Youtube flags video of cat purring, claiming copyright infringement of music

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

The good news is the video wasn't taken down. The bad news is the channel can't make any income from ads on that particular video unless the owner challenges and wins.

 

So you may be asking yourself, how did something this ridiculous happen? Here's a quote from the following blog post:

 

http://torrentfreak.com/youtube-flags-cat-purring-as-copyright-infringing-music-150211/

 

According to YouTube's Content-ID system both EMI Publishing and PRS own the rights to a 12 second purring loop.

 

Yep, that's right, now corporations can claim to own animal sounds too. When will the exploitation of the Youtube copyright claims system end? Does everyone need to move over to some other video hosting service for Google employees to realize this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated?

[Fureox]

IS there another video hosting service that does what Youtube does?

 

 

 

 

And does it well.

[Ori]

 

fckn h3ll m8

 

I thought the anti-copyright infringement system was berserk as it was before this, now I'm damn sure this needs to be stopped.

I sincerely do hope this was not intentionally coded into the thing.

[Dublinthefox]

As if it couldn't get any dumber than that one copyright claim they made on that one song that was nothing but 4 minutes of silence which they ended up muting. I forgot the name of what it was called but yeah, it was silence, but it wasn't the silence that was intended. 

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

IS there another video hosting service that does what Youtube does?

 

 

 

 

And does it well.

 

I would argue that Dailymotion is the best alternative, but are individual users able to make money on that site?

 

EDIT: I wonder now if maybe Google is trying to stop people from getting "easy views" by posting videos of cats...strange though that this particular example is a video that has not done so well.

[DZComposer]

It's called "The Auto-Content-ID Software Has a Bug." Really isn't surprising. I'm amazed that it actually works as well as it does despite the large number of false positives. IDing audiovisual content is one hell of a difficult programming problem.

No need to don the tinfoil hats.

[Jeroscope]

If the person in question actually cared about the video, they would challenge it and bring to court that no one can have the copyright to purring. Otherwise, they'd have to fine everyone with a cat.

 

It's like how I got flagged for using a raspberry sound at the end of one of my videos. I challenged it saying "Yeah, I recorded this myself. Bite me" and got the flag removed.

[Battlechili]

IS there another video hosting service that does what Youtube does?

 

 

 

 

And does it well.

Vimeo is pretty fantastic. HD videos run better on it too.

But its not very popular. :(

[Scourge]

Alright: everyone go grab everyone you know by the balls and tell them to only use Vimeo instead of youtube from now on.

 

This bullshit with copyright needs to fucking stop; its fucking asinine

 

 

If google keeps this up, we're all gonna storm Google HQ with a combination of farming equipment, used syringes, and catapults that launch entire dumpsters worth of used condoms with the intention of burning and destroying all of Google's servers

 

then we'll prolly just sacrifice the staff to satan or something--

 

whose with me?

[unoservix]

it was me. i did it. i copyrighted the sound of a cat's purr. you all owe me so much money and i have retained my very best counsel for this case. you're all going down.

[Drasiana]

Wow, dude, could you have been any more misleading in the OP here? Not only is the article full of facetious lines like this:

 

“Phantom is currently independent, but looking to sign on with an indie label. Phantom’s lawyer filed a complaint, looking for 10 lbs of catnip in damages,†Digihaven says.

 

...but it clearly says that the takedown was a result of the automated program somehow hearing a song called "Focus" in the cat's purr, and taking it down based on that. This isn't "corporations trying to claim they own cat noises", a robot goofed up and they've since corrected the problem.

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

Dras, come on now, I'm almost 100% sure that line you put in the quote box was meant to be a joke. I'm not sure if you're making a joke out of the joke to see if I would react....in which case I already lost the game.

 

I'll admit at the time, I really messed up and one of the final paragraphs of the blog post went way over my head...and then some.

 

"Hoping to clear his cat's name Digihaven decided to file a dispute. This was partially successful, as EMI lifted its claim shortly before publication of this article."

 

But still, it's not about the hard facts for something this trivial. The main point to take from this is that the Content ID system continues to make errors that could only be described as mind-boggling. As DZ correctly pointed out, this kind of thing is very hard to program, so errors are to be expected. I just wonder what Google considers to be an "acceptable" error rate for something like this.

[Drasiana]

Yeah, the thing being absolutely terrible at what it's doing is a problem. It's just a different problem from "corporations are trying to copyright animal sounds for some reason".

[Vy'drach]

Dras, come on now, I'm almost 100% sure that line you put in the quote box was meant to be a joke. I'm not sure if you're making a joke out of the joke to see if I would react....in which case I already lost the game.

 

 

fa·ce·tious

fəˈsēSHəs/

adjective

 

1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

 

1.  

[DZComposer]

Ok, enough of that.

[Jeroscope]

... Yeah. I'm just gonna duck out before M.A.D. occurs.

[Patch93]

Shit. I didn't realize cat purrs were copyrighted material. I guess I shouldn't have sent that video of my cat to my friend. Man, I am so gonna get busted by the cops! D8>

 

In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.