The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
from the that's-bull... dept
Hopefully you know who singer Dan Bull is by now. We've written about him many times. He's written and performed a bunch of songs about topics that we're interested in (and recently composed the awesome new theme song for the Techdirt Podcast (which you do listen to, right?). Dan has been able to build a career around giving away his music, and letting others do stuff with it. But he keeps running into ridiculous issues with YouTube's ContentID system. There was the time his video got silenced after another singer used the same sample he did, and then claimed the original work as his own. Or the time he got his video taken down because another rapper, Lord Finesse, was pissed off that Bull was criticizing Finesse's lawsuit against yet another rapper, Mac Miller. While YouTube has been a key place where Bull has built his audience, his run-in's with bogus claims and other problems even led him to write an entire diss track about ContentID.And, wouldn't you know it, he's having yet more problems with it. As we've discussed, in the last few years, there's been a rise in a new breed of trolls, known as ContentID trolls, who claim to hold the copyright in music that they don't have copyright in, and then use ContentID to "monetize" other people using that work for themselves. There are a number of companies and middlemen that help them do this, including one called Horus Music, which has become the perfect tool for ContentID trolls. The trolls take someone else's work, sign up with Horus, upload that other person's music, claim it as their own, and then start making claims on other people's videos. Free money.
That's what just happened to Dan Bull -- who actively encourages people to use and share his own music (over which he claims no copyright restrictions). A fan of Dan's reached out to him, after a video he had made received a copyright claim, supposedly covering a song that the fan had used from Dan Bull. Bull reached out to Horus Music, telling them that its user, "DrewMCGoo72" was claiming copyright on other people's music, and asked the company to investigate the situation, and to explain "how this happened, and what exact steps will be taken to prevent such a thing from occurring again."
The company issued a weak apology, saying that the DrewMCGoo72 account had already been suspended but "this must have been missed." And then they tell Dan (who encourages people to share his music) "It is a real shame that people feel that it is acceptable to steal someones music!" Except this isn't about "stealing music." This is about filing bogus copyright claims and claiming revenue or harming individuals who used music that they knew to be without copyright restrictions. Dan responded to Horus noting that he wasn't satisfied with the company's response:
Horus Music's system has been exploited with the following results:Horus' only response was that since the kid took down his original video, the company can't do anything to release the claim "but I assume we aren't claiming it any longer."
A) An anonymous stranger has walked away with revenue from fraudulently claiming my music as their own, facilitated by Horus Music
B) A child has received a copyright claim through Content ID from Horus Music and as a result has removed his 100% legitimate video out of fear of the consequences
C) I look like a hypocrite and a dick for telling kids they can use my music, and they then receive a copyright claim on their videos for using the very same music
You say you can only apologise - is an apology really all you are going to do?
It seems pretty clear that this is not the only time this has happened, since you can find other examples of Horus being used in this manner. This seems to raise a pretty serious question about how those companies are allowed to continue using the ContentID platform. After all, ContentID has a three strikes program for people who receive copyright violation claims. Why doesn't it have a similar three strikes program for those who abuse ContentID to claim copyright over projects they have no right to?
Either way, we'll leave you with Dan's song about ContentID, as it seems only fitting:
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: claims, contentid, contentid trolls, copyright, dan bull
Companies: google, horus music, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How is this not criminal fraud? The companies that paid out ad revenue on ads that were run appear to be the victims of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now about about you wonder instead on why the system does not care about that fraud except when the little man does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google doesn't have the courts threatening to hold them liable for jumping to fast to a bogus notice, only that they jump on any notice.
An easy elegant solution would be for Google to withhold any revenue until all appeals are done. Many of these asshats hold the claim until they have to answer then release, then show up and file another bogus complaint - lather, rinse, repeat.
This can't happen in copyright land, only corporations can have copyrights, only corporations can benefit from copyrights, only corporations can make money from copyrights.
The law needs to allow them to cut off those who make faulty complaints, without fear of billions of dollars in lawsuits.
YouTube is flawed, but it really is hard to kill the behemoth once its rolling along. Now we need to force the law to be changed, and since we aren't asking for another 120 years extension to the rights no one is listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if they can separate themselves from the lawsuit -- and their weak or nonexistent precautions work against them in this -- the fact of a lawsuit could well drive some changes through. A corporate legal department has ENORMOUS power over the rest of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought we were hoping for it to be enforced. Bogus takedowns are perjury! That's being ignored. That's wrong, and the perjurors should be brought to justice and punished. They shouldn't be getting a free pass through buying our elected representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seems that some other companies agree.
https://torrentfreak.com/tech-giants-want-to-punish-dmca-takedown-abusers-150927/
While it is just 1 step, these changes could alter ContentID settings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> that were run appear to be the victims of a crime.
As long as the ads made contact with a targeted set of eyeballs, the advertiser is happy.
Advertiser paid. Ad was delivered.
But Dan didn't get the cut he was entitled to. He is the victim. Not the advertiser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he doesn't hold the copyright on the music (or doesn't recognise that he does) and allows others to do as they wish with the song, can he really have a cry because someone decided that what they want to do with the song is register for monetisation.
If anything Dan Bull made a 'bogus copyright claim' against the person that registered a song that no one else had registered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The whole point of the public domain and permissive licenses is that other people can use the work in any way that they want, except for preventing other people making use of the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, you just need to put down the keyboard
and back away from the mouse.
You are too fucking stupid to be on the Internet.
I would recommend that you google "reading comprehension"
but that could blow away your few remaining neurons,
so in the interest of your own safety, just put down
the keyboard and back away from the mouse.
The mouse is clearly more intelligent than you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DAN BULL for crybaby of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This's not difficult to understand, though it's hard for some to understand things that affect their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not caring if other people share his work is leagues away from getting upset when someone comes along claiming that they own it, and charging him for hosting it.
If someone makes it clear that people are welcome to take their creations and share them, change them, or modify them, that does not mean that someone is allowed to come along, claim that they own the work(s) in question, and then try and shake down the original creator and anyone else who happens to have used/hosted/shared the work(s).
"I don't care if you share or use my stuff" does not, in any reasonable or even sane interpretation, even begin to include or imply "I don't care if you claim to own my stuff and charge me for it."
This is a blatant case of copyfraud, and Dan Bull is most certainly not the one who committed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying Dan is the victim I'm saying he's a crybaby, he's played the 'give it all away' card for so long and when it bites him on the bum cos some fool takes him at his word (and ballsack72 or whatever is a fool) he goes crying to Mike about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That a handful of people want, mostly because the current copyright setup has shown itself to be so broken that they've become disgusted by the very idea of copyright, and no, even then it wouldn't be similar to what happened here.
With no copyright, anyone could sell any music, this is true, but it takes copyright, or a similar system to force the original creator to pay up for his/her own works. With no control, there's no way to restrict control by others(in the same way you can't claim ownership over a public domain work and bar others from using it), so this situation actually required copyright, it wasn't showing what would happen without it.
I'm not saying Dan is the victim I'm saying he's a crybaby, he's played the 'give it all away' card for so long and when it bites him on the bum cos some fool takes him at his word (and ballsack72 or whatever is a fool) he goes crying to Mike about it.
Like I noted before, this is a bogus argument. "You can use and/or share my stuff" does not, under any reasonable interpretation mean or imply "You can claim ownership over my stuff and shake down me and others who have used it."
He wasn't put in this position because 'some fool takes him at his word', given he never said that the ownership of his works was up for grabs, merely the use of them, he was put in this position because a fraud decided to try and claim ownership over his stuff and abuse said fraudulent ownership to claim money he didn't deserve, and punish another YT user for doing what Dan said he could.
[ 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:
Who can use Content ID?
YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.
Qualifying for Content ID
Content ID acceptance is based on an evaluation of each applicant's actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.
Content ID will match a user's reference content against every upload to YouTube. Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. Common examples of items that may not be exclusive to individuals include:
-mashups, “best of”s, compilations, and remixes of other works
-video gameplay, software visuals, trailers
-unlicensed music and video
-music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity
-recordings of performances (including concerts, events, speeches, shows)
If accepted to use the Content ID tools, applicants will be required to complete an agreement explicitly stating that only content with exclusive rights can be used as references. Additionally, accepted applicants will need to provide the geographic locations of exclusive ownership, if not worldwide.
Sources:
How ContentID works
Qualifying for ContentID
The sleazebag in the story not only didn't own the copyright for the works that they claimed to own, even assuming for the sake of argument that Dan Bull's 'You can use my works freely' constituted an implied license for use and distribution(which seems to be the case as I understand it), it was never an exclusive one, which means the fraud failed both of the requirements listed to register something under ContentID.
That you continue to defend blatant fraud is odd to say the least. Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?
Sure you might say that the labels have not given a 'Use our works as you see fit' implied license, but Dan Bull never gave out a 'Claim ownership of my works' implied license either, so what's the difference? In either case someone is claiming ownership of something that isn't theirs and reaping the rewards from their fraudulent claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would most severely doubt that there were any rewards to reap, his account had been closed before the video was taken down, and how much would this video make ? My moneys on SFA (don't know why everyone always worries about the money when videos are taken down - there's a 99% chance there isn't any)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the fraud met neither condition. They didn't record the music, and they didn't own the legal rights to it, so we can add Horus' terms as ones they failed to meet as well.
Again, it baffles the mind why you continue to insist on defending a fraud, someone who claimed ownership of someone else's music and used it against both the original artist and one of his fans. It doesn't matter how much money was involved, it wouldn't matter if the issue was resolved an hour after it was discovered, you are still defending someone who abused the system, made fraudulent claims, and harmed both creator and fan as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Honestly that explains so much about copyright enforcers like Keith Lipscomb, Paul Duffy, John Steele, Evan Stone and Andrew Crossley. Not that it was a major revelation or anything, but thanks for confirming what everybody already knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Just out of morbid curiosity to see if your position is at least consistent, I'll repeat a previous question of mine.
Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?
So, consistent slime, or hypocritical one, which will it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, if say someone pulled this off with say Gangam style at it's height, I would have pissed myself. I think we all would. (not you though)
Why does it have to be a 'multitude' of songs? You always ramp it up for effect. It's annoying.
If you must know I'm largely against this sort of shit, a lot of my friends are musicians. I am not adverse, however, to a bit of the ol' Tall-Poppy Syndrome and, of course, schadenfreude -but who isn't.
But mostly here it's the hypocrisy of the boy.
I think it's a bit of performance art. Hilarious .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet frauds continue to claim songs by other people, so clearly they're getting something out of it, though I suppose some of it could just be losers trying to make themselves feel important and powerful by abusing the system.
But, if say someone pulled this off with say Gangam style at it's height, I would have pissed myself. I think we all would. (not you though)
So fraud, theft, and forcing someone to fight to reclaim the ownership of their own property = funny, got it.
Why does it have to be a 'multitude' of songs? You always ramp it up for effect. It's annoying.
Well hey, if someone fraudulently claiming ownership over one song is funny, doing it to several should be downright hilarious, no?
If you must know I'm largely against this sort of shit, a lot of my friends are musicians.
So you're against it, except when it's funny, in which case you're not, glad that's cleared up.
But mostly here it's the hypocrisy of the boy.
And again with this tired line, there's nothing hypocritical in his reaction to what happened. He said people were free to share or use his works, someone committed fraud by lying and claiming to own his works, screwed him out of any monetization for the song(s) in question, attacked one of his fans, and forced him to spend time and effort fixing the mess.
Hypocritical would be, oh I dunno, him claiming to be against such fraud and then committing it against someone else, or voicing support for someone else who did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dan, himself, say's "I wind up looking like a hypocrite and a dick". All I'm saying is " Yes you do Dan, yes you do". (though I've stopped short of calling him a dick)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the hypocrisy, all I'll say is that you're projecting again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be very surprised if this guy had the fans in mind when he did this. He was going for one of the biggest proponents of 'give it away and sell a t-shirt'. Remember, the way contentID works is you register the song and then a robot takes down the videos, when the guy registered the song he had no way of knowing who else would be affected - my money is on that he was trying to get one of Dan's videos taken down, if video's were his target at all.
The outfit he used also puts your content on iTunes and spotify etc, it may well be that that was what he was trying to do.
I know that the fan video was how this was discovered, but I see it as very much a red herring. Very emotive that it was a child though (and in all your hyperbole I'm surprised you missed that - double emotional whammy - "he ATTACKED a CHILD" oh the humanity, won't somebody think of the children)
oops, that's another tech dirt bogeyman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the emotional argument, you mean like 'Won't someone think of the poor starving artists?', or 'Piracy will destroy music as we know it'? I don't care how old the fan is, what matters is that they were punished for doing something the actual creator said that they could by a fraud, with help from a company filled with incompetent fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think it's the same shill who kicked up a fuss a couple of months back and flagrantly declared at the end of his OP, "I'm not a shill!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's a google search away, the meaning that eludes you.
then search "boy who cried wolf"
You shout 'shill' so often no one believes you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since you already claimed to be the RIAA, it's not a surprise that you primarily deal in misinformation, fraud and insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stay in school dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go find some other dead grandmother to sue, asswipe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright enforcers all do seem to be cut from the same cloth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually in some places moral rights are eternal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Boycott MafiAA. Their !@#$ ain't worth nothin', not even if it's free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Distributed Denial Of Service (DDoS) attack. We can get them with CFAA! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I was reading through I thought for sure he was just trolling, but now it looks like he's actually sincere. Which is even worse. :-(
[ 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:
Well, if they repeat the lie often enough, it may eventually drown out the truth. There's a lot of lazy and stupid out there. It might work, if noisy contrarians like us don't fight it. However, with the likes of Cervantes and Voltaire on our side, how can we lose? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Dan Bull is a victim of fraudulent claims that deprived him of money for ads that ran on his channel. That money should have gone to him, or at least been held in escrow until the claim was resolved. The fraudulent claim may also damage his reputation because the fraudster acted in ways inconsistent with how Dan Bull permits his works to be used.
- Unidentified Child is an incidental victim because Child was scared into taking down a derivative work that the real Dan Bull would not have demanded be taken down. Child may also have secondary injuries stemming from this, such as a copyright strike on Child's account.
- Advertising Company paid money for ads to run, and those ads were run. That money did not go where it should have, but the Company got its money's worth out of the ad. The Company is only harmed if, as a result of the fraudulent claims, the ads ran in contexts or quantities other than what the Company expected.
- Google/Youtube acted as a conduit for all this. Their reputation is harmed because the incident shows yet again how poorly ContentID works in practice, but they are not out specific monetary losses over this.
I read your post to be that you think Google/Youtube and/or Advertising Company are victims here. While they were present at the scene of the fraud, they neither directly supported it, nor appear to have suffered criminal harm as a result of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A relevant question should be do they encourage it. Just like Google could get in trouble for encouraging infringement this company should also be liable if they encourage bogus takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
YouTube is a Google company (or is it alphabet now), they control the ads and their system has been gamed for years now.
The monolith has no answers for people who create the content and only answer to corporations.
Many creators CAN'T/DON'T fight back because that lands them a strike and they can lose use of the entire platform.
When is the last time a corporation got strikes and banned from the platform? Even fucking Viacom who sued them for infringement over videos they uploaded themselves to the platform still has a channel.
The system is unbalanced, and only by telling people about this scummy behavior and apply public pressure will anything maybe change.
Google/YouTube does bear some blame here, they allow "corporations" to claim ownership of content without demanding they offer evidence. If you are going to assign penalties, perhaps making people prove their claims wouldn't be to much of a burden. It is their playpen & they can do what they want, but they are facilitating copyfraud and theft while pretending the law leaves them no option. If a creator gets 3 strikes they get fucked, when is the last time a corporation tripled down on a birdsong and got cut off from automatically being able to submit claims without review? Its YouTube's playpen, they can ban creators they can ban corporations from ContentID and force them to use the actual DMCA and not the law sidestepping BS system the cartels demanded that is being abused constantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but the DMCA process is much more expensive for them to police. The legal system is at fault here for being so one sided. For example it creates a one sided penalty structure that punishes infringement (or those that host infringing content and don't respond promptly) far more than bogus takedown requests.
Though while Google is compelled to respond to DMCA requests and is strongly encouraged by our legal system to respond to ContentID and other takedown requests in general what they could so is have a system where if you have a Youtube account of your own with content of your own and you send too many bogus content requests your youtube account, with all your content, gets deleted. Google is not obligated or even legally encouraged to host anyone's content only to respond to takedown requests. Though companies filing bogus takedowns can try to get around this by finding ways to separate the accounts responsible for uploading content from the ones responsible for requesting content be removed. Then it can become a game of cat and mouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also perjury under the DMCA -- which should be a federal crime, but currently appears to be nothing special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perjury under the DMCA is if you pretend to be a company you are not. Pretending to hold the copy protection privileges when you don't is not perjury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It affects a person not signed to a media cartel, and it utilises the tools the major labels depend on for destroy competition in the marketplace. Until someone tries to do this with a One Direction song or similar, it's an "anomaly" that will be waved away as unimportant unless someone gives the affected artist serious money to fight in court. Content ID only exists because the major labels demanded it, so a lawsuit would have to be good enough to override their concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Error, line 3: unmatched (
Error, line 5: . encountered, expected )
P.S. Actually, I've never really gotten the appeal of downloading an mp3, firing up VLC, finding the file wherever Firefox chose to save it, dragging it into the VLC window, and then listening to an article instead of simply clicking a link and immediately being able to read it right there in my browser, without lots of other futzing around and with the ability to read at any pace, follow (or not) outbound links and cross-references, skim it, search inside it with control-F, and all those other things that you can do with text but not with audio. :) I suppose it might be useful for the blind though ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some people actually do other things while they listen to podcasts and for that having audio is useful. Not to mention few people would want to read an entire transcript of an audio podcast, which would probably run for dozens of pages. Plus you can stream the podcast without downloading it to your computer and going through all the oh so horrible steps you mention.
It's not like podcasts are a new thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On the other hand, I read really quickly. I can go through those six pages in probably a tenth of the time it would take me to listen to the actual podcast. Plus, if I get distracted or miss something, I can easily scan the text to find what I missed, or where I left off.
That being the case, I generally avoid podcasts, unless there's a transcript that I can peruse. It's just a better use of my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I listen to podcasts while commuting (almost exclusively, actually - I rarely listen to music in that situation any more, mostly technology and movie-related podcasts). That includes at least 25 minutes of walking where I'm unlikely to be reading an article unless I decide I fancy being mowed down by cars or walking into walls.
I appreciate it if you prefer other methods of accessing these discussions, but I do wish people would stop whining because they're not being exclusively catered to.
"Plus, if I get distracted or miss something, I can easily scan the text to find what I missed, or where I left off."
My podcast app also does this quite reliably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We get it. You don't like podcasts. Thanks for letting the world know. What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An AC whining about something unrelated to the subject at hand, just so they can have something to whine about? You're not new here, come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
sounds like a newbie to me
Firefox saves it where ever you choose that's what settings are for! YOU CHOOSE
and if you decide not to look at the setting YOU still have made a choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On top of which, the two rapid-fire updates to 40.0 and then 40.0.2 have left it even more bloated and slow than ever. It seems to get worse and worse until it needs restarting, every day or two, which didn't used to happen. More reason to keep the fussing around to a minimum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't that be the same place it always saves things? That's configurable via "Preferences". Or, do you have multiple devices where FF on each is configured to save things in different places? That'd be silly.
PEBKAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
I used to think that you were two-faced, but must conclude that you're so completely confused about copyright and so much desire that your favored grifters get money from other people's content that you routinely contradict yourself and don't even notice!
How can it possibly be fine for people to upload 100 million dollar movies to "share" with the world and Kim Dotcom to derive money from that, yet horrible if someone steals the tiny works of this "Bull"?
Sheesh. Have at it, you pirates who support "his" part of the time and attack it the rest. And censor this away without censoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
Can you people really not see that you're entirely contradicting yourself?
It's a HOOT that this person both gives away and doesn't! Once you give up "copyright", you have NO RIGHT to control copies! Doesn't this point up that your idealistic notions simply don't work when people take you up on it?
Sheesh. I'd better go before die laughing or my own views reverse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
Let me see if maybe I can explain things a bit simpler for your lower reading level. Dan Bull is not trying to control how copies of his music are used. He is complaining about people claiming copyright on his music. Claiming you have copyright on a song is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from making copies of a song. So the issue here is someone else trying to control copies of his song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
HE DIDN'T BLOCK THEM. THEY BLOCKED HIM.
(ok, I cheated with a contraction, but I'm hoping I won't lose him with that)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contradictions
Techdirt calls out a grifter, and you complain that they support grifters, so who is contradicting themselves?
Hint it is Not techdirt, and it is not Dan Bull, who by the way is supporting someone else who made use of his work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
After years of reading the articles here on this site, not once have I found them supporting the idea of "uploading a 100 million dollar movie". The closest they come to that is simply pointing out how stupid it is to waste money fighting a fight you can never win.
The really stupid argument you make though of comparing this with someone sharing a movie just shows how little you understand of what is happening. This is not a case of Dan Bull complaining about someone "stealing" his work. This is about someone claiming ownership and stealing ad revenue, and stealing that money from some kid.
So this is not like me uploading a movie and sharing it. This is like me claiming that I made the movie and demanding all the profits from that movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
In one case, a legal service is offered, and Dotcom makes money from that service, however some people abuse the tool he provided. No income is automatically lost (it's only lost if the downloader would have paid for the content had the download not been available), so the losses are less than 100%, and since the service has many legal uses (including direct income for the artist), far less than 100% of Dotcom's income was from infringement.
In the other case, someone literally redirected 100% of Dan Bull royalty entitlement to themselves.
The differences are obvious and astounding. If you stopped lying and joined the real world, you'd understand this. You certainly would't be carrying water for outright fraudsters and thieves here just so you can tilt at another windmill and masturbate over your obsession here once again.
Alas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You ALL deserve a Report click
Can't you imagine the glee he must feel by getting all of you riled up? You're not just letting him, you're causing him to "win."
Knock it off for crying out loud.
Everyone who replies to the troll gets a Report click
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone wins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone wins!
For the record, I also Report my own comments when I reply to his nonsense.
Keep up the good work lads!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everyone wins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not for the sake of the trolls
They can also be used as 'practice' I suppose you could say, giving people the opportunities to work out their counter-arguments on easy targets, so they're better prepared to argue their position when someone actually looking for a discussion comes along.
I will agree on stripping out the insanely long subject lines though, handy as they are to be able to instantly spot when Blue's shown up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not for the sake of the trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zzzz ...
Since when? Did he assign the copyright on his works to some other entity? No. You're an ass for believing he did.
You apparently hate artists and resent them having the right to do with their works what they choose, which is pretty odd to say the least for an imaginary property maximalist. Die screaming in a fire! The world would be a better, more civilized place if people like you weren't in it. You're little better than a thief, and nobody wants to suffer thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 strikes
Whereas with the person who has 3 strikes against them (presumably valid) for copyright infringement, they can still produce material, they just can no longer host it on that privately owned forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 strikes
"Here's why you can't have a 3-strikes policy against abusers - because their 4th complaint could be valid."
Why does that mean you can't have a 3 strikes policy against abusers? All of the actual legal remedies for copyright infringement remain untouched. The only thing that would be abridged is the privilege of using the DMCA mechanism.
"Whereas with the person who has 3 strikes against them (presumably valid) for copyright infringement, they can still produce material"
And by the same token, someone who has abused the takedown process and no longer use it still have available to them the all of the remedies the law allows. Just not the DMCA shortcut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 strikes
We'd need to change the DMCA to make this work for DMCA notices, but there's no reason that Google couldn't take away ContentID from those who abuse it, while still leaving the DMCA option open.
The official DMCA notice does contain that perjury clause, which, while it doesn't come into play in many cases, DOES come into play when someone is falsely claiming they have rights to the original. That's one good reason to make a policy of 3 strikes and you must use that instead of ContentID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 strikes
The very same is true of abusing the system. If you are making copyright claims against content that is not yours, then it is perfectly reasonable to loose that power after a few strikes. It does not matter that your 4th complaint is valid, just as it doesn't matter that the guys 4th video was an original creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 strikes
Here's why you can't have a 3-strikes policy against politicians taking bribes - because the next one might be a legitimate contribution.
Here's why you can't have a 3-strikes policy against murders - because the next one might be self-defense.
Here's why you can't have a 3-strikes policy against the NSA - because the next … what I just won a free trip to Guantanamo, cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 strikes
In which case it would rely on the manual, as opposed to automatic (ContentID), method. If you don't want to have to use the manual method, don't abuse the automatic method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Falsely claiming infringement is libel.
A parallel might be donating a statue to a public park, and seeing that statue get stolen. If the sculptor persues the thief, the thief is liable for the costs required to return the statue to its pedestal, including reasonable compensation for pain and suffering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Falsely claiming infringement is libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A content creator should go to the platform most likely to provide them with an audience, and that for many of them means Youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[...] YouTube lacks serious competition.
Spot the disconnect yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yes, I strongly pushed for inaccurate/false accusations to be subject to the same sort of 'strike' system as copyright infringement allegations are in my consultation response to the IPO the other week on extending the punishment term to 10 years in prison.
In fact, it was my major trust, that false claims are common, and increasing penalties for claims, with no penalty for false claims, is just going to generate more false or inaccurate claims, because the threats will have greater intimidation power with no repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This gives time for the real owner to take their content back and deprives the RIAA/Horus music et all of millions in stolen money every year......
Yes, despite out-of-the-whatever and horses-ass, the big labels and their cronies are the major ones taking over content they don't own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising
Risk:
None whatsoever. At most you might have to say 'Oh, sorry, my mistake'.
Reward:
Whatever money and/or mayhem you can grab and/or cause before you get caught.
With absolutely zero penalty even if you get caught, why would someone with an abundance of greed or malice not claim everything they can, and get as much money, or cause as much damage, as they can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cronies of a feather
Lawyers know full well that the courts are not eager to charge lawyers with fraud in these kinds of scam cases, as it reflects badly on all who practice law.
So the crooked lawyers - I repeat myself - simply determine how much money they can make before the courts are swamped with public outcry, and then disband the process for a new legal scam when the heat gets bad.
How many years has it taken for the courts to even admit that Team PRENDA is crooked??
Until the court of law is forced to deal with its own as it does with the rest of us, this kind of scam will escalate, and the lawyers know it, so get used to it.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cronies of a feather
Sigh. Oh, and I admit I'm the first person who'll pull the "f-bomb the lawyers" card, however we do need to remember Popehat's out there doing great stuff and he's a lawyer, and there was NYCountyLawyer (I think) on Slashdot who was doing the same great stuff, so we really shouldn't be damning the entire legal profession just because it's infested with ambulance chasers and Prenda type charlatans. EFF has great lawyers too, and Mike's stories point out often that many other good guys/gals(?) are out there too. What needs to be done is get good actors to purge the bad actors. *Why* that's not happening is a mystery and tragedy, but it should be fixable.
Wait a second. That's backwards! Bad actions reflect badly on those who perpetrate bad actions, yes? Good guys should want bad actors to be brought to the light (or justice) so they could puff out their chest and shout "I'm not like those jerks, which is why you should hire me!" So, good actors should want to cleanse the bad actors from their midst, or profession.
Yeah, and this doesn't appear to work wrt cops either, damn.
Jury's still out and time's counting every day they're not in jail or still able to legally practice law. Just enjoy the popcorn while it lasts.
FTFY (sorry; I hate that too). I can't, and won't, get used to it. This needs to be fixed, damnit. It's gone on way too long now, considering Shakespear was complaining about it, ffs.
I enjoy your posts. Keep it up please. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cronies of a feather
Gads!
Well, that's a first - in well over two decades!
I'm.... momentarily type-less!
---
....but not for long. :)
"Wait a second. That's backwards! Bad actions reflect badly on those who perpetrate bad actions, yes? Good guys should want bad actors to be brought to the light (or justice) so they could puff out their chest and shout "I'm not like those jerks, which is why you should hire me!" So, good actors should want to cleanse the bad actors from their midst, or profession."
Should indeed.
However, by pretending there are no bad actors, such chest puffing becomes un-necessary, and by insuring that bad actors will not be exposed, the system can hire more of them because the bad actors know they are safe from consequences and free to ply their trade behind the facade of the Good Guy White Hat institution.
When an institution becomes corrupt, it is the honest employee, the Good Guy, who is feared by that institution.
They are usually hunted down and eliminated as found.
Hiring naught but bad guys, almost insures that none of your employees will spill the beans, because scrutiny would expose their foul deeds as well.
As long as none of the bad lawyers/cops spills the beans and the bad courts maintain a tight rein on exposure of wrong doing by those employees, there are no "bad actions" to reflect badly upon the courts, or the bad guys or the institutions.
This is the system in place today.
My studies show me that ANY "Do-Good" institution that lasts longer than ten years, will absolutely attract criminals who wish to use the "good name" of the institution as a shield behind which foul deeds for fun and profit may ensue safely.
Any institution older than fifty years is absolutely corrupt, creating and maintaining the very crisis/problems their mandate claims they strive against.
Any institution older than a century is actually fully evil, with only a small lay-member group, drawn from the public, as a visible facade and an elite hierarchy of wealthy private citizens hidden in the background.
You can pretty well see why Government and Religion are on my short list of things to eliminate through exposure, at every opportunity and why I consider wealth-as-purpose to be the first and worst mistake humanity ever made.
While I am utterly certain that "resistance is futile", I am unable to stop trying, because I do know that, in the real world, absolutely anything is possible.
So much for being struck type-less eh. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outright theft
And Horus Music is a willing accomplice. So why aren't they being sued for, say, $150 million for aiding and abetting copyright theft of each 1,000 songs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a Rap.
I hate Rap.
Always have.
Always will.
But I just played DB's Vid and damn that made me feel sooooooo good. That was beautiful. Made me feel like I was kicking the shit out of Dick Cheney, in a small metal room covered with sound dampers, on a large barge floating somewhere in the middle of the pacific ocean.
Phew!
Better avoid exposing meself to any more of that stuff though!! Some serious alpha freqs going down there...
Mister Bull - You Rock... or Rap.... Good shit mun.
Now there's a man I could cast a vote for, if he ran for POTUS.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What really needs to happen is that Google needs to be court ordered to removed the ID system completely. Remove the system and you remove any and all problems attached to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google did this to try to appease the RIAA/MPAA and their constant legal attacks, not because they just fancied it. Removing the system now opens up more liability than any false positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]