Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician
from the not-cool dept
We've talked in the past about how YouTube's ContentID system fails at fair use and the public domain -- whereby it is unable to distinguish public domain material. That has resulted in ridiculous situations, often where large companies with huge catalogs end up shutting down perfectly legal content. Sometimes it's crazy stuff like taking down a video because of birds chirping in the background, but other times it can result in public domain music being pulled down.Musician Dave Colvin appears to be dealing with the latter, as he noted in a frustrated Facebook post about how the publishing arms of the major labels keep claiming copyright on public domain cover songs that he's been recording and posting to YouTube. The end result is that, even though all of these claims are bogus, YouTube is threatening to take away his ability to monetize his account, and have already disabled it on a public domain song.
I am fed up with YouTube. Several times I have provided evidence that my video "O Little Town of Bethlehem" is a Public Domain song and each time I get an email saying the song is owned by either Warner Chappell or UMPG or Sony. Now they have disabled my being able to earn any money for the number of times the video is viewed. We are only talking about pennies but no one "owns" a Public Domain song.(And just to cut this argument off before it even begins: you can absolutely make money from public domain material, you just can't stop others from doing the same thing). Again, this isn't the first time we've seen this kind of thing, and it's a situation that YouTube really needs to figure out a solution to.
They now have threatened to totally disable my account from monetizing any of my videos because of multiple "false" claims of ownership. Since there is no way to speak to a human being directly, there will never be a way to convince them of the error of their ways....Fed up!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyfraud, dave colvin, monetization, music, public domain
Companies: google, sony music, universal music, warner chappell
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The unfortunate thing is that when one of these big companies sues the courts usually let them off with an "I'm sorry" and not even a promise to take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Perhaps the solution is to wait until a company does it 31 times and then sue them for $675,000.
YouTube has a graduated response program for people who are accused of violations. They should also have a graduated response program on ContentID users to limit their ability to file claims if they issue too many bogus takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Youtube is not to blame, it's our broken legal system that's to blame. The problem is Youtube has to deal with a one sided penalty structure. It's very easy for Youtube to lose an infringement case and they can easily lose a ton of money. It's much more difficult for a public domain theft to lose a case and the penalties, if any, are very minimal. Don't blame Youtube, blame the publishing arms, the record labels, the MPAA/RIAA, those that bribed our politicians to create such a broken legal system, the politicians, and the legal system. It's not Youtube's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At a minimal you should be able to get Warner and others on liable-
For liable you must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message (Yes- copythief message); that the material was published (Yes on Youtube), meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff (Yes- anyone with a dead link or copythief message box on Youtube); that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material (Make sure your name is clear on the Youtube account); and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication (Yes-Disabling service that provides payment).
Sue for damages on broadcasting and retransmission and not for damage on advertising. 250k per violation of retramsimission rights per xmany users...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But, you can just sue" is truely one of the worst evasions in the world and it ignores reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was my gut reaction, too. But suing usually only works for the ultra-wealthy that bribe the politicians and every other greedy and/or dumb sob-on-the-take that they can find.
Somehow, I doubt he owns enough corrupt people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The penalty for public domain theft should be much greater than the penalty for infringement. Those claiming copy protections over something are in a better position to know if they have IP privileges over that which they claim than a third party like Youtube so the burden should be on them and the penalty for false takedown requests should far exceed the penalty for infringement. Unfortunately, those that are filing false takedown requests are the ones who have bought our politicians and our laws through revolving door favors and campaign contributions. This is what we should be angry about, at least until the law changes and becomes more reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You've got to start somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians fall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politicians fall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he didn't, I don't think he has room to complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"When you submit a dispute for a Content ID removal, the copyright owner has three options: (1) let it slide, leaving your video up; (2) sue you; or (3) send a DMCA takedown notice. For copyright owners who object to your video, and want to keep it down, the third path is generally the easiest. By sending a formal DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, the copyright owner can get your video removed again almost immediately, at which point you'll need to decide whether to counter-notice (see below). The takedown notice will also count as a "strike" on your account — after three strikes, YouTube will cancel all of your YouTube accounts and remove all of your videos. This probably explains why DMCA takedown notices are much more common on YouTube than lawsuits against uploaders — they are cheaper and faster for the copyright owner."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So your account will be stricken once you've got three DMCA notices regardless of whether your counterclaim was ultimately successful? That's how the text reads. Is that what Google does in practice?
If so, then how is it that any of the YouTube critics can argue with a straight face that Google doesn't deal adequately with copyright claims? That policy seems unbelievably draconian to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not correct. But good alarmism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you know that this will not happen, do you mind citing how you know this? No, "I'm not reading it that way" doesn't count. If you have such citations freely and easily available, I suggest that you replace personal attacks with politely cited evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just checked over all of YouTube's explanations of the process and found lots of wording to the effect of "three strikes and your out", and repeated definition of a "strike" meaning "content removed due to a DMCA claim". There is no clear answer to my question that I can find, though.
The generous interpretation is that if the counterclaim is successful, the video is restored, and therefore according to the Google's official language would no longer be defined as a "strike" -- but that's just an interpretation, not Google's officially stated stance.
Another reasonable interpretation is that the "strike" counter increments when the video is taken down and isn't decremented for 6 months (strikes expire after 6 months).
Does anybody know what the actual policy is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've noticed this type of practice from Google since they bought out Motorola Mobility.
"If so, then how is it that any of the YouTube critics can argue with a straight face that Google doesn't deal adequately with copyright claims? That policy seems unbelievably draconian to me."
I second that notion :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He says in the post that he responded each time, so I think the answer is that yes, he did, and it doesn't matter because they keep coming back and claiming it again.
Will you admit that, if that is the case, that he's got a legitimate complaint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/22533320172/major-labels-claim-copyright-over-publi c-domain-songs-youtube-punishes-musician.shtml#c142
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no possible legitimate copyright claim against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did you sight it? Perhaps if you cite what you sighted by providing a link, I can sight it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NOT COPYRIGHTED.
How is this not comprehensible? Are we speaking Wingdings, with a dash of Verdana Gothic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/22533320172/major-labels-claim-copyright-over-publi c-domain-songs-youtube-punishes-musician.shtml#c142
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, and risk all those mafiaa bribes, er "political donations" in a US election year? Not bloody likely.
Google/Youtube needs US president "insert figurehead name here" of the week to protect their racket and they know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also time to step up the Boycott of RIAA,MPAA, ETC Material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bad trolling and terrible astro-turfing.
We all know that youtube created the horribly-flawed content-ID system to avoid having to properly deal with DMCA claims.
The DMCA is indeed the root of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Running up the legal bills so even if they are wrong they still win by crushing the other guy.
Viacom vs Google seems like just a warning shot in these terms, and at the peak of their power MegaUpload, DaJaz1, and a host of other sites facing legal issues at someones direction ignoring actual law.
No one wins in Cartels vs Google, but it can make users lives even worse than the shit systems in place now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you imagine how they are going to handle their lawsuit against Apple through Motorola Mobility?
In my humble opinion though, Google lstarted loosing its integrity the moment it bought out Motorola Mobility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They're a private entity, so you can't make first amendment arguments.
It's unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don't sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn't_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And be hit with billion dollar nuisance lawsuits from every major label and studio until the legal costs destroy your business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
ContentID does not rely on DCMA takedown rules. All you have to do is send a request in, the video gets pulled, and then the user is notified. All without a court order which is a specific clause to in the DCMA.
In other words, it skips the DCMA for the takedown of a video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groan! Not just at you, but all the ill-informed Johnny Come Latelys in this thread.
That sentence is correct. Now everyone use your brains for a minute and don't just knee-jerk, like so many of you did.
Once again (and I'll type slowly this time) Google developed its so-called Content-ID to avoid having to deal with the DMCA.
Content-ID wouldn't even exist if the DMCA hadn't existed. So, contrary to all the Johnny Come Lately "history-lite" b.s. in all the posts (history did not start the day any one of you became self-aware), the DMCA is ROOT CAUSE and the real problem.
After all, (the sane and sober among) you don't swerve to avoid a non-existant road-hazard. And Content-ID would not exist were it not for the DMCA.
I don't give a bleep-bleep bleep what f*** was used in this particular case, the DMCA is the real problem.
The DMCA was a miserable, horribly-thought out, failed attempt that needs badly to be repealed, re-thought and replaced. Ditto for GooTube's DMCA avoidance system (aka Content-ID).
End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are illegally taking down videos without due process with ContentID. The claims are not taken to a judge for approval which means it ignores the DCMA provisions to a court order. They cannot just take any video down without first letting the user complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
I see a few heads scratching and I want to clear up what I said:
Since the sheet music is public domain, you can arrange it to your liking till your heart's content.
This made it possible for this infamous version of Beethoven's 5th to be made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ouMaLRth-s
When this version came out, it was subject to copyright.
It was at one point copyright material that made money.
It is still subject to copyright now but only of terms of giving credit to the artist who made the arrangement...it is free to use under public domain as long as credit is given where it is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
I see a few heads scratching and I want to clear up what I said:"
Possibly because you made 2 completely separate points and pretended they were the same?
Different arrangements/recordings may have different copyrights attached. That's not in question. If it is indeed the arrangement rather than the song that's triggering the complaints, this clearly needs to be discussed with the musician in question. The musician is clearly making his own recording of a public domain work - he needs to be notified that the arrangement is the issue if you are correct here, as that's the only way this will be cleared up.
If nothing else, this just shows how blunt and unworkable the current system really is. You have a musician who's distributing what he believes to be a legitimate and legal recording, and a corporation that seems to believe these takedowns are correct. They need a way to discuss this, and ensure that information gets out that this arrangement is actually copyrighted despite the song being public domain, or for the corporation to stop attacking innocent musicians. Sadly, of course, the corporation have insisted that a 3rd party with no knowledge of the reasons for the takedown act as copyright police, and just accept their automated notices as fact. If the corporations were using systems with human interaction and accepting challenges themselves, such issues would easily be cleared up. Not so when you have an automated system taking down content based on flags from (presumably) another automated system.
But, your first point has nothing to do with any of this. Yes, it's possible to make money off public domain material - with the same arrangement as the one that's in the public domain. All it means is that the original copyright holder is no longer the only person who can do this. If you think that rearranging the original in order to get a new copyright is the only way to make money, you're really missing the point, and a number of facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
True, if the arrangement is substantially different (called "Original work of authorship" by the US Copyright Office.) It is still a derivative work, so you can't copyright someone-elses' work that is still under copyright. According to Circular 14: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and formatting are not copyrightable."
But while you own the copyright on the new work, you can not legally prevent someone else from accessing the original work, at least not unless you are Disney.
:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
Precisely :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only Slightly Relevant
Please pardon my impatience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only Slightly Relevant
Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only Slightly Relevant
I cannot express how much I like that!
Liquor, maritime, technology - it's like modern Hemingway or something. wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Second Thought
A couple of days after reading about the RIAA having its budget cut, I left a comment on this story, which was the genesis for the following:
An Alternative (Recent) History of the RIAA
1999: Realizing the inevitable, the RIAA convinces member labels to set up all-you-can eat buffets. All music available as DRM-free downloads, $5/mo. 100M of storage, additional available for increased monthly fee. The RIAA uses superior marketing muscle to "drown out" competing "free" alternatives, insists people should only download from "legitimate" sources to ensure data integrity and security. It recommends the gradual reduction in the production, marketing, storage and sales of CDs, vinyl and tape, keeping only a small reserve capacity*.
2000: RIAA negotiates a small increase in financial support from labels' substantial savings from physical media reductions to create the Online Strategy Group (OSG), hiring engineers, programmers, technologists, musicologists and a futurist or two and forms FoM, Future of Music, Incorporated to handle subscriptions.
2001: On OSG advice, the RIAA convinces member labels to cross-offer artists by genre in online sites with fun names like, "soultology.com", "hitsnmisses.com", "netrockstar.com", "eargasm.com", etc. Marginally increased monthly fee ($1 more each) gets access to all sites and membership in forums, discounts on t-shirts, tickets, posters, etc. FoM takes over all profit-making ventures. FoM buys Creative and with the help from the OSG brain-trust, designs and sells a fantastically popular line of MP3 players.
2002: Capitalizing on the psychology of "sharers", OSG introduces memberships that encourage people to find and upload obscure and out-of-print audio. Uploaders compete for discounted memberships, back-stage passes, artist access and the most important prizes, minor fame, street-cred and a custom avatar. The RIAA creates work-arounds for copyright issues removing limits on fan's abilities to upload, modify and share work.
2003 - 2005: Recognizing the growth of social media, the OSG introduces groups and messaging. Higher-access users get expanded pages on OSG sites and are encouraged to rate and critique music. OSG makes available interaction with music journalists, holds contests for album & t-shirt art, gives prizes for mashups with highest votes by the communities. The OSG makes "Locker" space available, 1G free, $1/mo for each additional gigabyte. OSG introduces "Rip Me" - user puts a factory CD in the computer drive tray, and is given the option to rip/upload tracks or have recording company copies put in his/her locker. (Subsequent attempts to upload the same CD from another computer is allowed with a minimum new subscription)
2006 - 2010: FoM buys Pandora, iTunes, YouTube, RIM, Turntable.fm, Facebook and controlling interest in Sirius. OSG helps FoM branch the Blackberry, creating the "Rockberry", a consumer-oriented "mobile media sharing device". OSG solicits auditions from all musicians everywhere, showcases the best on YouTube. FoM makes record profits from tours, downloads, streams, hardware, music licensing and merchandise. Cary Sherman becomes fifth richest man in the US.
2011: *FoM introduces choice "retro" vinyl, CD and tape catalogue for hipsters worldwide. OSG and RIAA move into "palatial" FoM office campus in Los Angeles, work begins on 30-story FoM tower in Manhattan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google may have damn good software, but they're absolute shit when it comes to customer support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Gootube is scared silly of breaking US "laws", no matter how stupid those laws are and no matter what corrupt entity paid for those "laws".
As long as those asinine "laws" stand, nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"tinker's dam"
(tinker being an itinerant metal smith who went house-to-house to repair pots/pans; the 'dam' was a method of keeping solder in an area being repaired; the dam commonly of clay, i believe: thus 'not worth a tinker's dam' meaning a used bit of clay that was scraped off after the soldering was done, ie worthless)
/pedant off/
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems that this is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarcmarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ohh...right...the shaming that you and you alone brought, the shaming that you shouted from the rooftops, only for no-one to believe a word you said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
... and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This outting of Masnick by Google is so epic, it will shame generations of Masnicks to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "outing" in which they revealed information that was already revealed, and which made it clear that I didn't do any shilling for Google?
Yeah. Gee, that was so shameful.*
* And, since you seem to be "unable" to understand what "quotes" mean around "words" the sentence above is called "sarcasm" meaning that when I said "shameful" I was making a joke in that it was not, actually shameful. Just like when I said "shill" list it was a joke, in that it didn't actually name any shills. But you knew that.
In the meantime, in the interest of transparency, care to reveal who funds the organization you work for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of -- and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.
Odd, this sounds like a snivel, not a joke. Plus just about every bonafide news organization in the world is also calling it a "shill" list.... and they're not joking...either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the media all used "shill list" as short hand for the list, but also pretty much all of them admitted that there was no "there" there in Google's list.
Finally, for all your claims of an "epic outing," everything Google said about me in their filing was already very, very public, so there was nothing to "out." Also, none of it involved even the slightest bit of paying us to write about anything on the blog.
But you knew that. It's just that your pretty spectacular flop in "guaranteeing" SOPA has you so angry at anyone who helped stop it, that you will stop at no lie to smear us.
And I notice the conspicuous lack of an answer about who funds your salary. :) Of course, of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is universally referred to as a 'shill' list. And while you may not consider yourself a shill, apparently Google does and chose you among many to put on that list. Despite your claims of a tenuous connection.
But you knew that. It's just that your pretty spectacular flop in "guaranteeing" SOPA has you so angry at anyone who helped stop it, that you will stop at no lie to smear us.
As disappointing as the SOPA outcome was, the industry is in a better place today by virtue of the outgrowth of industry agreements. Six strikes, Google demotions, ad network and payment processor cut offs all exist outside of the legal structure. I was actually pretty impressed by SOPA's undoing; and harbor no grudge against those who orchestrated it- nor the guy carrying their briefcases and fetching their coffee. Shill on, brother!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you still can't read? Telling.
If you look at the details of the list, Google was pretty clear in pointing out that no one on the list was a shill, and most of the press reports were clearly more intelligent than you and also pointed out the lack of anything shill worthy.
In the meantime, I note a second time that you've ignored the question. Who funds your salary? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The August 7 order was not limited to authors “paid . . . to report or comment” or to “quid pro quo” situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whose statements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money from Google or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant. Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the blogger’s reports on issues in the civil action.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1306195/Google_v_Oracle_Disclosure_Order.pdf
Though you may not realize what potentially constitutes a shill, the Court does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do tell. :)
And, no, you are (either purposely or stupidly) misinterpreting the court's statements and the filings here, but, then again, given your unwillingness to answer the question, we can guess why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't criticize Google just for the sake of criticizing them just so that you can tell the shills "see, I'm not shilling for Google, I'm willing to criticize them". If you have a valid criticism then express it. Otherwise, address your blame accordingly. The blame here lies squarely on our legal system and on the major labels, not on Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement shows that the NFL should take their players head injuries very seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(heres a hint: i didnt)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmmm... I must have missed that. Any chance of a link? I'll even give you the benefit of a doubt and pretend that it's not just a link to either your own anonymous rantings or the "Mike had something at Google's campus that one time so he's paid to say good things about them till doomsday" crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would think google or this guy has pretty good ground to claim harassment.
Being Automatic isn't an excuse either, if I get phone calls all night from an 'automatic' system, the responsible party is not relieved of any responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem: Google won't screen DMCA and ContentID requests.
Solution: Google won't screen DMCA and ContentID requests.
Do you see the opportunity there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem
Solution: ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public domain stuff can be cpoyrighted/trademarked, etc... disney will explain it to you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Public domain stuff can be trademarked but only the interpretation of said stuff. You cannot prevent others from doing so.
Also, "right" to use someone else's platform to make money? Seriously? I think you'd better tell the RIAA/MPAA that then. Unless they produce their own filmstrips, CDs and other raw materials, they're all in violation. But you wouldn't dare claim that, would you, you industry douchenozzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, YouTube "needs to figure out a solution"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a solution that our broken, corporate bought, legal system needs to figure out a solution to. Our broken legal system encourages this sort of behavior because Youtube faces all the liability if they don't take down infringing content but IP extremists face virtually no liability if they falsely claim public domain works. Our one sided penalty structure needs to change, for every false infringement takedown the penalty should be at least thrice the penalty for infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Providing a quick and easy DMCA mechanism for "rights holders" is one thing, going beyond that to create an automated system so "rights holders" don't even have to do the hard work of actually identifying copyright infringement is way out of line.
My guess is they have this content ID alert setup to go to some generic corporate inbox and the secretary sitting on it is told simply "when you get one of these emails, just click the DMCA button and that's it".
Send Google and these twats a message. Stop using YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want Google to make it better... point out that the "King" of search uses a crappy search to make these matches. If they can't figure out how to tell a bird song from someone singing how can they serve you what you want when you search.
ContentID and secret agreements allowing cartels to takedown content no questions asked really need to be investigated. It looks like several corporations forcing another one to do things to circumvent the law. Maybe it is time to stop giving the cartels everything they demand and force them to do better.
Step 1 is automatic fines for every bogus DMCA notice, paid to the target and the host for wasting their time. I'm sure people would then not have to worry about losing their YT accounts after 3 strikes, because Google would be getting paid for the "inconvenience" of dealing with it.
Thousands of bogus DMCA takedowns are filed everyday simply because the law seems to think the cartels are always right.
I think its time to remind them they can buy laws but they are not above them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I just wanted to give you an example since I was just looking. Robert Browning wrote a poem called Pippa Passes, which most of the people wouldn't remember since, well, it's public domain, but the relevance is still around today. I came about this because I was watching デュラララ!! (Durarara!!), which in turn referenced 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Looking for the quote like an おたく (anime fan) like I am, I stumbled upon the quote, "God’s in His heaven—All’s right with the world!". Of course any anime fan would recognize this, but the original is rather opaque for the general viewer. Now I would think that this poem would be readily available as an audiobook, since not only is this a classic, but also referenced in a cult classic and referenced in a recent popular anime, this would be up for sale almost anywhere. So looking around, the only thing I could find was a Librivox recording, and thank God that someone actually cares enough about the spoken word to keep poetry alive. I would have gladly paid for this piece especially a professionally read poetic drama, much like the BBC does, but it's sadly a lost art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There should be a better feedback loop
That being said, there should be ways to correct errors like this. No, these companies shouldn't be able to take down public domain songs. What likely happened is that they claimed copyright on versions of public domain songs their companies recorded and ContentID didn't know the difference. Every label that has recorded a copy of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem" has probably submitted its recorded version to YouTube, so there are multiple copyright claimants for the same song. Each recorded version has its own copyright, but the song itself shouldn't be under copyright.
There should be a way to tweak YouTube each time copyright is falsely claimed. And I am sure there are ways to enter false claims like this into the ContentID database so that after it happens once, it doesn't trigger any more of them. But maybe Google isn't in any hurry to do that, or maybe it has been done, but the musicians getting caught in the system haven't been told that. I don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuit?
I mean, in normal world when someone steals my car, I find a similar one and take owner to the court only to find out the car isn't the right one, I'm the one in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had an interesting conversation with music bed recently who match up independent artists with music for indie video production.
They admitted their customers get trolled, which also removes the incentive for legitimate licensing. After all, why pay $15 for a decent sound track to your indie video if you are going get screwed anyway when you put it online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you can absolutely make money from public domain material, you just can't stop others from doing the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and Loss of Humanity
I did - it asked questions like "Have you been doing anything that violates the terms of your user agreement?" and such. I replied that I had no idea, could they give me an idea of they think has been wrong?
Never got an answer, and was summarily dumped from the program. There is no recourse, no appeal, and no getting back in without creating a new persona.
Granted, I'd only made $10 over 10 years, but it IS aggravating to be accused and never facing your accuser.
So I'm not using Bing when searching!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The workaround
"Brian Hazard said...
It's annoying, but you can dispute the claim right inside your YouTube video manager. I deal with this on an almost daily basis, and the claims are always released."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The workaround
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mine got taken away for public domain movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me Too
I have uploaded the film "The Battle of Russia:, after which I received several content notices.
This film was produced by the US Department of War and is in the Public Domain.
Sometimes music can have special exceptions....
However, a visual portion of the upload has been tracked and claimed by an extremely large network, which produces Primetime TV. They're worth billions. The largest in Europe.
What am I supposed to do about that? What are my liabilities if I dispute the claims? This is clearly not fair.
They don't own content produced by the US War Department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the right society claiming ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]