https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Clarification is necessary, was that a rebuttal?

The screenshot, I mean.

logicly if youtube has the ability to monitor copyright data then they have not only the ability to find it on their platform after its been uploaded but i think at some point it will be argued they should assign a function of its service design rather than as requested by the copy right claiment. and by that i mean not that a copyright holder should not need to tell youtube to enforce their copyright but however that the standard of enforcing that copyright by the service would be raised to a level that the system permanently checks for it until the copyright is no longer valid

bascly using the demonitization bot as a copyright bot

See, I do disagree to the point that they try to automate the system

again, automation, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

but

Their bot won't be able to detect context to argue fair use.

In my opinion, rights holders should be the one with the burden of proof

im not saying i want them to do it, but im saying i think that copyright will try to argue they should do it

^ ^ ^

If you own the rights to some music, it's on you to prove that it's not being used according to fair use

Mmmhmm

I'm a photographer

and one thing that I do with any photo I put on social media

I find places and ways

Same with movies, photos, etc.

to put watermarks on a photo in a way that won't be noticed unless you're SPECIFICALLY looking for it.

i think at some point they will win that arguement consitering that if youtube has the power to enforce the copyright even more than they currently do and youtube doesent then they can argue youtube is knowingly not using their full power to enforce their rights on their platform

but if someone were to use my photo without my permission

and think that they'll get away with it

they won't.

you have to understand the rights of individuals are secondary to the rights of business in the usa

First, the photo I post is cropped. Second, it has a watermark with my company's name

and google/youtube is a usa business

very VERY faintly, hidden in a shadow.

I agree, Corporatism is a problem.

thats why im saying youtube is in trouble because i think youtube will have to face giving the power of indiscriminent bots to the hands of copyright enforcers or have those enforcers try to get safe harbor pulled out from under them and the reason this is even a problem is because youtube is creating more and more accurate bot ai's to monitor youtube for their revinue stream

the best case scenario youtube has is the former and i dont think we have any idea just how much that will change things

most of my music playlists wil lbe gone im sure

I think I see your point.

Youtube being TOO MUCH of an information company should theoretically open it up to litigation...?

i think so

Also, probably not as far as the music thing goes

they DO already have a copyright bot as far as music goes

at some point they will have perfect control of the curation of the platform, so other people will want that for their own interests and have legal means to fight for it

I actually had a correspondence with 'CD Baby', a sync license company, on this matter.

their music bot is terrible then

I was wanting to use a song by Shawn James for a project

because i know the stuff i listen to isint public archive

those bots will get better

I asked them about getting a license to use it. One of the things they told me was that I could just use their music

but the music would be tagged automatically

and the money from that video would go directly to them instead of to me

and the fight between transformitive media and lawyers who dont give a shit will never end

so the bots getting more accurate isint a good thing in my opinion

hell, right now I'm working on licenses with BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC for my radio station

The interesting thing is

not in the american context atleast

all of these holding companies operate a little differently.

It's a nightmare when it comes to reporting, believe me...

But yeah

interesting thing... if you go on to Youtube

watch for a couple of things. 'Vevo' accounts are official music on Youtube.

As well as '[Band name] - Topic' pages.

the Topic pages are usually CD-baby.

I haven't looked in to it, but I think VEVO is associated with Harry Fox Agency.

mmm, maybe not

but yeah...

Ah

Vevo is owned in part by Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Abu Dhabi Media, Alphabet Inc., and Warner Music Group.

Bypasses HFA and CDB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNDoWkG1FDs But yeah, here's an example of a CDBaby provision.

They generally upload stuff like that to get a sample within Google's system, so as to protect their copyright

but the system's not perfect, and care has to be taken to prevent the artist from getting strikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUw2k6ioZwo

theres also wiki pages

Or authorized performances to be struck down as well https://youtu.be/KM8YGrV-sTA?t=29s

(Also, that last performance is great if you actually listen and like the song. Sage Cornelius is a monster on fiddle...)

Uhh... so in the 4 or 5 years I've owned my PC, I've never looked directly at the front of it...

Until yesterday...

...uhh... yeah...

the hell march needs to start playing

...I wonder if anyone from CyberPower noticed this when they were putting the thing together...

Really gets the gnoggin' joggin'.

actually, that's a bit excessive

sorry if anyone saw that

Man, I just took Aktriaz off of my block list today, too. lol

Now dats a meme.

Real talk: she looks like a young version of my grandmother.

Uh oh, am I gonna be targeted by the alt right now?

It's alright guys, I'm half German. <:Kappa:327142715592540171>

@JadenFrostwolf#5820 Are you half German or (((half German)))?

lol

We don't want these terrorists to get off scot free, oh wait they did I wounder why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAopshGFYNo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzq1zAkZUq4

kemet