Trick to posting videos on YouTube II

[Guest guest]

Dan closed out the other thread and suggested I start a new one with this helpful information.

PLEASE...if you don't like YouTube or don't like the suggestion I'm giving, keep it to yourself. There are people here who do use YouTube and appreciate the tip.

*********************

As many of you know, YouTube sometimes removes the soundtrack to copyrighted material used in videos we upload there. Well, there is a way around this.

If you raise or lower the pitch of the song 6%, their software can't find the song. It does make the song sound slightly different, but not that much. It takes a song up or down 1/2 step (like from C to C#).

I use a program called Audacity. I import the song in and choose "Change Pitch." Then just enter 6% in and let it do its magic. Then just re-export as an MP3. It doesn't change the length of the song at all.

The first two videos i uploaded this year on YouTube I didn't change. So when you watch them, the song banner comes up and I was warned that the music may be removed. The other 6 songs I changed. I got no warning and there's no banner on the videos.

#1 "We Need a Little Christmas" by Johnny Mathis

#2 "All I Want for Christmas Is You" by Mariah Carey

#3 "What Christmas Means to Me" by Jessica Simpson

#4 "Christmas Can Can" by Straight No Chaser

#5 "Carol of the Bells" by David Foster

#6 "The Christmas Blues" by Dean Martin

#7 "Blue Christmas" by Elvis Presley

#8 "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" by Judy Garland

[Guest guest]

I can't imagine what reason one could give to remove the block because it's a Christmas display video. How is that different than adding a song to any video at all? I believe technically it is a violation of copyright law to use a song on a video that you don't have permission to use from the copyright holder. YouTube has no jurisdiction over that....they can't grant that kind of permission. One would have to prove they have permission from the copyright holder in order for YouTube to remove the block.

Changing the playback speed and posting it is not legal. It's merely a way to get past their check system. That's why it's a trick. I don't advocate anyone doing this, just passing on the information for those that want it.

Your points don't upset me at all, you said nothing that was offensive. As for the other posts, I just felt as though it was a "this is idiotic, just use vimeo" type statement. He could have easily just said, "Thanks for the tip, but I've found that Vimeo isnt' having the same problems as YouTube. That's an alternate source for uploads and is located at...blah blah blah."

I'd be curious as to what this Robin message refers to. I'll try to find it.

Jeff Millard wrote:

I'm confused. Is YouTube still removing music from videos of displays? I was of the impression that they stopped for people who requested they unblock for a Christmas display video. I've had several videos up for around two years that didn't get whacked. Barbra's Jingle Bells is one, and another is TSO Sarajevo. But I didn't do anything to prevent them from being blocked, they just never did. (I wonder if the playback speed is skewed by 6% and I just don't know it)

Robin posted a message recently that had an email in it that when sent to YouTube was supposed to cause them to unblock (legally) as our displays weren't considered to be in violation of the rules.

Regardless of the outcome of the other thread, and your discussions with Dan about your technique... Is there a possibility that changing the playback speed of the song and thereby tricking the bot that searches out and blocks content is an illegal act? I'm not critisizing your idea, just trying to make sure people aren't setting themselves up, when Robin already posted a message that has proved to be successful when sent to the powers that be.

Jeff

PS Spirited discussion is how we usually come to an agreement for the best path to choose. Having alternatives gives the forum reader options. Then they can choose to follow your suggestion, or someone elses. I don't see why the other thread had to dissolve into a locked thread, due to personal attacks. But, this is January and it's an annual happening. I hope my points don't upset you, just making some observations.

[Guest guest]

Thanks...that was interesting. But I'm not sure he's entirely correct.

Jeff Millard wrote:

july1962 wrote:

I can't imagine what reason one could give to remove the block because it's a Christmas display video. How is that different than adding a song to any video at all? I believe technically it is a violation of copyright law to use a song on a video that you don't have permission to use from the copyright holder.for uploads and is located at...blah blah blah." 

I'd be curious as to what this Robin message refers to. I'll try to find it.

In this post Greg Young states the legal issues from his experience.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Look, I'm just as guilty as the rest for using copyrighted materials. I'm not saying I agree with YouTube policy or copyright law, I'm just saying people need to know the law and be aware of what they're doing. They also need to know that just because 2 or 3 people post things here saying it's ok, doesn't mean it's ok. Just because writing YouTube may have worked in some instances, doesn't mean it will automatically work in all instances. For all we know it's an automated response.

I'm just saying...be aware. I'm going to post a new topic and ask LOR what the user agreement actually states.

Jeff Millard wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to derail your second attempt at this. Just trying to clarify my points for posting the links... I wouldn't be surprised if someone else chimes in and calls me a bully for speaking my mind.

Jeff

[DanglinModifiers]

So your goal here on these forums is to convince us all that what we are doing with our displays is illegal, but then you'll show us a trick to get around it and upload our displays to YouTube?

[t.vanhouts]

Here in the Netherlands I'll know from experience that you can't put your video to youtube by asking for removing a block. for broadcasting a video with copyright material you have to pay for it.

If you think to broadcast anyway you will certainly get a very big bill.

By the way for broadcasting in the netherlands it is'nt a onetime payment but for duration of the broadcasting. This counts for Radio, television or web broadcasting.

[George Simmons]

"So your goal here on these forums is to convince us all that what we are doing with our displays is illegal, but then you'll show us a trick to get around it and upload our displays to YouTube?"


Here in Minnesota where people speak plain and mean what they say, someone like that would very likely be called a hypocrite.

If it was bank robbery and someone showed the robbers a trick to foil the security system they would most definitely be held as an accomplice.

[iresq]

I wonder if the record label's complaint is more towards distribution or performance? My guess would be that distribution is a greater concern. Just about anyone with the ability to watch a video could very easily lift the audio. It would matter not that audio is attached to a Christmas display or your kid farting bubbles in a tub.

If they are worried about distribution, a Christmas display exemption would not make much sense.

As a working DJ, I will admit that I had lifted audio off of Youtube in the past. I did this once because of a last minute request from a bride. I searched for a legal copy and could not find it. I will say that the audio was so horribly compressed, that I was most embarrassed to use it. Song lifting (and peer to peer file sharing) are big issues in the DJ community. Technically even purchased music is not legal for us to use. However the record companies have pretty much left us alone when using purchased music. They have been cases were DJ companies have been gone after for using illegal copies.

I am reasonably sure that changing pitch (which July is talking about, not changing playback speed) in an effort to circumvent copyright law and Youtube TOS, is not legal.

That being said, I do plan on re-encoding one of my audio tracks as a test. Yeah, that's it. A test.

[DanglinModifiers]

Dave,

Beyond a doubt the problem is distribution. But the fact remains IF someone is using the song legally, they can't stop them. All the take down notices are attempts to curb distribution (potential distribution, I should say) using copyright as an excuse.

As many have said, using the songs for private displays, on private property, with no attempt to profit is permitted. Thus in many cases the take down requests can be successfully appealed when that fair use is brought to their attention.

[iresq]

To modifier's point, file a dispute using the following:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Just add a request for feedback in your description.

[iresq]

pikadroo wrote:

I can't believe that a 6% pitch would stop you tube since I think more times then not someone reports the videos.
Drew

Youtube uses a program that automatically scans the music content and checks for key attributes to identify the song.

As software can easily detect music key, it is possible that a slight change to the pitch could fool it.

In fact, I will experiment now and report back (just for educational purposes mind you).

[jimswinder]

pikadroo wrote:

I can't believe that a 6% pitch would stop you tube since I think more times then not someone reports the videos.

Drew

I have had the audio portion of my videos removed before it even gets posted...way before anyone has had time to report it.

[iresq]

I tried to swap audio on Polar Express (a video that had it's audio removed). Appears that the audio swap function is not currently available. So I redid video with audio that was changed via the 6% pitch adjustment with Audacity.

Video uploaded and was available for play. So it does appear, at least with this one song, that the 6% method worked. (it changed the song key from B to C)

I have since pulled the video from Youtube as I believe that doing this to circumvent the copyright is wrong (regardless of my personal belief that this whole system is screwed up).

I will now re-upload the correct version of the song and see if I have luck protesting the removal.

[toddmoon]

Interesting discussion. Lots of potential liability if you are the unlucky victim of the music company.

I had posted two different videos of the same sequences last summer. One got the audio disabled and the other did not. The only difference was I had two seconds of dead air time on the start of the one that did not get disabled.

Go figure?

Update ----- I went to go to my youtube summer videos and both have now had the audio disabled. The two second dead air time worked for a while. I do not know when they disabled the other but both are now disabled.

I have a legal copy of the music. So go figure. Youtube is not the best place for me.

[iresq]

toddmoon wrote:

I have a legal copy of the music. So go figure. Youtube is not the best place for me.

Youtube addresses this in its TOS. This is a use issue that really has nothing to do if your copy is legal. You get into the same trouble for distributing legal or illegal copies.

[Tim Fischer]

Google (YouTube) uses a service like Shazam (it might actually be Shazam) to automatically detect music in videos. The 6% rule may "fool" the detector from snagging your video right at the upload, but if someone stumbles across the video and reports it, or if Google uses some backup keyword searches and finds it, you're still going to have your videos pulled.

Worse, by modifying the audio to upload it, it could be reasonably proven in a court that you knew that your actions were illegal and took deliberate steps to circumvent copyright protections. Unlikely perhaps, but not a risk I'd want to take.

[jimswinder]

Tim Fischer wrote:

Worse, by modifying the audio to upload it, it could be reasonably proven in a court that you knew that your actions were illegal and took deliberate steps to circumvent copyright protections. Unlikely perhaps, but not a risk I'd want to take.

Not wanting to start another copyright debate here, but aren't we all really taking a risk by using the music in our shows since there are clearly no black and white answers?

[Tim Fischer]

jimswinder wrote:

Tim Fischer wrote:

Worse, by modifying the audio to upload it, it could be reasonably proven in a court that you knew that your actions were illegal and took deliberate steps to circumvent copyright protections. Unlikely perhaps, but not a risk I'd want to take.

Not wanting to start another copyright debate here, but aren't we all really taking a risk by using the music in our shows since there are clearly no black and white answers?

Perhaps. But as you said, the shows are a gray area at best. Uploading copyrighted videos to Youtube, using 'tricks' to get around their protections to prevent this, seems a lot more black & white to me.

Like you said, this can be a heated topic and I definitely don't want to fan the flames again! I don't look down on others for using this 'trick' or anything like that -- I'm just saying it's too risky for my tastes. But then, I really don't care if my videos ever get posted or not -- I do my display for folks who see it in person

[Cajun Cheesehead]

I little history here.

Some time back, there was a post in this forum or another popular one that YouTube's software checked for matches in the first portion of the song (20 or 30 seconds). If you edited the song for length, it was possible to get past the automatic check. The person had done some experiments and had the length to be removed.

It isn't only YouTube. Some of the copywrite owners allow some degree of posting. I have had some videos posted that would have a pop-up at the beginning identifying the music with a link of where you could purchase it. But the video wasn't blocked.

[Tim Fischer]

Yeah that's the case with most music -- Google pays royalties and displays the pop-up (and sometimes other ads). But they don't have a deal with WMG, so their music is outright blocked. Since WMG is TSO's label, a lot of folks here were affected. Although more recently, I read that TSO's music will be allowed on YouTube now...