Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkhog]

Well, my video just got claimed because of it (I wasn't using any other music and only used the default pack):
Providing the notice info so that the offending song can be removed from future versions of sound sense. It was some kind of organ/choir track if the name doesn't sound like anything to you.
Wasn't able to find a thread dedicated to sound sense so posted it here. Again, youtubers who do DF series (if you are a youtuber that doesn't do a DF series, why are you browsing bay12 anyway ) needs to be aware of this issue. I have no idea if the claim is legit or if it's some claim troll (could be, happened in the past), but I know how to sidestep it and claim it back, so to speak which is something I've been preparing for. Other youtubers may not know how to do that though so it's better if the song in question is removed from future versions of sound sense.

[CyberianK]

maybe it would help if you tell what track was claimed and by whom cant see that in the OP

theres also many illegitimate claims on youtube
or was it the contentid system itself on upload?

still ppl need to know which track it was

I disable the music channel and use SoundCenSe GTK mainly for combat sounds etc

[Salmeuk]

It's interesting how the gut reaction here is to remove the song from soundsense. . . when you think about it, it's probably the correct thing to do, right? If the creator or copyright owner believes they should be compensated for their work's use as part of a stream then it's only fair they are.

Then again, it's kind of doubtful that the copyright owner would have ever discovered the use of that track as part of soundsense itself. I mean, a niche utility for a niche game is not the first place I would look when trying to discover copyright infringement of 3 decade old orchestral music. So in some ways, the behemoth that is Content ID has reached beyond the service / platform / moneymachine of Youtube and will potentially affect the future versions of Soundsense. Great power is being given to copyright owners through the use of this sort of AI-assisted content scanning software, and many would argue that it is a good thing, at least when the software actually catches the foul use of copyrighted content and applies the correct punishment.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

also assuming you are in favor of the current interpretation of copyright laws in the U.S. and other regions

With this Soundsense accusation, however, the software has found a way to apply pressure to platforms or creations that are entirely outside it's usual domain. That sounds like a pretty bad thing indeed. By creating a situation where the content creators ability to make videos is threatened by a copyright claim, the content creator is forced to react, and one of the many reactions possible includes pressuring the creator of Soundsense to react as though the copyright claim was somehow placed on the utility itself. It seems like a rather unintended effect of the Content ID service, though it is a rather nice one if you are the one making the copyright claim. But is it fair?

It's probable that the creator or maintainer of Soundsense will remove the offending music, assuming the copyright claim is valid, since making your utility incompatible with one of the largest media platforms on the internet is kind of a silly move.

Still, to view this situation as I have described it prompts a few questions about the validity of the current methods used to claim copyrights.


Anyways, HERE is the track in question. With a staggering 23 views at the time of viewing, one is reminded that a majority of these claims carry a nonexistant value, or in other words, the threat of a loss of potential earnings due to the songs use in Soundsense is nil. Copyright law is archaic and to see it have such a strong hold on modern media is kind of sad.

[delphonso]

You can find the Soundsense thread here.

Zwei looked for CC music, so it should be fair game. Any tag on youtube is probably illegitimate.

[darkhog]

@Salmeuk Few things:

1. I am as anticopyright as you can get. Frankly, it should be abolished completely. But the law is what it is and we can bitch and moan about it, but in the end, it hardly matters, legally speaking.


2. As for what song is used, you can clearly see in the screenshot of the claim I've provided.


3. While the tag may be bogus, and while we may disagree with it, the easy way is to just remove the song from sound sense and find a similar one. It's possible that the author of the song decided to change its license from CC to something else or it was CC-by-nc, meaning not for commercial use (which prevents from earning money on YT anyway). It's just to avoid hassle, nothing more.

[Putnam]

Are you sure the song being claimed is the song being played?

[darkhog]

Checked the song in question and it sounds about right.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

  Must be vigilant as some copy right claims on YouTube are false too their algorithms are made in a way that they prefer false positives then missing one, as I am not sure that they need a solid proof on those claims (aberrant if you think about. Completely against the presumed innocence)
Also some of those copyright are only in the USA, so why ban them for others?