- I'm no lawyer, but the advice we've received is that we're good on the legal side.
- You're on the money re: audio. It's miles better than it was 1 month ago, but we're still not 100% yet.
- There is a human curation step (~5% of the process), but that is mostly for removing really crappy videos. Searching/Synching/Sequencing is automatic.
- I dunno about next step(!), but i agree the idea is super interesting :)
This may be more legally grey than just piping through audio since you are actually producing a derivative work (even if it is mechanically produced), but the net effect would be awesome. You'd end up with better audio than any one person could record, and the more angles you get the higher quality you can make the audio.
Definitely a great idea and very well done for the first cut. You just need some Wilco on there.
The only bootleg audio that usually sounds decent are soundboard recordings, and when you find audience tapes spliced in with them the difference is immediately noticable.
Actually, I'd be tempted to make the process 100% automated, and open it up to the general public as soon as possible.
This has the potential to go extremely viral, and occasional "bad" videos could work in favour of this, by introducing an element of humour into the proceedings.
I can't see how this is possibly "fair use" - it's the complete work of music and the visual design of the set, choreography and show that is being reproduced in full in a commercial way. Unless the uploaders bought a license with their ticket to reproduce and distribute online and allow derivative works of those reproductions ...
Would be fascinated to read the letter from your IP lawyer justifying this?
What is the problem exactly?
This is largely irrelevant to the question of infringement and puts the onus on the owner to spot those infringing. Just because there's a ready way in which you can complain doesn't mean that the unlawful activity is somehow made lawful.
Note I'm making no comment here wrt the soundness or morality of said law.