Isn't that protected use anyway?
1. False Positive -- Video is brought down despite it being technically legal. Creator is mad, but YouTube suffers no more liability.
2. False Negative -- Big corporate lawyers sue YouTube for hundreds of trillions of dollars for copyright infringement. Also, these corporate lawyers would very much prefer it if you didn't believe in fair use at all. They will try to convince the court that fair use isn't a thing for weird technical reasons, and they might succeed.
So naturally the system is tuned to error on the side of generating excessive false positives. Unfortunately the enforcement side doesn't seem to understand how bad the false positive problem is and hits creators with draconian punishments for errors on YouTube's part.
Remember, these are the people who sued individual Napster users for $1.9 million for sharing a single album, and won.
Solution: Create a law that makes it possible for the creator to sue YouTube for a false positive for the same sum that a media company could sue YouTube for for a false negative. This would counterbalance the scales of both types of errors.
I can understand tuning the detection algorithm but to balance the dispute process needs to take this into account. The fact that it doesn't shows where Youtube stands on the issue.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523
> A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise - indistinct electronic hissing - has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him.
If you believe in music copyrights at all, this looks like an open and shut case of infringement to me. Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music.
That said, YouTube represented this as safe to use, so it seems to me that the onus should be on them to work out a license and pay the associated costs. I'm sure Google can find enough change in their couch pillows to pay off the rightsholders.
There are some that truly don't believe that sampling copyrights should be a thing. They think it's just a way to stifle creativity. One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording it samples, and as such does not infringe on any intellectual property.
> Plus "Dreams" is a godawful piece of music
You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement. The comment was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
That's why I said "if".
> One could also argue that Dreams is so completely derivative that is bears little to no resemblance to the original recording
That's not what "derivative" means.
> You opinions on a piece have no legal bearing on what does or does not constitute copyright infringement.
Maybe not, but in light of your general point about "stifling creativity", it might be worth pointing out that this is hardly a good piece to highlight said creativity.
This is the crux of the issue... As someone who's dabbled in video creation, I have other things to do than look around for "safe" music to use. If I can't even take YouTube's own word on what music I can use, what the hell is there left?