Universal And Warner Block Time Live Streaming Its Time 100 Event Because Copyright Censors

from the but-filters-work,-right? dept

You know how supporters of Article 13 in the EU keep insisting that just because Article 13 (now Article 17) says not to take down non-infringing content that any worries about taking down non-infringing content are misplaced? About that… This week there’s been a lot of fuss about the whole “Time 100” thing that purports to highlight the 100 most influential people in the world. This bit of backslapping among the famous starts off with glowing magazine profiles, followed by a big party, the Time 100 Gala and the Time 100 Summit, which is the conference version of the backslapping. Time Magazine livestreamed the Summit yesterday via YouTube.

As Manish Singh pointed out, it appears that both Warner Music and Universal Music Group got the video pulled on copyright grounds.

It’s not clear exactly why this happened, though lots of people are talking about Taylor Swift performing, and she’s now on Universal, so that’s one possibility. Except she performed at that Gala, and it appears that it’s the Summit that got blocked. It’s possible that the venue music that likely plays in between speakers could have tripped up ContentID as well.

Either way, it’s yet another demonstration of how filters are terrible at this kind of thing, and why laws like the EU Copyright Directive will inevitably lead to censorship of perfectly legal material, rather than “piracy.”

Now, some will respond that under the EU Copyright Directive, YouTube may just choose to officially license all music uses, and then no longer have to block incidental uses such as this, but that highlights the other problem we’ve discussed: almost no one other than YouTube can do that. And thus, even if that were the case, YouTube would then become the only player anyone could ever use for livestreaming events like this if they don’t want them blocked. For all the talk of how we needed the EU Copyright Directive to take down Google and Facebook’s power, the fact that it might just lock them into their dominant positions seems like it should be a concern.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: time, universal music group, warner music

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Universal And Warner Block Time Live Streaming Its Time 100 Event Because Copyright Censors”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
47 Comments
Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One could tell Youtube, in advance, that one is going to post a video/stream that might contain some music, and that the music has been properly licensed. It seems silly but also realistic given what’s happening in Europe.

Just one problem with that; YouTube is completely on autopilot. There’s nobody to contact. The whole thing is run by A.I. and Google has gone to great lengths to make sure you can’t contact the company in any meaningful way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Licensed Music

As yesterday’s article highlights, if you put something in the public domain, it has a high likelihood of being re-purposed in a copyrighted work, causing ContentID to block other copies of the copyrighted work AND anyone else re-purposing the public domain work in their own copyrighted work, PLUS any copies of the original work.

So essentially, if it’s music, it will likely eventually be blocked. And it’s more likely to be blocked if it isn’t copyrighted, as nobody’s going to be trying to foil ContentID to publish works in the public domain.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Because what YouTube should have done is get sued by Universal and Warner after Universal and Warner released their content to the world, just like the time Viacom sued YouTube for content Viacom put up themselves.

You’re the chucklefucks who believe that filters are God and everyone else should kiss your feet in acceptance of this "fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t" scenario.

Not only do you want carte blanche permission to rape whoever you want, you want this to be approved in law and pre-emptively bar any complaints about it.

Seriously, get bent.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No, if there was no specific request, then what happened was that YouTube blocked the stream because the ContentID system they were essentially forced to put into place by those same labels was doing its job as they demanded.

Even if you try putting it all on YouTube, this is still the labels getting what they said they wanted.

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

PaulT if the ContentID system was put in place, practically all YouTube videos would be wiped out in mere minutes, because it’s as faulty as that cringe-y Emoji movie.

If you want to know a summary of how stupid the EU is, take a look at my comment below titled EU trying to get things right is like:

Also how the heck do I bold/underline text in this comment section?

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Click on “markdown” under the comment box for instructions
Oh I see now. Thanks.

What keeps flagging all these videos then?
The companies that are filing the copyrights of course. That’s why there are still thousands of videos on Youtube. If Content ID/licensing filters were already put in place, YouTube won’t have any videos to display because all of our videos would be wiped out in mere minutes.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"I know I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them"

OK, no problem. Your mistake here was making some bare assertions you couldn’t back up. There’s plenty of evidence out there that ContentID is being used. If you have evidence to the contrary then supply it. But, don’t make bare assertions and not expect to be challenged if it doesn’t fit with what’s already been established.

David says:

Still no clue about politics?

For all the talk of how we needed the EU Copyright Directive to take down Google and Facebook’s power, the fact that it might just lock them into their dominant positions seems like it should be a concern.

It is a time-honored tradition that the assumption of a political office or enactment of a law is to be marshalled by a celebratory essay of political fan fiction loosely related to the procurement in order to give the victims something to laugh about all the way to the bank they are not allowed to enter because it could get them thinking about withdrawing their assets.

FlatZOut (profile) says:

EU trying to get things right is like:

So I fired again
Then I missed, and then I missed again
And then I fired and I fired
And I missed. I missed both times.
This went on for several hours
Then I fired and I fired
And I missed.
I ran out of energy
Then I became sad.
I had a popsicle.
I passed out in the snow.
Then I woke up,
And I reloaded (lobbying)
And I fired. But I missed.
I fired again. I hit something, but it wasn’t what I was going for (MEPs voting for the wrong thing) so I guess I missed.
I had another popsicle.
I reached into the fridge for another popsicle, I missed. Grabbed the cabbage. Tried to put it back, but I missed. It hit the floor.
I reached to grab a Sprite, I Sierra Mist

Long story short. MISSED!

Anonymous Coward says:

who the fuck cares if its in the background, the god damn labels are morons. No one says, Hey I want to listen to Taylor Swift, rather than watching the official video that plays ads, I’m gonna watch the video of the guy working on his car in the garage while its on the little shop radio in the background, that’s the best sound.

I love how you can watch Youtube these days and never hear music in the background because all the youtubers make sure there is nothing that can get a video blocked. Its like a new reality, a world without pop music, just generic instrumentals. No dancing or having fun listening to music. Free advertising and they just pissed it away.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Nobody does, and yet, that’s the kind of logic these assclowns operate under, up to suing. Since businesses pay for cleaning supplies and security measures to improve their business operations, obviously music coming from a free-to-air radio station or a CD that’s already been paid for requires lining the pockets of record label executives.

Because obviously the amount of oversaturated pop music over the air is clearly a major influence in whether or not I choose to visit the dentist, just like how sanitary it is or how unlikely it is to get broken into. And obviously not because I require oral hygiene maintenance; the free music is obviously why I visit.

Rekrul says:

Now, some will respond that under the EU Copyright Directive, YouTube may just choose to officially license all music uses, and then no longer have to block incidental uses such as this, but that highlights the other problem we’ve discussed: almost no one other than YouTube can do that.

And how do they license "all" music? How did they license the song written by Bob down the street? How did they license the tune created by Stella’s 10 year old granddaughter on her keyboard?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...