In practice, laws surrounding copyright and even outright plagiarism mostly serve the party with the most lawyers, and this has been the case for some time.

This is fraud, plain and simple. It baffles me how nobody is calling it what it is, and use funny words like trolling. Trolls don't actively defraud other people of their rightful income from copyrighted works.

I read that's the position some courts have already taken, as they should.

Copyright can only be applied to a creative work, and that can only be created by a human being.

You can’t prove a negative.

That's only half a solution, the artist still gets fucked

i mean the courts have already decided that, but it would be nice for the legislature to agree

We do, AI companies just don't respect it.

Beware: AI companies really want to sell a terrible solution to the problem they created.

Didn't Denmark do something along those lines recently?

Lets not throw out freedom of panorama because of AI.

Wouldn’t be the first one to post the content bias, the algorithm in your favor?

Same scam as before, just made a lot easier by AI bullshit unfortunately.

I remember I like 2007 YouTube removed one of my videos I made of a glitch in runescape because some else also posted a video and they copyright struke my videoto remove it. I made the video, with my character, just showing the same glitch. There were zero resources to fight it.

I think the most important question is: do they have an address? A flammable one?

I think YouTube has a lot of room for improvement but why are people still so ignorant about the DMCA and the obligations of platforms to maintain safe-harbour status? YouTube must take down content on claim or open itself up to being legally liable for all user generated content. This Tom Scott video is still relevant https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

No true scammer.

Seriously it seems like the real winners with our current landscape are the lawyers.

On what grounds? Google's terms of service say they can take down anything they want for any reason. If someone starts a copyright case you can go go court, but all this is carefully/legally designed such that there is no downsides to "mistakes"

An AI can never be held accountable, therefore an AI must never always make a management decision.

The system is working as intended

I mean, the concept of a corporation was created as a consequence dodge to begin with…

no worries, I didn't sign any of those contracts and loans. ai did. get AI to pay it back

Legislation that requires giant trillion dollar companies actually employ living breathing humans who can perform a task rather than automate it despite that not working and then just not caring.

They do. If you or I submit a claim it will go through the process. They have an automated process for the "big boys" that is not the legal copyright process, but it is faster and cheaper for both - it looks like the process, but it isn't.

There’s an easy solution to this:

Legislation

Legislation. A famously easy to advance and trivial to enforce solution to any social problem

Sure, that would work, but what are the odds we can get the government to do that? It is zero.

We could do it ourselves by leaving these platforms and making our own. Is that not what what we were trying to do on the fediverse here? Why don't we get off of our asses, myself included, and make something better? Open source.

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

Yes, but this is like the kid that already had 4 different gaming consoles getting another one. It's not like they are short on tools.

You mean Metallicock?

It is a business model: patent trolls'.

Filing lots of legal cases for harassment is an established tactic (see SLAPP).

Using copyright claims to fleece people is also an established method, or rather several methods. People make fraudulent claims eg on youtube to get the ad money. Or they go a legal route and put a lot of copyrighted material out there, and sue anyone they can ("copyright trolls").

It would rarely work against the likes of Paramount. Such companies have big bureaucracies to clear the rights. And legal departments to fight in court. Usually, this is about fleecing small companies or individuals, for whom it is cheaper to pay you off, than to go to court.

Anyway, mind that the OP contains legal disinformation. Better get your info from somewhere else.

Copyright claims are under penalty of perjury - you can go to prison for making them in bad faith.

What Patamount/CBS/etc are doing is not a copyright claim, it is a backdoor google has given them - but not you - that lets them bypass the legal process and get things taken down - but if they are wrong there is no legal issue for them. From the outside it looks exactly like a copyright claim, and in spirit it is - by legally it is not a copyright claim in important ways.

Copyright strikes don't need to actually be relevant, or real. That's kind of the problem with the system. They're used for intimidation and screwing over others, not to actually protect copyright.

Well supposedly the AI company is the one who has made the copyright strike against the artist - so the copy or style thing doesnt entirely matter - they've stopped her income and are trying to take it for themselves. (I'm also a tad suspicious of the story btw)

According to sources, the scheme worked like this: someone fed YouTube videos of Campbell performing to an AI engine, which then replicated her voice and instrumental style. That fabricated music was then distributed across platforms using a company called Vydia.

Vydia then proceeded to file copyright claims against the original source videos on Campbell’s own YouTube channel, the same videos that had been used to teach the AI to sound like her in the first place.

Because YouTube’s copyright claim system operates without individual human review of each dispute, Campbell’s channel was effectively handed over to Vydia’s financial control. “I am no longer making money on YouTube,” she said. “Vydia is making money on YouTube off of my own videos of me playing my own banjo in my own backyard with traditional folk songs, some for my own family, over AI-generated music.”

What was made up ?

Someone uploaded a Datsun B210 commercial to YT, and was contacted by a person demanding $15000 for the video as they had "claimed" copyright on material "that Nissan had released into the public domain".

• you can't claim copyright on public domain material.
• Nissan never released the copyright.

Nevertheless, YT blocked the video for "copyright violation".