Facebook Is So Sure Its Erroneous Blocking Of Music Is Right, There’s No Option To Say It’s Wrong
from the do-not-doubt-the-copyright-filter-gods dept
It’s hardly a secret that upload filters don’t work well. Back in 2017, Felix Reda, then Shadow Rapporteur on the EU Copyright Directive in the European Parliament, put together a representative sample of the many different ways in which filters fail. A recent series of tweets by Markus Pössel, Senior Outreach Scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, exposes rather well the key issues, which have not improved since then.
Facebook muted 41 seconds of a video he uploaded to Facebook because Universal Music Group (UMG) claimed to own the copyright for some of the audio that was played. Since the music in question came from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, and Bach died in 1750, there’s obviously no copyright claim on the music itself, which is definitely in the public domain. Instead, it seems, the claim was for the performance of this public domain music, which UMG says was played by Keith Jarrett, a jazz and classical pianist, and noted interpreter of Bach. Except that it wasn’t, as Pössel explains:
Either I am flattered that a Bach piece that I recorded with my own ten fingers on my digital keyboard sounds just like when Keith Jarrett is playing it. Or be annoyed by the fact that @UMG is *again* falsely claiming music on Facebook that they definitely do not own the copyright to.
This underlines the fact that upload filters may recognize the music – that’s not hard – but they are terrible at recognizing the performer of that music. It gets worse:
OK, I’ll go with “very annoyed” because if I then continue, Facebook @Meta DOES NOT EVEN GIVE ME THE OPTION TO COMPLAIN. They have grayed out the option to dispute the claim. They are dead wrong, but so sure of themselves that they do not even offer the option of disputing the claim, even though their system, in principle, provides such an option. And that, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with companies like these today. Algorithms that make mistakes, biased towards big companies like @UMG.
This absurd situation is a foretaste of what is almost certainly going to happen all the time once major platforms are forced to use upload filters in the EU to comply with Article 17 of the Copyright Directive. Not only will they block legal material, but there will probably be a presumption that the algorithms must be right, so why bother complaining, when legislation tips the balance in favor of Big Content from the outset?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon. Originally posted to WalledCulture.
Filed Under: copyright, copyright filters, counterclaim, counternotice, mistakes, public domain
Companies: facebook, umg, universal music group
Comments on “Facebook Is So Sure Its Erroneous Blocking Of Music Is Right, There’s No Option To Say It’s Wrong”
'They might sue us, you not so much.'
I’m not sure phrasing it as Facebook being so sure about the accuracy of their system that they don’t allow you to contest a claim is an accurate one, rather I suspect that it’s more a case where they have decided that it’s less of a hassle for them to just let major companies claim whatever the hell they want until and unless one of the victims raises enough of a stink about it, at which point they might roll back that specific claim.
Between major companies that might issue legal threats for Facebook ‘hosting and defending copyright infringement’ that would require Facebook to break out their own lawyers or a minor content creator who lacks that option… with incentives stacked that heavily to one side it’s disgusting but not surprising that they’d give the former way more leeway.
Re:
And the very best part of this is, that they can not show real world harm to them if they miss one.
They like to claim billions in losses, but seriously if every upload they missed cost them a billion dollars how are they still in business?
So to protect from an alleged harm, they get to do actual harm. Why can kindergartners explain how this isn’t fair but politicians can’t grasp it?
Re: Re: Are you kidding?
I mean, it’s so obvious….. most politicians have yet to grow up enough to enter kindergarten in the first place.
Hey, Facebook. You need to know this important fact (that both extremes of the debate seem to have forgotten): copyright doesn’t exist solely for the enrichment of publishers.
Re:
^This.
Re:
I would argue that it in fact does, and always has, and that any and all arguments to the contrary have always been disingenuous, that this has without exception been the purpose of copyright from the beginning.
Re: Re:
Indeed copyright was designed so that the rights could be transferred to the publishers, so that they could profit from others works. Publishers think that self publishing is nothing more that artists stealing the publishers income.
Re: Re:
Because you’re a minimalist. You’re one of those that would be perfectly happy to see Paramount get rich off the story that became Coming to America without having to pay Art Buchwald a cent for it if it means copyright not existing.
Re: Re: Re:
Said the projector.
Re: Re: Re:2
You said to yourself.
Re: Re: Re:3
Said the liar.
Re: Re: Re:4
You said in the mirror.
Re: Re: Re:5 And it’s the best you got.
That’s just sad bro.
Re: Re: Re:6
Not as sad as the fact that’s the only response you can come up with, thereby not denying what was alleged.
Re: Re: Re:7 Maybe just stop hurting yourself for a bit eh?
Dig up stupid.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your apparent view that every possible creation should be locked down under some form of IP forever is not the correct one, and Techdirt’s archives are full of examples of how IP overreach hurts more than it helps.
Re: Re: Re:
Maximalists also profit from copyrights not existing, for the exact same reason.
And the history of copyright, pre-Statute of Anne, was one of keeping a MONOPOLY in place and INFORMATION CONTROL.
The Stationer’s Company treated authors like shit, didn’t ya know.
I’m all for scaling back copyrights to at least the Statute of Anne, along with harsh restrictions on publishers and similar parasites on control of copyright…
But never a full outright repeal of copyrights. It’s basic economics, after all.
Re: Re: Re:2
That was the exact point being made. If copyright didn’t exist, the maximalist company Paramount would have gotten away with nothing more than a wrist slap for plagiarism. As it was, they had to pay big for giving Art Buchwald’s story to Eddie Murphy to edit.
Re: Re: Re:3
If copyright didn’t exist, plagiarism still wouldn’t become legal, nor would it become inherently socially acceptable.
Copyright advocates might claim that “life plus 70 years” and other tropes of modern copyright need to remain the status quo, because anything less would incentivize the murder of content creators to make sure their copyright expires earlier, tend to ignore the fact that other laws exist – like the ones against murder. But they’ll continue shilling and fearmongering over this imaginary scenario where civilization collapses with the weakening of copyright, because it suits them to keep the general populace under their thumb.
Re: Re: Re:4
If copyright didn’t exist, plagiarism still wouldn’t become legal, nor would it become inherently socially acceptable.
Yet the problem remains that plagiarism isn’t a crime, so in order to receive damages fromsomeone ripping off your work, you have to prove damages. Copyright is also not a crime in many countries, but you only have to prove that infringement occurred to receive damages from the guilty party. That makes copyright legislation much stronger than that for plagiarism, and only maximalists use it as a club to beat others with. Other copyright holders use it only to protect their interests.
Re: Re: Re:5
*you have to prove fraud. m-/
Re: Re: Re:5
There are plenty of laws in the books to drag someone to court for ripping you off. Counterfeiting law, for example.
And… why shouldn’t a person bringing a claim for damages have to prove those damages, or build a case to suggest damages happened? There should never be a situation where entire cases are built purely on accusation. That’s just rife for abuse.
Criminal copyright infringement is a thing. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at by ignoring the existence of criminal copyright law.
Except that copyright enforcers have, mostly, been pretty terrible at this. To wit, the time Viacom sued Google for allegedly infringing videos on YouTube that Viacom uploaded themselves. And it gets worse when it comes to the track record for finding the guilty party. Copyright holders aren’t interested in finding the “guilty party”, they’ll gladly sue the innocent so long as they can harass a pound of flesh from them.
No copyright holder is going to openly admit that they’re a maximalist. I’m sure the porn production companies represented by Prenda Law and the photographers “represented” by Richard Liebowitz would also claim that they’re “not maximalists” and “only protecting their interests” – until the judges realized that their legal teams were breaking the law, and then all of the rats started scrambling to get off the ship.
Copyright holders will do anything to get their blood money until it becomes inconvenient, or they get caught.
Re: Re: Re:6
There are plenty of laws in the books to drag someone to court for ripping you off. Counterfeiting law, for example.
Again, you have to prove fraud.
And… why shouldn’t a person bringing a claim for damages have to prove those damages, or build a case to suggest damages happened? There should never be a situation where entire cases are built purely on accusation. That’s just rife for abuse.
See my follow-up comment where I corrected myself. Oh, you did? Disingenuous troll.
Criminal copyright infringement is a thing. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at by ignoring the existence of criminal copyright law.
In some countries, not all. Are you trying to prove my previous accusation or are you just too dumb to do the research?
Except that copyright enforcers have, mostly, been pretty terrible at this. To wit, the time Viacom sued Google for allegedly infringing videos on YouTube that Viacom uploaded themselves. And it gets worse when it comes to the track record for finding the guilty party. Copyright holders aren’t interested in finding the “guilty party”, they’ll gladly sue the innocent so long as they can harass a pound of flesh from them.
“Mostly terrible” is the operative phrase here. Where the rights holder has been genuine, they’ve received a judgement in their favor, as in Buchwald v. Paramount.
No copyright holder is going to openly admit that they’re a maximalist.
They don’t have to. Maximalists make themselves obvious through their actions.
I’m sure the porn production companies represented by Prenda Law and the photographers “represented” by Richard Liebowitz would also claim that they’re “not maximalists” and “only protecting their interests” – until the judges realized that their legal teams were breaking the law, and then all of the rats started scrambling to get off the ship.
Which doesn’t disprove anything I said. Quite the opposite.
Copyright holders will do anything to get their blood money until it becomes inconvenient, or they get caught.
And this overgeneralization just confirms my view of you as a minimalist that would be happy to see genuine artists ripped off by the current maximalists if it was a result of copyright not existing.
Re: Re: Re:7
Try making it more obvious that it was you, instead of expecting everyone to follow the constantly changing geolocation snowflake icons.
The copyright infringement cases that make the news happen largely in countries like the US that do have criminal copyright infringement in their laws. So I’m not certain what point you’re trying to make here by claiming that not all countries have it. It’s not relevant to the US.
It’s been explained to you why that’s not a case involving copyright. It’s to do with Hollywood being scumbags.
I will agree that maximalists out themselves by their actions. And those actions include making a consistent claim that their overstepping and suing of the innocent is simply acceptable collateral damage in protecting their own interests. It’s a perspective taken by many who believe in copyright even if they don’t openly admit that they’re being a jerk about it. Case in point, Malibu Media made plenty of claims that they were not intentionally going after the innocent – until they did, and refused to pay the fine the judge asked from them, and their copyright enterprise as of the most recent update has just about completely collapsed.
Never mind the multiple university studies conducted in the US and Europe that the most hardcore pirates are also the content industries’ biggest consumers and spenders, but do please keep trying to villainize everyone who opposes maximalists. I’m sure they’ll remember your meager contributions.
Re: Re: Re:
Think of the starving artists has always been the cry of the publishers who want more power to keep the artists starving.
Re: Re: Re:2
Non sequitur.
Re: Re: Re:3
Screaming “non sequitur” is not the “I win the argument” clause you desperately want it to be.
Re: Re: Re:4
Following up the story of how a writer won a copyright case against a big company with a “destruction” of the maximalists’ favorite argument is not the “I win the debate” clause you so desperately want it to be. As I said, non sequitur.
Re: Re: Re:5
This would be a pretty damning story in favor of copyright law… if the story involved was actually based on a copyright case. Paramount wasn’t found guilty of stealing Buchwald’s copyright; they were found guilty of not paying him by claiming that “Coming to America” earned no net profit, and thus Paramount didn’t owe Buchwald any money.
What Buchwald vs. Paramount did was establish the practice of “Hollywood accounting”, which again has nothing to do with copyright. For what it’s worth, the Wikipedia article that goes over this case in detail doesn’t even mention copyright. Copyright law was not responsible for restoring justice to Art Buchwald.
I’d say that if you actually want a balanced approach to copyright, you’d do well to actually read up on the contexts of the cases you cite, but what’s likely to happen is that you’ll claim that my link is another “false troll link” because you sincerely can’t be bothered.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’d say that if you actually want a balanced approach to copyright, you’d do well to actually read up on the contexts of the cases you cite, but what’s likely to happen is that you’ll claim that my link is another “false troll link” because you sincerely can’t be bothered.
Why are you talking to yourself like that? Self-flagellation is so medieval.
Re: Re: Re:7
And we’re back to the kindergarten style of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” argumentation before the actual attempt at a rebuttal with a 9-minute difference between timestamps, like the predictable Strike 3 advocate you are.
Re: Re: Re:8
You say that I’m at kindergarten level when you’re the one confusing two different individuals like small children do. Drop the hypocrisy, bro, it’s not a good look on you.
Re: Re: Re:9
If you want to stop being associated with a copyright maximalist troll, pick an identifier pseudonym if it means that much to you.
Re: Re: Re:6
From Wikipedia:
In the Buchwald v. Paramount lawsuit, Buchwald claimed Paramount had stolen his script treatment. He won, was awarded damages, and accepted a settlement from Paramount.
According to Paramount themselves, a movie is stolen when it’s downloaded without payment even if it’s in the public domain. So by the logic of their own argument, Paramount committed copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re:7
Which is flawed maximalist logic, that based on your supposed claims of disagreement with maximalists, you shouldn’t be agreeing with. And bear in mind that you’ve been screaming on and on about how the existence of minimalists is what allows maximalists to justify their behavior.
So… exactly why do you feel the need to validate their poor legal claims, which don’t exist in copyright law? That still doesn’t make what Paramount did to Art Buchwald “copyright infringement”. You could call it theft, perhaps, under a very loose definition. But copyright infringement is not theft, and vice versa, theft is not copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re:8
And bear in mind that you’ve been screaming on and on about how the existence of minimalists is what allows maximalists to justify their behavior.
Where? Oh, right. I forgot that you only have to sign out to become an AC, though not having an account means I don’t have to do that.Or are you confusing yourself with another AC?
Re: Re: Re:9
That’s on you. Once again, with feeling: What Paramount did to Art Buchwald was not copyright infringement. It was not considered copyright infringement in the lawsuit, and Paramount themselves did not consider what they did copyright infringement. Granted, they had every incentive to not consider their actions so, but even then the judge did not conclude that Paramount had committed copyright infringement. Copyright did not protect Buchwald from Paramount’s actions, and his restoration was not the result of enforcing copyright.
Re: Re: Re:7
public domain works can have valid copyright claims on them.
Re: Re: Re:8
“public domain works can have valid copyright claims on them.”
I’d love to hear your typically insane explanation here, given that the definition of public domain is that they are out of copyright.
Maybe you’re thinking of insanity like the Sherlock Holmes cases, where there’s issues over part of the work that are still copyrighted, but if something is fully in the public domain, you should be laughed out of court for trying to claim it.
Re: Re: Re:9
It’s a valid copyright claim, if for example the original date when the material was created is being doubted. Or if the author’s name is missing/unclear/lost in time/copyright notices erased etc. Or maybe there was later revisions and everything that users associate with the brand has not yet fallen into public domain? Forged authorship paperworks are another way how public domain works can have valid copyright claim.
But plenty of ways how it can happen. Copyright analysis of the work does not stop when it moves to public domain.
Re: Re: Re:10
At best, you could file a case to have that material taken out of the public domain – but then you’d have to have proof that the copyright expiration date might have been wrong. Simply doubting the date doesn’t automatically invalidate the public domain status. In fact, the opposite can happen as well – as happened with “Happy Birthday to You”, which Warner Bros. claimed to own the copyright to until it was proven that it had been in the public domain for far longer than Warner was willing to admit.
You’d hold the copyright to the revisions, not the original. Also brand association is an element of trademark, not copyright.
Again, you’d need a case in court to substantiate that claim, but if your genius idea is to claim that you hold onto the copyright for Shakespeare’s works, you’re going to be disappointed.
It doesn’t stop – but believing that it only happens in the name of expanding copyright is a foolish assumption on your part.
Re: Re: Re:
Humans have been telling stories and creating art for tens of thousands of year, and indeed such seems to be a core component of human culture. Printing in Europe existed for about 300 years, Gutenberg’s press abround1 450, to the Statute of Anne in 1710.
Imprimatur, that is church or government license to print a work, has existed since the dawn of printing, but had nothing to do with author rights, and everything to do with control of information. (That sounds familiar, like governments in general trying to control the Internet).
When you look at the history of the Statute of Anne, several attempts were made by the Stationers company to get a law pass that allowed the to control the publications of works, but until they came up with the idea of copyright as an authors right, they went nowhere. Note, copyright got them what they wanted, that is control of the printing industry, by making it a transferable right, where printer publishers were the only ones in the market for copyrights. That is the deal was, you own the copyright in your work, but if you want it published, you have to sign control over to a publisher.
Now, when you look at the people making their living from their creativity and using the Internet, you will see that few of them can afford to lawyer up to protect their copyrights, or rest on their laurels and expect a living from their back catalog. What they have converged on is that their ability to create s marketable, and that some of their fans will support them by various means so that they can create more. Indeed many of those people find that copyright is a hazard to their means of making a living due to old school publishers over claiming copy rights. A common problem being some company using public domain or CC licensed works in their work, and claiming and enforcing copyright over everything in the work.
If you want to claim that copyright is essential to getting works published, you will have to explain away all the works created and that have made it down to out time without their being any copyright protections for the creators. That is is at least 40,00 years worth of human creativity, where creator copyright has only existed for 300 years.
Attribution is a different topic, and is worth protecting where the creator wants it. (Beware, mandatory attribution plays into the hands of oppressive states). Video creators have an easy way of protecting attribution, just ensure something giving their name or website address is visible, but unobtrusive, in many shots.
Re:
Indeed, it’s not to protect publishers, it’s to protect the sole right of the king, as handed down by divine mandate, to decide who can print bibles.
We all know that copyright filters never mistakenly identify a track as belonging to a big publisher when it doesn’t, so Markus Pössel ought to just suck it up and pay the appropriate license fee. /s
Re:
Hey! Every one of those 35 words you used has been used before! You need to pay up as well! 35 times, in fact.
But I don’t, because I work for the publishers. I’ll even get a cut of what I recover from you, ya filthy pirate 😛
Re: Re:
De minimis. You can’t copyright a single word on jts own, and my arrangement of the ones above is unique. 😝
Similar thing happened with a friend of my recently – he went to a classical concert, took a video to show the arena and the impressive acoustics, audio was muted.
I’m sure Beethoven will be glad that he is so protected against people hearing his music being performed by people whose great grandparents weren’t born when he died. They could be inspired to actually listen to it, and the modern recording industry can’t have that when they have new product to sell! Thanks god Facebook is protecting them against people telling them how stupid this is.
So UMG is claiming copyright over music they don’t own, they have made no contribution to, they allege to be by one performer when it is by a different one altogether.
I think the word for that is fraud. To mislead or defraud by use of a document, is I think, the legal phrase you’ll find used in courtrooms.
https://www.thelaw.com/law/fraud-and-misrepresentation-civil-criminal-offenses.289/
“Fraud involves dishonest and deceptive conduct by a person or a party for the purpose of obtaining an unfair and unlawful gain. The act can constitute both a crime and a civil wrong.”
I think it explains the prevalence of “copyright piracy” quite well. Since UMG and the like get away with making false claims about ownership, people stop believing copyright serves any useful purpose other than encouraging corporate fraud and corporate welfare fraud.
Re:
Indeed, there needs to be a statutory penalty for each and every instance of a false copyright claim, at the very minimum equaling the damages for infringement.
Re: Re:
^This.
Re: Re: Re:
Fourthed.
I’m fairly sure that if copyright existed in the Stone Age we wouldn’t have evolved past cave paintings. It’s a goddamn cancer that stifles creative production.
Re:
Only in the hands of maximalists like George R.R. Martin. Other creators, such as Terry Pratchett, welcome fanfiction (for example) based on their works because they know it increases visibility of the original, and their copyrights and moral rights together prevent any confusion as to the originator of the universe in which both are writing.
Re: Re:
The trouble with allowing fanfiction is that an author can later be accused of ripping of said fanfiction if he or she writes something that has similar story elements etc etc.
I know authors who actually like fanfiction but due to legal headaches and copyright issues that can arise they have explicitly said they don’t allow fanfiction that are based on their works.
Re: Re: Re:
With Pratchett, he simply tolerated the existence of fanfiction.
He was fine with it as long as he never read the stuff. At least he was nice enough to say that he wanted to keep his vision of his own world pure.
Cheeky bugger, that man was.
Re: Re: Re:2
Would Neil Gaiman be a better example? Still an improvement over hypocrites like Jennifer Roberson, who wrote fanfiction in high school, but doesn’t allow any to be based on her works because she thinks copyrights are like trademarks.
Re: Re: Re:
The trouble with allowing fanfiction is that an author can later be accused of ripping of said fanfiction if he or she writes something that has similar story elements etc etc.
Only if they read it. Many of the authors that allow fanfiction are very careful to request it not be put where they can “trip over it”, or even state outright that they don’t read any that’s based on their works.
Since UMG claims the music in that video is the same music they’ve been selling, then Pössel should sue them for stealing his work.
When will someone who gains popularity get the note:-
“We are claiming your music, so you might as well sign up with us so that you have a chance of getting some royalties”.
Re:
Isn’t that exactly what happened with Justin Bieber? 😇
Facebook Muting of Public Domain Music
While I know that people have for millennia considered a song as the property of the singer, there is such a thing as public domain.
I have just posted an mp4 of my cat singing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, using Audacity and lots of copy & paste & tweaking. So far Facebook has not deemed it anyone’s property but my own. So far.
Facebook Blocking its own Royalty-Free Music
The filter is so bad that twice in the past two weeks Facebook has blocked music that I DOWNLOADED FROM THEIR OWN ROYALTY-FREE MUSIC PAGE! Both Sony and UMG claim a recording of Bach chamber music is theirs, by two different artists.
Funny think about that is they have already discovered that The Whole to the humn
Funny think about that is they have already discovered that The Whole to the human species Adapts and changes over time, and WE ARE Chimeric.