no stupid questions thread

Postby **dodint** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:05 pm

@tifosi77

ELI5: How do Youtube channels like Todd In The Shadows do full reviews of multiple songs and play them as much as they want, but cops get videos taken down by playing music in the background?

Surely "Todd" isn't getting clearance for all of that music, right?

Postby **faftorial** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:31 pm

tifosi77

ELI5: How do Youtube channels like Todd In The Shadows do full reviews of multiple songs and play them as much as they want, but cops get videos taken down by playing music in the background?

Surely "Todd" isn't getting clearance for all of that music, right?

Good question.

Also, if you slightly modify the audio in an audio editor would it still be flagged with whatever digital signatures they are using to detect copyrighted work? I would think not but I'm not sure how much they've advanced in this area.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:32 pm

There are a couple likely possibilities.

1) No, there's no on-the-fly content clearance going on. But what most often happens with these channels is that the videos with the copyrighted material get either completely demonetized without further enforcement action, or the creator puts a rev share agreement in place where the copyright owners give them a piece of the ad money.

2) The two most commonly misused terms in IP are 'fair use' and 'parody'. Generally speaking, people have no idea what they're actually talking about when they invoke those defenses. Without getting into either the nitty or the gritty, establishing fair use is a four-prong test, one of which is 'nature of use'; 'criticism', 'commentary', teaching, are some of the so-called tipping point factors that makes the use lean toward a fair use exception. There are other factors at play, but if your TITS guy (heh) is playing songs as critical review, or teaching music theory, or a combination of elements, etc, then it's possible his videos don't get aggressively policed for IP infringement. Also, see Ex 1.

3) YT's ContentID algorithm has gotten miles better than it was for the first few years of its life, but the platform is still super duper strict in the way it polices this stuff. This has to do more with kowtowing to legal requirements and maintaining Safe Harbor protections carved out for service providers/platforms in the DMCA (e.g. be aggressive in the way you police infringement to ensure you yourself can't be held liable for instances of mass infringement taking place using your service/platform) than it does to sound business practice. But it is what it is. Videos are much more likely to be dinged on Random27443 than it is on a channel like Rick Beato with 6 millions subs........ and Rick still gets DMCA dings multiple times a month.

And this is also where the police example sort of lives. It's a really sh**ty thing that they figured out, but diabolically so. Playing of music in a public place has a different set of rights than just the recording or songwriting; you get into public performance and rights societies, and things will get shutdown with a bit more vigor than the capture of a podcast from some guy's living room. (This is similar to the discussions that have been had about politicians playing music during rallies; it's not up to the artist to say yes or no, if the venue has paid their ASCAP/BMI fees - like to play music during stoppages of play during a pro sportsball contest - then the public performance license covers the venue and all events therein. The intersection of 12th and Main where John Q Law is pummeling someone for looking at him sideways is not covered by such a license, and playback of any recordings or streaming of copyrighted material from there are technically infringement. Wahoo.

The way copyright is treated in the digital age must be updated. DMCA was sorta behind the times when it was passed, and it's already 20 years old.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:44 pm

Also, if you slightly modify the audio in an audio editor would it still be flagged with whatever digital signatures they are using to detect copyrighted work? I would think not but I'm not sure how much they've advanced in this area.

This is like people who mirror image a video and think they'll escape detection, or that doing so now means isn't infringement. You can't just go "Oh look, I took the copyrighted recording of 'Hey Jude' and pitch modulated it up by five whole tones to make it sound like the Chipmunks! New recording, no infringement!" That's not really how it works. Plus, if you alter it enough to be sufficiently derivative..... what's the point? (Never mind the fact that every recorded piece of music has two distinct copyrights: The one in and to the particular recording, and the one in and to the actual song. You can audio editor all the live long day to try and fool the recording copyright, but you'll still be infringing the song copyright.)

To paraphrase Sean Connery's comment in The Untouchables: Finding infringement isn't the problem. The problem is how much of a hassle are you willing to undertake in enforcement? YouTube makes it a very easy process for IP owners to assert rights, and a cumbersome one to defend uses, however legitimate. We can have a good faith discussion on whether that's appropriate or not, but that's how the world exists today. Plus, copyright isn't like trademark. You have to pretty aggressively enforce trademark rights to maintain your exclusivity. But copyright stays the exclusive right of its creator for literal decades. Depending on the nature of the work, the copyright will even outlive the creator.

Postby **MalkinIsMyHomeboy** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:47 pm

Also, if you slightly modify the audio in an audio editor would it still be flagged with whatever digital signatures they are using to detect copyrighted work? I would think not but I'm not sure how much they've advanced in this area.
This is like people who mirror image a video and think they'll escape detection, or that doing so now means isn't infringement. You can't just go "Oh look, I took the copyrighted recording of 'Hey Jude' and pitch modulated it up by five whole tones to make it sound like the Chipmunks! New recording, no infringement!" That's not really how it works. Plus, if you alter it enough to be sufficiently derivative..... what's the point? (Never mind the fact that every recorded piece of music has two distinct copyrights: The one in and to the particular recording, and the one in and to the actual song. You can audio editor all the live long day to try and fool the recording copyright, but you'll still be infringing the song copyright.)

I think Faf is asking if editing the audio would help it avoid the mechanism that detects if a video is using copyrighted music, not if it’s legal to do so

Postby **faftorial** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:53 pm

Also, if you slightly modify the audio in an audio editor would it still be flagged with whatever digital signatures they are using to detect copyrighted work? I would think not but I'm not sure how much they've advanced in this area.
This is like people who mirror image a video and think they'll escape detection, or that doing so now means isn't infringement. You can't just go "Oh look, I took the copyrighted recording of 'Hey Jude' and pitch modulated it up by five whole tones to make it sound like the Chipmunks! New recording, no infringement!" That's not really how it works. Plus, if you alter it enough to be sufficiently derivative..... what's the point? (Never mind the fact that every recorded piece of music has two distinct copyrights: The one in and to the particular recording, and the one in and to the actual song. You can audio editor all the live long day to try and fool the recording copyright, but you'll still be infringing the song copyright.)

I think Faf is asking if editing the audio would help it avoid the mechanism that detects if a video is using copyrighted music, not if it’s legal to do so

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:01 pm

And I am saying 'no'.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:09 pm

Good explanations, tif

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:17 pm

Postby **dodint** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:21 pm

Thank you, tif.

For the answer in whole, and for slipping in a paraphrase reference.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:34 pm

Just tried to capture the spirit of the thing.

Postby **robbiestoupe** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:23 pm

crunchy granola moms

Why does granola get a bad rap? And who eats chewy(??) granola

Postby **count2infinity** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:41 pm

Hmmm... I've never considered crunchy and granola to be crunchy granola, but rather "crunchy, granola" meaning they're two separate adjectives. Like saying a color is bright yellow vs bright yellow sun. The first is bright to describe the yellow where as the sun is both bright AND yellow.

For me, a crunchy mom is like a hippie... natural medicine, cloth diapers, home births, etc. Whereas a granola mom is a food nazi. Certainly a venn diagram situation where there's some overlap, but some people are one or the other.

Postby **robbiestoupe** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:49 pm

Huh, never thought of the euphemism that way. But I also don't think I've ever seen somebody referred to as just a granola ____. It almost always comes with the crunchy adjective. I've seen crunchy used as a standalone and yes, it's used to describe a hippie.

Postby **MR25** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:04 pm

I always took "granola" to mean bland/boring, and have no idea why I thought that was the meaning of it.

Postby **NTP66** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:06 pm

I always thought that was 'vanilla'.

Postby **MR25** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:09 pm

I've apparently used both interchangeably.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:21 pm

Hmmm... I've never considered crunchy and granola to be crunchy granola, but rather "crunchy, granola" meaning they're two separate adjectives. Like saying a color is bright yellow vs bright yellow sun. The first is bright to describe the yellow where as the sun is both bright AND yellow.

For me, a crunchy mom is like a hippie... natural medicine, cloth diapers, home births, etc. Whereas a granola mom is a food nazi. Certainly a venn diagram situation where there's some overlap, but some people are one or the other.

Side note, the queers are a pretty clear example of how language and culture have changed.

Postby **MalkinIsMyHomeboy** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:22 pm

lrn2etymology you guys

crunchy (adj.)
1892, from crunch (n.) + -y (2). Student slang sense of "annoyingly intense about health or environmental issues" is by 1990, short for crunchy granola (considered a natural and wholesome food) used as an adjective. It could be neutral or positive at first, but later often was dismissive. Related: Crunchiness.

Postby **MalkinIsMyHomeboy** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:24 pm

Also I’ve never used that phrase myself because granola can be delicious and healthy and I like it

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:26 pm

Also I’ve never used that phrase myself because granola can be delicious and healthy and I like it

Just saying hippie means the same thing. But I appreciated Mikey pulling it out to change things up

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:27 pm

I always took "granola" to mean bland/boring, and have no idea why I thought that was the meaning of it.

I’ve never heard that

Postby **robbiestoupe** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:40 pm

Granola as natural and wholesome has become a misnomer as well. There can be plenty of added sugars in today's granolas.

Postby **nocera** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:41 pm

Also I’ve never used that phrase myself because granola can be delicious and healthy and I like it
Just saying hippie means the same thing. But I appreciated Mikey pulling it out to change things up

This is how I've used it.

Postby **MR25** » Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:16 pm

I always took "granola" to mean bland/boring, and have no idea why I thought that was the meaning of it.
I’ve never heard that

Like I said, no idea why I conflated granola and vanilla.