AI Copyright Claimed My Last Video

[@VenusTheory]

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...in case any of them are asking 😬 New FREE Instrument ► bit.ly/vtvolts Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/patrons Get the Music from this video ► venustheory.bandcamp.com/

[@PaulEvansRahal]

You forgot to thank Beyoncé 😢

[@BrapAllgood]

Important questions to be asking and concepts to be considering in this age. I appreciate you doing that in front of us. Wise endings, too.

[@russellzauner]

good thing AI is ridiculously easy to trick and it rarely comes up with a actionable answer on its own anyhow...it can just copy and process, copy and process, copy and process, all according to its ruleset. Super predictable for most humans if you watch one for a few seconds.

[@BrapAllgood]

@@russellzauner Agreed. I don't even capitalize the i in Ai, as it hasn't earned that yet, nor do I expect it to-- but here's to the convincing the world, right!? Autonomic intelligence still.

[@RoryElis]

AI is just a tool that allows for instant sampling and collaboration, everyone sampled and the people who programmed the musicality into the AI and the "prompter" should all be given song writing credits...but good luck enforcing that when you guys already let everyone download & stream for free.

[@turtletheorytv]

I’ve been copyright claimed several times on videos of recorded livestreams of me creating the actual tracks that i’m being claimed with. it’s a disaster.

[@frajeeli]

Not attacking here, but I'm curious if that is due to using sample packs and sound libraries specifically.

[@turtletheorytv]

@@frajeeli yeah I hear you. but if Native Instruments / Black Octopus / Loopmasters / Vengeance are out there copyright striking under shell company names then boy are we f*cked 😂 (I avoid Splice and similar platforms like the plague and avoid using melodic/harmonic loops without extensive manipulation).

[@crazyfluke]

​@turtletheorytv I would watch out for Vengeance packs, I heard that they used copyrighted material ripped from old record for certain packs. Apparently this is fine under German law but not anywhere else. Same reason to never use Rave Generator vst

[@M2Texas]

Yet it's the only way going forward: to create live and fight this nonsense in court. Welcome to the future. Sorry about that.

[@turtletheorytv]

@@M2Texas yeah I never started out recording and live streaming with the intent to use it as copyright defense but it’s serendipitously evolved into that. one would hope being able to produce dated recordings of the creation process and the actual project file is enough ammo to shoot down any future claims

[@microslavery]

The strangest one I got was on twitch, which part of the stream got muted for "Unknown track" and "Unknown artist" and I was like "..if you don't know what it is -how are you claiming it?"

[@darenabryant9100]

But... isn't the problem when it's a KNOWN track by a KNOWN artist? If you ALSO can't use UNKNOWN music then what CAN you use?!

[@Jimpipecigarbear]

Fair use is weird. A charity event was being held digitally during the lockdown and certain songs would crash the stream. Think in a way Fair use is outdated and needs to be revamped as the digital world changes.

[@ashleyranee8394]

We have had claims on videos that just have wind, rain, or cricket sounds. They will claim anything you put out. We stopped making videos. We only ever had one legit claim and we had borrowed it from someone that had posted it as royalty free. Turns out it wasn't. You can't win.

[@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMine]

@@Jimpipecigarbear You are talking about technical issues. Fair use is a legal concept - it has nothing to do with technology.

[@oldbadname3633]

​@@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMineCertain streaming websites will automatically detect copyrighted works in the live stream and crash the stream in response. Its not a technical issue, its a copyright detection issue.

[@SimplyHypnotic]

Last week I had a track taken down for third party copyright infringement! The third party claimant was myself for a track I uploaded to stores, I appealed, explained it was me, also gave them a link to a screen recording of me creating the track from scratch, and still lost the appeal? I now have a community guidelines warning for creating and uploading my own music..

[@VenusTheory]

I feel you hard on that one. I fought with KZbin for YEARS because Venus Theory was claiming Venus Theory for using music by Venus Theory and KZbin said 'stop using music by Venus Theory, Venus Theory'.

[@lordownanglo]

@@VenusTheory This is an extremely sad state of affairs.

[@KaiBurley]

Not sure if this applies to you but it worked for me so I figured I'd share: Depending on what platform you released the track through, you need to either contact that platform or check your settings on their site for how/where they enforce your copyright to get them to stop claiming your music on KZbin. When I released through CDBaby, they would flag my music in my own videos until I updated my preferences after which it stopped entirely.

[@dreamsmadeflesh1]

KZbin isn't the one who confirms or denies the appeals, whoever made the claim in the first place is. KZbin just enforces the claim. It's a terrible system.

[@c-flat]

​@KaiBurley for the time being i dont mind the distributor claiming my youtube content, because those royalties still go to me, whereas being my profile is not big enough for monitisation i would not otherwise be paid for my content.

[@fnnnn5986]

Horrifying. I always thought artists could use copyright to fight AI generation, but now it's AI generation that can use copyright against artists.

[@TheloniasBrowntail]

And huge corporations like Honeywell fully back it, invest in it, and build it as the "tractor replacing the dead horse."

[@tenshiinen]

copyright will never protect you or your work from corporations, because the system was designed by and for them. copyright protects corporations and the rich from you, not the other way around its sole purpose is to allow the rich corpos to control access to art and knowledge

[@suminshizzles6951]

I am a drummer. We cant copyright anything we do at all. Guitarists can. Bassists can. Pianists can. Drummers cant. All the beats and all the variations thereof were done before. All of our drumming was done by somebody before us. Strange world. You cannot copyright a drum beat.

[@OmeedNOuhadi]

💯

[@WagyuBroker]

There is nothing new under the sun

[@Stoney3K]

One thing I have always found unfair about the ContentID system is that people who dispute a copyright strike and lose will face consequences for disputing it, but there are no consequences for parties that send false copyright claims on a large scale, meaning that if their strikes get disputed and people *win* regularly, nothing happens. The claim just gets discarded, and there's no reimbursement for damages because the funds were held in an escrow. This makes it a very easy tool for abuse against videos that certain parties don't want published. There are many bot accounts who blatantly copy the original video, publish it, and claim a copyright on the original they copied in the first place. That is plain malicious behavior.

[@snintendog]

DMCA is the reall issue and has been the REAL ISSUE since 01.

[@Unethical.FandubsGames]

You face no consequences for disputing a claim. You MAY get a strike if you escalate to an appeal where you only give them 7 days to review the contents of the video. That's another matter.

[@VestedUTuber]

@@Unethical.FandubsGames You do face consequences for disputing a claim if the claim gets reasserted. And the initial strike remains even if you win.

[@sgillman16]

​@@VestedUTuberwhat consequences

[@VestedUTuber]

@@sgillman16 You risk your account getting suspended or terminated by Google, and you risk getting dragged into court by the claimant.

[@SaintMichaelOfficial]

"because KZbin, a literal multi billion dollar corporation" Slight addendum, not correction: "because KZbin, a literal multi billion dollar corporation *_under the umbrella of a literal multi trillion dollar umbrella company_* " There we go.

[@sernik_z_rodzynkami]

Thank you! This is the comment I was looking for. The problem is not AI or laws. The problem is YT and it's stupid, opaque censorship knee-jerk reaction

[@vendetta.02]

dont forget that google is also under another multi-trillion dollar corporation (alphabet)

[@VestedUTuber]

@@vendetta.02 Eh, Alphabet's just a shell corp, most likely to try and dodge anti-monopoly legislation. Google still holds all the money.

[@stuartd9741]

​@@VestedUTubera Alphabet is allegedly part owned by the see eye aye.

[@stuartd9741]

YT made 29B dolls hairs 22/23

[@augustday9483]

Copyright in general is absolutely broken.

[@MrDecessus]

Disney broke it 20 years ago.

[@gridtac2911]

​@@MrDecessus they broke it 100 years ago. That along with the gov being able to deny and steal patents whenever they want for whatever reason

[@Professional-Hater-No.1]

​@@MrDecessusHow?

[@mowtow90]

The problem is that copyright laws are very old and not accouning for tech. Not only that , they are written by litteral Fedual 70-80 year old politicians that have absolutly no grasp of modern life. Not only that , but you have 1milion Lobbysts from the big companies telling them how to think ,as they cant. Every new law is crippled like that from the start.

[@FangAlt]

Ya think?

[@artificialanimeuniverse5063]

Forget AI. I have a video of "me playing a guitar" taken down. Needless to say I never uploaded any more of them.

[@paradiselost9946]

you know how they talk about devices listening to us? i just quickly recorded a demo of a little tube based preamp i made for my acoustic guitar. opened the upload page. decided to record it again. just a spur of the moment random string fiddling session. so then a wire broke, and so i close the upload tab, having uploaded nothing. waiting for the iron to heat up. and look at whats been recommended in the feed?

[@artificialanimeuniverse5063]

@paradiselost9946 Blimey dear. That's true? Ain't it illegal though?

[@gunner6849]

@@artificialanimeuniverse5063don’t give up making music, escpecially now. If they terminate you you can make a new account and reupload.

[@artificialanimeuniverse5063]

@@gunner6849 I do not make music. I am just some random guy who knows how to play guitar. I am not a professional.

[@gunner6849]

@@artificialanimeuniverse5063 that may be the case but even the smallest creators can’t let this system take this away. Personally, I’m a random guy who plays piano

[@richardnorby2167]

Several years ago my wife and I started a channel creating humorous content that we co-wrote and she presented. We used opening theme music from a licensed library we had access to. One of her videos took off in popularity and within a couple of days we had a copyright violation claim from a German company that said the music violated the copyright of an artist they represented. They referenced the piece of music it supposedly copied and the music sounded absolutely nothing like the music we used. I have a degree in music and spent decades as a professional musician so this is not a layman's opinion. When I contacted KZbin about this it's much as you described. They said there was nothing they could do and I needed to contact the company making the copyright violation claim. I did, but you can probably guess that did nothing. It soured me on creating content for KZbin.

[@FifinatorKlon]

Easy fix, make your own blog or get legal insurance.

[@CD-vb9fi]

@@FifinatorKlon Not an easy fix, you know nothing.

[@rbenroper1654]

I went through the exact same thing when I posted a video I made with music that I recorded myself. Same thing with the German company. They claimed for a Swedish band I had never heard of, and yes, their music sounded nothing like my self-produced music. I refuted the claim with KZbin and won.

[@FifinatorKlon]

@@CD-vb9fi If you are too incompetent to make a blog or get insurance in this day and age, then you should really focus on more important things than becoming a content creator.

[@richardnorby2167]

@@rbenroper1654 Maybe KZbin has improved their process since it happened to me. How long ago did this happen to you?

[@boblob2003]

I got a copyright claim on a 500-year old piece I played on the lute! YT said I nicked a recording from a CD that was made 30 years ago. It wasn't even in the same key! They withdrew the claim but it's all greed and silliness.

[@prjndigo]

I had a claim on the engine sound of a Fendt tractor working a hillside with a plow in Farming Simulator 19. Something literally illegal to claim that also wasn't music. KZbin exists to enable fraud.

[@jkoo6528]

I've gotten a "denied for publishing" thing few times as well from Spotify, as their "Content ID" system flagged my 140-145 bpm trance tracks, also in a different key and with a totally different melody, against some ambient/downtempo tracks and there was pretty much nothing I could do (their support was pretty abysmal on the matter, they basically didn't give af). I ended up just releasing the tracks on other platforms. This just as a reminder that it's not just YT, it can happen pretty much on any platform nowadays, in different ways, and it can also be totally up to luck and doesn't even need to have anything to do with AI or anyone being a dick.

[@Blitterbug]

You're clearly not trying hard enough. Get back in the Delorian and nick something older ffs.

[@Salmagundiii]

This has been going on with some classical music for well over 10 years. There were videos of people playing Chopin's piano music - which is public domain everywhere in the world - getting flagged as copies of copyrighted recordings.

[@Unders]

UMG copyright claimed me on dropping the needle on to a vinyl record. And would not release the claim 😆 so i just nuked the whole video.

[@ChristianMichaelPoynter]

Write a cool song without AI Song is added to an AI training set without your consent AI model spits out something similar enough to your song to flag the original in a contentID system Some jerk uploads the AI generated song to a streaming service/contentID database You end up in a copyright fight with the people and technology that stole your own work The future is very good and cool

[@pickenchews]

Wowww

[@MiGLifeCrisis]

You keep dreaming of an apocalypse that will never happen, if you don't control it, it will happen. But if you do. It won't.

[@MiGLifeCrisis]

The end isn't here.

[@lightleakss]

One of the only ways I can see this getting any better is requiring evidence of human creation with manual review if you want to put something in ContentID. If you're going to claim that a piece of media is yours and you should have exclusive rights to it, prove that you made it

[@00TheD]

It ends with live performances becoming the only way to stop the a.i. from sucking up your work..oh wait people and phones....it ends with enjoying your own performances alone in the woods so that your not stolen from. None one hears your work and your satisfied.

[@squareleg5757]

Thanks. From a musician's perspective, possibly the best - and most helpful / alarming / dispiriting - video on YT. Beautifully done.

[@DeathTempler]

I didn't even use AI music. I had some AI channel pop up out of nowhere that claimed 2 of my videos. Neither video used songs they had rights to. They simply made a channel to start claiming for revenue. This cannot be allowed to slide. Even using music I have permission for, I can lose out on all earnings because of this.

[@mightythearmiddilo]

Never thought DTJenson would get copyrighted-

[@Murderdronesbiggestfanlol]

@@mightythearmiddilo It shocked me too... Regardless, he is a content creator, and all content creators seem to take a heavy toll rn.

[@richrich2862]

Who says these channels aren’t funneled from YT themselves to make even more money. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised.

[@jensenraylight8011]

AI music should be given a big AI Tag for everyone to see. should be treated as a badge of shame, so everyone can avoid it They literally ruining platforms left and right, drowning it with Low effort content and had the audacity of Copyright Claim other people music. There is no open minded about AI, in fact by using AI you basically tells people that you're insecure, impostor, thief, dishonest, pathological liar

[@JoonyTv]

i once got copyrighted on yt for me literally saying "well then" without any music in the bg, because somebody content ID'd some bollywood movie, vocals only version - apparently i either just happened to say the same sentence as their guy, or my voice sounds simmilar... but its scary that this voiceclip was labelled as copyrighted melody and one small word / phrase singlehandedly wouldve made the entire 9 hour vod ineligible for monetization, if i monetized vods...

[@sihamhamda47]

Yeah the false copyright accusation is getting crazier and crazier over time. I bet that even the pure silence without any sounds could get copyrighted as well

[@FlyingMonkeyDeathGod]

​@@sihamhamda47imagine infringing on 4'33" by John Cage

[@buranflakes]

@@sihamhamda47 I actually tried to test this once by uploading a video that's just the 10 minutes of silence before the hidden track on Nirvana's album Nevermind, but thankfully the copyright robots don't know how to claim that yet

[@amazinggrapes3045]

hasn't this been happening for over 10 years though?

[@linnymiddy]

"your voice sounds too similar to a movie character" Sentenced to execution 💀

[@topherthe11th23]

0:18 - The answer to this question is "Whoever is most skilled at gaming the legal system, or whoever hires the attorneys most skilled at gaming the legal system, owns that copyright".

[@GidarGaming]

Our legal system needs a massive overhaul.

[@trakkaton]

The future holds the collapse of the system, not copyright lawyers for everyone.

[@Unethical.FandubsGames]

@@GidarGaming That's why it's called a "legal" system and not a "justice" system.

[@silkwesir1444]

@@Unethical.FandubsGames You do know that those two are two separate aspects? While related, they are not the same nor replacements to each other. Trying to put it simply, I'd say the judge is the only person that in a Venn Diagram sits in the intersection of those two circles.

[@GalacticGuru42]

That will be the Ai's themselves before long

[@lamborx8]

Thanks! While all these are so very informative and alarming, I love your ending notes the most on not giving up on one's passions and it really inspired me. I'm not a professional artist anymore. I used to be a photographer, who quit due to the bad market in Taiwan. I'm now a English teacher who is trying to promote innovative ways of learning and it sure isn't easy to make large scale changes and things get really frustrating along the way. But your wise words help remind me of what we can contribute to the world. Having direct impact it not, we should always continue to make an effort. ❤

[@FlesHBoX]

I once used a track in a video that was EXPLICITLY public domain, like, it wasn't just released in the public domain, but the track itself was ABOUT being released to the public domain. The album was titled Public Domain... The artist created the entire album as a commentary about copyright. Still, I contacted them and let them know I was going to use it, and I included the appropriate licensing information and attribution. Then it got copyright claimed. Not long after that I just quit uploading to youtube. It destroyed any desire I had to continue trying to grow my channel.

[@zephiask1758]

Definitely an artistic move by whoever did that, but holy shit, it just feeds how badly the system works already and fucks with smaller creators that use public domain media. I lost all my desire too after constantly getting copyright issues with my german KZbin Poop Channel in 2018. Although my Videos have been so over-edited, both visually and additively without any outside input of any famous jingles, voicelines or imagery like in the average english ytp, the contentID system still ignores fair use and fucks you over everywhere it can. Putting 30h of work into a 4 minute video at max just for youtube fucking you over definitely kills of any motivation for creating something. Even though it never was made for the money to begin with.

[@CharliReef]

I have now subscribed to you

[@awesomeferret]

So instead of making stink and monetizing that stink, you gave up. And I'm supposed to clap for you because...

[@catdownthestreet]

​@@awesomeferret Who kicked you as a child?

[@catdownthestreet]

​@@awesomeferret And I'm supposed to clap for you because you made fun of someone for giving up on something they cared about?

[@KennylexLuckless]

Copyright isn't a protection, it's an industry.

[@Psytinker]

Intellectual Property is just Inclosure of Commons 2.0. It will exist as long as capitalism does.

[@operationomniverse351]

And intellectual property isn't property it's censorship.

[@death2abrahamism]

@@operationomniverse351 So does that mean A.I. will save us all? Maybe it's starting to save those from themselves. When the AI/robots own all of IP, maybe then, when it doesn't promote economical advancement, it'll be dropped for the dangerous idea that it always was. Imagine if the wheel was locked behind a paywall for all time, or if fire was withheld from mankind indefinitely. You want to learn something? Too bad! It's forbidden knowledge and protected under censo... hm hm hm. I mean, protected under copyright for your benefit. (why is everything for our benefit designed to deny us free use of that benefit?)

[@rusticcloud3325]

Copyright WAS supposed to be a protection, but some groups of greedy people turned that to an industry

[@death2abrahamism]

@@rusticcloud3325 Ever heard of guilds? Copyright has always been an industry. I guess the use of the Public Domain can help to create one's own version of something in it and then that person can copyright this version they made in order to use copyright to their financial advantage. I don't really know; I'm just thinking out loud.

[@BoardGameBill]

It's equally distressing when these cases do go to court, and end up in front of a judge who has no knowledge of or interest in music. They throw up their hands, say "it all sounds the same to me" and that's that.

[@user-ve2ob1bq8i]

Greetings from Berlin, Germany. Thank you for running these kind of experiments, its such important work because there are no legal checks and balances for AI companies yet. Keep up the good work!

[@NoLongerNull]

People have been using my music to train AI and extend it just to have a few extra minutes of listening, cuz they won’t wait for me Now I’m getting copyright claimed for my game OST releases An AI generated channel by the name “Sonic Forge - topic” redistributed my same music under AI generated titles and images, and they released them on both KZbin under a topic channel, and on Amazon music. I’ve striked the AI channel 29 times for each reupload but the channel hasn’t been taken down even tho the videos are down, it still copyright claims me and everyone who used my music in their videos KZbin told me they can’t do anything, that this is legal matter I’m so fed up and I don’t know what to do anymore I want it gone from my life

[@joshhickson7551]

Sadly gotta say you should lawyer up, it will be worth it in the long run

[@PatrizzaEatsApizza]

​@@joshhickson7551 In this case a lawyer would eat up serious amount of money and the process will be torturously slow. KZbin is an extremely hostile environment for artists

[@joshhickson7551]

@@PatrizzaEatsApizza i think hiring someone to find the identity of the thief and sending them a cease and desist letter might do something, but I couldn't afford that either

[@maskharat]

@@joshhickson7551 Getting the name and address of a copyright claimant is easy, barely an inconvenience. The claimant already needs to put down their legal address for a disputed copyright claim. If you dispute a claim, youtube gives you the adress, because at that point it's a legal matter outside of google's hand. Also, don't you people have legal protection insurance?

[@lazar.vision]

@@joshhickson7551 imagine the person sits in China ;.;

[@Evanmarc1981]

As an attorney starting to work in the AI space, I really enjoyed your video. I’m actually putting together a presentation on copyright and ai. It is a big mess right now and we’re waiting in the US courts. Thanks for your insights and opinions.

[@GabesHacks]

When you say we're waiting in the US courts, do you mean a case is already filed, waiting to be heard, that may address the issue?

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

Lawyers doing tech can only end badly. Just think about all the cookie consent modals that popped up once lawyers learned about cookies.

[@E_D___]

@@Sebastian-hg3xc It is better than giving sites the rights to collect any info they want on you just for clicking thier site once

[@lavahotpocket3886]

I'm an artist and writer who's being affected by this. I really hope you and others can change the system for us.

[@freedomdude5420]

You guys need to call out sneaky KZbin strike system, this is commy mommy tactics, also 230 section, in fact, why isn't KZbin not apart of google anticompetitive practice lawsuit.

[@manuelfriend4060]

If KZbin supposedly doesn't have the resources (i.e too lazy) to enforce or verify Copyright infringement, then WHY IN THE FK DO THEY HAVE A COPYRIGHT SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

[@VenusTheory]

One more time for the people in the back 📢

[@YerUnclePhil]

Thanks for saying this. It was a question forming in my head. Like what kind of country would have laws without verification of a crime or enforcement? Wild west indeed.

[@dsnodgrass4843]

Because the major record labels require them to, as a condition for allowing their music properties to be uploaded here?

[@manuelfriend4060]

@@dsnodgrass4843 Yes but do you realize how asinine it is? It's like having police in a city because you have to deal with criminals, but then not having any court system to actually prosecute them. So the police chief just arbitrarily decides who gets put in prison and who gets released.

[@starsandnightvision]

@@manuelfriend4060 Sounds like something out of the Biden administration.

[@rowalong]

That was hands down one of the best things I've ever watched on KZbin. Informationally, sure - terrifying. But as far as the writing, filming, presenting and editing - that was just stunning It just goes to show - you don't need to cut every 50 frames to try to keep someone's attention! .

[@StormsandSaugeye]

It's absolutely disgusting that someone could take a sample of our audio and throw it into an AI generator. Then file a copyright claim against us and claim credit for our work they stole from.

[@MC_CN]

Music needs a way to poison it just like images. No art should get abused like this

[@cjay2]

Hey, they don't want you to own anything.

[@BestHakase]

They can just take your song without any changes and do the same thing, no AI needed. You have to register your own songs first.

[@MC_CN]

@@BestHakase Some people don't want copyright on their songs (such as our stock music king Kevin Macleod), but that then gets abused by people wanting to steal the money that would've been made by registering a slightly edited version under copyright so the Content ID system thinks that the actual artist's songs belong to the thief.

[@XetXetable]

You can just hire someone from fiver to make a sound-a-like without AI. This is something people have been doing for years before AI was a thing.

[@chappie__]

I love that you make videos in widescreen, never even realised it but now that im watching on my phone it fits perfect lol

[@VenusTheory]

Gotta add that extra bit of spice to show people I'm serious haha.

[@atp19xx]

@@VenusTheory Honestly, though... I friggin' love the custom aspect ratios. Those 16:9s have begun to feel dull after 20+ or so years..

[@juanchotpee2]

​@@atp19xxaspect ratios feel dull? Interesting.

[@sixsense6161]

​@@atp19xxwe didn't use that aspect ratio 20 years ago...

[@von...]

@@VenusTheory ultrawide desktop monitor user here, the spice is nice. thanks for caring enough about your process to do things like that

[@randomgameplay523]

there are copyright claims of people just talking for 2 hours with only their voice in an isolated room and still get a copyright claim or strike. And most of the time its some shady chinese company without contact details

[@artembaguinski9946]

Why aren't they being copyright striked by Alvin Lucier's estate? And John Cage could claim silent movies.

Someone got *multiple* copyright complaints on a couple hours of… noise. Yes, noise. Pure randomness (kinda, don't recall which kind of noise it was).

[@KeepOnGrowin]

I used Suno once, instantly got a claim. Full stop. Now getting claims on videos on FB with no music, just me narrating, wtf!?

[@TrevBarnes]

Man...the number of sponsorship offers I've been getting to promote these AI music "tools" has been crazy. Thank you for covering such an important topic Cameron!

[@VenusTheory]

Gotta get that tax writeoff from grifting money from venture capital firms somehow.

[@ultrblazer]

Thanks for not covering them

[@thekeysman6760]

OP, the word tools means what it means and needs no punctuation, let alone incorrectly quoting nobody at all. 'Tools' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly, because you imply they aren't useful tools. 🕊️

[@someuser4166]

​@@thekeysman6760the only tools here are the aibros

[@HypercomboProduction]

I mean in all fairness, it is a tool. People have been abusing it to such a harsh degree however that its doing more harm than good. For example, a hammer is a tool. But should there be a ban on hammers if the only thing people use them for is smashing into stores and breaking kneecaps? You would probably answer no since the hammer is still needed for demolition and construction. AI generation was originally ment to help with visualization of ideas, artist block, or just something for fun. In other words, you generate something, use it to get ideas, then delete the generated work because it served its purpose. Sometimes you hire other people to replace it but it remains the same. Very few have been following the last two or three steps and its very concerning on where its going.

[@FaultyTwo]

> steal data from artists > feed them to slop model to generate more slops > claim original artists for sounding like their tracks ThAt'S HoW ThE LaW "WoRkS".

[@dirkhintze]

There is NO STEAL !

[@avalerionbass]

AI "steals" music/art about as much as ChatGPT steals words.

[@NivekJSmith]

​@@avalerionbassChat GPT does steal words. Was that your point?

[@hardlines2635]

I’m going to try this,

[@phalanxstrategy6233]

@@dirkhintze explain that to graphic creators using Adobe, and this issue was not too long ago...

[@andreasfriedrich7150]

Thanks for all the great videos!

[@brWeadsticks]

woah thats a lot of clams

[@WhySteve]

When the AI starts paying YOU for music 🤣

[@syddlinden8966]

The TRAINING of generative ai is all copyright violations. They just fed it a ton of OTHER PEOPLES' WORK without the OPs' consent. As a writer, it's disgusting, and it is absolutely a violation of our copyrights as artists.

[@syddlinden8966]

Ultimately, as a result of the way these generative AI things were made, the response truly should be a gigantic class action lawsuit from the entirety of the internet and all of its users against the AI companies.

[@Think666_]

The law isn't black and white on this, google vs authors guild gave systems like these a lot of potential leeway.

[@SineEyed]

@@syddlinden8966 there already is a major class action lawsuit ongoing. Three artists, suing on behalf of all artists whose works were included in the dataset which trained image generation models like StableDiffusion and Midjourney. The artists are suing for a billion dollars in damages for copyright violations. The plaintiffs had to amend their complaint a couple times because their initial claims of infringement were hopelessly untenable. They practically got laughed out of court for how colossal was the failure of their complaint to show any merit. AI generated content itself literally cannot violate copyrights because everything generated is new to this world. Nothing can be said or shown to be derivative of any other creative works, as a factual consequence of how the ai models operate. Nothing tangible which originated from some earlier work can be found in generated content. It's just not possible..

[@3102nzain]

I do not understand though... example I am human and I listen to different copyrighted music to train myself to make my own music with different music genre... does that mean I am violating other musicians copyrighted music? Every musician is listening to other peoples work and ones they listen to something, the music is automatically saved on their storage device which is the brain and it also automatically process those sounds... So how does it differs from AI and human in terms of using copyrighted materials as training materials? Another example is I read copyrighted books to train myself and AI also has machine learning capabilities to learn if you use those books to train AI.. I am not a law expert though. Anyone can clear this for me pls.. thanks. The only difference I see is that AI is one super smart thing that can save more than the brain and process faster than the brain. But copyrighted law I think is not about the volume or speed on how you process copyrighted materials. Even if you use 1 or 100 copyrighted materials its the same violation, right?

[@Think666_]

@@SineEyed This is why the idea of humans owning an idea is silly, it assumes that creativity exists in a vacuum and can be locked away. Ideas build on each other; that's the essence of progress. Every artist, writer, or musician has been influenced by countless works that came before them. Claiming exclusive ownership over an idea or a style ignores the collaborative and cumulative nature of human creativity. While protecting original works is important, trying to draw a hard line on ideas themselves is like trying to fence off the wind.

[@sub-jec-tiv]

Human beings can’t even get the legal issues right on *human* intellectual ‘property.’ I quit releasing my music and pivoted to other kinds of music income, after Spotify and the other streaming services destroyed my quarterly publishing and royalty revenue (i used to make money quarterly on my music, for about 15 years, which all came to a grinding halt around 2008). The thing is, there’s no easy solution for this because a vast majority of people simply will not pay creatives for their work. The same people who claim they support human artists over AI are fine paying Spotify, who *doesn’t pay human artists.* Everybody loves the idea of paying human creatives… as long as it’s someone else who’s paying. To all you wonderful folks out there supporting artists on Patreon, and actually buying music on Bandcamp: bless you.

[@hadokowa3071]

Yup Bandcamp is where you can still respect musicians.

[@liwojenkins]

In my time with musicians and in music, anyone that wasn't super famous made money with live performances and selling music directly at the performances and merch. I met almost no artist that wasn't super famous that made decent money just off track or record sales unless they were a very talented studio musician. That was in the 90s, was there some kind of golden age after that where artists were making all their money off digital tracks and thought that would last forever? Not trying to be snarky, just putting my experience and my uncles experience and my mothers experience and every garage band I knew and every band trying to break out and every rapper I knew and trying to figure out what I guess we all missed?

[@-KingOfKhaos]

@@liwojenkinsPlenty of non super famous musicians earned decent income … television is riddled with songs created nearly exclusively by non super famous artists… as an example.

[@sub-jec-tiv]

@@liwojenkins I wasn’t super famous, but I made a living with my music before 2008. Had an international cult following who bought my music on vinyl and download. Gigged internationally. After 2008, it simply wasn’t worth doing. So, are you actually supporting the status quo of Spotify and Apple Music?? 🤢 Question for you: How long is your ‘time with musicians and in music?’ Anybody who doesn’t remember what the world was like before Spotify and Apple Music took the value of the work of all musicians for themselves, has no concept of the true value of music, before tech corporations owned music culture. When things were stacked against the musicians, but still somewhat equitable if the musician was willing to work hard and own their own publishing. This nonsense of ‘you just aren’t willing to tour 99% of the year, so you don’t deserve to be picked up by a major and get famous enough to be upper-class’ has to go. We don’t demand that accountants destroy their mental and physical health to do their job. We pay them for their skills. The problem is, everyone wants music and art, but absolutely nobody wants to pay for it. Same problem as always, for human creatives who have historically never been appreciated or respected. The difference is, now Spotify is in there, digitally c@£k-blocking every musician on the planet.

[@PhantomlyReaper]

@@sub-jec-tiv Unless an alternative comes to light that offers the wide catalogue of music and cheap cost of entry. Spotify nor Apple Music or any platform of the sort isn't going anywhere. Of course it sucks to the musicians and creators of music, but the reality is that the sentiment of supporting artists isn't ever going to be enough on its own to get people off those platforms. It's just not realistic to ask people to pay more for less. The consumer cares about themselves first and foremost after all.

[@thunderfallgaming]

I think it should fall under the same rule as that case where the monkey took a selfie. "...based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain."

[@JumboDubby]

Hoping this new administration deals with AI as “derivative works” which might curtail a lot of this fuckery.

[@Maybe-So]

I felt like the owner of the camera, the intelligence who put the camera in the right place at the right time it should have gotten the copyright. You make a good point though, if a monkey can take a picture and therefore nobody can have copyright, then AI shouldn't be able to have it either.

[@Mekelaina]

​@@JumboDubby They won't. Ai companies have lots of money to throw around. Not to mention right wingers tend to be more in favor of ai in general due to (on average) being less creative.

[@wavion2]

Here's an easy fix. PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PERSON CLAIMING THE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. If someone says you stole their music, you just check, "No, I didn't." And move on. If that person, or more likely super-rich media conglomerate has an actual case, they can then take you to court. They can afford it. They have teams of lawyers just sitting around waiting to do so. And that threat is enough to keep the normal person honest. If they claim your video, and you know you used their music, you say, "My bad." and concede their claim.

[@Unethical.FandubsGames]

Sounds like an easy fix but it's like putting a band-aid on a failing dam. Never mind that it introduces problems where the legitimate copyright holder can be trolled by copyright thieves. The system we have now is geared for KZbin to absolve themselves of all responsibility and moderation.

[@dragonproductions236]

Here's a even easier fix, copyright shouldn't exist past 2 years.

[@Nattytom500]

@@dragonproductions236 2 years is far too radical

[@silkwesir1444]

The sad thing, the burden of proof actually is on them, legally speaking, but somehow they have created a whole sphere of exceptions and technicalities which seems to be there only to invert that burden of proof - and if not de jure, then at least de facto.

[@silkwesir1444]

@@Nattytom500 It depends. I think the part of recognition as the author, that can be pretty much endless. But exclusive right of distribution? 2 Years does not sound unreasonable for that at all - depending on the type of media.

[@khariclemens]

This is great content. As a music producer and AI strategist, this hits home. My thought on how this may be solved is for the AI generation tools to be able to watermark the audio. It doesn’t have to be in the ‘file’, but can be part of the audio itself even though inaudible to the listener. This would solve the issue of determining if the audio was created with AI. Even if a person took the same audio and pasted it into another DAW or tool, the sound itself would contain the watermark. At that point, they would need to do some very in-depth manipulation to try to remove it, which would be close to impossible if the watermark were created correctly. Thanks for making this content. But fear not, I’m sure they will solve this issue.

[@khariclemens]

Also, I realize there are some workarounds for this. Maybe the idea is to copyright your work as soon as it is created. Then it’s just a race time issue.

[@LongJohnson-f9l]

As always there are only the two typical solutions: 1. Don't use any music at all 2. Be a huge corporation having billions of Dollars for lawyers.

[@snintendog]

or the 3rd Route. Be Untraceable, uncontrollable. Anon forever.

[@LongJohnson-f9l]

@@snintendog Well but if you are trying to run or promote a professional business that is not really an option.

[@referencetosomething4187]

Form a union with other creators? I'm not saying it'll be simple but hey at least it's something

[@JamesTDG]

Even refraining from using music doesn't work, I have a couple works that were forced to be taken down from my channel, and I didn't include any music at all.

[@snintendog]

@@LongJohnson-f9l art shouldnt be a business it should be for art

[@sakurahertz]

I love how this man can be so wholesome even when talking about the bleakest of subjects. He always gives off such good vibes like in that little bit at the end.

[@barbiermusic]

For a homework at college, a teacher assigned us to investigate an AI music platform. I did the homework and when I checked the pricing section of the platform it confused me so much that they told you that the copyright wasn't yours if you used the platform for free. I wondered "it's slop made by a machine, who owns it then? Machines are soulless, they cannot own anything". This video really puts me in alert and man, the future is looking gray. Least thing we can do is keep looking out for each other and try to fight this AI garbage as best as we can. From the deepest part of my soul: *Fuck AI.*

[@awesomeferret]

I'd say "it's ok, you're a naive college student and will grow up soon" but I'm a college student too, so I don't know what to say. Not only did you somehow not expect the free tier to give rights to them (why wouldn't it, be honest, that is actually reasonable... Their tool made the song and you didn't pay for it, so why should it be yours) but you're acting like an old person in cognitive decline who writes off new tech completely because he doesn't understand it. AI is going to create medications that you will use later in your life, and we are probably finally getting photorealistic video games within the next decade thanks to AI. Are you also triggered if someone waves a vintage 20q game in front of you? That's AI too, just 30 year old primitive AI that runs on a toy. You would have written off telephones if you were born in the early 20th century.

[@barbiermusic]

@@awesomeferret Fair point, and it's on me for not specifying. I don't hate "AI" as in _all of Artificial Intelligence ever,_ but specifically Generative AI. Artificial Intelligence is not a new concept, it just boomed lately in the tech world, and I'm glad the technology exists to help us develop in areas of investigation and technologic advances. But I do mean it when I say Fuck _Generative_ AI. Its results are just regurgitated data put together without any sense, thought or soul put into it. And if "art" has no soul, it's not art for me.

[@CoolFoolination]

@@barbiermusicGen AI is not solely for Art, but most AI commenting videos are commenting on it because it is easy clicks. Gen AI in IT for example or as search engine, or to summarize texts, videos is very much useful. But ofc the naive mass is more focused on bashing what it is misused for ^^

[@barbiermusic]

@@CoolFoolination Gen AI can be useful if used properly. AI has helped me some times to find good sources of information for my works. The problem is when Gen AI is used for making Art and advertised as a replacement to real artists, when its work is just the regurgitated labor from real artists that don't see a penny of retribution for it.

[@brad1426]

@@CoolFoolinationTo be fair, that would be my entire issue. It’s easy to see how machine learning can serve us. But we do need to get a grip on the people who are essentially using it to crap out “art” they want to sell, but didn’t make themselves. Genuinely have an issue with the fact that some people treat AI as this “money for nothing” license.

[@MarcosJPinto]

Very informative in a brutal and brilliant way, thank you. I believe every change starts with an alert and yours is perfect. I am not a musician but just a music and music making lover and I dreamed of publishing a few songs of mine - now I have to think twice. I will make sure to share your video with the local community in my country - at least among those who speak English. Greetings from Brazil.

[@JonKovach]

Cameron you should talk to Rick Beato. We all know who he is but his channel has a lot of influence in the music industry and he has so many connections, hes testified before congress. I think it would be worth you guys working on a legislative solution. That would be amazing I would help in any way that I can, I have some connections to other various media organizations like the Washington Post and some other online media as well. Lets do this or we can just watch it crash around us

[@Turkeyslam]

I hope he listens to this.

[@drdoom8793]

Unfortunately, Rick's turned into the old man shouting at pop music shaped clouds these days

[@JonKovach]

@drdoom8793 I disagree

[@glowaves]

@@drdoom8793 Check out this band called the Beatles and get back to us.

[@jimi272]

@@drdoom8793this isn’t true:(

[@fhajji]

On AI KZbin, Copyright Claims You!

[@Lamster66]

That is scary. and here was I feeling bad for a mate of mine. His story is back in the 90s he and a DJ mate of his wrote an album (Using an Ensoniq EPS and a Juno106) which would now fit the genre of Drum & Bass in a time before it really existed. As he couldn't find a record company who would touch it at the time. They decided to have it mastered and paid for a small run on Vinyl (500-1000). And then found a distributor. They eventually sold all the copies just about broke even and chalked it down to experience. Rolling on 30 odd years he was watching you tube and his music was being used. After some searching he discovered that there were several channels using his music as incidental music whilst others were playing the tracks in full and titling name and artist. This turned out to also be happening overseas. He managed to track down the distributor who eventually admitted that he may have done a couple of reruns a few years later ( around 10K copies). When he tried to claim the music he was told that he couldn't as it was listed as royalty free and wasn't his music.

[@sugarrookieart]

This absolutely makes me want to quit being an artist entirely. What the fk can we even do to stop culture, law, and livelihoods being ripped to shreds when I cant even afford groceries as an artist anymore. Fk dude

[@sharp14x]

Sounds like he has an easy legal case.

[@Lamster66]

@@sharp14x You'd think so but you'd be wrong firstly the distributor has no money or assets and 30 odd year old copywrite claims aren't that easy to win especially when in his case there are multiple people infringing on his copywrite

[@DDCRExposed]

At around 13:20, they mention "one thing to sound like another thing" and causing an uproar. This reminds me of the infamous Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure" debacle.

[@tridek1949]

15:09 - As somebody just listening to this video without watching, I literally had no idea that the song had even changed. I was sitting there like, "Okay... when's he going to play the second clip?" Had to stop what I was doing to make sure I didn't miss something. Crazy.

[@qinng4350]

I think that's why it isn't that big of a problem yet, i tried it and its basically exactly the same as the original, definitely not "different enough to where its technically a new ID".

[@SineBeta]

@@qinng4350 But it is, by all means. Audio fingerprinting technology works by analysing different parameters on the phonogram: frequency content, amplitude, and all that. Thus, two versions of the exact same song with the exact same notes and chords, length, etc, but different mastering (i.e.) will yield a different fingerprint, because the frequency content is different, although they are the same composition. Also, technically that would be a different phonogram, but that's another story. And that's the key here: if you pick up a song by anyone and just process it by detuning it, most automatic content recognition systems will catalogue it as a different phonogram than the original. This has been a problem for copyright owners for a while, as it is impossible to manually review the insane amount of tracks that are uploaded everyday to streaming services, and pirates use this tricks a lot to steal revenues. Now, on top of that we have generative AI, making it even harder to fight this problem.

[@BOOMOPERAMUSIC]

Ai got that sub right

[@Kalvinjj]

@@qinng4350 Then it becomes a problem of if it's a tool making the evaluation or a human, likely will be a tool 1st, and it might just be mathematically different enough to not be the same. For a human it's a blatant ripoff tho.

[@connorblack99]

@@qinng4350I heard some white noise and tonality difference that made it sound worse but it was so similar

[@cymes82]

What's the most infuriating about this situation is how the CopyId- system doesn't even compare the upload dates before approving the claim as valid. How can you copy something that was uploaded AFTER your work was.

[@Zantonny]

That one is legitimate for the most part, especially for music. Music sometimes exist for long before a KZbin videos pops up about it, and sometimes the original author might not upload to KZbin until much later.

[@TheLexikitty]

Went to conservatory for violin performance . Ended up in IT because classical music wants you to play stuff The Correct Way and not bring ideas into it. Slid into electronic music for something entirely different just to let that fire roar again, and maybe make music for my own videos. Just canceled my licensed music service last week since I felt ready to make my own stuff for future videos and…god damn this is disheartening. I don’t even care about money, I just don’t want other people making money off my stuff. Sorry for the rant. Fantastic video, as all of yours are. 💞

[@kaydreamer]

I went to a conservatorium for French Horn. Hop-skipped over to become a jazz singer after a year, because creativity and improvisation are the lifeblood of music, not performing by rote. If you ever wanted to pick up your instrument again, jazz violin is really damn cool.

[@jairkerker2821]

Disheartening, exactly. I want to share but not throw everything up for grabs. It's a blow to beauty.

[@PunkDogCreations]

Please don't use God's name to cuss.

[@simex909]

Why not play Baroque then, if you like classical? Improvisation and interpretation are a large part of Baroque music. Ever heard of figured bass? In any baroque ensemble at least one musician is improvising over a bass line. There's no "correct way" because the pieces aren't even written out note for note. The ornaments are all meant to be improvised, and the symbols are merely suggestions. Bach's organ improvisation is well known, and there are still people today improvising in that style. I'm a harpsichordist, and when people talk about classical music being inflexible, I have no idea what they're talking about. I didn't go to conservatory though, I learned privately as an adult, so maybe it's just a problem with conservatory.

[@HOLLASOUNDS]

This was already a problem even before AI people have been cutting the audio off of KZbinr music production livestreams and uploading that to contant match even before there life stream has finished. The only solution is to not do those stream live and just show a pre made or pre planned recording or set up of music you have already registered to content ID before the stream. The bad thing is the better sounding aand unique your music is them the more its gona be a target to be ripped off of especially if your a small KZbinr they know you don't have the money or resources to stop it. I have had people copy and rip off My music 15 years ago some guy I was supposed to be making custom music for told Me He is just going to get his friend to copy My music so He doesn't have to pay Me anything. I threatened him with Legal action and He stopped but most people who rip you off are not actually going to tell you to your face. One of My pieces of music was ripped off of My KZbin and has over a billion played and 100k downloads on a Chinese Royalty free music site. That music was never Royalty free and I haven't been payed a penny, I only found the website by accident.

[@TheDesperateArtist]

Thank you for scaring us even more! 😝 This is 'I am my own grandpa', the music-world version...

[@urphakeandgey6308]

I once got copyright claimed by the most random artist/song ever and when I checked what it was, it was basically just a very simple track made with samples and loops made from very common sample packs. I suspect the intent was mass upload a bunch of low effort tracks using common samples and then copyright strike any other song that also uses those samples.

[@DCtouring]

are you fucking serious

[@PrograError]

Did you get claimed tho... (I mean you got ID'd but how it resolved?)

[@romanglinnik8073]

The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed. People copied each other and started selling of said copies to the point where the fakes became more popular than the originals. AI just made an old issue worse. We still need a real solution tho.

[@nomore6167]

"The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed" - And once Google came around, governments (specifically, the U.S. government) effectively legalized copyright violation when it was done by large corporations.

[@kcraulston]

$ = \sqrt{evil}

[@Crabfather]

Yeah it just became hundreds of times easier to do that.

[@jyrinx]

@@Dave-rd6spLOL we software engineers are just lucky that AI sucks at our job so far. That's the only difference. You can make passable-though-shitty music and it will still be music-ish enough to work. Passable-though-shitty code just doesn't work.

[@sharp14x]

@@Dave-rd6sp There is no universe where a software developer is worse off with AI than an artist. Suno is 90% there. Copilot is not even 20%.

[@大頭三家姐]

Same problems for the photographers, illustrators, artists…😢

[@TheImageDoctor]

I'm in all four categories: music, photography, visual art, and writing. In principle, you're right: the problem is a problem for many artists and creative endeavors. In reality, the issues covered by Cameron in this video are infinitely less problematic for non-music creative content because there is no overarching "art industry" equivalent to the "music industry." Think about that for a minute. The lawyers and bean counters (i.e. PEOPLE) running big money music corporations have found lawmakers and policy police (more PEOPLE) who are completely willing to prostitute themselves for a quick buck. Nothing new there, some people just want to see the world burn; but THAT is what enabled and created this entire mess - and it ALL goes back to the industry's complete ignorance about switching to digital-music, and the subsequent total cluster-F'k mishandling of music file sharing back in the day. JM2C

[@WayOfTheZombie]

If ai music was used then maybe there should be no copyright allowed.

[@kennethdarlington]

No photographer would be able to take a group photo with a bunch of people having 3 to 6 fingers on a hand each)

[@jenkem4464]

@@TheImageDoctor Yep. You can also be sure that a ton of the music industry artists affected by this are also currently using AI generated image content for their thumbnails, album art, music videos, etc. Everyone is affected. Creativity is tokenized! The technology is very cool but the problem still is a human problem. It just makes it that much easier for bad actors at the top to fuck over the creators.

[@TheImageDoctor]

@@jenkem4464 exactly !!!

[@Waltman13]

If there's one thing I really hate about AI more than all the established problems many people all over the world have talked about, it's this: It's a confusing mess that single handedly made the world and how EVERYTHING works a whole lot worse.

[@commitdubs]

i bought a royalty stock music track off Envato (AudioJungle) a few years ago, to be used in a KZbin video. 3 years pass without any issues. This year, I get a copyright claim for that same jingle I purchased. So what the hell did I pay $20 for this "royalty free" stock music for? Ridiculous.

[@dailyphilosophy]

Many have had the same experience with Envato, me included. But you can contest it, upload your Envato license for the track to the dispute form, and it will eventually be sorted out. I've done it multiple times and it works, although it's always a hassle.

[@commitdubs]

@dailyphilosophy thanks. I will try that!

[@thecircuitbox]

ROFL might want to search for what royalty free is.

[@EndoTheBear]

Sorry, I can't read AudioJungle without Jerma's voice

[@lightleakss]

It is beyond time for the US (and others) to update and clarify their copyright laws for the modern internet. The DMCA turned 26 this year, and the internet it was designed to protect copyright in no longer exists. For the first time in human history, art can be created that is impossible to attribute to a single person or distinct group of people. It's become abundantly clear that "modern" copyright law is wholly incapable of dealing with the modern internet, let alone the introduction of AI generation. We're so cooked, but that won't stop me from continuing to create.

[@cbnewham5633]

Modern copyright law has been detrimental for ages down to the fact that the period of time copyright subsists in a work keeps increasing. The ridiculously long times (70 or 90 years after the death of the author) helps no-one and just creates many orphaned works - work where the copyright holder is no longer known. But such is the nature of corporate greed that we now have this situation (Disney and others, who would love copyright to never expire).

[@richardthelionheart01]

@@cbnewham5633 Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of and live a beautiful and rich life off of, after he is gone. Why should an artists have to give up ownership of a thing they created, even at death ? Why ?

[@cbnewham5633]

@richardthelionheart01 why should they give it up? Because they are dead. Why should their descendants, who have done bugger all, continue to profit? What's worse is that it takes creative works out of the public domain in the future. That's bad - eventually everything would be copyrighted and a huge number of things would be orphaned works (no known copyright holder - which does NOT make those works public domain). I couldn't think of a worse world to live in. I've authored several things myself (feel free to Google me) and I'd be happy with a mere 25 year copyright (as it originally was until the likes of Disney started getting unjustified extensions).

[@jordanwardle11]

the dmca wasnt meant to protect the internet from people, it was designed to protect the entertainment industry FROM the internet.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@richardthelionheart01 *" Tell that to McCartney's family. He made a Dynasty that they can be caretakers of*" Erm maybe that's the problem? Copyright is supposed to be temporary - copyrights expired well within an author's lifetime for good reason (regarding the necessity of enriching the public domain). Why should it being some family of a huge star somehow make the behavior excusable?

[@peterbronez1188]

The process described @18:05 doesn't even require AI. You could download existing songs from the free background websites, claim those and start sending strikes. Only defense is if those websites already register the music. In which case you can just strike them.

[@bitelaserkhalif]

Ah, I remember back then when Baka Mitai meme gone viral. Some Turkish company claimed the song after it went viral, *and they're NOT EVEN AFFILIATED WITH SEGA!* It has been fixed several months later.

[@ckjjclan]

You and Ben Jordan are really really great content creators in this “tell the truth” videos.. well done.

[@Aburner1109]

you should've just used sneaky snitch on loop for the entire video. The old fashioned way 😌

[@Xode_25]

maybe the real solution to all of this is to delete all music ever made and force everyone to only ever use kevin macleod songs for all eternity

[@frigginresulrum]

The simple answer is, in the US, AI generated works cannot be copyrighted because no human was involved in the creation. The fucked up answer is, KZbin sides with the accusers and simply doesn't give a fuck if the claims are legitimate or not.

[@Tysard]

The problem with this is, who determines if the work was made by AI if not another AI? There's nothing stopping people from claiming they didn't use AI to make something. If someone makes something that seems like it was made by AI, this system would prevent them from copyrighting it. Companies use AI to fight AI and in the end, we lose.

[@Kanthric]

It's not even that simple in the US. Though they word it differently, both the US and EU have the same essential stance of "if an AI made the entire thing, it can't be copyrighted...but if a human had a 'significant' input in it's creation then yes, in principle, that's a copywritable piece of work". This is still very new, and there isn't any case law about what counts as significant input. On top of that, the Content ID system isn't able to conduct that verification (I don't know how it even could) and KZbin has no interest in mediating disputes, so simply goes by what Content ID has picked up even if that's got no legal standing, letting the creator(s) argue it out between them - but with the default position being in favour of whoever has uploaded something to Content ID. I'm speaking from the "dark side" here, as a creator that openly uses AI in works to varying levels, but with a significant element of human input. However, I deliberately *don't* upload anything into Content ID and upload everything I make under Creative Commons in KZbin, so nothing I make will cause headaches for other people. Ironically, doing that puts me at greater risk of some other eejit deliberately or accidentally copyright striking me using my own music. I suspect the existing rules and processes will change and adapt to better cope with AI in the coming years, but in the meantime Venus Theory's right to describe it as a Wild West. And one which favours bad actors over good ones.

[@imaginosdesdinova1130]

What if the lyrics were written by a human and only the voice and music was written by AI? Do they share?

[@TheRastafarianStuff]

@@imaginosdesdinova1130voice? written? written voice? 😂 huh ? you mean lyrics

[@Zorothegallade-rpg]

KZbin created TOSes that make filing a fraudulent copyright claim absolutely risk-free while punishing the receiver for even have it filed against them. If you file a claim, you aren't investing anything into it: no time, money or credibility since KZbin will mostly keep yor claim anonymous. If you receive a claim, you immediately lose your monetization and have to pray to God that KZbin cares enough to actually review your case instead of filing it under the "Yup, that's copyright infringement, we'll let you contest it but don't give a fuck if you ever do" folder.

[@VinePest]

Love your beard, hope nobody copyright-claims it

[@Mr_Pfau]

This was a really interesting video. Thank you for the effort put in this. You are kinda unique with your content! Keep at it

[@DashGlitch]

I like the background music in this one, I honestly hope it's not Suno's Venus theory-type beat

[@VenusTheory]

Haha god no. Except the portion used to demo Suno ripping me off this is all music made of the flesh o' venus. What flesh, I'll leave for you to imagine.

[@GabrielBlight]

@@VenusTheory The wenis, obviously.

[@starrybook]

​@@GabrielBlight Wenis Theory

[@SirNotAppearing]

This is possibly the dumbest timeline we're in, isn't it?

[@FaultyTwo]

Idiocracy in its making.

[@ASMRStraw]

New world order

[@videofandude99]

i like money

[@Rolf_Golfball]

*Best times, with downsides

[@tjkatz]

Twas the best of times, twas the worst of times... Right before the fucking revolution.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

0:20 Legally, nobody. Anything created by AI is non-copyrightable, by default. (Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023)

[@timothylcrowe1]

Yet Human imput is necessary for all AI generation a-priori. Voiding the entire case.

[@derekhalcon8287]

@@timothylcrowe1 asking for a pizza in the pizzeria doesnt make you the owner of the recipe

[@Metal_IK]

This is totally false.

[@gp37521]

Do some research, it's true. Everything created by ai is supposed to be free use and non-copyrightable like he/she said.

[@Metal_IK]

@@gp37521 Wrong. Under both European and U.S. law, works involving significant human intervention, such as prompts, editing, or selection, may qualify for copyright protection, but fully autonomous AI-generated works cannot. In simple words: It's always copyrighted for any creative content. The only case where there is no copyright is if it's fully automated from start to finish.

[@Trackformers]

Dude!!! 500k views?! Dude I've been following 4 years.. and im so glad ur channel blew up like this!! 😃👏🏾 Good for u man

[@izd4]

"Whoever has the most money to throw at the problem" Universal Music Group has the opportunity to be great for the first time ever

[@juanvicente204]

I disagree with your final reflection: to me, it’s not about stopping or continuing to make our music or our art. It’s about no longer participating or uploading content on these platforms. It’s an action with a collective impact, and that’s why it’s difficult-we live in an individualistic world that has lost its sense of community. Of course, we will all die someday-that’s the only thing we’re assured of. But we can die in less ridiculous ways.

[@everybodyhasoul5438]

This is what I was thinking too. The answer is to wake up and act as a community. We owe these platforms nothing.

[@RoryElis]

I made some AI songs, they came out good. I did it because there is no longer any money or meaningful movements in rock music. If we want the old days back we need to not allow free downloading or streaming at all. Then we need to create unions of musicians, so all the real artists are in 2 or 3 places making real money again and using lawyers to go after pirates and streamers. That's just reality.

[@battokizu]

@@RoryElis Guess the RIAA's legal fights never happened.

[@RoryElis]

@@battokizu I'm aware that record labels want in on the AI, they are right, however those are the corporate giant artists. However they already let everyone steal & stream, and that gutted everything for the new non corporate musicians. You can't let people steal, it is really that simple.

[@devernepersonal3636]

@@RoryElis they all did this by creating streaming and not really producing physical media, which people still want.

[@dunar1005]

17:17 you dont need ai generated music for this scam, just copy the file and claim you created it first. Boom, copyright claim, this is done for years, AI plays no role in this

[@Thomas.deNorth]

They do it to all kind of videos. Seen it done to nature videos filmed by the channel owner. No music involved. Got claimed by as asian channel.

[@E_D___]

@@dunar1005 but with AI you might (depending on a judge/ future laws) actually have the copyrights for a "work" that you intentionally told the AI to make similar to someone else's work -> and later strike them when they make something similar enough to what the AI made.

[@rangerbaynworkshop]

What's bizarre is that we're going through this "wild west" digitally right now, but people back in the *actual* wild west had to deal with this- physically. Doesn't this any make it better, but it softens the blow a tiny bit.

[@stray1239]

how about this: if AI made it, nobody gets the copywrite

[@just_mdd4]

Hold up!! His writing is this fire???

[@youkofoxy]

That is public domain... And that means if one modifies it enough, they have a copyright over it.

[@haukikannel]

When AI stole the song from internet… It can not go that way!

[@LineOfThy]

How about we give the AI the copyright

Nobody gets the copywrite anyway, since "copywrite" doesn't exist. "Oh, yeah, spelling" No, stupidity IN THE FACE OF THE LAW. Legal matters rely on absolute precision. If you can't stomach or muster that, GTFO. Oh, and you also have no idea about any of this. *ANY* of this. Your level of not understanding this is almost Guiness-worthy.

[@TheCelestineProph]

Brilliant!!💯 It's totally crazy like you said. What can we do...Keep going, keep making music and deal with whatever happens when it happens. Hopefully someday this / these problems will all go away (in favor of the artist). ✌❣

[@GerenM63]

Your comment at about 21:00 is going to be further exacerbated, at least here in the US, by the direction our government and courts are taking -- leaning more and more to protecting the rich and/or large corporate interests at the expense of those of use with shallow pockets.

[@Aaronius_Maximus]

Subbed! Love your content, and I cannot believe how cool this free instrument is you linked in the description. It's very much a one stop shop type thing imo, very much appreciated!

[@Justgoodvids]

4:14 friendly reminder that before GradeAUnderA complained about this, the money went to the complainant during the dispute.

[@Centomila]

The pleasure to say "first" and the sadness of already knowing why we are fucked after just one minute. So many emotions and I didn't watched the video yet.

[@OstapBrehin]

Cmon, I'm sure they will fix it after realizing what a mess this is. Don't overthink, we just happened to be early into AI regulations.

[@tailkinker1972]

My solution: When the copyright system first started getting abused, I deleted all of my content off of KZbin, and I refuse to upload anything else there ever again. I do recognize that this isn't a solution for most people, but I wasn't making any money. Why expose myself to legal shenanigans when I'm not making so much as a cent?

[@tango5thetargeted73]

well sadly, there are alot of people who make money of youtube or somwhere else that can be effected by this

[@GidarGaming]

What if we said no to KZbin and all went to a new video platform? But I guess it would take a real behemoth to be able to compete at this point... and unfortunately most of them would run things the same way. edit: I highly recommend uploading video content to multiple websites so you aren't just relying on KZbin for distributing your videos. This also encourages people to actually use alternative platforms, because there will be more content there to view instead of... basically crickets.

[@jordanwardle11]

@@GidarGaming it would have to follow a very similar path or be sued into oblivion. as always ALL the youtube copyright issues are because of the dmca

[@DavidBerger-g2h]

​@@GidarGamingVidMe was a option but couldnt handle the traffic.

[@melanies3640]

Danke!

[@desnou]

This very problem struck illustrators first two years ago and nobody gave a flying... All of the insane implications of AI generative tools existing in a modern copyright environment were extensively discussed way before music AIs evolved enough to be useful and again, nobody cared enough to stop this madness. Since the very beginning generative AIs were nothing else than an unprecedented copyright theft due to how those models work and again, nobody cares because large enough money can be made. There are only two ways out if this - accept that copyright law has become obsolete or ban generative AIs. Nothing in between can work in practice, because at the end of this path the only difference between human made and AI made art will be origin history.

[@GospelProgressionsUniversity]

Dang. That’s depressing.

[@alechazed]

I don't know. Sounds beautiful to me.

[@Ofjkk]

copyright law did become obsolete - the moment internet was designed as a tool that shares data by copying it

[@hecko-yes]

​@@Dave-rd6splargely agreed, though there's the noteworthy exception of midjourney 6, which was finetuned on a small enough dataset that it did (does?) near-replicate several well-known images (look up "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - IEEE Spectrum")

[@NegraLi34]

@@Dave-rd6sp you're the one being incredibly dishonest. literally every single one of these gen-ai models at launch were able to spit out exact copies of stolen content with clever prompting. it's a widespread fact and it speaks volumes about the real process of "generating" AI content, despite any technical bullshit you claim. the only thing they did was to shadowban or misdirect certain combinations that would result in that, but the functionality is still there, hidden.

[@jakeharms1386]

I’m starting to think maybe copyright itself is the problem

[@snintendog]

always has been.

[@jordanwardle11]

its the dmca. always has been

[@cosmicspacething3474]

The entire system needs a complete overhaul

[@cosmicspacething3474]

The entire system needs a complete overhaul

[@TourFaint]

Yeah, nothing in this video is really ai related, you could create a soundalike without ai and do the exact same thing.

[@LordOfLemon]

This was already happening. There were already scam artists uploading sounds from free sample packs to copyright claim people. This just makes it even MORE simple. I hope KZbin just stops all of these copyright claims for small "indie labels"

[@GidarGaming]

Why only the small labels?

[@PrograError]

@@GidarGaming probably just an all ranging, in general bias pick. It's basically like the phrase you'd hear when in reference to Muslim and terrorists; “all Muslims are Terrorists”. (INB4 it got taken out of context, *NO*. “Terrorists” classified in the news just happened to be mostly Muslims in recent years.)

[@HUBMONSTER]

Thanks!

[@electronicsandewastescrapp7384]

stock stuff gets claimed all of the time. It's why you can't use the default beats on things like a kaossilator, Garageband loops, etc etc and post on youtube. This has been a thing for a long time, well before AI.

[@GidarGaming]

It's why I always have avoided using stuff created by other people on the internet. Some people aren't even nefarious, they just mislabel things by accident sometimes.

[@Tobez]

"Buckle in. This is pretty bad" Wonderful lol

[@VenusTheory]

And the good news is: it might just keep getting worse!

[@Tobez]

@@VenusTheory Yeah, seems like it will be a real shit show before proper guard rails are in place

[@mynameismow2082]

Wanna hit back at their AI systems? Look for any youtube videos by youtube, google, or affiliates (also large revenue streams for google) - Generate audio that could flag them in their own system - upload it - and start trying to copyright striking their work - make sure to list the work as an act of protest... You could also do this for platforms like Suno that promote AI generated content. Will it work? who knows... but worth a try.

[@pflasterstrips7254]

nah, youtube will just drop any claims against bigger channels and leave the smaller channel in the hell of automation.

[@jefdamen2977]

They’ll punish u for trying

[@TodayontheKoreanServer]

Doesn't work that way. You can't just upload any audio to ContentID, it has to be music, and if it's too similar to any other song already in ContentID it gets rejected. KZbin can't do anything because that's part of the DMCA act, every copyright dispute has be solved between the 2 parties, KZbin can't intervene by law. Also this channel says that his own music is getting claimed by himself, that's totally normal, he uploaded his music to ContentID and now it gets claimed, all the revenue still goes to him but is paid by his music distributor, and a claim is not a strike, it doesn't affect the KZbin account. The big problem is scammers registering free songs to ContentID, the only solution for musicians is to really do it themselves first. If you are releasing your music to the internet and you didn't register it to ContentID you just open yourself to get your own music stolen, but still you can fight back, you can dispute every claim and usually the scammer account will just get banned from whatever music distributer they used, the problem is that the next guy can do the same and the next and the next... so really just register your stuff first to avoid all this trouble

[@ericamcrae1610]

nah, what would have to happen is you kinda have to piss off tailor swift or something. A lot of places ban NSFW image generation not because they hated that, but because it was making generations of the ELITE... >.>

[@ANostalgicFuture]

@@TodayontheKoreanServer the only problem is that registering with ContentID can start to cost a lot in reoccurring annual fees depending on how much music you have (thinking specifically of Distrokid here) - unless there's something I'm missing?

[@zanzer386]

I had my original music flagged for copyright infringement. My whole bands channel got taken down. Highly frustrating and it took me years to even repost again after that

[@AZALI00013]

genuinely scary

[@anorthkey]

😬

[@RavioliFr]

there's nothing scary, just the copyright system that will change in the coming years. Music is not about money in the first place ...

[@Jake28]

@@RavioliFr music might not be about money but maybe paying rent is =)

[@stackels97]

22:00 man, I needed that reminder. I started following my music dream later in life than I'd hoped too and it was just in tome for all this AI and copyright trash, and it's been stalling my desire to dive in. But you're so right. We only have a limited time, and I dont want to leave the planet not having backed myself enough to give it a red hot try. Thankyou

[@YerUnclePhil]

Next thing you know, musicians will go back to distributing their work on cassette. Oh yeah, they already are.😅

[@stackels97]

@@YerUnclePhil hahaha. How did you know that I was literally looking up cassette recorders today

[@Montressor1]

"and did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it riding the gravy train."

[@MHMcKee]

Thanks for this video and all your content. I am grateful to be able to be a fly on your shoulder as you go down creative, gear play & related rabbit holes. And congratulations on the success of your channel. Good work.

[@ladas3509]

How can a thing that steals copyighted work flag others for copyright infringement. What in the actual fu*k???!!

[@thatoneguy378]

That's to protect itself and make the owner more money.

[@willbarnz6960]

There's been people who have had copyright claims from people who did covers of other works, copyrighted and with permission or not under copyright protection. And their work was a legal cover of the original work. There's a video that exists/existed (not sure which now, but I assume still exists) of a guy who had to insert a break/silence into one long note they played on an instrument because it got a copyright claim. $$$ influenced the changes in copyright, and still does, usually because, and in favor of, some huge deep pocket entity/corporation who wants to milk it for all they can.

[@tjkatz]

I am convinced that these mega corporations are all engaging in collision to protect AI even while breaking every law to do it simply because they know no one else has the money to challenge... Except them of course, hence the need for collusion.

[@pt9845]

Mostly a combination of stupid people who don't understand Content ID and distributors enabling it by default.

[@CastleHassall]

it's fraud.. wire fraud to be specific.. Wire fraud, or fraud by radio, wire or television, is defined in 18 U.S. Code section 1343. The law makes it illegal to: create a scheme or artifice (or intend to do so) that is designed to use false or fraudulent pretense to obtain money or property create writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds that contain pretenses, misrepresentations or false promises in furtherance of that scheme use wire, radio or television communication to transmit this information in interstate or foreign commerce If you violate this law by engaging in prohibited fraudulent communications, you could be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years.

[@lemonZzzzs]

Someone should start a trend of classifying their vlogs as spoken verse, so the automated systems will get trained to copyright strike speech. This has the potential of completely breaking down any ability to post videos. Maybe then, when the whole system fails, someone would be forced to look into how unsustainable this whole enforcement model is?

[@Bangrilah]

Me: Alexa generate every possible melody in B minor and copyright them for me. Alexa: ok would you like me find a nearby copyright lawyer as well.

[@NINguem202X]

Whoever posts the AI music to KZbin FIRST, owns the music through KZbin's content ID system. That's it. Saved you 24 minutes. Thank you.

[@scriptor2029]

Thank you

[@xard64]

I knew AI would break the current copyright system: If you follow the copy aspect of copyright AI can work around it. If you broaden the scope so that copyright extends to match everything having even seemingly similar vibe could help to fight against AI but you'll end up copyrighting whole styles of music (which could even extend to some instruments) in the process. Both these scenarios are a disaster: there's just no winning here with the current model of copyright.

[@LycanFerret]

The issue with copyright is that it can be used for anything that isn't "too vague". But that in and of itself is too vague. It should be used for illegal reuploads/distributions and nothing more. Because while people can pitch change a movie and reupload it(should be illegal), there are original works being claimed over a tune(shouldn't be legal).

[@sj4267]

Soundcloud copyright has been so bad lately, multiple orginal tracks have been taken down recently, so frustrating.

[@Visigoth_]

*Intellectual Property* as a "legally protected right" doesn't have much longer to exist.

[@xinpingdonohoe3978]

Is that good or bad? Do people deserve it, and the power it can be wielded with?

[@meucanalmix]

Totally agree!

[@Visigoth_]

@@xinpingdonohoe3978 I'm still struggling with this conundrum myself (sometimes I think the idea of "claiming ownership" over an Idea is asinine; the concept of forgery... other times I tend to think about the fact that "not being able to make a living from your ideas" means that there's little to no incentive to continue producing your works: pirating.). 🤔 It's a very difficult question (but it is quickly becoming one that is being decided for us/ "out of our hands," just like a hand weaver trying to control/ compete with an industrial loom "like the mennonites," or the "Paul Bunyan" allegory.

[@compwiz00]

there is no ethical way to use the powers granted by copyright law.

[@Sonario648]

@@Visigoth_ There will still always be incentive to continue producing: The fact that it is fun, or that it's something you want to do because you just want to do it, not because it makes you money.

[@iansmirna5183]

The goatee gives me an optical illusion with Neil Flander's vibe...

[@danskkr]

To make the system even slightly fair, youtube needs to adopt a similar policy for claimants. As in claimants should have a three strike policy too to try and limit frivolous bogus copyright claims.

[@byejesper]

This is actually a great idea

[@jer1776]

Love this idea

[@TheRastafarianStuff]

its basically the same as has happened to me years ago by using "copyright free" music from either machinima and another website that used to distribute royalty free music. only for them to either be bought by another company that changed the non copyright to copyrighted or maybe they decided this themselves so tens of videos I had on my channel using that royalty music is now suddently claimed and I had to take them down or put them to private

[@louisnadeau1]

Recently I did a drum cover of a Celine Dion song. I posted the cover and the drum only version. The drum only version got a copyright claim from another artist for a song that isn't remotely close to the groove I was playing... I hope it's not Content ID doing stupid stuff because I don't see how a normal artist could try to claim this... it's just drums! There is no melody, chords or any melodic instruments... just a drum groove and I'm pretty sure there is no copyright on drums at this moment. If there were, Clyde Stubblefield would be millionaire with his drum groove on "The Funky Drummer" by James Brown...

[@danielgraham6610]

Aren't some drum riffs when you're learning even named after artists and songs they're from (like funky drummer)? When it comes to a riff it's attributed to the person who popularized it, you can't even say they 'invented' it to begin with - but if we can claim down to that level, every part of every musical piece is going to be 'owned' by someone, somewhere. --By definition, capitalists would love that though - turning everything into capital that generates money. I can imagine they wouldn't see any reason NOT to do that. Why NOT parcel out each chord progression and beat to those who had the most success with it? If you can have every piece of music generating money based on each of its parts, isn't that more efficient than trying to write whole songs originally every time and just leave its money-generation to hoping it's popular? All you'd have to do is push the button, and music with a certain amount of value-per-play will come out. Then you could probably min/max the value of compositions over time. This feels like what they're trying to do, ultimately. I don't want to be that guy, but this is the logical endpoint to unrestrained capital. I'm never saying we have to abolish capitalism, but we've definitely passed a certain reasonable threshold where it's still compatible with human beings. And I'm thinking that may have been a while ago...

[@louisnadeau1]

@danielgraham6610 well for now there is no copyright on drum groove that I'm aware of. That would be kind of silly. The guy who created the first ever disco beat would also be billionaire by this point haha! Same with chord progression. How many blues does have the same chord progression in the same tonality? But I've seen some video from Adam Neely talking about copyright case for songs having similar chord progression and that's clearly a dangerous thing! I think it was about an Ed Sheeran song? Clearly capitalism and Art in general doesn't go well together...

[@videofandude99]

your drumsticks are also copyright striked! You're using the same sticks as that drummer as well! And the same app that you used to capture the audio. you're a cheater!

[@willbarnz6960]

Could easily be one of those people that get paid to watch videos and find copyright "infringements."

[@louisnadeau1]

@willbarnz6960 well in that case that person should be fired 😂