YouTube's Merry Christmas: Letting Large Music Publishers Steal Money From Guy Singing Public Domain Christmas Carol

from the contentid-is-broken dept

Tue, Dec 24th 2013 6:10pm — Mike Masnick

Yet another in our ongoing series of stories concerning YouTube's broken ContentID system. While the company has still mostly remained mute over its recent policy change, which resulted in a ton of bogus ContentID claims, an even worse problem is that ContentID does serious harm to fair use and public domain videos. The latest example of this comes from Adam Manley, who recently posted a nice video about the month of December and how awesome it is. The second half of the video has him singing the famous song "Silent Night." "Silent Night" was composed in 1818. It is, without question, in the public domain. There is no question about this at all. Adam's rendition of the song is him singing it alone (so not using anyone else's recording). There is simply no question at all that what he did does not violate anyone's copyright. At all.

So, what happened? YouTube's ContentID told him that he received not one, not two, but three separate copyright claims on the video, from three of the largest music publishers in the world -- basically all of the publishing arms of the major labels. Actually, it's worse than that. Because when he first published the video, he got a notice that ContentID had found a hit from "one or more music publishing rights societies." Adam disputed it, pointing out that the work was in the public domain, and YouTube "acknowledged and dropped" the claim. The very next day, however, he got hit again, with completely bogus claims from BMG, Warner Chappell and UMPG Publishing (Universal Music's publishing arm).

Yes, not only did YouTube's ContentID hit him with an initial bogus claim, even after he disputed it with the basic logic that the song was written in 1818 and is in the public domain, YouTube came back the next day anyway and hit him with three more bogus copyright claims from three of the biggest music publishers in the world. Basically, the music publishing world, with an assist from YouTube, is making sure that Adam can't get any of the money he rightfully earned from singing a public domain song -- with those publishers stealing it instead. Adam has disputed the claims as well, and while BMG was quick to relent, the other two have not, leaving Adam in a lurch.

Adam's post is interesting. He points out that he's used YouTube to make claims against others using his own work, so he sees the value of ContentID, but his mind is changing on the overall value of the program:

As an independent content creator, it is absurd, ridiculous, and downright insulting that I can have my content de-monetized based on a completely fraudulent claim. The fact that the claims are based on an automated system doesn’t make it any better. If anything, it makes me think the automated system should not be in place. Or at the very least, it needs a major overhaul, and a lot more human eyes involved before action is taken.

Now, I’ve been on the other side of this a few times. I didn’t deal with the automated system, but I’ve had to have content taken down for infringing on my copyrights (I generally leave remixed videos alone, but I’ve had to keep an eye out for complete re-uploads of entire videos). So I do understand the point of view of the rights holders who are trying to keep hold of their content. And when I’ve been in that situation, I’ve appreciated the prompt action taken on my behalf against infringing content.

But we’re playing with people’s income, here, and I don’t think an automated system should be in charge of that. Certainly not one that apparently has public domain songs registered to it. Anything fitting that description should only be acted upon once a human eye has reviewed it. Perhaps a different category within the content ID system is needed. A category for protecting specific recordings and arrangements of public domain content, but without YouTube’s entirely too impressive ability to recognize the similarities of someone singing their own version.

This has been a major complaint against ContentID for years, and it's one of the main reasons why people are so concerned with automated determinations of potential infringement -- something the recording and movie industries have been pushing to be mandated by law in various places. This is yet another reason why the idea that it's "easy" to automatically find and deal with infringement is so technically illiterate. The false positives have very real consequences -- sometimes to the point of taking money from independent content creators like Adam, and handing it over to the major labels represented by the RIAA and NMPA.

But it's also a condemnation of ContentID itself and how YouTube handles it. If you're dealing with a work that has already been reviewed to be public domain, YouTube should make the system recognize that any future claims should at least be reviewed before being applied.

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: adam manley, content id, copyright, public domain, silent night
Companies: bmg, google, umpg, universal music publishing, warner chappell, youtube

52 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Shadow Dragon (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 6:26pm

time for a big fat class action lawsuit
Time for a big fat class action lawsuit.Hopefully that will teach them. Jejeje
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2013 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: time for a big fat class action lawsuit
  Sounds like the big publishers are colluding to keep the small guys from entering the market. That's something the SEC should be looking into.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 27 Dec 2013 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re: time for a big fat class action lawsuit
    Sounds like the big publishers are colluding to keep the small guys from entering the market. That's something the SEC should be looking into.
    
    FTC and/or DOJ, maybe. I don't think that's within the Securities and Exchange Commission's purview, though I could be mistaken.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff, 26 Dec 2013 @ 8:39pm
  
  Very easy to fix this
  If YouTube etc want to keep their automated "take it down immediately" tools then they should implement a replace lost income plus a big fat fine and paying all legal fees to harmed party for filing a FALSE claim on someone else's stuff. There is NO WAY that YouTube or anyone else (that controls the medium) should have an issue with this. The only ones that would be against this would be anyone who wants to abuse the system the way it is.
  
  Pretty simple unless the conveyance vehicles are in cahoots with the big players.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 27 Dec 2013 @ 11:28pm
    
    Re: Very easy to fix this
    Hey, the MAFIAA keep insisting that whether or not something is infringing should be obvious to anyone who looks at it...so the reverse would necessarily be true as well, right?
    
    Just as it's "easy" to know when something infringes, it's at least as obvious when something doesn't infringe or the claim of infringement is fraudulent.
    
    If someone is obviously making fraudulent claims, then they SHOULD be financially liable for any damage they do, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CharlieBrown, 24 Dec 2013 @ 6:44pm

I Quit YouTube
I put up some public domain cartoons. They were cartoons known to be in the public domain since the 1960's at best, 1980's at worst. One, from 1942, got a copyright claim by INgrooves claiming it was a recording by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. I disputed it. They upheld the claim. So I deleted the video. No money for them! But no views or comments for me either. And already being fed up with their new comments system, I just quit. Dealing with YouTube is not worth the hassle in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re: I Quit YouTube
  Yeah, unless YT/Google does something to solve the massive problems the ContentID system has currently, where people and companies can just go around claiming everyone else's stuff with no penalty for clearly bogus claims, more and more people are likely to follow suit and leave.
  
  Why for example would a game reviewer, like AngryJoe, want to spend dozens of hours(I believe he estimated something like 20 hours of work for a single review vid) on a review when as soon as he puts it up it's claimed by someone else, and all the revenue from it goes to them instead of him?
  
  People like that make their livings off of the money from their videos, and with no money, that means no vids created. Same thing with those that review movies, or do lets-plays for games, with how the system is setup, and the greed of companies pushing it to be even more broken, it's only a matter of time before people like that leave the site for good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2013 @ 10:27pm
    
    Re: Re: I Quit YouTube
    Google really had to start getting hard on items like this because they never intended to allow people to make money directly off YouTube. That wasn't the point, all its done is open up Google to a vast legal responsibility, as the content publishers can attack the big Google instead of some random internet troll using videos as a replacement to a minimum wage job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2013 @ 8:23pm
  
  Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme...
  That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2013 @ 1:30am
  
  Re: I Quit YouTube
  Youtube is spiraling. Their playlists are very buggy, their playback quality random and their comments locked down to G+-only. Add a massive ramp-up of harrassment on the people uploading by bots and a semimonopoly and we are talking a massive target on their back from all sides (copyright holders of larger size will never be satisfied with online competition on attention span)!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 8:06pm

Not to troll ootb...
But what if Google is trying to mess with people so much that it creates a massive backlash and people finally rise up and abolish the copyright system leaving Google free to let people post anything, without having to worry about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re: Not to troll ootb...
  While it's certainly a nice idea, their actions in the past suggest that they don't really have the ability to think ahead that well('I guess we'll give in to the *AA's just this once, I'm sure they'll be content with that and not come back later demanding more'), so I'd lean more towards a modified Hanon's Razor, 'Never attribute to intelligent forward thinking that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applesauce, 24 Dec 2013 @ 9:14pm

Need an override
Leave the automated system in place, but allow a human reviewer to place a hard override that will block further automated hits once the reviewer has verified there is no copyright violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2013 @ 7:11pm
  
  Re: Need an override
  It appears that's how it works already.
  
  But the issue is that the harm has already been done once its flagged. If the claim holds after you contested it, you'll get a strike, and that's non-negotiable..
  
  And, the legalities are becoming such ridiculous nitpicking that even if there was a human reviewer, determining whether it is copyright infringement or not would require a court or someone who actually knows what he's doing, not some random tech support grunts..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2013 @ 9:54pm

Youtube is a place I don't go. It has enough problems without my getting all hyped only to find either it's not up, I'm in the wrong country, it's filled with ads, or some such other crap like needing one of the most hacked softwares out there, flash.

Not been all that long ago that flash was recommended to be removed from your computer. Between that and the spying through the flash cookies, it's not on this computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2013 @ 10:25pm
  
  Re:
  TIN FOIL HAT KIDS. BIG MEAN GOOGLE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THE TOYS THEY GAVE ME FOR FREE, HOW DARE THEY! I AM SO UPSET, A WHITE PERSON IN THE FIRST WORLD HAS NEVER BEEN THIS UPSET BEFORE!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Azyx, 26 Dec 2013 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Youtube earns money with it, it's not "for free". Don't be stupid because its actually The other way around. You spend 20~hours doing a v�deo and then only youtube and The company that made the claim earns the money that was generated by it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Sayin', 24 Dec 2013 @ 10:15pm

The real issue here
The real issue is that there are any number of valid, COPYRIGHT versions of this song out there right now. This guy is a "victim" of contentID, but he is also a victim of a system so full of people ripping others off that there has to be an automated way to check it.

The problems for Google / Youtube is that they absolutely insist on avoiding humans working, relying entirely on automation and NOT hiring enough people to review claims properly. They are bottom line oriented companies who figured out that keeping the content companies happy was way better for their bottom line than making their filtering system work correctly and to deal with consumers directly. Just try to get tech support from Google or Youtube, there ain't no humans to be found!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:02am
  
  Re:
  The problem with humans is that there are so many criminals you've got to have policemen shoot every possible civilian to make sure.
  
  You're a fucktard through and through.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angel (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 10:31pm

I just want to know why I get copyright notices for home videos that happen to have music playing the background. It's so annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Dec 2013 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re:
  because the Dancing Baby case still isn't dead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automatic Grammatizator, 24 Dec 2013 @ 11:53pm

It's not just that a robot is in charge of filtering YouTube's content.
It's that said robot is not three laws safe either. It doesn't care how many humans it harms with its functions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2013 @ 1:53am

Google is evil. And they are probably building an army of robots and a solid ai to go with it. Seriously look into it. These guys are crazy. ContentID should be the least of your worries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Dec 2013 @ 2:51am
  
  Re:
  I'm sorry, but we've already got one paranoid person obsessed with Google, you'll have to apply elsewhere for the position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2013 @ 2:10am

...and that's the point
The false positives have very real consequences -- sometimes to the point of taking money from independent content creators like Adam, and handing it over to the major labels represented by the RIAA and NMPA.

That's why they want automated systems and 'quick action.' Law of Averages and plain old legal/lobbying muscle will ensure that they get paid more often than not. And if they can get royalties on public domain works, and there's no one to claim those monies, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 26 Dec 2013 @ 5:13am
  
  Re: ...and that's the point
  And if they can get royalties on public domain works, and there's no one to claim those monies, well...
  
  You are confused. When there are royalties for a performance, they are split according to some key between performers, composers, lyricists and so on. If any of the possible royalty recipients has had his rights pass into the public domain, the stuff is just split among fewer parties.
  
  What we are talking about here is not "nobody claiming those moneys". We are talking about the RIAA stealing most of the royalties belonging to the performer of a public domain work. There is, by default, a claim to all of any related royalties as long as the performer has not explicitly relinquished his performance into the public domain (not even possible in some jurisdictions).
  
  If you perform a work in the public domain, you are entitled to the royalty cuts for composer, lyricist, arranger and performer.
  
  That's what "public domain" means: free for the taking. If someone else takes up your performance and works from it, he is entitled to the cuts for composer and lyricist, but if he is taking your arrangement (and you have not died more than 90 years ago, a real concern for most vampires), then you are entitled to royalties for that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2013 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re: ...and that's the point
    You are confused. When there are royalties for a performance, they are split according to some key between performers, composers, lyricists and so on. If any of the possible royalty recipients has had his rights pass into the public domain, the stuff is just split among fewer parties.
    
    You missed out the biggest entitlement to royalties, the publisher or label.
    
    /sarc, maybe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2013 @ 6:46am

G.O.O.G.L.E.
G.overnment
O.Oversight
O.peration
in the
G.uise
of a
L.oved
E.nterprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

samflow (profile), 25 Dec 2013 @ 7:57am

good
Interesting, thanks
/
http://www.n2g.us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philly Bob, 25 Dec 2013 @ 9:24am

The notes "Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti and Do" and any combination of said notes thereof are all copyrighted, secured and locked away forever and thou shalt never sing or play again without the (expensive) permission of the Dark Lords of Control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 26 Dec 2013 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  > The notes "Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti and Do"
  > and any combination of said notes thereof
  > are all copyrighted
  
  I know you were just joking, but those notes don't actually exist. They're markers for the various notes that make up a major scale. The *actual* notes of the scale differ depending on the key. It's like 'x' in algebra. It has a different value depending on the equation in which it's used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
balaknair, 25 Dec 2013 @ 9:30am

"The false positives have very real consequences -- sometimes to the point of taking money from independent content creators like Adam, and handing it over to the major labels represented by the RIAA and NMPA."

As far as the **AA's are concerned, that's not a bug, that's a feature. It's the second best option for them (the first being that no-one be able to publish except through them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Carlie Coats, 25 Dec 2013 @ 10:42am
  
  Why isn't this slander?
  I don't see any reason this should not be slander. Would someone please explain that to me? ...and why major punitive damages would not be in order in the resulting suit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2013 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Why isn't this slander?
    Because the RIAA steal from the public to pay off the power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lurker Keith, 26 Dec 2013 @ 1:21am
    
    Re: Why isn't this slander?
    Slander has to be spoken.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Carlie J. Coats, Jr., 26 Dec 2013 @ 5:50am
      
      Re: Re: Why isn't this slander?
      Point taken: OK. libel, instead -- upon closer examination, the distinction seems to rely upon the transitoriness of the statement (is email transitory? ...under US law, it may well be, which is what I was basing the "slander" on; I was equating email with spoken communication).
      
      Wikipedia lists three points which need to be satisfied for a statement to be libel in the US:
      
      was false,
      
      caused harm, and
      
      was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
      
      All three seem to be true in this case.
      
      On the other hand (taking the precedent from the behavior of patent trolls), really massive discovery may be necessary in order to establish the inadequacy of the research and (for punitive damages) the degree to which this inadequate research is an established practice).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2013 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Why isn't this slander?
        Can a person be help responsible for uploading content with an expired copyright to a copyright control system? This is one question that would need to be answered in this case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Dec 2013 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't this slander?
        Were the system actually working, I'd imagine such an act would be considered, by the courts, as copyfraud and enough to trip the perjury penalty, but as it is all they have to do is say 'I made a mistake' and they won't even get a slap on the wrist for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
just-some-guy, 25 Dec 2013 @ 11:27am

So if there is no down side to a bogus copyright claim why doesn't some anonymous group just bomb the music biz with content claims against everything they ever posted everywhere and anywhere?

You know, just to force them to admit the system as is sux?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Dec 2013 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  Because if it was used against them like that you can bet the matter would be straightened out within days, and the one filing the bogus claims would likely find themselves faced with a permanent ban from ever posting on YT again.
  
  That's if the major label stuff was claimable like that in the first place, good odds are any claims made against them would just bounce off the system, as it was automatically denied. If one of the major labels (UMG I think) can get it so any claims they make against other people's uploads are automatically upheld, where you can't dispute it, you can bet they've thought ahead enough, and have enough pull, to be immune to all of the system's downsides.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 28 Dec 2013 @ 3:02am
  
  Re:
  You're making the mistaken assumption that the rules are applied equally. They're not - they've bought a system that errs on their side every time.
  
  Ordinary people trying to game the system will be blocked, banned and perhaps even have the perjury penalties of the DMCA applied against them. Doubly so if they're targeting the major corporate players, who probably wouldn't even have their videos taken down for a second while the claims are being processed. The risks taken by independent artists and creators don't apply to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bubba, 25 Dec 2013 @ 8:23pm

Same problem
I had similar problems. Put up a song in the public domain and it gets tagged and you can fight it for months and months, loosing money all the time. And then someone stole some of my videos and I complained. What does YouTube do? They cancel my account. Not only do they do that, but they make it impossible to go to YouTube to then try to argue your position! My content is still there, someone else is making money on it, and I am blocked from accessing YouTube while logged into my Gmail account! There are no humans to talk to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PopeRatzo (profile), 26 Dec 2013 @ 4:42am

obsolete concept
There is no longer such a thing as "public domain".

It all belongs to them now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2013 @ 9:37am

Test comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canonymous Award, 26 Dec 2013 @ 9:48am

Sort of on/off topic
Just want to say that copyright law is overblown when compared to patent law..the 20 years an inventor is granted protection is BS! Why does an 'artist' get LIFETIME + 50 years for their family (who did NOT create the 'art')? Inventors are the ones who should get lifetime protection, since bringing an item to market is no easy task! Pease, someone with power, take up this cause to turn this around!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Dec 2013 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: Sort of on/off topic
  the 20 years an inventor is granted protection is BS!
  
  I know, that's probably too long these days.
  
  Inventors are the ones who should get lifetime protection
  
  Oh, that's not what you meant...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 26 Dec 2013 @ 8:25pm

Very easy to fix this problem
If YouTube etc want to keep their automated "take it down immediately" tools then they should implement a replace lost income plus a big fat fine, for filing a FALSE claim on someone else's stuff. Tere is NO WAY that YouTube nor anyone else (that controls the medium) should have an issue with this. The only ones that would be against this would be anyone who wants to abuse the system the way it is.

Pretty simple unless the conveyance vehicles are in cahoots with the big players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2013 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: Very easy to fix this problem
  Your argument rests on the supposition that Google/YouTube actually gives a rats ass about small content producers getting the shaft. They clearly don't as can be seen from the mountain of evidence to this fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2013 @ 6:35am

the biggest problem, as always is that very little notice is usually taken of anyone disputing something over copyright but everything stops, all notice is taken of and all actions taken that can be taken when the dispute involves the major labels and/or studios. no checking is carried out first, which is exactly what those labels and studios want, because it is expensive. had Congress done what it should have and implemented fines for copyright abuse equal to real claims, there would be little of this. i dont understand, with so much going on, why no one has tried to get a new bill introduced that will actually cover this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Dec 2013 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  i dont understand, with so much going on, why no one has tried to get a new bill introduced that will actually cover this.
  
  Because nobody affected by it is making enormous campaign contributions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2013 @ 10:40am

"...taking money from independent content creators like Adam, and handing it over to the major labels represented by the RIAA and NMPA".

So in other words, the copyright laws work precisely as they were designed and bought by the publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatic, 3 Jan 2014 @ 7:54am

The "Everyday good of copyright" in action, folks. I'm beginning to think that perhaps we should abolish it altogether as I struggle to see any way the little guy can benefit from it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]