Wow, Jeff Goldblum talking about Rick Beato.

If I see another Kamala advert I’m gonna lose my mind

One note about the dispute process that I just encountered was that I submitted a dispute and instead of Sony Music Japan declining the dispute, they issued a DMCA claim simply for issuing the first level dispute. They just jumped straight to takedown notice, regardless of the strucutre in place of dispute > reinstate claim > appeal > takedown. It just went dispute > takedown.

Sony Music Japan just issued a DMCA takedown notice and I got a strike on my channel for a video that is clearly fair use for reacting and commentating to an Anime show Opening. There's TONS of videos reacting to the same thing for years on KZfaq, and the music I even reacted to were from videos on KZfaq, and yet those are all still up and mine got a Strike.

They should loose, and I think they will. AI is not a database of music. Compensation also doesn't work, and it's not justified if something isn't very close to some original.

'ln the United States, works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting may be considered fair use. In the EU, more limited exceptions are recognized and the use must fit into specific categories, such as quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, and pastiche.' 'If the use of copyright-protected material in a video qualifies as a copyright exception, then the video is considered lawful and non-infringing. This is why we often ask copyright holders to think about whether copyright exceptions apply before submitting a copyright removal request to KZfaq. If a copyright holder believes a video doesn't qualify for an exception, then they must provide us with an adequate explanation as to why.' Source: KZfaq. 'Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). ' Source: www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html

Would similar apply to other reaction channels such as what L3WG does? He had a comment that he talks to much during the video. The title of the video, is "Brit Reacts to What Would ".

Copyright law is broken and stands in the way of innovation and competition rather than protecting and facilitating it. I sincerely hope that the record companies do not manage to monopolize AI regardless of other outcomes.

I am pretty sure KZfaq content creators don't fight DMCA claims because its a literal David vs Goliath. The record company makes hundreds of millions stealing view revenue and/or doing takedowns to diminish any amount of free access to their IPs so spending a million on a KZfaq case is in their interest. Since the losing party risks having to pay their accusers legal fees if they cannot defeat the claim the financial risk is too great for a youtuber to justify, even a pretty good sized channel does not make the kind of money to risk 7 digit lawsuits.

Not sure what you stated about KZfaq's Copyright strike is correct. For example, one content creator, ESO has created hundreds of videos on the video game Skyrim. The theme music for the video game is OWNED by Bethesda, the same company that created the video game Skyrim. Because ESO has created so many videos about Skyrim (and other Bethesda games), Bethesda has given ESO permission to use the Skyrim music in his videos!! ESO actually has a contract with Bethesda granting the authorization to use the music! However, FAKE people/FAKE companies can and do submit these copyright infraction claims, and SUCCESSFULLY gain a Copyright strike - even when the the content creator has written permission from the Copyright holder to use the music.

This copyright stuff on YT / Twitch has gone too far. Playing any music with your own hands as a demonstration is not the same as playing the original produced musical piece in the video. Furthermore, I don't believe it should be a problem for a person to play any part of a musical piece if they're using their own instrument and skill. Honestly, specific issues like this need to be cleared up in a court, or revisited in court.

Is listening to (and 'save') the music in our brain also a copyright infringement?

If the record companies win independent artists will be replaced on a scale never seen before. And if training is considered to be protected by copyright , and an AI is considered to be making copies, then the output is _also_ protected by copyright, at which point the record companies _will_ go after the generated content. This is their ultimate goal, and why I’m a proponent for everyone having access to the technology despite the moral gray areas. Because the alternative is so much worse.

vlogging through history went through the same thing and he ended up coming out on top as far as I know. He takes the approach in his reaction videos of letting the op make the point, stopping the video and commenting. Evidently someone took exception and decided to use the nuclear option and it ended up backfiring. He posted about it so it might be worth checking out.

To my knowledge, training an AI of this sort does not involve storing copies the data. The program learns from the data (music/songs in this case) i.e., it breaks the data down into noise (not noise as in sound, but noise as in data) and processes it. The training phase is completely separate from the generation (production) phase. Once the training is done, the program can use the patterns in the noise (again, noise as in data) to generate slightly different versions of that original data, modified based on user prompts. The programs in question are not open source so it's hard for me to speak on this specific instance, but I have worked with similar generation models and at no point do they store the original training data in its pure form. It remembers patterns in the data/noise in a way similar to how human brains learn and remember data, often known as an engram.

Great content, thanks for your insights!

Fil is one of the nicest guy on the internet. Anytime I’ve ever had a question. He’s answered every one I assume himself.He’s also very intelligent. Young men like him don’t grow on trees. He’s just a good dude was impression I got.

It’s like most things. The ‘Don Henley’ effect

KZfaq is acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner, and the accused has less than zero rights. This cannot continue.

Most companies, particularly those who rely almost entirely on computers and software, have unshakable faith in the stuff, Lord knows why. These companies NEVER want to hire expensive, unreliable human beings who need money, space, food, water and so on, when they can rely on The Great God algorithm. Humans can exercise judgement (Heaven forfend we allow employees to do that!) but algorithms are inherently flawed and stupid and totally incapable of applying common sense.

Thanks for featuring Fil Henley's analysis videos in your video. I've been watching his analysis videos for a little over 4 years. Because I'm also a musician and songwriter, Fil reminds me of what I've learned and teaches me new things, the latter more recently being about auto tune, pitch correction, and fair use. I myself am considering to record my own music compositions but don't know too much about the recording aspect. Anyway, thanks again for your feature!

Another lawyer who doesn't know copyright law. Color me shocked.

I hope you're referring to the law of England and Wales, since that's the jurisdiction that Phil is operating in.

The biggest problem is that most views for most videos come very shortly after release. When the video is demonetized rather than claimed, that money is gone and KZfaq isn't required to make the creator financially whole. I think they need a verification system where once artists get a certain size they get the benefit of the doubt until it is reviewed. KZfaq can still hold the money in escrow in the meantime until it's resolved. The other option would be for KZfaq to repromote the videos after ads have been restored.

I'm a judgement proof philosopher and theologian who's religious beliefs are violated by copyright laws and I'm about to start up a channel... things are about to get interesting.

Quite frankly, it seems to me that yt constantly violates its own standards and imposes penalties on its creators that inflict substantial harm on creators as well as consumers. I'm a danged house painter. I wish some lawyer(s) would get them for us. (With us)?

Algorithms still have large margins or error, but the users of algorithms don't care.

Copyright is a freakin mess. whether it is a musician covering another's song or an artist creating things based on another's work. All of which is perfectly fine as long as the artist is not claiming their work "IS" the original FROM the original artist. Attribution should be enough! I should be able to create my own story in the Harry Potter universe. And as long I make clear this is not an AUTHORIZED work, there should be no copyright claim.

See Rick Beato.....

I did enjoy the video, thanks! Throwing you some engagement for the algorithm and due recognition of that truly very cute and lovable puppy (around 3:35 for any comment-reader who wants to know).

ScrewTube is RIDICULOUS. They often block comments that speak the truth, even when offensive terms ore not used.

Nobody gets "blocked" for copyright stuff. You lose your monetization for the vid. I refuse to monetize, and use any music I want. I just get "copyright claim" on my homepage, so I don't give a damn...the video is still public and available. Thousands of people upload cover songs...good or bad. If they were blocked for any of the pinned reasons, we'd never see ANY cover songs by guitarists. I know...I've uploaded guitar stuff.

00:21 OK I'm gone. Bye.

I think we are witnessing another instance of the downside of algorithms making decisions for humans. Algorithms are binary - yes or no. There is no nuance. Sort of like our political differences.

I'm a retired orchestral musician who occupies his time singing and playing the ukulele. If I get something good enough, I often upload it to KZfaq. Most of the songs are copyrighted. Only a small percentage of those get flagged during the upload process. And with all of the flagged songs there has been a notice that "the copyright holder allows the use of this content on KZfaq." It’s a convenient solution to a previously thorny issue. So I write a little thank you to the copyright holder in the description and publish. I've never been warned to refrain from publishing. Am I just lucky? A few times a copyright claim has been made on something I know for a fact to be public domain, which is annoying. I've disputed those a couple of times just out of principle, although it doesn't really make any difference to me because my channel isn't monetized. I'm surprised that more copyright administrators don't take the trouble to do whatever they need to to get the ad money, although in my case, it wouldn’t usually amount to much at all. I don't get a lot of views. Is it a difficult process or something?

Why is the music industry so hair-trigger on copyright claims? This isn't just a YT issue. I'm a writer and I can't even use so much as a single line of song lyrice (say, as something a character is listening to) without risking my book drawing a C&D from some industry lawyer, even when I could make a good case for fair use.

Google is blocking because of CYA. Google isn't the government. They can do what ever they want on their platform.

KZfaq has gotten to big and to corrupt, and very heavy handed unless your one of the few giant content creators out there, and even then they get issues from KZfaq all the time as well. KZfaq only cares for paid content now, such as videos from major studios or news organizations. Those studios and news organizations can upload videos and the most users would get slapped with content guidelines violations and get a strike over, yet they do it with no issue, and no those videos are not hidden behind a paywall and anyone can view them. KZfaq removed the You from everything about their site except the name. There is a reason People are leaving in droves and content creators are finding alternative platforms now. This heavy handed censorship, not just copyright claim crap but actual censorship where people can't talk about serious topics without censoring words with what I call baby talk. like changing "s****ide" to "self del*te or "de**h" to unal*ve, even when reporting news stories, unless you are CNN or MSNBC then you can say those words all day long in your videos with no issues. You even have to censor yourself when posting on the comments to avoid your post being deleted. KZfaq is anything but user friendly these days and has become a far cry from what it started out originally as and strayed far from its original mission statment. KZfaq is now CorporateTube and no better the just another cable company. The reason KZfaq is getting heavy with the ads and at war with adblockers is due to them bleeding money from people who are leaving the platform. This is also the main reason they keep pushing KZfaq Premium so hard! When the site is no longer user friendly enough, people will move elsewhere, it's the same reason people pirate content. And don't get me started on their job of a dispute resolution system that no actual employee at KZfaq ever looks at as the system is 100% automated. The only way to get ahold of KZfaq to fix issues is though a separate company aka "X" or "Twitter" which is a terrible way to manage user disputes. Rant over.

Really Helpful - I watch Phil's videos and this perspective is very interesting. I got a copyright claim on one of mine - from Sony. Did I want to dispute it? Yes - I wrote it, played it and recorded it. They removed the claim,

Google isn’t run by humans.

Good video and i appreciate you posting it. I would recommend Rick Beato's video on copyrights as well - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5ucjMJ1x7vXn58.html He did a few of them, which are all really good.

The system is just broken.. I had entire videos claimed of me making modular patches.. Where I actually walk people through my creative choices and how to go about making a patch.. and none of the note material used was borrowed from existing material... The whole copyright law needs to be revised to better reflect the current landscape...

Very informative. What interests me most about not only Fil's videos but also hundreds of others which are similar to some of his, is where an original clip is used to enable a guitar tutor to demonstrate how to play a particular riff. This method, in Fil's case, appears to have breached the you tube copyright threshold according to a video which he featured 8 days ago. The sole purpose of showing a clip is therefore , in these circumstances, to show you how to play the guitar. Surely that must count as fair use.

I guarantee that Rick’s videos generate revenue to the copyright holders, because many of the songs and albums are not know by a huge number of people. I bet many new fans are generated by such videos. It’s free advertising for those artists!

Copyright is whatever the best paid lawyer in the court says it is. All of Fil's videos are, as far as I can see, the very definition of fair use for analysis and criticism. But so what? He can't afford to pay a lawyer so he has to stick to KZfaq's definition of fair use which is NOT in any way based on law or statutes but is in fact the result of negotiated agreements between Google's lawyers and the mafia which runs the music industry. Part of that agreement is that each side will protect the agreement by suing any third party into the ground if they violate the terms agreed. This is not a discussion about "the law" - this is a discussion about extortion and protection rackets.

I watched Fil's video. He showed on his video that Google flagged the sections - which they suggested he remove - via the rectangular boxes which appear on screen along the RED play bar. However, when Fil played through three days ago those rectangular boxes there was no copyright music within those boxes, so clearly the algorithm is having difficulty discerning between a normal played guitar, playing various techniques or scales from music which may contain some shredding which sounds very similar. Google needs to lift their game with their AI analysis. Having said that, Google often banners videos which state: "climate change is due to human activity" and yet google's own AI requirements have boosted its carbon footprint by 50%. - but this is another argument for another day.

Has the staute of limitations run out on all the Led Zeppelin theft? Please let us know would ya?

Dude, great information. However, would you perhaps be in the market for a video editor? You have som, oh, questionable cuts. :-)

Kind of ironic since Microsoft came out and argued that it regards scraping copyright material from the internet en bloc to be reconstituted as some kind of pale imitation of the original work as 'fair use' 🤔

The greatest absurdity is that the original artists (rightly) profit from their works becoming part of the zeitgeist. And the zeitgeist includes imitation, discussion, analysis, excerpting, etc. To try to keep this from happening by denying fair use is absurd and deeply ignorant.