Should I be flattered, insulted, or just angry?

[lateromantic]

This afternoon I attempted to upload my performance from a 1986 recital of La Campanella to Soundcloud, and the software blocked it on the grounds that it violated a copyright by Lang Lang.  I don't recall listening to Lang Lang's recording, but from Wikipedia it appears he would have been about 4 years old at the time of my recital.  I know that he was a serious prodigy, but I'm guessing his own recording of the work must have been somewhat later than that.  So maybe I should be suing him for copying my performance?

In any case, I don't think my playing of the piece, while decent, would be mistaken for Lang Lang by any serious classical pianist.  But waiting around for Soundcloud's dispute system to run its course is a major annoyance, particularly since I have no idea how these things usually work out, or whether any knowledgeable human being ever checks these out.

Maybe I should just go back to what I was doing before, which was uploading compositions of my own works.

[mjames]

dont take it too heart

Youtube also copyrighted my Rach Prelude lol. these corporations man smh

[briansaddleback]

I could just imagine a 4-yr old toddler belting out lacampanella that is such a hilarious thought I am busting out laughing right now ! Lol. Lol lol ah man ...


A Chinese 4- yr old toddler, however?

Seriously that'll be the first image you get on google if you look up la Campanella.

[ahinton]

This sounds like nonsense to me. I'm not suggesting that what you're telling us didn't happen; I'm merely pointing out the obvious, namely that, at least in accordance with present-day rules, the only possible copyright in a piece by Liszt would be held by Liszt's heirs up to the close of 1956 and the work's publishers which have in any case been so many over the years that no one would know which edition you used without asking you. If you remain uncertain about this, just consider that, were this work under anyone's copyright and its copyright owners refused to permit performence, recordings, broadcasts, &c., we'd never hear it played by anyone. What on earth do the people at Soundcloud think that Lang Lang has to do with this? Yes, a performer has intellectual property rights in his/her own performances, but not in anyone else's!

I would submit a formal written complaint if I were you!

Best,

Alistair

[dcstudio]

YT said Moonlight Sonata contained material under copyright... 

[quantum]

Probably an algorithm that runs automatically.  

Recently put a Chopin piece on YouTube and it was auto detected as a modern copyrighted piece.  The dispute went through quickly and the claim was removed.

[ahinton]

Probably an algorithm that runs automatically.  

Recently put a Chopin piece on YouTube and it was auto detected as a modern copyrighted piece.  The dispute went through quickly and the claim was removed.

I don't doubt your word, of course, but I am surprised at this; usually, YouTube has to receive a claim from someone and then act on it rather than act on results generated by some kind of automated programme. The only thing that occurs to me is that some system error of other might have affected yours; you might do well to ask YouTube what acually happened if they've not already told you (which I presume they haven't). The only further problem here, however, is the the OP's about Soundcloud, not YouTube and if each facility has similar such system errors I'd be pretty amazed.

Whatever the cause of these issues, someone ought certainly to investigate.

Best,

Alistair

[adodd81802]

.

[dcstudio]

I'm actually surprised "trollbuster" hasn't sniffed out this one lol.

Interesting issue, i've never come across.

I love that guy    wish he would post more...

[bronnestam]

Facebook once denied me to post a video clip, shot by me, with my daughter and her friends dancing in the local dance school show ... The explanation was that it looked like I was violating some copyright law with this upload. *lol* 

[kawai_cs]

I love that guy   wish he would post more...

Me too, somehow he/she is cute and entertaining when they get angry hahaha
Sorry for off-topic

[lateromantic]

This sounds like nonsense to me. I'm not suggesting that what you're telling us didn't happen; I'm merely pointing out the obvious, namely that, at least in accordance with present-day rules, the only possible copyright in a piece by Liszt would be held by Liszt's heirs up to the close of 1956 and the work's publishers which have in any case been so many over the years that no one would know which edition you used without asking you. If you remain uncertain about this, just consider that, were this work under anyone's copyright and its copyright owners refused to permit performence, recordings, broadcasts, &c., we'd never hear it played by anyone. What on earth do the people at Soundcloud think that Lang Lang has to do with this? Yes, a performer has intellectual property rights in his/her own performances, but not in anyone else's!

I would submit a formal written complaint if I were you!

Best,

Alistair

I immediately filed my dispute of their claim, and what I said in the explanation was essentially along the lines you just said.  I pointed out that Liszt died in 1886, so his works have long been in the public domain.  Furthermore, I explained, the work was my own personal performance and had no connection with any performance by Lang Lang, who was born in 1982.

You last sentence sums it up well:  You have ownership of your own performances of a classical work, but you do not own anyone else's performances.

[lateromantic]

dont take it too heart

Youtube also copyrighted my Rach Prelude lol. these corporations man smh

How did that come out in the end?  (I'm assuming that YouTube and Soundcloud work about the same way.)

[lateromantic]

Probably an algorithm that runs automatically.  

Recently put a Chopin piece on YouTube and it was auto detected as a modern copyrighted piece.  The dispute went through quickly and the claim was removed.

It was definitely an algorithm, because it happened in just seconds.

If Soundcloud works similarly to YouTube, I can take some encouragement from your Chopin experience.

[lateromantic]

The only further problem here, however, is the the OP's about Soundcloud, not YouTube and if each facility has similar such system errors I'd be pretty amazed.

My post was about Soundcloud, but my original intent was to follow this mp3 up with a score video of the same performance on my YouTube channel, so I could conceivably run into the same problem there.  I think I'm going to hold off on that until I see how the Soundcloud issue pans out.

[dcstudio]

Me too, somehow he/she is cute and entertaining when they get angry hahaha
Sorry for off-topic

he/she sure is entertaining... but he must not know the forum that well because he missed some of the bigger trolls--like the Jeeves and his magic "Blah blah"  where the heck was the trollbuster then? LOL    oh that would have been a field day.    

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I've had this bs happen to me too it's so freaking annoying....

[ahinton]

I immediately filed my dispute of their claim, and what I said in the explanation was essentially along the lines you just said.  I pointed out that Liszt died in 1886, so his works have long been in the public domain.  Furthermore, I explained, the work was my own personal performance and had no connection with any performance by Lang Lang, who was born in 1982.

You last sentence sums it up well:  You have ownership of your own performances of a classical work, but you do not own anyone else's performances.

Thank you for this - but did YouTube provide you with a plausible explanation and an apology and, if so and if it was down to an algorithmic anomaly that was down to human design error, did they also provide assurance that the issue would be looked into and duly rectified?

Best,

Alistair

[lateromantic]

Thank you for this - but did YouTube provide you with a plausible explanation and an apology and, if so and if it was down to an algorithmic anomaly that was down to human design error, did they also provide assurance that the issue would be looked into and duly rectified?

Best,

Alistair

Remember that we're talking about Soundcloud here, not YouTube.  This just happened yesterday, and I immediately disputed the claim.  When I go back now to that page on Soundcloud, it says that the dispute is "currently under review."  From reading around, it ought to be resolved one way or the other in 2-3 days; I hope it isn't longer, because it really leaves things up in the air for me.

[ahinton]

Remember that we're talking about Soundcloud here, not YouTube.  This just happened yesterday, and I immediately disputed the claim.  When I go back now to that page on Soundcloud, it says that the dispute is "currently under review."  From reading around, it ought to be resolved one way or the other in 2-3 days; I hope it isn't longer, because it really leaves things up in the air for me.

Sorry, yes, of couse it was; however, it seems as though others are experiencing not dissimilar problems with YouTube and the possibility arises that these errors might have similar origins and causes. If Soundcloud is indeed reviewing your problem, yoiu should find out in due course what caused it, I guess but I cannot imagine that this, or the YouTube instance cited elsewhere in this thread, can have been isolated accidental incidents.

Good luck!

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

well
I have two rach videos, 1st and 2nd one (same music). Only the first one is under copyright:

Copyright details
CONTENT   CLAIMANT   POLICY   
No. 2 Lento
Music composition
0:18 - 3:48  play match
One or more music publishing rights collecting societies
Monetized by copyright owner

That's all it says. And nah I didnt file a dispute...don't really care.


Although I think its kinda messed up that these corporations wont even bother to use real people to claim copyright...smh

then again if i recall, rachmaninov only entered the public domain back in 2014?

btw Im listening to ur soundcloud
and holy crap!
You are a bad@ss!

[lateromantic]

Sorry, yes, of couse it was; however, it seems as though others are experiencing not dissimilar problems with YouTube and the possibility arises that these errors might have similar origins and causes.

I agree, that's a strong possibility.

If Soundcloud is indeed reviewing your problem, yoiu should find out in due course what caused it, I guess but I cannot imagine that this, or the YouTube instance cited elsewhere in this thread, can have been isolated accidental incidents.

You're right, I imagine it happens to other classical musicians as well.

Good luck!

I sincerely appreciate that, especially since I'm feeling so out of sorts right now.

[quantum]

did YouTube provide you with a plausible explanation and an apology and, if so and if it was down to an algorithmic anomaly that was down to human design error, did they also provide assurance that the issue would be looked into and duly rectified?

In my case, unfortunately no explanation.  The issue was resolved within a couple hours. 

As to the copyrighted piece cited in the claim, the description was strangely ambiguous.  No composer or creators name to attach to that copyright claim.  Just that it was in the key of ___ and it was copyrighted. 


From the reports on this thread, it does not look like it is an isolated incident. 

[ahinton]

In my case, unfortunately no explanation.  The issue was resolved within a couple hours. 

As to the copyrighted piece cited in the claim, the description was strangely ambiguous.  No composer or creators name to attach to that copyright claim.  Just that it was in the key of ___ and it was copyrighted. 


From the reports on this thread, it does not look like it is an isolated incident. 

No, indeed it doesn't. I'm all for due protection of intellectual property rights but this kind of action risks giving them a bad name, as it is effectively an abuse of the law. I would have thought that you'd be entitled to information as to the claimant's identity (assuming that there even was one); given that this kind of thing is presumably quite widespread, perhaps you might care to look into that, since accusations of DCMA violation are not that trivial and, when false, I'd have thought that the onus is on those who make them to provide to the accused the evidence upon which they're purportedly based.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

YT use an automated content matching algorithm to detect uploads of copyright material. Record companies have the facility to upload their recordings to the library of recordings against which the algorithm scans. It is highly imperfect and generates a large number of false positives in addition to catching genuine copyright infringement. (I doubt YT are particularly concerned about this; it presumably enables them to monetize the video and place ads on it, and I also assume it enables them to allege that they are making an effort, albeit entirely token, to stop DCMA violations.) It would not surprise me if Soundcloud has a similar algorithm and that has caused the issue. I have even had a notification for breaching copyright on one of my own recordings. I will have to sue myself.

[ahinton]

YT use an automated content matching algorithm to detect uploads of copyright material. Record companies have the facility to upload their recordings to the library of recordings against which the algorithm scans. It is highly imperfect and generates a large number of false positives in addition to catching genuine copyright infringement. (I doubt YT are particularly concerned about this; it presumably enables them to monetize the video and place ads on it, and I also assume it enables them to allege that they are making an effort, albeit entirely token, to stop DCMA violations.) It would not surprise me if Soundcloud has a similar algorithm and that has caused the issue.

Thank you for this, which confirms the worst suspicions of those interested in the matter. I do wonder, though, if YT / Soundcloud and whoever else might come to be concerned about this if they receive too many complaints from those whom it has unfairly accused of copyright breach, because handling these will be a waste of their time.

I have even had a notification for breaching copyright on one of my own recordings. I will have to sue myself.

I once had a similar issue with the score of one of my works and accordingly had to prove not only my identity but also that I had composed the piece in question! Can you imagine a similar situation occurring in the 1820s when a court requesting proof from Beethoven that he was the composer of his final five quartets sought to claim that, as they sound so different to most of the music that he was known to have composed, their authorship must be in doubt?!

Counsel for YouCloud: Herr Beethoven, you claim to have composed these five quartets, but did anyone ever see you writing them?

LvB: Well, occasionally those who visited me will have seen my work in progress on my desk.

Counsel for YouCloud: That's as maybe, but did any such people actually examine that music and are they accordingly able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had indeed written it?

LvB: You'd have to ask them, I suppose - but why else would such works in progress be on my desk if they were not mine?

Counsel for YouCloud: You might have been examining them for one of your students.

LvB: Do you think that I would teach students capable of writing like that? If I had such students, I would be learning from them, not teaching them!

Counsel for YouCloud: Very well, Herr Beethoven, but that still does not prove that you wrote them.

LvB: I can call a handwriting expert who would testify to this.

...(handwriting expert then called as expert witness and declares the scores to be in Beethoven's hand)...

Counsel for YouCloud: Ah, perhaps, (then turns to Beethoven and says) but all that your expert witness' assertion might prove is that you wrote the music down, not that you actually composed it!

LvB: Are you seriously suggesting that it is someone else's music and that I might have copied it all down from memory? For what possible reason might I have done such a thing?

Counsel for YouCloud: Remember the case of Mozart and Allegri. I am not necessarily suggesting, however, that you did such a thing; I merely observe that you could have done it and that you seem unable to prove that you did not.

LvB: But how on such a basis could anyone prove that they composed anything? The compositional processes take place in the composer's mind before as well as during the writing down process; can you see into my mind, or indeed into anyone else's, and precisely determine beyond all doubt what is going on there - every note, every rest, every harmonic progression?

Judge: I must at this stage intervene and pronounce that, whilst Herr Beethoven appears unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he composed these quartets, learned Counsel likewise cannot prove that he didn't or that someone else did, so I am accordingly obliged to rely upon the circumstantial evidence of their scores having been seen as works in progress on Herr Beethoven's desk and being written by Herr Beethoven's hand. I therefore dismiss the case against Herr Beethoven on the grounds that is both unfounded in evidential terms and vexatious in having been brought purely because the prosecution doesn't like the quartets as much as Herr Beethoven's earlier works; I order the prosecution to pay to Herr Beethoven the sum of fifty thousand crowns  in compensation for stress and inconvenience as well as reputational damage, plus all of his legal and court costs. Let anyone contemplating similar legal action in the future not only make certain of their facts first but also remember Herr Beethoven's famous retort to Ignaz Schuppanzigh's complaint that a passage that he'd written was unplayable, namely "what do I care about your puny violin when I am inspired by God Almighty?"

Counsel for YouCloud: I must protest, your honour, for you have yourself now revealed that these quartets were composed not by the defence but, by his own admission, by God Almighty!

LvB (incensed beyond measure): Go on, then; call God as your witness!

You see what I mean?...

Best,

Alistair

[lateromantic]

Still no further word on the dispute as of this morning.  Of course, it is still very early.

I wonder whether Lang Lang really intended to impose a moratorium, not only on all future recordings of La Campanella, but even of all recordings of it that were made before he became a recording artist?  Is he a man of integrity?  Would he even care?

I have been mulling this over, and my current thinking is this:  If in the end Soundcloud does not respect my ownership of my own performances, I will remove all of my music from Soundcloud.  If listeners want to hear either my own works or my performances of classical works, they can go to my YouTube channel.  My performance of La Campanella, for instance, can be made into a score video using the public-domain score, and in fact that was already in my long-range plans before this SC issue came up.

EDIT TO ADD:  BTW, although I'm not familiar with the Lang Lang recording in question, I'm sure no one with a good ear for classical music could possibly confuse my playing with his.  That could be either a bad thing or a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

[ahinton]

I wonder whether Lang Lang really intended to impose a moratorium, not only on all future recordings of La Campanella, but even of all recordings of it that were made before he became a recording artist?  Is he a man of integrity?  Would he even care?

Fine as Lang Lang is as a particulr kind of cultural ambassador, I am no apologist for his pianistic manner, but I would not think to credit him with so daft an action as trying to impose such a moratorium as you suggest, given that he is hardly so stupid as to assume that the mere fact and existence of his performance/s and recording/s of this piece confer upon his any rights in the music itself or indeed any rights at all other than in his own performances/ and recording/s; he must also be well aware that, in terms of the most commonly applied copyright term, Liszt has been in the public domain for some six decades. I therefore take leave to doubt that ths problems that you have encountered here has anything to do with action or attempted action on Lang Lang's part.

I have been mulling this over, and my current thinking is this:  If in the end Soundcloud does not respect my ownership of my own performances, I will remove all of my music from Soundcloud.

That's your prerogative, of course, but you would be wise first to ensure, as far as you're able, that Soundcloud actually advises you in writing of its belief that it has some kind of issue therewith and, if so, of what exactly it is; bear in mind that neither Soundcoud nor YouTube nor any other person or organisation is legally entitled to challenge your rights in your performances other than in cases where it believes that they are not your performances but those of someone else who has his/her rights in them - and from what I understand of the case, I don't think that this is what is happening or is likely to happen here.

If listeners want to hear either my own works or my performances of classical works, they can go to my YouTube channel.  My performance of La Campanella, for instance, can be made into a score video using the public-domain score, and in fact that was already in my long-range plans before this SC issue came up.

EDIT TO ADD:  BTW, although I'm not familiar with the Lang Lang recording in question, I'm sure no one with a good ear for classical music could possibly confuse my playing with his.  That could be either a bad thing or a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

The fact remains that, even had you sought, for whatever reason, to release on Soundcloud, YouTube or other similar facility your performance of a public domain piece that was a deliberate imitation (especially if for the purposes of making fun of it) of Lang Lang's (and of course I am not suggesting for one moment that this was the case), the performance remains yours and not his and therefore the intellectual property rights in it likewise remain yours.

I would stlil pursue this as you are doing and I'll be curious as to what Souncloud have to say about it and on what grounds it took the action that it sought to take.

Best,

Alistair

[lateromantic]

Fine as Lang Lang is as a particulr kind of cultural ambassador, I am no apologist for his pianistic manner, but I would not think to credit him with so daft an action as trying to impose such a moratorium as you suggest, given that he is hardly so stupid as to assume that the mere fact and existence of his performance/s and recording/s of this piece confer upon his any rights in the music itself or indeed any rights at all other than in his own performances/ and recording/s; he must also be well aware that, in terms of the most commonly applied copyright term, Liszt has been in the public domain for some six decades. I therefore take leave to doubt that ths problems that you have encountered here has anything to do with action or attempted action on Lang Lang's part.

Since the deletion of the track happened within seconds after I posted it, it obviously wasn't an action on Lang Lang's part.  What I was wondering was what he would think about the fact that such things were being done in his name.  My general impression of the man (leaving aside his antics at the keyboard) is favorable, and I do not think he would like it at all.  So my questions about that were somewhat rhetorical.

I would stlil pursue this as you are doing and I'll be curious as to what Souncloud have to say about it and on what grounds it took the action that it sought to take.

Of course, I'm waiting for the Soundcloud response before acting.  But it's in my nature to think ahead to what may be coming next.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I immediately filed my dispute of their claim, and what I said in the explanation was essentially along the lines you just said.  I pointed out that Liszt died in 1886, so his works have long been in the public domain.  Furthermore, I explained, the work was my own personal performance and had no connection with any performance by Lang Lang, who was born in 1982.

The situation will be that their content matching algorithm (I don't know what they use, but for YT's Content ID, see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 ; also https://www.wired.com/2012/10/youtube-copyright-algorithm/ (you may need to turn off adblocker to view this page) has deemed your performance to be a copy of Lang Lang's, thus refused it. I don't know how the matching algorithm works, but I can only assume it is very crude. It should be easy to demonstrate that your performance and his are completely separate - the best way to do this is probably by visually inspecting a waveform of each track; why their algorithm is not capable of the computational equivalent is beyond me. There will be programming methods available to assign digital fingerprints to waveforms as a function of the amplitudes and intervals between crests and troughs contained therein, but it seems their algorithm is grotesquely simplistic and cannot determine between individual performances of the same piece. I'm quite curious as to why is it Lang Lang's Campanella the match is found against, and not others which it equally well isn't! Sadly this state of affairs is likely to continue indefinitely as there is no real incentive for Soundcloud/YT etc to get it right, and there won't be until someone sues them for defamation on the grounds that they have been falsely accused of breach of copyright via a wilfully inept algorithm.

You should be warned that uploading it to YT, even as a score video, may well result in it being similarly questioned, though YT don't outright reject such videos, they tend to monetise them on behalf of the record company who own the allegedly copyright-infringed-upon material.

[visitor]

as explained above, it's just bots, they program this to assume guilt first and take immediate action then the burden of proof is on the accused. these companies have to limit liability for cr infringement suits, or their holding companies, especially if public traded stocks like for google which owns youtube. they are obligated by investors and shareholders to show they have taken more the minimal steps to reduce litigation exposure for this type of thing. it's infuriating since they end up tagging original content for cr then place ads on behalf of someone else on it and you really cannot do anything about it. as for soundcloud and similar it's hard to advertise and monetize so they take it down.

for youtube, i always got around it by confirming the project upload is for educational non commercial background use only and when needed cite creative commons rights, so long as it is not actually copyrighted material. and if it is copyrighted and flagged then i still cite that it is not monetized and for education/school purposes., i voluntarily took my channel and performances down a while back and part of it is i was tried of constantly appealing these things. but i'll get back to it once my new channel launches soon/later this year and new rep is worked up and i start recording again

[lateromantic]

The situation will be that their content matching algorithm (I don't know what they use, but for YT's Content ID, see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 ; also https://www.wired.com/2012/10/youtube-copyright-algorithm/ (you may need to turn off adblocker to view this page) has deemed your performance to be a copy of Lang Lang's, thus refused it. I don't know how the matching algorithm works, but I can only assume it is very crude. It should be easy to demonstrate that your performance and his are completely separate - the best way to do this is probably by visually inspecting a waveform of each track; why their algorithm is not capable of the computational equivalent is beyond me. There will be programming methods available to assign digital fingerprints to waveforms as a function of the amplitudes and intervals between crests and troughs contained therein, but it seems their algorithm is grotesquely simplistic and cannot determine between individual performances of the same piece.

My performance was far from perfect, and there were a few wrong notes and also some missing notes.  A precise algorithm would have to pick up on such differences.  (I'm assuming, of course, that Lang Lang's performance would be cleaner than mine, and more particularly that he doesn't happen to hit the same wrong notes and miss the same notes!)  I suppose that SC could decide to be really silly and claim that I added the mistakes in with an audio editor.  Technically, I think it wouldn't be hard to add wrong notes to a performance, but it would be very hard to create a missing note, since you would have to edit it out without affecting all the notes around it that are sounding or reverberating at the same time.  And what kind of motivation could anyone have for doing such a thing?

Also, I would assume that there must be thousands of minute differences in timing between Lang Lang's performance and my own, also differences in amplitude since everyone emphasizes notes differently.

Really, the whole thing could be resolved quickly if Soundcloud simply asked a classical pianist to listen to my track, but I suppose that's two much to ask in a world where everything is done by software.

You should be warned that uploading it to YT, even as a score video, may well result in it being similarly questioned, though YT don't outright reject such videos, they tend to monetise them on behalf of the record company who own the allegedly copyright-infringed-upon material.

Naturally, I've thought of that possibility, but I'm trying not to get paranoid here.

[lateromantic]

for youtube, i always got around it by confirming the project upload is for educational non commercial background use only

Interesting.  My uploads are indeed for educational and non-commercial use, since I haven't made a penny off of them.  How did you go about "confirming" this?

One would think, though, that the uploading of commercial say recordings, such as those of Lang Lang, wouldn't be legal without the copyright holder's permission, even if the purpose was only educational.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

My performance was far from perfect, and there were a few wrong notes and also some missing notes.  A precise algorithm would have to pick up on such differences.  (I'm assuming, of course, that Lang Lang's performance would be cleaner than mine, and more particularly that he doesn't happen to hit the same wrong notes and miss the same notes!)  I suppose that SC could decide to be really silly and claim that I added the mistakes in with an audio editor.  Technically, I think it wouldn't be hard to add wrong notes to a performance, but it would be very hard to create a missing note, since you would have to edit it out without affecting all the notes around it that are sounding or reverberating at the same time.  And what kind of motivation could anyone have for doing such a thing?

Also, I would assume that there must be thousands of minute differences in timing between Lang Lang's performance and my own, also differences in amplitude since everyone emphasizes notes differently.

Yes, I agree totally, but theory and practice aren't the same thing. I have a live recital recording of a piece which I also recorded commercialy in studio, and YT thinks the live recording is the studio recording, even though it is obvious within ten seconds they are different performances. There was also a case documented at pianoworld (which even made it into Norman Lebrecht's blog) where YT's algorithm a teenage kid's Beethoven sonata performance was in fact Barenboim. It is a state of affairs that is beyond ludicrous.

[lateromantic]

I'm delighted to announce that I just found out that the dispute has been resolved in my favor, and my performance of La Campanella has been reinstated by Soundcloud.  This has been a sleepless couple of nights for me, which is why I'm posting just after 5AM Arizona time.  But now I feel like I can return to life as normal.

I plan to create a score video of the performance, and--assuming that I don't run into a similar issue with YouTube--I'll put it on my channel and then post it to the Audition Room.  In the meanwhile, if you are curious, this is the track that was initially questioned (complete with my wrong notes, although I think I covered them reasonably well):

https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr

[ahinton]

I'm delighted to announce that I just found out that the dispute has been resolved in my favor, and my performance of La Campanella has been reinstated by Soundcloud.  This has been a sleepless couple of nights for me, which is why I'm posting just after 5AM Arizona time.  But now I feel like I can return to life as normal.

I plan to create a score video of the performance, and--assuming that I don't run into a similar issue with YouTube--I'll put it on my channel and then post it to the Audition Room.  In the meanwhile, if you are curious, this is the track that was initially questioned (complete with my wrong notes, although I think I covered them reasonably well):

https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr

So have Soundcloud offered you an explanation (and an apology)?

Best,

Alistair

[lateromantic]

So have Soundcloud offered you an explanation (and an apology)?

They offered what appears to be a canned apology--which, I suppose, is better than no apology at all.  The email read:

  Hi lateromantic,
Thank you for providing information relating to the removal of your track:

Liszt, La Campanella (No. 3 fr

https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr

Good news! We’ve reinstated this track to your account.

We're constantly working on making our copyright processes better, but mistakes do sometimes occur. Thank you for your patience as we looked into things, and apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Thanks,

The SoundCloud team

[ahinton]

They offered what appears to be a canned apology--which, I suppose, is better than no apology at all.  The email read:

  Hi lateromantic,
Thank you for providing information relating to the removal of your track:

Liszt, La Campanella (No. 3 fr

https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr

Good news! We’ve reinstated this track to your account.

We're constantly working on making our copyright processes better, but mistakes do sometimes occur. Thank you for your patience as we looked into things, and apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Thanks,

The SoundCloud team

Yes, it is indeed a canned apology but, if you have any interest in pursuing it on the grounds that this "mistake" seems almost certainly to be down to Sound loud's evidently hopeless automated process/es in the hope that the problem could achieve a general resolution in order to avoid the risk that it might otherwise continue to affect you and others in similar situations, I'd be incliuned to write back to them, point out the nature of the problem and demand an actual detailed explanation and assurance that the origin of the problem will be identified and the problem itself accordingly resolved. You'd be doing them, as well as you and anyone else similarly affected, a favour.

Best,

Alistair

[lateromantic]

Yes, it is indeed a canned apology but, if you have any interest in pursuing it on the grounds that this "mistake" seems almost certainly to be down to Sound loud's evidently hopeless automated process/es in the hope that the problem could achieve a general resolution in order to avoid the risk that it might otherwise continue to affect you and others in similar situations, I'd be incliuned to write back to them, point out the nature of the problem and demand an actual detailed explanation and assurance that the origin of the problem will be identified and the problem itself accordingly resolved. You'd be doing them, as well as you and anyone else similarly affected, a favour.

At this point, I just want to go back to what I was doing before--namely, producing more audio and video recordings and presenting my music to the general public.  I'm just relieved to find out that even though SC's automated process may be "hopeless," as you say, their subsequent review process works right, at least some of the time.  That makes it possible for me to continue with them.

I also have to acknowledge that Soundcloud and YouTube are in a tough spot, having to try to ensure that knew audios and videos do not violate existing copyrights while at the same time trying to avoid suppressing audios and videos that are legitimate and legal.  As a creator, I believe strongly in intellectual property rights, so I recognize the need to do that.  It probably makes sense for them to use automated software as an initial stage in that process.  That software is still pretty new and imperfect, but hopefully over time it will get better and better and yield fewer false positives.

I would like to thank you for your support over the traumatic last couple of days.