All in all I’d say yeah this definitely requires some clever engineering and I believe them that they use AI as part of all of this.
rnnoise2 is an open-source model that does very well. There also are things like Waves Clarity VX, the Nvidia Broadcast (Audio Effects SDK) too, as well as plenty of other solutions like Supertone Clear, Krisp, etc etc etc.
The main difference in the above analogy is probably that a photo is not a primary intended way for the architecture to be consumed whereas it is for a song.
Also some music may be/is intended to be heard live. So the recording/model analogy can certainly fit.
Sure, I agree with this.
>Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music.
Gonna disagree there; in the same way that looking at a picture of something isn't the same as looking at something, hearing a recording of a performance is not the same as being present for the performance.
The Treachery of Images, as Magritte called it.
In the US though, architecture copyrights don't protect against people photographing building exteriors.
That said, if your building was covered in a mural or some artistic façade that you held the copyright to, then one can assert copyright against people posting videos of the building on YouTube. Of course, there's exemptions for various forms of fair use like critique.
This is way overly reductionist. Hearing a few notes of a piece of music in the background with crappy quality is not the same as hearing the full ucompressed piece with top of the line equipment. It is remarkably analogous to seeing a picture of building.
>> remove copyright-claimed music from your video
This tool will only remove music that has been reported/claimed by someone and reported to youtube. It certainly cannot remove all copyrighted music given that most all recorded music is copyrighted already irrespective of youtube. This tool can remove stuff that has been reported and shared with youtube's copyright systems. That is a different thing than the title.
I hope this won't spill over to a general deterioration or avoidance of music. People are really good at copying behavior they see from people they see as "authoritative figures" and influencers are that, for young people.
If you don't like music, sure... but I'm not willing to be that ascetic.
Has there ever been a significant point in history where this has happened? It feels like the opposite happens; when people conscientiously object to the music industry, said industry doubles down on their authority to control music. Radio license agreements, home taping, internet-distribution and now the YouTube/social media era are all punctuated by license-holders reaffirming their control, fair use and popularity be damned.
They behave like the mob.
I.e. a tool would have to ascertain whether a clip of music in a larger video was being used as part of film criticism (allowed) or as musical accompaniment to a comedy scene (not allowed). Even in a film criticism clip, the music is allowed if it's part of the analysis, but not if it's used as "branding".
So that distinction simply can't be made by a tool, not even with current AI. Heck, in important enough situations that are gray areas, people go to court and it takes a jury to decide.
My guess is you could build an AI + limited human review tool that would do it better than the 75th percentile lawyer. But there's not much reason for YouTube to invest in this.
Meanwhile "Old Town Road" was made by "buying" the "rights" to an instrumental track that was created by Trent Reznor, but Trent Reznor had to be told that someone was using Ghosts 34. IIRC the "beat" was "bought" for less than a meal at a fast food restaurant, not from Reznor (or NIN, or Nothing Records, etc).
I made $0 after spending about a decade composing, writing, arranging over 4 solo albums and an additional 6 albums with another person. One thing of note, though, was the "Napster Bad" metallica workaround on file sharing apps was to change the name of the band... to our band name. We didn't stand a chance.
I wonder what the pre-eminent audio library song is going to be this time.
it's disturbing to me when youtube permits post-publication editing of videos like this
That sort of situation should be considered fair use, and copyright owners who attempt to make trouble for people caught up in this situation should be slapped down, hard, and fined.
I am all for enforcement if it reaches a significant audience with commercial interests. But now anyone for any reasons gets this crap.
Say hypothetically that the song writer gets paid 100% every time their song gets played 100% in any video, why does copyright care at all? It's right to safeguard the primary creator's intellectual property to the extent of allowing them to claim share in profits, but it's strange to use copyright to restrict use.
There is also the right of the creator to have their work not used in ways they don't approve of. This a commonly heard about when politicians play songs at rallies. It's not just about the dollars.
You can, this is called "incidental use" and is an exception to copyright in the USA. If you're filming yourself going down the street and someone starts playing a song, and you're not going out of your easy to capture the copyrighted content, it is legal.
YouTube's copyright strike system is more strict than the law, probably to kowtow to the music companies serving the YouTube Music product in exchange for not having to defend against a lawsuit.
If we weren't subject to their monopoly on online video, someone could just start telling copyright trolls to pound sand when a frivolous complaint comes up.
In principle, maybe. But realistically, even if we had a competitive and healthy video hosting market, the RIAA would still have a legal imperative to moderate those platforms. Although we don't perceive them in direct competition with YouTube, copyright takedowns still happen on TikTok, Twitter and Instagram. Platforms of a certain size become targets for IP holders, and platform-owners lack the time or accountability to deal with each claim on a case-by-case basis. It's less about finding a "someone" to tell-off copyright trolls, and more about paying enough lawyers to fight Sony & Friends when they make dubious claims.
It's a status-quo that sucks for us humans, but this is what intellectual property laws look like as-applied to real life. Art, video and even code are all obsessively licensed to prevent the accidental proliferation of good ideas.
I recorded a live performance of an orchestra in Barcelona at some cathedral. Some version of the song got copyright flagged. Really? Flagging live performances of (checks notes) a song composed in 1954?
Just bananas.
Someday hopefully the musical copyright folks on YouTube will share revenue with Visual Artists on there, too.
It is considered fair use, but we're not dealing with government law here. We're dealing with a private company's TOS. In fact, Youtubes entire Copyright "strike" system is just a layer in front of "proper" DMCA.
The large, corporate copyright holders are happy with the setup since they can basically strike down anything they want without worry of legal repercussions (which DMCA addresses). Youtube is happy since the large copyright holders are happy. Small creators get screwed over, but it doesn't really matter to Youtube since there's essentially an endless supply of Youtube content creators.
Now in 99.999+% of individual human situations, it never gets that far because it's pretty clear to a person in advance whether something is fair use or not, or they ask a lawyer and assess the risks, etc.
But when you're dealing with user media at scale, that system falls apart. YouTube can't have a human lawyer manually review each clip for fair use, YouTube certainly can't trust uploaders because there are tons of people trying to upload entire Hollywood movies, and asking copyright owners to manually review each flagged match is similarly not scalable.
So YouTube simply implements a content matching system that disallows more than a certain amount of copyrighted material period. There's no other scalable solution given existing copyright law.
And honestly, this new eraser tool is a really good solution if it works. If it can simply and effectively remove unwanted background music that was never wanted/intended to begin with, then it works for everyone -- pirated content uploads are still blocked scalably as well as unlicensed sountracks on webisodes etc., but people can still upload personal clips and instead of them being blocked, they can just remove the music instead.
(Informercial hands slip on screwdriver) Call Today for our $29.99 special grip that solves all those slippery screwdriver problems you definitely have! There is no other solution to the screwdriver grip conundrum!
No, practicality does not demand "binding shitty algorithmic decisions for thee, extreme latitude for egregious errors from me." Determinations don't need to be scalable to backstop a system of back-and-forth escalating claims that keeps the incentives correct for everyone at all stages: human beats algorithm, identified human beats unidentified human (note that at this point and all subsequent points rights holders have an enormous, automatic scalability advantage), identified human with legal commitment to consequences for being incorrect beats uncommitted human, and finally bump it to the legal system if all else fails, but by now everyone has skin in the game committed to their claims so none of the disagreements will be spammy.
This is all possible, it's not even particularly difficult, but it wouldn't create a cozy relationship with big rights holders which is what youtube actually wants, so instead we get "binding shitty decisions for thee, extreme latitude for egregious errors from me."
That's yesterday's game. It might have been possible to do this in the 90s, but today's copyright claims are automatic, authoritative and legally legitimate enough to scare a platform owner. This is entirely legal, too; nothing stops Sony from dumping 800,000 alleged infringements on YouTube's lap and giving them a 2 week notice to figure it out. If Google doesn't respond to every claimed abuse, then Sony can force them to arbitrate or sue them in court for willful copyright violation.
> This is all possible, it's not even particularly difficult
But it's not automatic, it creates unnecessary liability, and it's more expensive than their current solution. It's not overly generous to Google to assume that they also hate the rights-holders, but literally can't be assed to do anything about it because the situation is stacked against them. Even assuming the overwhelming majority of copyright-striked content is Fair Use, the losses incurred by the 0.1% that isn't could make defending YouTube a net-negative. Record labels and movie studios keep IP-specific lawyers on-payroll for this exact purpose, and fighting it out is a losing battle any way you cut it.
YouTube doesn't provide an implementation of the second half of the DMCA process because they have a side deal with big media to manage royalties in exchange for a system biased in their favor.
Not immediately AFAIK - the provider has to wait ~2 weeks (in which case the original issuer of the notice can sue).
> YouTube doesn't provide an implementation of the second half of the DMCA
AFAIK YouTube does implement this: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
However, most copyright disputes on YouTube happen within YouTube's own process (where usually the claimant gets the revenue from the video but the content usually stays up), not the DMCA process (takedown and copyright strike)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
That whole debacle spawned Content ID and yes, now they're happily in bed together. They probably prefer it like that, while we'd prefer safe harbour actually works as intended.
The situation resolved in two weeks, but for that time all monetization was "shared" with a scam entity. The name of the scammer is "TuneCore".
Explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHBhM7PNRYA
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ftlgame/comments/1cj0hkt/ftl_youtub...
TuneCore scam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_Music#:~:text=Copyrigh...
In practice they never have much to fear from legal repercussions. There are countless examples of DMCA notices sent by corporations in error, or sent for reasons such as suppressing criticism, or to find out a blogger's identity, or to try to extort money, or as an attack/DoS but I'm not aware of any CEO or corporate lawyer being charged with perjury.
Even if someone wanted to fight a corporation in the court system they can't just prove that the DMCA notice wasn't valid, they also have to prove intent (that the corporation knew it was invalid when it was sent) and even if they manage to win, they'd be lucky to get enough money to cover their legal expenses (http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/court-nar...)
No, i won't cite. Even bing can find numerous publications on this very topic with "cops playing copyrighted music to prevent video uploads" which is basically what i said.
Youtube created the problem and now have this tool to help the problem they created. Indeed, it would be better to not have the problem in the first place!
Having some background music, or short clips, is absolutely fair use and from a pragmatic point of view, just common sense. But all the youtube content creators I know are in constant panic of letting even the slightest bit of external sound into their videos. It is completely unnatural.
I'm hoping to find a tool that removes umms and ahhhs, mouth clicks and other annoying tics.
Perhaps Broadcast will also run? Its even possible you just need to flip value in config to force it to run on nonRTX cards
I'd be pleasantly surprised if nvidia can "fix" audio, as i have.. oh, a few thousand hours of audio that i could clean up in an automated way.
[0] hilariously, youtube gave me a copyright strike for this video, even though it's obviously an archival upload. Jerks.
Replace is nice if it's only the song, but you lose any voice-over.
Mute also loses your voice-over.
Simply default to the first person to upload a piece of video to the site 'owns' it. If you're a film studio or something you can upload a video and set it to private to 'own' content before you release it.
I get that technically scaling content id is hard, but it seems like a solvable technical challenge considering the market position it would give YouTube as the de facto copyright reference index. Everyone has to upload there first unless they want to risk getting their content 'owned' by someone else and a battle to get it reassigned.
Getting Google to care enough to fix that problem was harder and slower than a technical solution.
There have been some pretty funny instances of people on among us competing against streamers, so they play copyrighted music to keep the streamers away.
It was the first time that DMCA acted as a paladin-like aura in a video game.
[0] imslp.org is a great source for pieces no longer under copyright. Not all the sheet music itself on imslp is out of copyright in all jurisdictions, of course.
This still happens, yeah.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140427195913/https://support.g...
And its all to protect a ecosystem that their own geberative ai research has doomed to die anyway . Makes perfect sense, in a asylum hallway kind of way. The public will have to bail out YouTube .
https://github.com/PicassoCT/MOSAIC/raw/master/sounds/advert...