Well, if the uploader's using copyrighted recordings rather than a midi or performing the pieces themself or using a more liberally licensed recording, it is understandable. Bach's pieces may be free but musicians' performances of them aren't.
Youtube is _filled_ with classical musicians getting shafted by this, from amateur ensembles to semi-pros and even some professional groups getting silenced or defunded by these algos. The trouble is that Bach played well sounds like...well, Bach. If you're not "the first owner" of the copyright (and a big music company), you tend to get screwed financially (and the big companies do a LOT of screwing). YT's algorithms are designed to detect "I took this whole TV show up a tone in pitch and put a fake pair of curtains on the front to evade content ID". The Bach will sound "the same" to a copyright algorithm.
I only listen to classical music, and I've noticed that where YT used to once be a great source of legally-free brilliant performances (often with scores!) it's been going downhill and I've slowly been redirected to copyrighted Big Media recordings of old classics (which usually I do not prefer).
My mom got bitten by this. After my dad died, she uploaded a video of him playing his violin with a baby on his lap. The music is in public domain, and it was demonstrably an original recording of a (sorry, dad) rank amateur. It got blocked so fast that my adult cousin, the baby in the video, couldn't watch it. This isn't understandable, it's ridiculous overreach.
It turns the recording into a physical object and can be shared privately. Obviously YouTube is not the place for these kinds of family recordings because they aren't for a general audience and should not be subject to YouTube's various destructive treatments
I sincerely doubt that it would cost a couple hundred bucks for that amount of shipment. Further, if you're worried about an attack vector, put the videos on a mini-DVD or some other format that is also small and read-only.
And yeah, the remainder of the videos might not have been flagged, but we're talking about the one that did. Please keep the focus placed on the problem that you brought up.
You’re downvoted but I have a similar point / question.. there are many ways to share personal videos privately (text message, cloud photo sharing service etc.); YouTube is a terrible choice for this (despite some forays into that world long ago).
Given the ubiquity of YouTube, that may have been the best option for uploading she had. Yes, “we” know there are many options, but when there is a bright, shiny, button that says “upload to YouTube” then why not use that? After all, that should also work for sharing videos with family members.
> when there is a bright, shiny, button that says “upload to YouTube” then why not use that?
This was already answered by klyrs further up the thread: because the videos are subject to YouTube's policies which commonly involve altering or destroying parts of the media without warning.
I once got a copyright claim for a classic song (copyright expired) that I played with Timidity++ (both software and voice is free). YouTube is somehow good at detecting a similar-sounding tune that isn't the exact copy of the original. It's such a discouraging experience.
I am not sure of the example that this video pointed out in particular, but most others seem to have "Public Domain Compositions" of many sorts as the "music in the video" tagged by YouTube.
While I agree that it lacks some context, it seems like smaller mislabeled clips were the source of this "violation" rather than the usage of whole copyrighted clips.
It's kind of nonsensical that performances based on a public domain piece of art can be copyrighted. That would be the similar to making the Linux kernel proprietary again just because you change the way the code is formatted.
Also, let's not even pretend it's impossible to imitate someone's way of playing while still doing your own interpretation. How would algos know?!?
Are youtube shorts a failure? They seem to be immensely popular in terms of views/engagement.
Reminds me of how people would deride Instagram for copying Snapchat stories, yet far more people probably use Instagram stories than snapchat and are perfectly satisfied with the UX despite it being a blatant copycat.
>Are youtube shorts a failure? They seem to be immensely popular in terms of views/engagement.
I just think that's only because "the algorithm" prioritizes shorts at the moment to try and push them and make folks even bother making them. Once YouTube starts acting neutral towards them I don't think they'll hold up.
I've never come across a short intentionally and after seeing quite a few I haven't tried to find further ones (and outside of mobile it's quite difficult to do so).
That said of course, I'm probably not in the demographic shorts plays to either.
Huh, I never knew that he was also a writer/journalist. Come to think of it, that explains why he includes so many interview segments in his video. Thanks for pointing that out!
The word "quietly" does so much heavy lifting in the headline, implying wrongdoing and sinister deeds when there is no evidence of malice at all. What are they supposed to do, make a big press release about how they got it wrong and beg for forgiveness? These things happen when reporting breaking news.
Anyone else feel that some parts were kind of tacky? I tuned in a few hours before the launch, and I happened to watch the astronauts get loaded into a branded Tesla car, and the announcers were gushing about how cool the side doors were. I couldn't shake the feeling that half the stream was just marketing for marketing for Elon's companies.
