corporation who wants to milk it for all they can.
I am convinced that these mega corporations are all engaging in collision to protect AI even while breaking every law to do it simply because they know no one else has the money to challenge... Except them of course, hence the need for collusion.
Mostly a combination of stupid people who don't understand Content ID and distributors enabling it by default.
it's fraud.. wire fraud to be specific..
Wire fraud, or fraud by radio, wire or television, is defined in 18 U.S. Code section 1343. The law makes it illegal to:
create a scheme or artifice (or intend to do so) that is designed to use false or fraudulent pretense to obtain money or property
create writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds that contain pretenses, misrepresentations or false promises in furtherance of that scheme
use wire, radio or television communication to transmit this information in interstate or foreign commerce
If you violate this law by engaging in prohibited fraudulent communications, you could be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years.
Abolish ALL copyrights. May the best business, artist, author, collaborators, win. F the copyright system it's beyond repair.
My solution: When the copyright system first started getting abused, I deleted all of my content off of UA-cam, and I refuse to upload anything else there ever again. I do recognize that this isn't a solution for most people, but I wasn't making any money. Why expose myself to legal shenanigans when I'm not making so much as a cent?
well sadly, there are alot of people who make money of youtube or somwhere else that can be effected by this
What if we said no to UA-cam and all went to a new video platform? But I guess it would take a real behemoth to be able to compete at this point... and unfortunately most of them would run things the same way.
edit: I highly recommend uploading video content to multiple websites so you aren't just relying on UA-cam for distributing your videos. This also encourages people to actually use alternative platforms, because there will be more content there to view instead of... basically crickets.
@@GidarGaming it would have to follow a very similar path or be sued into oblivion. as always ALL the youtube copyright issues are because of the dmca
@@GidarGamingVidMe was a option but couldnt handle the traffic.
Thanks for all the great videos!
woah thats a lot of clams
When the AI starts paying YOU for music 🤣
Love your beard, hope nobody copyright-claims it
we need to shame people who upload AI content more
"Whoever has the most money to throw at the problem"
Universal Music Group has the opportunity to be great for the first time ever
22:00 man, I needed that reminder. I started following my music dream later in life than I'd hoped too and it was just in tome for all this AI and copyright trash, and it's been stalling my desire to dive in. But you're so right. We only have a limited time, and I dont want to leave the planet not having backed myself enough to give it a red hot try.
Thankyou
Next thing you know, musicians will go back to distributing their work on cassette.
Oh yeah, they already are.😅
@@YerUnclePhil hahaha. How did you know that I was literally looking up cassette recorders today
how about this: if AI made it, nobody gets the copywrite
Hold up!! His writing is this fire???
That is public domain...
And that means if one modifies it enough, they have a copyright over it.
When AI stole the song from internet… It can not go that way!
How about we give the AI the copyright
Nobody gets the copywrite anyway, since "copywrite" doesn't exist.
"Oh, yeah, spelling" No, stupidity IN THE FACE OF THE LAW. Legal matters rely on absolute precision. If you can't stomach or muster that, GTFO.
Oh, and you also have no idea about any of this. *ANY* of this. Your level of not understanding this is almost Guiness-worthy.
Musician writes a song. Robot steals it, masters his vibe, and floods the charts. Musician fights back with a new track-robot copyrights it and takes the win. Now the musician is broke, the robot cashes royalty checks, drops a hit single entitled "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V: My Journey to Originality" and tops the Billboard charts.
stock stuff gets claimed all of the time. It's why you can't use the default beats on things like a kaossilator, Garageband loops, etc etc and post on youtube. This has been a thing for a long time, well before AI.
It's why I always have avoided using stuff created by other people on the internet. Some people aren't even nefarious, they just mislabel things by accident sometimes.
I knew AI would break the current copyright system:
If you follow the copy aspect of copyright AI can work around it. If you broaden the scope so that copyright extends to match everything having even seemingly similar vibe could help to fight against AI but you'll end up copyrighting whole styles of music (which could even extend to some instruments) in the process.
Both these scenarios are a disaster: there's just no winning here with the current model of copyright.
The issue with copyright is that it can be used for anything that isn't "too vague". But that in and of itself is too vague.
It should be used for illegal reuploads/distributions and nothing more. Because while people can pitch change a movie and reupload it(should be illegal), there are original works being claimed over a tune(shouldn't be legal).
genuinely scary
😬
there's nothing scary, just the copyright system that will change in the coming years. Music is not about money in the first place ...
@@RavioliFr music might not be about money but maybe paying rent is =)
Well, like most things that have ever happened, this one was predicted by a science fiction writer. The funny thing about science fiction is that, in the end, it’s often no longer fiction. In 2008, Jacek Dukaj, one of the best Polish sci-fi writers (and, in my opinion, one of the best sci-fi writers in the world), wrote a short story titled "Kto napisał Stanisława Lema" ("Who Wrote Stanisław Lem"). As some of you may know, Stanisław Lem is one of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time (just google Lem’s "Solaris").
In this short story, Dukaj, back in 2008, predicted all the legal issues surrounding AI and copyright problems that you’re referring to. And it goes even further-trust me, the ending is truly mind-bending. It only takes about 20 minutes to read, but sadly, it’s available only in Polish. However, you can buy the e-book for about 1 Euro and translate it with AI (which makes it even funnier). It’s absolutely worth it!
Soundcloud copyright has been so bad lately, multiple orginal tracks have been taken down recently, so frustrating.
Recently I did a drum cover of a Celine Dion song. I posted the cover and the drum only version. The drum only version got a copyright claim from another artist for a song that isn't remotely close to the groove I was playing... I hope it's not Content ID doing stupid stuff because I don't see how a normal artist could try to claim this... it's just drums! There is no melody, chords or any melodic instruments... just a drum groove and I'm pretty sure there is no copyright on drums at this moment. If there were, Clyde Stubblefield would be millionaire with his drum groove on "The Funky Drummer" by James Brown...
Aren't some drum riffs when you're learning even named after artists and songs they're from (like funky drummer)? When it comes to a riff it's attributed to the person who popularized it, you can't even say they 'invented' it to begin with - but if we can claim down to that level, every part of every musical piece is going to be 'owned' by someone, somewhere. --By definition, capitalists would love that though - turning everything into capital that generates money. I can imagine they wouldn't see any reason NOT to do that. Why NOT parcel out each chord progression and beat to those who had the most success with it? If you can have every piece of music generating money based on each of its parts, isn't that more efficient than trying to write whole songs originally every time and just leave its money-generation to hoping it's popular? All you'd have to do is push the button, and music with a certain amount of value-per-play will come out. Then you could probably min/max the value of compositions over time. This feels like what they're trying to do, ultimately. I don't want to be that guy, but this is the logical endpoint to unrestrained capital. I'm never saying we have to abolish capitalism, but we've definitely passed a certain reasonable threshold where it's still compatible with human beings. And I'm thinking that may have been a while ago...
@danielgraham6610 well for now there is no copyright on drum groove that I'm aware of. That would be kind of silly. The guy who created the first ever disco beat would also be billionaire by this point haha!
Same with chord progression. How many blues does have the same chord progression in the same tonality? But I've seen some video from Adam Neely talking about copyright case for songs having similar chord progression and that's clearly a dangerous thing! I think it was about an Ed Sheeran song?
Clearly capitalism and Art in general doesn't go well together...
your drumsticks are also copyright striked! You're using the same sticks as that drummer as well! And the same app that you used to capture the audio. you're a cheater!
Could easily be one of those people that get paid to watch videos and find copyright "infringements."
@willbarnz6960 well in that case that person should be fired 😂
There are so many problems with the Internet and in society such as copyright, and still politicians and corporations don't even want to address the issues... "Sad to be you"
I make telephone calls during my live stream and I get copyright claims on the sound of the ringing sound you here when dialing someone, and I've had the sound of trees get copyright claimed and people saying "Hello". So I can imagine it only getting worse by these automated systems.
Wait until it copyright claims farts and burps. Oh boy!
Bruh
@@Ridiculous8.MP3 😄
Someone should start a trend of classifying their vlogs as spoken verse, so the automated systems will get trained to copyright strike speech. This has the potential of completely breaking down any ability to post videos. Maybe then, when the whole system fails, someone would be forced to look into how unsustainable this whole enforcement model is?
The best analogy for me is copyright laundering, by example of money laundering, there is no reason why it should be legal. But the process is very similar, much like with money you are trying to mix dirty money with a bunch of legit money and take out the same amount of it afterward. AI just mixes a bunch of other people's music together and claims that it's mixed enough that the result is "clean unique music" Then using tags you can "take out" someone else's music as your own.
Also, some people dont understand how art is created, they argue well thats the same things people do, but no it is not. Humans can and do reference other art and artists, and blend things together to create a new work. But this is not how AI works, it literally just rips an exact song, and makes it as different as it needs to be soley by making the song worse. So the AI music is not a new creation, just like you said with the laundering, its just the same song as someone else but made just enough worse that it counts as a different song. And there is no way AI is gonna figure out how to create popular original works, hell, we as a collective have no idea what we will like before it comes out, humans are constantly changing and evolving, especially in art. The only truly original music AI creates is either garbage, or just some random arpeggiator with a drum loop ( which the tech has already existed since before the digital era)
I’m starting to think maybe copyright itself is the problem
always has been.
its the dmca. always has been
The entire system needs a complete overhaul
The entire system needs a complete overhaul
Yeah, nothing in this video is really ai related, you could create a soundalike without ai and do the exact same thing.
There's no reason to make a happy false hope video. People should be prepared for what's to come, not just mentally, but also for the sake of employment plans etc.
This very problem struck illustrators first two years ago and nobody gave a flying... All of the insane implications of AI generative tools existing in a modern copyright environment were extensively discussed way before music AIs evolved enough to be useful and again, nobody cared enough to stop this madness. Since the very beginning generative AIs were nothing else than an unprecedented copyright theft due to how those models work and again, nobody cares because large enough money can be made. There are only two ways out if this - accept that copyright law has become obsolete or ban generative AIs. Nothing in between can work in practice, because at the end of this path the only difference between human made and AI made art will be origin history.
Dang. That’s depressing.
I don't know. Sounds beautiful to me.
The problem is no one seems to approach the debate honestly. AI training retains very little from individual works in the dataset, often as little as a single byte. This can be proven mathematically and is a key piece of information that needs to be considered when discussing this topic, but it's often dismissed or buried, and people are insulted or accused of lying when the point is raised (despite the math being simple enough for grade school kids).
Even this video slipped a few times into spreading the misinformation that the models retain most of the original work.
copyright law did become obsolete - the moment internet was designed as a tool that shares data by copying it
@@Dave-rd6splargely agreed, though there's the noteworthy exception of midjourney 6, which was finetuned on a small enough dataset that it did (does?) near-replicate several well-known images (look up "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - IEEE Spectrum")
*Intellectual Property* as a "legally protected right" doesn't have much longer to exist.
Is that good or bad? Do people deserve it, and the power it can be wielded with?
Totally agree!
@@xinpingdonohoe3978 I'm still struggling with this conundrum myself (sometimes I think the idea of "claiming ownership" over an Idea is asinine; the concept of forgery... other times I tend to think about the fact that "not being able to make a living from your ideas" means that there's little to no incentive to continue producing your works: pirating.).
🤔 It's a very difficult question (but it is quickly becoming one that is being decided for us/ "out of our hands," just like a hand weaver trying to control/ compete with an industrial loom "like the mennonites," or the "Paul Bunyan" allegory.
there is no ethical way to use the powers granted by copyright law.
@@Visigoth_ There will still always be incentive to continue producing: The fact that it is fun, or that it's something you want to do because you just want to do it, not because it makes you money.
The pleasure to say "first" and the sadness of already knowing why we are fucked after just one minute. So many emotions and I didn't watched the video yet.
Cmon, I'm sure they will fix it after realizing what a mess this is. Don't overthink, we just happened to be early into AI regulations.
The "what can you do?" when it comes to unfair laws, always, is "contact your representatives". People always forget how important it is to tell their representatives what you want them to do. After all, you're their boss, not the other way around!
That thing you're describing about people providing free audio strategically to pull the rug later - that's not an AI issue. That exploit has existed for years.
Yeah but it's not drama-ish enough for the storytelling you know
Except AI makes it 10000x faster and abundant.
"and did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it riding the gravy train."
This was already happening. There were already scam artists uploading sounds from free sample packs to copyright claim people. This just makes it even MORE simple. I hope UA-cam just stops all of these copyright claims for small "indie labels"
Why only the small labels?
@@GidarGaming probably just an all ranging, in general bias pick.
It's basically like the phrase you'd hear when in reference to Muslim and terrorists; “all Muslims are Terrorists”.
(INB4 it got taken out of context, *NO*. “Terrorists” classified in the news just happened to be mostly Muslims in recent years.)
What's the most infuriating about this situation is how the CopyId- system doesn't even compare the upload dates before approving the claim as valid. How can you copy something that was uploaded AFTER your work was.
one thing I don't get.. how can a third party copyright strike me if my content was uploaded first? If they upload something that was based on my content, how can they claim copyright if their content never existed until mine was made first?
Because it's about who registers theirs first - and then the legal obligation to prove being the original creator falls on the victim - including all the insane legal fees and time required for a lawsuit.
Copyright is not a protection service - it just validates whether you can sue, or not.
@@warchildsilver copyright requires no registration, it attaches upon creation.
but the US decided to be weird about it, and require registration to file a lawsuit.
@@Marvin_R This is also what I learned back in law class during college (I attended art college)
your art/content's copyright is yours the moment you announce it to the public, posting it to the internet is counted as announcing your creation to the public.
Anything that came after it that plagiarizes or even _steals_ your art or content can be brought to justice, at least in my country (Indonesia) there's a bigass fine to pay under the law, and it still yours as long you're still alive and kicking and 70 years after your death. This is why A.I still have issues with the "learning source" since the content source is still unethically scrapped from the internet without the creator's consent.
.
trademarks and patents are different, those are the first to register one.
@@andrihusainsudra70 years is just another US nonsence, don't try to claim that as your copyright ;)
@@warchildsilver UA-cam copyright allows for trolling in ways over things much larger than just AI content. There's a long history of people filing claims on videos that straight up contain no copyrighted content from the rights holder, forcing the creator to give them their mailing address to dispute the claim, which was the real goal all along. To get a doxx.
Suno officially says that YOU own the rights of you have a PAID account, and they own the rights if you have a free account.
They also argue that you might face liability if your song is too similar to some other artist's music, in other words they tell you NOT to copy other musicians' works.
Which in the US should contradict the courts decision that anything AI generated isn't a subject of copyright because mostly it wasn't made by humans. So, Suno can say anything, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. I think the best solution for now is that AI outputs are basically public domain, you shouldn't be able to claim you exclusively own an AI generated something but you are free to use it, including commercially
@@Grigoriy1996 let's be real here.
Is there any AI generator with true public domain / open access dataset available, that is capable to some level of the top in class AI generators? Pretty sure the answer is no... there are some projects that tried to build an OSS AI Generator, but it's still an infant and barely working.
To make the system even slightly fair, youtube needs to adopt a similar policy for claimants. As in claimants should have a three strike policy too to try and limit frivolous bogus copyright claims.
This is actually a great idea
Love this idea
Wow, thank you for your video. Very helpful and informative. I discovered your channel by accident. I’m new to Music Production. I’ve got a couple of tracks that I’ve created with FL Studio and my Casio Keyboard.
This is symptomatic of a much greater issue. People need to wake up and fight the exceedingly pervasive marriage of lawmakers and the tech oligarchy.
0:08 - I almost went for this Volt thing, but when I saw the small print that said "No strings attached" I balked. It should have violins, violas, cellos, and string basses, or I'm not interested.
Oh wow I was looking away during the clip comparison and didn't even realize he had transitioned between the two pieces. That was uncanny.