| Author |
Message |
Brute #959 Est. 2004

Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1709 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: Youtube video, MUTED!!! |
|
|
Alright, so I have a video uploaded to Youtube, and it consists of pictures I took outside around my house during the winter of 2007-2008. I called the video "My Winter", and I decided to use the song "My{Dsmbr" by Linkin Park. Me, my sister, and someone who commented on the video thought it all fit perfectly. We did, after all, get something like a third of all the snow that fell that winter in the month of December alone. Anyway, I looked at the video just recently and noticed that it has been muted!
| Quote: | | Your video, My Winter (07'-08'), may have audio content from My by Linkin Park that is owned or licensed by WMG. |
| Quote: | | This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled. |
What is WMG? How come EVERYBODY uses music in their videos, but I'm suddenly not allowed to for just this one video? Does Linkin Park have a problem with people using their music in Youtube videos? Or does Youtube or WMG have a problem with Linkin Park? They suggested I use audioswap and choose one of their songs, but they don't appear to have My{Dsmbr. I'm not going to choose another song because that one fit perfectly, and I also made the video length the same as the song.
What do you think?
P.S. - Here is a link to the video, so you can see what I'm talking about. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic Est. 2005

Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 4569 Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Youtube has an automatic content recognition system. Large labels like WMG (Warner Music Group) continue to provide more and more samples of 'their' content for analysis by Youtube, which then records a 'fingerprint' in their database.
Youtube material is gradually being scanned for content matching these fingerprints and videos that match are removed or muted, depending on the situation.
The advantage is that Youtube has found a way to filter content on a massive scale, although this does not mean that all videos (of which there many millions, perhaps billions) have been scanned.
The drawback is that, within the context of most (home) videos like yours, the use of such material can often be considered 'fair use' according to copyright law. In this case there is no legal reason to remove the content.
Unfortunately, this can not be detected by a computer program.
The problem with 'fair use' is that it does not apply as soon as the copyrighted content is used for profit. As a home video maker, you have no intention to make profit with your video, but Youtube has. They make money with advertising while videos are being watched. _________________ If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Brute #959 Est. 2004

Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1709 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, of course nobody will watch my video if it has no audio. This really sucks; I'm not sure what to do. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic Est. 2005

Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 4569 Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
You could try a different video host. Or try a medium other than the Internet (CD, USB sticks) if you only have a small and known target audience.
You can also zip the video with, maybe put a password on it to prevent automatic scanning and upload it to a filesharing service like Mediafire.
Of course the distribution is not as straightforward as Youtube, but it's still better than nothing. You also have to keep in mind that Youtube is a free service with hardly any limitations, perhaps this will make it easier to forgive them for removing your content. _________________ If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock Lifeless Person

Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 3120 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | Youtube has an automatic content recognition system. Large labels like WMG (Warner Music Group) continue to provide more and more samples of 'their' content for analysis by Youtube, which then records a 'fingerprint' in their database. |
Exactly. You see a lot of videos that are muted. I hate it, but Google has to if they want to stay out of trouble with the major music labels. _________________ My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Brute #959 Est. 2004

Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1709 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, you know, I'm a little lazy, so I don't think I'll bother registering at another filesharing website. Plus, I don't want to have two accounts to manage or whatever. I do have some friends that watch my videos, but I think it's cool when the whole world can see them, which is why I like using the most popular filesharing website out there. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Brute #959 Est. 2004

Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1709 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whoa, I'm not the only one who has suffered! At least five music videos that I favorited, and were in the top 9 section on my profile, are gone! I click to play it and all that happens is my page reloads and there is a message at the top saying:
| Quote: | | This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WMG. |
Man, what is wrong with WMG and/or Youtube? This sucks terribly! I can only imagine it has something to do with money. Money is the downfall of society. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic Est. 2005

Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 4569 Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I completely agree.
Also, I don't understand why there would be a need for large labels such as WMG. Small, organised labels work perfectly, the relation with artists is better and they usually have much better ethics. _________________ If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Brute #959 Est. 2004

Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1709 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | I completely agree.
Also, I don't understand why there would be a need for large labels such as WMG. Small, organised labels work perfectly, the relation with artists is better and they usually have much better ethics. |
I know. I'm a big fan of small companies/organizations/labels, or whatever. They usually aren't so greedy and stingy. I guess artists just think that the larger the label, the more popular their music will be. I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm sure they'll do whatever it takes to get people to hear their music. Unfortunately, this is one of those times where a big label is causing people to hear them less. Ouch!  _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven Evil Belgian Waffle

Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 7982 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually big labels have been making a push to try to remove all piracy or copyright materials from the internet in the past few weeks. Their activity has pretty much spiked. _________________ Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Scott tutorialtoday.com

Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 2747 Location: Mississauga, Ontario
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Same thing happened to me on a video I added. It isn't Youtube that is doing it, it is the record label, Youtube gets pressured to take them down so they either block the video or mute it. I personally think it is dumb because they aren't losing any money from people hearing a song they represent, if anything it increases the sales because it spreads the song to a larger audience but major labels will always fail to see this. _________________ TutorialToday |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven Evil Belgian Waffle

Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 7982 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if you could throw the detection algorithm off by throwing in sounds that the speakers can't produce in millisecond intervals so it's not noticeable. _________________ Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock Lifeless Person

Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 3120 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brute wrote: | I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm sure they'll do whatever it takes to get people to hear their music. Unfortunately, this is one of those times where a big label is causing people to hear them less. Ouch!  |
They are always doing that. A big label only cares about money, not about the fans or their artists. If I would ever get into music (I can play guitar ) I would rather get signed at a small label, because I like my freedom and I wouldn't like it if they would treat me bad. _________________ My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 1766 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say try hosting your stuff on a different video hosting site, because this sounds more like a personal video than something you're trying to get everyone to watch, right? So there are other services that you can use that I actually like a lot better than the slow and clunky YouTube, like Vimeo. _________________ Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky 3.14159265358979323846264

Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 4175
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
You also got Dailymotion.
Google Video may be an option but I think Google has removed this service. It was still around last year, even after the acquisition of YouTube. _________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|