You are here

Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Advice on everything from getting your music heard to setting up a label and royalties.

Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Sun May 27, 2012 4:59 am

Intriguing... I had the following email from Google today:

Dear feline1973,

Your video "'Web' by The Rains", may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalising your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Yours sincerely,
- The YouTube Team


Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune, and IODA have submitted it to YouTube's audio fingerprinting service, and that has picked up that a (slightly mangled VHS dub of a 2 minute excerpt of it) appears in the song's promo video (which I'd put on YouTube myself).

I guess I'm mildly surprised that fingerprinting worked to the extent that their system would auto-generate that message!

Anyways, it meant I had to click on some thing on my YouTube account page and fill in a "copyright dispute" form... which included a field for free text which looks like it will be read by an actual human, not a fingerprint robot, where I explained that I am the rights holder and IODA simply have a non-exclusive license to flog the audio.

I wonder what they'll come back with? "This claim does not affect your account status." it says...
:headbang:
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby Guest » Sun May 27, 2012 6:22 am

feline1 wrote:Intriguing... I had the following email from Google today:

Dear feline1973,

Your video "'Web' by The Rains", may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalising your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Yours sincerely,
- The YouTube Team


Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune, and IODA have submitted it to YouTube's audio fingerprinting service, and that has picked up that a (slightly mangled VHS dub of a 2 minute excerpt of it) appears in the song's promo video (which I'd put on YouTube myself).

I guess I'm mildly surprised that fingerprinting worked to the extent that their system would auto-generate that message!

Anyways, it meant I had to click on some thing on my YouTube account page and fill in a "copyright dispute" form... which included a field for free text which looks like it will be read by an actual human, not a fingerprint robot, where I explained that I am the rights holder and IODA simply have a non-exclusive license to flog the audio.

I wonder what they'll come back with? "This claim does not affect your account status." it says...
:headbang:

You like your headbang icon don't you?

:headbang:
Guest

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Sun May 27, 2012 10:57 am

feline1 wrote:Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune

Ha - as you've found, this is one of the flaws in automated policing of copyright material. Sometimes the material is entirely legit.

I guess you owe yourself some money, now, or something.
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby Frisonic » Sun May 27, 2012 12:55 pm

I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed? It has simply spotted a potential conflict and flagged it up. I'm with the feline one here. Mildly impressed. It certainly flaws the argument of those who insist the internet is too big to police!
Frisonic
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Refugee currently in transition.

Still strictly project but lately on the run.


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Sun May 27, 2012 1:48 pm

Frisonic wrote:I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?

My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Sun May 27, 2012 4:52 pm

Well it was a bit odd, cos they seemed to be saying "Hey! We caught you infringing! PWNED!!" but they also said they hadn't taken it down... instead they seemed to be implying they were going to put bloody *ads* on it?!

I was invited to "dispute" the infringement, at which point I was given this hilarious multiple choice set of trick questions, with answers along the lines of "I don't think this is infringing cos that would sooooooooo unfair, dude" or "because I only used a little bit and I'm not making any money off it".
However there was one option, which was "Cos it's my bloody material in the first place, duh!"

So I ticked that, and got some stern admonition about how frivilous or fraudulent claims would result in my account being deleted. (Really, Google? But you love my data! You wouldn't delete my data, would you? :angel: )

Anyways, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

But yes, I do think this reinforces what I've been banging on about for years: it's actually ought to be TRIVIAL for PRO's to fingerprint all their repertoire and works databases, and for content suppliers and ISPs to scan their servers and identify what stuff they're holding/supplying, and for me thus to be paid money. That it doesn't happen more often just shows how utterly incompetant the RIAA and the rest are.

Which reminds me - last year, yet again, PRS & PPL announced they'd be using someone to fingerprint all their stuff ('Soundmouse' it was this time... a few years before that it was Neilson...) ..... and yet again I tried to get in touch with them, was fobbed off about how it was "only a beta at the moment" and to this day have never had any of my catalogue fingerprinted by 'em.
Ho hum.
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby KMuzzey » Sun May 27, 2012 6:43 pm

I use Tunesat to monitor my stuff turning up on TV networks in the US, UK and EU, and it's the same concept: digital fingerprinting. Within an hour of the broadcast, the use of your music turns up in your dashboard, including the network, time of day, show title, length of use, AND - this is the cool part - and actual audio recording of the use in mp3 format that you can stream or download, so you have proof. The technology is absolutely mind-bending.

Kerry
KMuzzey
Regular
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:00 am
Kerry Muzzey
www.kerrymuzzey.com

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Sun May 27, 2012 6:59 pm

If my "mind-bending" you mean "piss easy straightforward absolutely routine bog-standard stuff that any computer ought to be able to do in milliseconds", then I agree :D

But, the problem is, it's TOO easy for PRS. Oh no! They have to have people typing stuff into Excel and writing it out again on pink carbon copy forms and then putting onto the "new system" whilst Alisha in accounts faxes it over to Streatham etc etc
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby KMuzzey » Sun May 27, 2012 8:19 pm

By "mindbending" I mean that it blows my mind that it's possible at all, and that it's insanely accurate.

ASCAP & BMI have rejected the technology here in the US, which doesn't make any logical sense: it's a fantastic method of tracking. And although I knew that to some extent EU TV stations were always using music willy-nilly, I had no idea the degree to which they're doing it... and doing it without bothering to record it on a cuesheet. I've gotten a lot of "but we've never had this complaint before" from German & French networks, and my response is always, "That's because you've been getting away with it for years, and your broadcasts aren't carried in the US. But now technology lets people track their music." And for the occasional broadcaster that says "we never used your music," I do enjoy replying to them with a log of the use: date, exact time, and a nice little mp3 copy of the infringement for their listening pleasure.

PRO's should be embracing this tech, but they're not. I think they just don't want to invest the money: they seem to be perfectly comfortable with their carbon paper copies and their typewriters and their white-out.

Kerry
KMuzzey
Regular
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:00 am
Kerry Muzzey
www.kerrymuzzey.com

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Sun May 27, 2012 8:36 pm


The only thing that blows my mind is that the assclown PROs haven't all been using this technology for the last 15 years or more, and instead we still have the general dysfunctional crap that is disinterested admin clowns at either end failing to log about 80% of what's used ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH.
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Sun May 27, 2012 8:44 pm

Tunesat looks great - problem is, there's no way I could afford their rates (at least, I don't THINK I could lol - who knows, maybe my stuff is used 24-7 in Argentina or something...)

What makes me frankly ANGRY is that if things can be this watertight, then why the hell can PRS and PPL not already be using it? It would surely pay for itself in no time, as they could take a cut of the 80% increase in revenue!!

Moreover, colleagues and I have frequently been in situations where we have 100% concrete proof of usage on, say, the BBC, and tell PRS and PPL about it..... and after about a year all that's really happened is they go "oh, sorry.... Alisha was dealing with that one, she's left now. Well, we're relaunching the new system next year so this one will get processed next June, I expect" etc etc
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby johnny h » Mon May 28, 2012 9:44 am

chris... wrote:
Frisonic wrote:I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?
My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet? In the absence of complete information you always assume it's totally wrong to even attempt it...
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 10:21 am

Chris's original post took an entirely accurate inference from mine - i.e. that I was in the maw of an implacable Kafka-esque web-bot which was about to dismember me for owing myself money or summat.

All this will be solved when each human can be chipped and so the actual rights holders can receive a buzz on their beeper implant to notify them of the incident.
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby Frisonic » Mon May 28, 2012 12:58 pm

johnny h wrote:
chris... wrote:
Frisonic wrote:I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?
My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet? In the absence of complete information you always assume it's totally wrong to even attempt it...

I'm probably just as guilty of a presumption of innocence in favour of those attempting to police it. But the way the feline one put it, it sounded more to me like YouTube had spotted the potential infringement and flagged it up. Which I'd rather they did than not.
Frisonic
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Refugee currently in transition.

Still strictly project but lately on the run.


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 1:15 pm

Well I *was* (am) pleased that their fingerprinting thingie worked! It proves the point that the technology is perfectly viable. All that needs to be done is to couple the technology to an effective bureaucracy rather than a kaftka-esque mess. :angel:
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Mon May 28, 2012 1:23 pm

feline1 wrote:for content suppliers and ISPs to scan their servers and identify what stuff they're holding/supplying, and for me thus to be paid money.

It's feasible for specific hosting companies (e.g YouTube) to run fingerprinting on the content sitting on their servers.

What's not feasible is for ISPs (companies who provide people with network access e.g BT, Virgin Media) to do that with stuff in transit over the network.
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Mon May 28, 2012 1:26 pm

johnny h wrote:Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet?

You mis-understand.

I often attempt to point out the flaws in proposed plans, such that you guys might better spend your time working on plans that might have a chance of helping.

You are of course completely free to ignore me, and spend your time on plans that'll have little/zero benefit. That's your prerogative.
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 1:41 pm

chris... wrote:What's not feasible is for ISPs (companies who provide people with network access e.g BT, Virgin Media) to do that with stuff in transit over the network.


you say that EVERY TIME, and EVERY TIME I rejoinder "they can scan whatever amount of their servers/caches as they find feasible, and it will still be about 3 orders of magnitude more accurate than every current system that's in place, from the BBC and their Excel cue-sheets at the top, to pirate bay at the bottom. It is therefore eminently worth doing."

I forget what your co-rejoinder is EVERY TIME though, please remind me...?
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Mon May 28, 2012 2:21 pm

feline1 wrote: "they can scan whatever
Who's "they" ?

Hosters (e.g YouTube) - yes.

ISPs (e.g BT) - no.

BT provide a network, not "servers" or "caches".
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 2:42 pm

chris... wrote:
feline1 wrote: "they can scan whatever
Who's "they" ?

Hosters (e.g YouTube) - yes.

ISPs (e.g BT) - no.

BT provide a network, not "servers" or "caches".


whatever hardware devices would be appropriate, I care not!
I'm pretty sure there'll be some caching storage somewhere, with files in it.
Failing that, scan traffic through whatever bits (routers? switches? broombleflops?) they can manage.
Just GET ON WITH IT and stop quibbling! :protest:
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 2:43 pm

Anyways, websites ARE all hosted by ISPs of some sort or other.
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Mon May 28, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm pretty sure there'll be some caching storage somewhere, with files in it.

In the late 1990s / early 2000s, some ISPs used to run "web caches", but they never really worked, and have long been ditched.

And that was only for "web" i.e. HTTP. Other protocols (e.g BitTorrent) weren't cached.


websites ARE all hosted by ISPs

Right, so the "ISP" (or whatever you want to call them) hosting the site (e.g YouTube) can scan stuff, with whatever's technology is available.

But the companies providing network access to consumers (I'd better not call them ISPs, as it seems to confuse you, even tho' it's the normal term) can't feasibly scan stuff in transit over the network.

As an analogy, you could ask Amazon not to sell anything pornographic. That would probably be achievable. But it wouldn't make sense to ask the Royal Mail to steam open every single package they're delivering, just in case there's something rude in it.
User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Mon May 28, 2012 6:59 pm

chris... wrote:
But it wouldn't make sense to ask the Royal Mail to steam open every single package they're delivering, just in case there's something rude in it.



That's about the stupidest analogy you could possibly give! lol

(despite the fact that many totalitarian regimes DO steam open all their mail!)

The whole point being that, unlike for paper mail, it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.
And even if it was too expensive to scan all of them, even if you only scanned some ludicrously small percentage (like 0.5% or sthg), that would still be a massive improvement on the current system.

But we've had this exact same conversation about 5 times already, so bizarrely I find myself in one of those rare situations where I begin to agree with Johnny H's assertion that you seem to have a maniacal desire to stamp upon any technological progress in this area.
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby chris... » Mon May 28, 2012 8:24 pm

Please see my answer for Johnny.

Or keep dreaming.

User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2720
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby hollowsun » Mon May 28, 2012 9:32 pm

feline1 wrote:it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.
That's as maybe but if the file is ZIPped, RAR'ed, password protected, encrypted, whatever, how can this technology tell what the actual contents are?

Could be a totally legitimate ZIPped item of sound library from my site or the latest movie blockbuster someone's just ripped ... or your entire back catalogue!

I don't suppose Chris is any more against anti-piracy measures than he is against anti-shoplifting measures but at the same time, I think he realises that it's simply not practical for every citizen in the street to be stopped and have their shopping and handbags searched on the off chance they just might have shoplifted something.
User avatar
hollowsun
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 am

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby johnny h » Tue May 29, 2012 1:08 am

chris... wrote:
johnny h wrote:Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet?
You mis-understand.

I often attempt to point out the flaws in proposed plans, such that you guys might better spend your time working on plans that might have a chance of helping.

You are of course completely free to ignore me, and spend your time on plans that'll have little/zero benefit. That's your prerogative.

It's not my plan, Chris. I'm actually not working on any sort of anti piracy internet strategy. But let's examine your post again.



Ha - as you've found, this is one of the flaws in automated policing of copyright material. Sometimes the material is entirely legit.

I guess you owe yourself some money, now, or something.
Basically total glee that an anti piracy measure had failed in some way. I find it really odd that you behave this way every time the subject comes up. Do you have some ideological objection to control over the Internet? Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:17 am

hollowsun wrote:
feline1 wrote:it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.
That's as maybe but if the file is ZIPped, RAR'ed, password protected, encrypted, whatever, how can this technology tell what the actual contents are?

Come on, do you really think the few hundred milliseconds it might take a computer to unzip or un-RAR an archive and scan it are really that onerous compared to the 4 months it might take Cameron at the BBC to manually type all the ever-so-slightly-wrongly-named tracks up into a Cue-sheet in Excel and email them to PRS who then have to send it to Alisha in accounts who's going to put it onto 'the new system' but that's not ready yet so in the meantime she's writing it out in Word and then printing two copies for the Claims Team but they have to scan them first so........ ETC ETC ETC

Also, why would people be password protecting and encrypting music files if it wasn't illegal to share them? (just the way it's not illegal to listen to radio).
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:19 am

johnny h wrote: Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

Well, Pete Townshend seemed to manage to find them.... I guess this means he also has the brains to solve music piracy too, eh? :angel:
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby johnny h » Tue May 29, 2012 8:45 am

feline1 wrote:
johnny h wrote: Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

Well, Pete Townshend seemed to manage to find them.... I guess this means he also has the brains to solve music piracy too, eh? :angel:

He was caught though...

I'm not saying its possible to stop piracy on the Internet. However, I do think it's possible to make it more difficult than it is right now. It's absurd that it's easier to pirate a song than buy it.
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Wow, YouTube's audio fingerprinting does actually work then.

Postby feline1 » Tue May 29, 2012 9:00 am

is it easier to pirate than buy? I guess it's what you're used to!

I would like to buy, for example, the 5.1 DVD-A of "Fragile" by Yes. But if I look on Amazon, it's out-of-print and going second-hand for silly money.

So I confess, yes, I googled to see if I could download it for free from a torrent site. But I just get to these dodgy-as-hell-spamtastic-sites that I don't really want to click on cos they make you donwload all these exe files and gubbins and really it would be easier to just mug people on the street and use the money I steal from them to buy the expensive version on Amazon. FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS, MUCH?
User avatar
feline1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~


Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests