White Noise Video on YouTube Hit By Five Copyright Claims (bbc.com) 219
Chris Baraniuk, reporting for BBC: A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise -- indistinct electronic hissing -- has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him. Sebastian Tomczak, who is based in Australia, said he made the video in 2015 and uploaded it to YouTube. The claimants accusing him of infringement include publishers of white noise intended for sleep therapy. "I will be disputing these claims," he told the BBC. In this case, those accusing Mr Tomczak are not demanding the video's removal, but instead the reward of any revenue made from advertising associated with it. Without the claims, Mr Tomczak would receive such revenue himself. "I am intrigued and perplexed that YouTube's automated content ID system will pattern-match white noise with multiple claims," he said.
White noise can be copied too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Informative)
Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".
Yes, but creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song. The courts have already ruled on that concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song.
Well, no, it really isn't. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations doesn't say anything at all about the number of differences between a particular variant and another already in existence.
creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations.
Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality [cornell.edu] is. Selecting a specific arrangement of white noise isn't conceptually different in that regard than selecting a specific arrangement of words, musical notes, etc.
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, works created by random selection without any contribution by a human author are not eligible for copyright protection [copyrightcompendium.com]. It is highly unlikely that white noise could be copyrighted even if you took someone else's white noise.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone in this thread said anything about unrepeatable "random selection without any contribution by a human author" -- I certainly didn't. Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.
To be clear, I'm not taking a strong stance that something like that would be copyrightable -- just pointing out that it's not nearly as clear-cut as folks might think.
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible. There generally has to be at least a minimal creative component for copyright eligibility. That is, after all, the purpose of copyright—to protect creative works of authorship.
Even if someone took the time to hand-seed the PRNG with various values and compare the calming qualities, it would still be an almost laughable stretch to argue that picking that number is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection on that particular output of a commonly available algorithm, because other people's computers will randomly choose that particular number once in a while and create that output without the supposed creativity.
Now if somebody creates their own PRNG, that's a different story. Anything below that threshold seems dubious at best. That's not saying that some judge might not misinterpret the copyright act, or that somebody might not decide to sue in hopes of a pre-trial settlement, but the law is IMO pretty clear on the matter. Random noise cannot plausibly be copyrighted, and that is by design. Any abuse of the law that leads to any other interpretation is an indication of a flaw in the law rather than an intended outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating the algorithm makes it copyrightable. The creativity is in developing an algorithm that produces an interesting output, and therefore they used significant creativity in constructing the output, albeit indirectly (but IMO no more indirectly than, for example, using an electronic synthesizer that uses algorithms to make note sounds when you press a key).
A somewhat more complicated and interesting question is whether those works are copyrightable if they publish the algorithms that created them bef
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is a restriction on two-dimensional useful articles, three-dimensional works of artistic craftsmanship, and models. There are no such uncopyrightable limitations on WORKS OF THE PERFORMING ARTS AND SOUND RECORDINGS in 406 Limitations on copyrightability.
White noise probably can be copyrighted under the bullshit system in which John Cage copyrighted not creating any sound:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality [cornell.edu] is.
Creativity may be the second line from the bottom, but it's still a requirement. It's the reason that the listings in a phone book aren't protected by copyright. Something that is the result of simple mechanical operations and involves no significant decisions, such as sorting names in alphabetical order, is not a creative work.
If the white noise is only random frequencies created by a computer, then there was no creative effort, and the audio is no protected by copyright. If the algorithm that creates t
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that merely uploading the white noise to youtube would create enough artifacts that it would be a different permutation of white noise.
More importantly, the similarity of all accurately labeled white noise is probably within the scope of Youtube's aggressive content ID system. So, the assumption of direct copying is unfounded.
Also, regarding originality in regards to copyright, it was in contrast to "effort," not "creativity." Feist v. Rural ruled that the white pages phone books were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: White noise can be copied too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
George Lucas gets paid every time a company uses the word "droid," TV ads or whatever.
I believe that's a trademark, not copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on intent, I think. You could argue the same thing for John Cage's 4'33" (Four Minutes, 33 seconds) which is a orchestral piece comprising completely of rests. The basic idea is that it turns the orchestra into a performance piece, with the orchestra paging through their scores, and the only sounds present are the ambient sounds within the performance venue.
The copyright over that score has been successfully defended, and rightfully so imho. The only problem is that it should have expired at some
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you can claim copyright over sitting still and not playing an instrument... I mean, the idea of calling that a "performance" is novel, but the act of not playing happens inadvertently and intentionally all the time and that does not make it infringing. As far as I am aware, the only "successful" litigation over 4'33" have been over a video recording of the "performance" and a settled without resolving the issue payment over a CD that included 1 minute of silence and had the name "Cage" on t
Re: (Score:2)
In keeping with the white noise copyright claim in TFA, you should be copyrighting whitespace characters [wikipedia.org] like space and tab.
Re: (Score:3)
He's a MIDI and electronic music guy who hand-builds his own tone sources.
He probably has several noise generators of his own already.
Re: (Score:2)
If its actually proper white noise then no, no you can not. The defining feature of white noise is that its truly random and contains all frequencies simultaneously (limited of course by hardware).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data. If so, then the algorithm is setting a false positive. However, a randomly generated set of data will be extremely unique. If it's copied, you should be able to tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data.
You can't really call that the first step, since all requirements must be met in order for someone to be liable for copyright infringement. If the first thing you do is show (i.e. convince the judge) that the original isn't eligible for copyright protection, then it doesn't matter if you copied it.
Re: White noise can be copied too (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
White noise != Gaussian White noise has a flat spectrum not shaped like a Gaussian.
Gaussian doesn't mean the spectrum is a Gaussian, it means the numbers are drawn from a Gaussian.
If you draw numbers at random from a Gaussian distribution, a uniform distribution or even the discrete distribution +/- 1, the result is white noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Five separate claims against him suggest either that four of the claimants also stole their white noise from the original author (whichever one of the five it was), or they're all full of crap....
Re: (Score:3)
And currently they are all stealing his money. Money earned during the claim isn't returned, it stays with the people who made the fraudulent claims.
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Informative)
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but wouldn't it be weird if that were the case? Is one minute of white noise repeated 600 times somehow worse or measurably differ
Re: (Score:2)
each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it
So we're talking about a random number generator that is generating repeating set of patterns of random numbers? Or you think someone's white noise is acoustically different to someone elses?
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
I doubt anyone copied anyone. If the audio track recognition algorithm looked for exact copies, it would miss a huge percentage of actual infringement, and be trivial to work around. So it does something cleverer and looks for audio tracks that sound sufficiently alike. White noise tracks all sound alike, even if they don't have a single bit in common.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Informative)
The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms. [Ed: Emphasis mine.]
That is true of uncompressed audio. Once you compress the audio, the noise is going to look pretty much the same. Much of the phase information which is necessary to distinguish one sample from another is gone, and all that is left is the frequency domain which is pretty much the same from one white noise source to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
That is probably fair, but if he generated the white noise and this white noise isa far longer, non repeating sequence, then surely the others are "infringing"?
A quick look shows anyone can generate their own sequence of white noise, in less than 10 lines of code:
https://noisehack.com/generate... [noisehack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with wave form identification on white noise.
Re: (Score:2)
They both didn't bother creating a random seed.
Re: (Score:2)
What if both sources use white noise generated using the same LFSR taps from publically available sources (i.e. match and engineering texts), or both used the same software program to generate the psuedo-random samples? Most white noise is far from truly as random as you think if you dig into the details.
Should white noise from non-novel generators even be copyrightable at all?
Re:White noise can be copied too (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it. Copyright is to protect intellectual works. There is already case law that, for example, the facts present in a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted.
Someone who created white noise cannot file a claim against someone else who might actually in fact copy it all, because, the original white noise cannot be copyrighted.
In this case, I think it is automated copyright enforcement bots run amok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think with the monkeys, it is the arrangement that is copyrighted. Much like you can't copyright a guitar playing notes, only arrangements of notes. Think of the monkeys as an instrument.
I guess under that logic, arrangements of white noise could be copyrighted.
Re: (Score:3)
"But they were all active in the PRNG scene and frequenters of the PRNG discussion on reddit. The infringer stole a special seed -- 123456789 -- that was known to produce the highest-quality white noise, pushing the brain into enhanced delta-wave activity sooner than noise created with less ingenious seeds."
Re: (Score:3)
You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims. The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upo
Re: (Score:2)
You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi... [mynoise.net]
I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.
The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.
Of course there is.
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/c... [aaronkellylaw.com]
The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.
No, it doesn't. The way it works on Y
Re: (Score:2)
White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it.
https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi... [mynoise.net]
All white noise is not the same. It has characteristics. I'm not claiming that necessarily qualifies it for copyright, but the "it's just random numbers" argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
No. All white noise *is* the same - it has to have a uniform distribution of frequency intensity. What that site generates isn't white noise, it's colored noise. Off-white noise.
Re: (Score:2)
John Cage's estate successfully sued and got damages over someone violating the copyright on 4'33", Cage's famous silent piece.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul... [telegraph.co.uk]
Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement with representatives of the late avant-garde composer John Cage, for a rumoured £100,000. The man behind the Wombles' hits of the late 1970s, Batt stood accused of copyright infringement. What made his case special, though, was that he had been accused of stealing precisely nothing.
Earlier this year, on his classical/rock fusion album Classical Graffiti (played by octet the Planets), he included a self-explanatory track called A One Minute Silence. Credited to Batt/Cage, it seemed a deliberate but innocuous echo of 4'33", the four minutes and 33 seconds of silence with which Cage once outraged audiences. (First performed at a concert in Woodstock in 1952, 4'33" required the performer merely to sit motionless at any instrument for the allotted time.)
Classical Graffiti soared to the top of the classical charts, where it remained for a lucrative three months. Eight weeks into this reign, however, Cage's publishers, Peters Edition, contacted Batt and declared that he had, as it were, no right to silence. The rest is now (legal) history.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
Not only was One Minute Silence not intended to be taken remotely seriously, says Batt, it in fact began life as a space-filler. "It was me taking the mickey out of John Cage - although he was probably taking the mickey in the first place. For most of the CD, the Planets play fusion music, and at the end of the album I wanted to add some purer classical tracks. So I put a minute's space between the two sections, I just thought, wouldn't it be fun if I called it One Minute Silence, and credited it to Batt/Cage?"
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
There are, says Riddle, precedents for this scenario - for example, Frank Zappa made a recording of 4'33" that was credited to John Cage, and for which royalties were paid. Indeed, for him the case was less about the highbrow question of whether or not silence can be copyright, but about whether or not this was actually a performace of Cage's piece. Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Either way, a vital part of Batt's payout was that no future money from the CD would go to the Cage camp. Batt explains: "We're going to sell more records, we've had fun with this, and I thought, I'll pay some money over to show goodwill - but of course the royalties remain mine for the future."
Given silence can by copyright, it's likely white noise can too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People settle out of court because they've been advised they'll lose more if it goes to trial
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
Of course crediting the composition to John Cage/Batt rather than "Batt/Cage" might have influenced things.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
He apparently wrote the music for The Wombles. If I were him, I'd be terrified of some slick QC reading this out in an ominous voice as evidence of my flagrant plagiaristic tendencies
https://www.songlyrics.com/the... [songlyrics.com]
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days
When he wasn't behind the times
With his map of the world
Pick up the papers and take them to Tobermory
Wombles are organised, work as a team
Wombles are tidy and Wombles are clean
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
People don't notice us, they never see
Under their noses a Womble may be
Womble by night and we Womble by day
Looking for litter to trundle away
We're so incredibly utterly devious
Making the most of everything
Even bottles and tins
Pick up the pieces and make them into something new
Is what we do
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Emphasis mine.
"The things that everyday folk - like for example John Cage - leave behind, Mr B
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the wombling deaths he caused? Surely you agree he can be hanged for those?
I LIKE SHORT SONGS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Punk rock songs seem to work best under three minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
I have that as my ringtone when my phone is in silent mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Had Batt not credited "Cage", Riddle himself suggests that he would not have had a case. In other words, it is Batt's intent to quote Cage that was the violation, not the silence itself.
Re: (Score:2)
> claims require evidence
Not only has this been waived to shit for the oligarchs, but commoners have also stopped bothering.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Sorry, dude. Couldn't resist.
I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR (Score:2)
science is more "hmmm" than "EUREAKA!" (Score:2)
Also, the estate of John Cage just took an interest...
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists didn't create CMBR, God did. I'd like to see Google and music companies sue God.
Check the entropy (Score:2)
Shannon would be (I suspect) greatly amused by this infringement claim.
OTOH, perhaps I can write a short Adagio&Fugue, and claim infringement by anyone else who writes a piece in adagio-fugue form!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Adagio&Fugue, but I'd bet anything containing the first note, or certainly the first three bars, of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor garners many infringement notices.
Reminds me of an album of silence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what is next - silence? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
John Cage's lawyers would like to have a talk with you...
Exactly!
He needs to fight the claims (Score:5, Interesting)
The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
Here is an expired patent describing such a device. [google.com] And there were a number of devices before that. And schematic diagrams and circuits in magazines for white noise/sleep generators long ago.
It's a shame that people are so full of themselves that they think they are truly that special that they somehow made a unique creation here. But actually it's likely worse in that people think they found an easy target and want to take what they can with a bad faith claim.
This is a time where counter claims under the DMCA need to be filed against these bad faith claims and collect damages to help prevent further abuse.
Maybe even make google a co-defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see that alleged ruling, particularly since "patentable" and "patented" mean two quite different things, you've linked to prior art that would show that any subsequent devices producing those sounds may not be "patentable," and you haven't shown that the sounds were produced by a device that was "patented."
That's even before reaching the pro
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
I understand these words, but they make no legal sense when strung together this way. Patent and copyright are two entirely different things. Patents cover ideas, copyrights cover expressions fixed in a tangible medium. I see no way that any patentable item could ever be covered by copyright, or how expiration of any patent could in any way be relevant to any copyright.
The case in question is a copyright issue. Assuming he made the white noise himself (whatever sort of machine he used to make it), and a
Youtube own provided music (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I just tells you to not add any music to your videos. Many videos that have music added is actually pretty annoying.
If more than one person claims a video (Score:2)
Copyrighting the Big Bang (Score:2)
Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
If that is true in the TV frequency bands, then I would assume that the same is true of the audio band as well.
So, essentially, these yay-hoos are attempting to "Copyright" a naturally-occurring (or Divinely-Created) phenomona; which I am pretty damned sure is not allowed, even under the brain-dead DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
Only a small percentage of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.
Only a small percentage of it.
So, does "God" get at least co-author credit?
Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He gets a 10% royalty....
I see what you did there. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Background noise of the universe is 3 Kelvin (K). Your TV antenna sees the ground as much as the air, so sees about 150 K (half from the 300 K ground and half from the 3 K sky). The first amplifier is probably 5-6 dB NF, so it has a noise temperature of about 800 K. So out of the total noise temperature of 950 K, about 0.15% is the background noise of the universe.
Further info needed (Score:2)
I surmise they used a digital signature to determine whether it was a clip from something they published. For example, they could have embedded something inaudible to mark the track. Barring that, it would be interesting to see where they got their sample(s) from, too. White noise is such a generic term -- how can they define and differentiate how their "white noise" is different from any other? For that matter, is there even a legal definition of "white noise"? LOL
It sounds frivolous to me, akin to co
Absolutely absurd (Score:2)
No claim on pre-origin (Score:2)
The creation of white noise precedes everyone in this room, even their ancestors, hell even the ancestors of the dinosaurs heard it. White noise was created at time 0.1 of the universe as we know it when one atom of matter met one atom of antimatter. There's no claim on naturally created noise, there can't be.
Bizzare (Score:3)
I think these folks trying to demand that they have the sole ability to utilize white noise might think twice about trying to assert that theory, because they will be set upon like wildebeests crossing a crocodile filled river.
It's pretty much a signal with zero mean and statistically uncorrelated finite variance. If these people can prove that he somehow infringed upon any rights they have they will have to prove that their signal isn't white noise, and prove that he used their non-white noise signal.
This is right up there with the time that Harley Davidson tried to copyright the sound their motorcycles make. They lost that case http://articles.latimes.com/20... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr (Score:5, Funny)
z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
better than having to listen to their poetry
Re: (Score:2)
z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.
Aww, leave off. He seems to be having tremendous difficulty with his lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone had better feed a sandwich to that dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I don't say this often but... thank god for Slashdot's lack of Unicode and emoji support.
Re:DMCA requires this (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.
More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners. The strict DMCA process would be a pain for content owners (but the big ones would still do it!) and would result in Google taking videos down completely, rather than just reassigning revenue. The system isn't perfect, not only because the automated matching is imperfect, but also because it doesn't serve small content owners as well as big ones. But for t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm playing a really tiny violin.
My own composition, before you ask. Not that it's stopped them before.
Re: (Score:3)
More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.
To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it correlates with the other white noise. All signals in the same domain correlate with each other. The real question is how strongly they correlate with each other, and over what duration.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it was automatically flagged for posting copywritten material
Seriously? Whose writes were you accused of violating (or was it really copyreading you were accused of)?