Forum - View topicINTEREST: Fan Rendition of Vocaloid Artist's Real Song Muted on YouTube
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lemonchest
Posts: 1771 |
|
|||
|
So it's a vocaloid cover of a vocaloid song, using the vocaloid to cover itself? What?
|
||||
|
||||
Fenrin
 Posts: 694 Location: SoCal |
|
|||
No the song is from Sekai no Owari for which Fukase is the vocalist, and they used it as a demo for Vocaloid Fukase. |
||||
|
||||
|
Lemonchest
Posts: 1771 |
|
|||
Sekai no Owari are a real band? I assumed it was a vocaloid band with actors in the video 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Fenrin
Posts: 694 Location: SoCal |
|
|||
|
^
Haha vocaloid doesn't work that way, there are no official vocaloid bands or actors. [Edit]: removed unnecessary nested quotes. Please read the quoting guidelines. Errinundra. |
||||
|
||||
|
Lemonchest
Posts: 1771 |
|
|||
|
^
I see. So it's a band whose singer uses a vocoder, who had his vocoder vocals sampled for a vocaloid, which a fan then used to cover the original vocoder vocals? So it's a vocaloid vocoder vocal? I don't understand the future. [Edit]: ditto. |
||||
|
||||
Mr. Oshawott
 Posts: 6773 |
|
|||
|
It's videos like this Vocaloid demo involving [Vocaloid] Fukase that are the reason that YouTube really needs to overhaul their outdated Content ID system. The way that it's set up allows for unabated abuse by any company, big or small.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zenithe
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
A human sang a song. A vocaloid (made using that real human's real vocals) then covered that song. That's really all there is to it. Sure, you could conspiracy theorize that the vocaloid was made using voice samples from another synthesized vocal product, or from edited voice samples. But that would be pretty illogical and would be highly unlikely to result in a high quality product like (the vocaloid) Fukase.x [Edit]: ditto again. |
||||
|
||||
|
kiminobokuwa
Posts: 547 |
|
|||
|
Typical YouTube. I'm so sick and tired of the things they're doing to people lately and it has to stop at this point. It's horrible.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lady Multi
Posts: 673 |
|
|||
|
The problem here is that Youtube allowed the assumption to be carried through and muted it to begin with instead of first asking questions. Like: (1) Fair use?, (2) Original Work?, (3) Malicious Claim?, (4) Licensed?
They just assume that the claimant on the copyright claim side is 100% correct 100% of the time and leave it up to the content creators to have to deal with their automated system. I mean if its a full movie, I get it... but COME ON...! 99% of the claims are BS and are done by bots. People have proved it by intentionally uploading silence with a specific title for the video and then getting AUDIO copyright claimed. Like...really. |
||||
|
||||
stilldemented
 Posts: 232 |
|
|||
|
Well this whole copyright and fair use debacle that is floating around Youtube has a lot of heads scratching on all sides. No one is really at fault, but blame is being thrown everywhere since people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. All that jazz.
It isn't really Youtube's fault. There is no computer program in existence that is intricate enough to automatically determine whether a video is adhering to Youtube's policies and fair use laws. It is automated to cut corners to save workers' time and energy. These companies that are throwing strikes at everything are assigning the grunt work of monitoring these Youtube videos to new employees. Honestly, it's just easier to strike the video and let the youtuber contest the strike than to go through each video and make a judgement call about fair use. Because here's the thing. It's not about 'guilty until proven innocent' so much as it is 'better safe than sorry'. These employees that are issuing takedowns for these companies are just trying to keep their job more often than not. The workload is neverending. Even if a great employee can set aside a video because he can tell that the video in question follows fair use...that doesn't mean much because if the video gets recontested it could fall in another employees workpile who will go ahead and place a strike on it. Because the thing about these companies is that for every video they watch...nine more take its place for evaluation. Youtube has hundreds of videos uploaded every second. It's impossible to actually put a dent in it. Most of these people in charge of manual takedowns just don't have the time to treat every video that floats their way on a case-by-case basis...it's easier on them to strike the youtuber and let them iron everything out. After all, there are no real repercussions. Long story short? There's a needle in a haystack. Your job is to burn the freakin' haystack. Are you going to root out the needle? The more you look, the more hay gets piled on your haystack. Even if you find it, it's just going to eventually get thrown in another person's haystack. So why bother? That's what is happening more often than not in these companies that monitor youtube for copyrighted material. So yeah, Youtube probably needs to implement something. A double jeopardy policy for videos already tagged with fair use might go a long way in protecting youtubers, but it's not a perfect solution. That's all I got. It's a head-scratcher to be sure. |
||||
|
||||
Joe Mello
 Posts: 2256 Location: Online Terminal |
|
|||
There is a perfect solution: Don't install draconian policies that unfairly place the burden of proof on uploaders who probably cannot afford the proper representation to fend off claims of infringement. Alternatively, I know of one media company that simply monetizes offenders. The uploader keeps the video and the company gets any money. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mune
Posts: 376 Location: Minnesota |
|
|||
|
Fair Use is a defense, not a right. It is used when something is accused of being within copyright infringement and not a outright reason to be allowed. Think of it as a counter-attack or counter-claim. You cannot have use it unless something triggers it. Fair Use is usually determined in court by a judge or jury. This applies only to the U.S. though.
In Japan, there is no Fair Use law. Also, if they would have waited 50 years after the creator dies or 70 years after creation, the song would be in public domain in Japan. Whereas the U.S. is 70 years. Still, they got the sound back for the video. It didn't tank their channel or remove the video completely without any way to return it. I wonder if Vocaloid is monetizing the video? |
||||
|
||||
Miporin
 Posts: 16 Location: US |
|
|||
|
^ Fair use is statute in the US, with its basis in the First Amendment, so it is a right. Although unfortunately, it might as well be a defence in practice. The same goes for fair dealing in the Commonwealth, and for certain limited fair uses in Japan.
But covers do not necessarily meet US fair use criteria--if they are not sufficiently transformative of the original, for example, as is probably the case here. If so, the copyright holder had every right to take down the video. It's just that the norm of the vocaloid community is that all vocaloid songs are fair game to be covered, by any vocaloid user or utaite. As usual, copyright is out of sync with the conventions that creative people actually follow… Also: vocaloid vocals belong to the person who generated them, not Yamaha, just as with any other music synthesiser. |
||||
|
||||
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13552 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||
|
Stanford Uni. has a page called "Summaries of Fair Use Cases" where they give examples of American cases that were ruled/were not rule as fair use. It was written by Richard Stim (per Google, he was born 11/27/49), a NYC attorney who specializes in IP law.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group