Dan Bull's 'Death To ACTA' Video Silenced After Claim From Rapper Who Used The Same Sample

from the wait,-what-now? dept

Back in 2010 we wrote about rapper Dan Bull's excellent "Death to ACTA" song and video, which is a parody of Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune." In 2011, we further wrote about the MP3 of that song (which Bull distributes willingly on file sharing platforms) being taken down from Mediafire due to a questionable takedown request. Now, years later (well after ACTA is pretty much long dead), Dan's discovered that his video on YouTube was just silenced due to copyright claims. He wondered what it was about and discovered two claims on the video -- one being ridiculous, with the other being merely questionable. The ridiculous one is the claim about Bigg Brass's song, "Death of Fake Rapperz". That one, like Dan's, uses the backing track from Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune." The actual track that Jay-Z sampled is "In the Space" by Janko Nilovic and Dave Sarkys. It's likely that Jay-Z licensed that track (though he's run into legal trouble at times for failing to license some tracks). If anyone would have a claim over Bull's track then, it would likely be those guys. Here, it appears that Bigg Brass is working with the big digital distributor, The Orchard, who didn't even bother to figure out that Bigg Brass was using a sample of his own and just went hog wild stupidly going after others' music. The Universal Music Group claim is slightly more reasonable, but only slightly. Again, the actual music is not Jay-Z's but Nilovic's and Sarkys' and they don't appear to be the ones complaining.

At the same time Jay-Z has been quite public about his support for artists remixing his tracks into other songs saying that he's "honored" when it's done. It may be that Jay-Z doesn't hold the copyright for DoA, but even so... it seems like a pretty weak claim to go after Dan Bull. And, of course, you can find a ton of other videos that use the same backing track for their own songs. Here's one. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And there are a lot more. I'm just getting tired of cutting and pasting.

And none of those other ones are silenced.

Just Dan's. It almost makes you wonder if Universal Music has... a political reason for trying to silence Dan's songs, such as the fact that it mocks an international agreement that the recording industry was highly supportive of. And they say copyright isn't used to censor free speech...

Filed Under: acta, bigg brass, contentid, dan bull, death of autotune, fair use, jay-z, samples, videos, youtube
Companies: youtube

Once Again, Political Speech Is Silenced By Copyright/ContentID

from the because-that's-how-it-works dept

This seems to happen every political season. When he was a Presidential candidate, John McCain got annoyed at YouTube taking down political videos based on copyright claims. During the last Presidential election, a Mitt Romney TV ad featuring President Obama singing an Al Green song was taken down via a copyright claim. And now, 2016 Presidential candidate Rand Paul has discovered that his announcement speech from Tuesday morning has been taken down. This wasn't a DMCA takedown, but yet another case of YouTube's over-eager ContentID doing the job: Apparently the announcement kicked off with an anti-Wall Street country song, "Shuttin' Detroit Down" by John Rich, whose copyright is held by Warner Music Group.

Of course, Rand Paul has been sort of a mixed bag on copyright. He was one of the first Senators to speak out against SOPA/PIPA in 2011. But, not long after that, he and his father Ron put out a weird internet freedom "manifesto" that appeared to argue for much stronger copyright laws, and which argued that the public domain was an evil "collectivist" threat that was against basic property rights.

Of course, it would be nice if this little incident led candidate Rand Paul to support fixes to copyright law and the DMCA, but as some are pointing out, assuming this really was a ContentID takedown, changes to the DMCA wouldn't much matter -- since ContentID is a private solution, outside of copyright law. That said, it was put in place, in part, to help keep YouTube from getting sued over copyright claims, so a fixed DMCA might lead to a better ContentID offering. Unfortunately, despite a history of copyright and ContentID being abused against political candidates, it still hasn't really resulted in them taking a real platform stand on the problems of copyright law today and how it impacts free expression. It's unlikely that Rand Paul is going to really take a stand on this, especially given that weird manifesto from a few years ago.

Filed Under: contentid, copyright, dmca, john rich, rand paul, shuttin detroit down, takedown, youtube
Companies: warner music group, youtube

YouTuber Angry Joe Swears Off Nintendo Videos After The Company Claimed His Mario Party 10 Take

from the biting-the-hand dept

Nintendo's never-ending desire to control how YouTubers review its games or do "let's plays" has been laughable from the start. From the trust-destroying agreement YouTubers had to enter into in order to get access to visual content to the beauracratic nightmare individuals had to wade through just to get a video approved for monetization, the whole thing started off on messy footing. And the biggest issue in all of this: Nintendo still can't seem to grasp that these YouTubers are giving the company free advertising. Gamers love the kinds of videos these YouTubers produce. They use them to make purchasing decisions, to become interested in new games, and to fuel word-of-mouth advertising that no trumped up ad campaign could ever possibly hope to achieve. Why make any of that more complicated by creating an approval system for the videos? And, more importantly, why take away the incentive for fans to promote your games by demanding a share of their YouTube revenue?

Well, the program that's a mere few months old has already resulted in the first major YouTuber proclaiming that Nintendo games will no longer be covered. Angry Joe (Joe Vargas) has one hell of an online following in the gaming YouTuber community and, following a spat over his Mario Party 10 video, Nintendo is dead to him.

Joe “Angry Joe” Vargas, who commands nearly two million subscribers on YouTube, has decided to stop covering Nintendo games, following a dispute over a Mario Party 10 video. Angry Joe’s Mario Party 10 video was flagged by YouTube, and while it’s possible for him to keep the video online, he can’t make money off it. It’s easy to imagine why he’s upset.

He tweeted about the decision a few days ago:

I hope @NintendoAmerica enjoyed the free ad revenue & coverage I generated for em. It will be my last Nintendo video. pic.twitter.com/07797eA7W4 — Joe Vargas (@AngryJoeShow) April 4, 2015

That sort of says it all, doesn't it? Millions of gamers who went to Angry Joe for help in where to spend their gaming dollar will no longer be directed by Joe to Nintendo games via reviews and gameplay footage. For Angry Joe followers, Nintendo might as well not exist. What's particularly insane about this is that the YouTuber Nintendo affiliate program described above wouldn't even have applied to this particular video, since some Nintendo games, Mario Party 10 among them, don't even qualify for coverage under the program. Why Nintendo would seek to piss off a popular YouTuber over a video for a game that wouldn't have been granted the okay under the affiliate program is beyond me.

Here's a case where Nintendo has locked up 100% of the ad revenue on Angry Joe's video, despite the fact that it's not Nintendo's copyright-covered content viewers are coming to watch. That's not only unfair, it's biting the very hand feeding Nintendo's coffers and sending the company new customers. This is the first major YouTuber to jump off the Nintendo ship, but it almost certainly won't be the last.

Filed Under: angry joe, contentid, dmca takedown, video games, videos
Companies: nintendo, youtube

UMG Licenses Indie Artist's Track, Then Uses Content ID To Claim Ownership Of It

from the not-really-a-'dispute'-system-then,-is-it? dept

If nothing else, Universal Music Group is becoming a case study for everything that's wrong with YouTube's takedown system. Between nuking its own artists' official videos, targeting MegaUpload's video simply because it utilized some of its roster and using its direct partnership with YouTube to blow past any fair use considerations, UMG has been able to wreak a fair amount of havoc.

Its latest demonstration of its "my rights are bigger than yours" attitude towards IP protection has managed to yank someone else's creations right out from under their creator, as TorrentFreak reports.

Norwegian musician Bjorn Lynne… has had two of his videos hijacked by Universal Music Group (UMG) which is now running ads alongside his work.

“Can I just state publicly that I hate Universal Music Group. For the second time now, they have hijacked my music and claimed ownership of it in all YouTube videos that include my music, thereby monetizing my music,” Lynne writes.

Lynne isn't exaggerating. UMG owns the rights to an audiobook that uses one of Lynne's songs as a backing track. No problem up to this point, because anyone -- even UMG -- can use Lynne's tracks if properly licensed, which this apparently was. No, the problem is that UMG is claiming -- by proxy -- that it "owns" Lynne's track.

UMG have entered the audiobook in YouTube’s Content-ID system, and as a result they’ve hijacked the ads on the original video.

Which is why leaving infringement detection up to algorithms is a bad idea, even if doing otherwise is technically unfeasible. According to Content ID, the backing track belongs to UMG. That's a problem, but it's a fixable one. All it would take is for UMG to release the claim after having the error brought to its attention. But UMG clearly isn't in the business of resolving disputes. It's just there to claim everything Content ID says belongs to it, even when the content clearly doesn't.

“One thing would have been to have done this unwittingly, by mistake. But I have ‘disputed’ the claim on YouTube, written an explanation and told them about the origins of this music — then waited the FULL 30 DAYS that the claimant has to process the dispute, only to be told that UMG have reviewed the dispute and UPHELD their claim!” Lynne notes.

That's the process available to indie artists: sit back and let major players claim your stuff. If Company A rejects your dispute, the decision is final. In YouTube's eyes, the burden of proof always falls on the accused and the existence of proof ultimately has no bearing on the outcome. All the claimant has to do is push the "REJECT" button and someone else's ad money will be rerouted.

Lynee could fight this further, but it would take a stack of money and some ambitious lawyers -- neither of which most indie artists have at their disposal. The only thing UMG has to do is what it did: shrug and return to siphoning money away from Bjorn Lynne. The system works -- at least for the major players. For everyone else, it's just a matter of trying to mitigate the damage they can't prevent, much less reverse.

Filed Under: bjorn lynne, contentid, copyright, licenses, ownership
Companies: umg, universal music group

Content Protection Company Makes Bogus ContentID Claims On Gameplay Videos; Sega Steps In To Clean The Mess Up

from the how-abusive-entities-ruin-YouTube-using-this-one-simple-trick dept

YouTube's ContentID system is again being abused to take videos out of the control of the uploaders. The latest wave of bogus ContentID claims comes from (possibly) Japan's eLicense, which is seemingly staking a claim to as many Sega-related videos as possible in order to siphon ad money away from the account holders. (via GamePolitics)

One YouTube account holder was hit with over 100 ContentID claims alone, while others have had some hits and some misses. Nowhere on eLicense's site does it say the company is authorized to make ContentID claims on behalf of Sega. Sega America has since responded to the uproar, denying having anything to do with the hundreds of filed claims.

Regarding eLicense, this company is not working on behalf of SEGA in any capacity. We are issuing a Cease & Desist to eLicense and reaching out to YouTube directly to work on resolving this problem.

eLicense is acting independently and Sega intends to take the necessary action to prevent this from happening again.

Please help us in spreading the word wherever you see it online, feel free to link back to this post. Thanks all for reporting and documenting this issue!

Now, there are a couple of confusing factors. eLicense is a Japanese company and it could be possible that Sega Japan has retained its services. If so, the American arm of Sega doesn't seem to be aware of this. Among the evidence in favor of pointing the finger at this eLicense is this tantalizing headline from its website touting its move into ContentID management.


But it could be that Japan's eLicense (which actually spells its name "e-License" on its site) has nothing to do with this debacle. It could be a nearly-identically named American company whose official spelling ("eLicense") matches up with the name listed in Sega's statement.

However, this eLicense -- while apparently in the business of protecting game developers from infringement (its [unarguably lousy looking] client page contains logos for EA, Out of the Park, Pogo and Sports Interactive) -- doesn't have Sega listed as a client either.

No matter which eLicense it is, the claims are bogus. And some gamers/YouTube account holders aren't too happy with the fact that challenging bogus claims puts their accounts at risk. If a challenged claim fails, it's a strike against their account. So, many have just taken the hit and allowed another company to start monetizing their personal uploads.

The good news is that Sega has been very responsive. Many of those affected by these bogus claims have reported that these have been removed. Others are still waiting to have the claims lifted, but it's obvious an effort is being made by Sega to clean up this mess.

Back to the bad news: this is yet another failing of the ContentID system and YouTube's general approach to copyright claims. Nearly any entity can make a claim on someone else's uploaded videos and the burden of proof is passed along almost entirely to the accused. With ContentID, this process is nearly automatic. We've seen multiple cases of abuse in this system by bad actors who have used content that isn't theirs to make bogus claims on hundreds of gameplay videos solely for the purpose of grabbing ad revenue without actually having to earn it.

Sega's past efforts in the IP enforcement field haven't always been on the side of its fans and customers, but it is heartening to see it has made a proactive effort to retract eLicense's unauthorized claims.

Filed Under: contentid, japan, lets play, takedowns
Companies: elicense, sega

No, Tech Companies Can't Easily Create A 'ContentID' For Harassment, And It Would Be A Disaster If They Did

from the not-how-it-works dept

Every so often we see a sort of "tech magical thinking" when it comes to solving big challenges -- in which people insist that "those smart people in Silicon Valley can fix [big social problem X] if they just decided to do so." This sort of thinking is wrong on multiple levels, and often is based on the false suggestion that tech innovators "don't care enough" about certain problems, rather than recognizing that, perhaps, there aren't any easy solutions. A perfect example of this is a recent column from Jessica Valenti, over at the Guardian, that claims that tech companies could "end online harassment" and that they could do it "tomorrow" if they just had the will to do so. How? Well, Valenti claims, by just making a "ContentID for harassment."

If Twitter, Facebook or Google wanted to stop their users from receiving online harassment, they could do it tomorrow.

When money is on the line, internet companies somehow magically find ways to remove content and block repeat offenders. For instance, YouTube already runs a sophisticated Content ID program dedicated to scanning uploaded videos for copyrighted material and taking them down quickly – just try to bootleg music videos or watch unofficial versions of Daily Show clips and see how quickly they get taken down. But a look at the comments under any video and it’s clear there’s no real screening system for even the most abusive language.

If these companies are so willing to protect intellectual property, why not protect the people using your services?

See? Just like that. Snap your fingers and boom, harassment goes away. Except, no, it doesn't. Sarah Jeong has put together a fantastic response to Valenti's magical tech thinking, pointing out that ContentID doesn't work well and that harassment is different anyway. As she notes, the only reason ContentID "works" at all (and we use the term "works" loosely) is because it's a pure fingerprinting algorithm, matching content against a database of claimed copyright-covered material. That's very different than sorting out "harassment" which involves a series of subjective determinations.

Furthermore, Jeong goes into great detail about how ContentID isn't even particularly good on the copyright front, as we've highlighted for years. It creates both Type I and Type II errors: pulling down plenty of content that isn't infringing, and still letting through plenty of content that is. Add in an even more difficult task of determining "harassment" which is much less identifiable than probable copyright infringement, and you would undoubtedly increase both types of errors to a hilarious degree -- likely shutting down many perfectly legitimate conversations, while doing little to stop actual harassment.

The more aggressive the tool, the greater the chance it will filter out communications that aren’t harassing — particularly, communications one wishes to receive. You can see this in the false positives flagged by systems like Content ID. For example, there’s the time that Content ID took down a video with birds chirping in the background, because it matched an avant-garde song that also had some birds chirping in the background. Or the time NASA’s official clips of a Mars landing got taken down by a news agency. Or the time a livestream was cut off because people began singing "Happy Birthday." Or when a live airing on UStream of the Hugo Awards was interrupted mid-broadcast as the awards ceremony aired clips from Doctor Who and other shows nominated for Hugo Awards.

In the latter case, UStream used something similar but not quite the same as Content ID—one in which blind algorithms automatically censored copyrighted content without the more sophisticated appeals process that YouTube has in place. Robots are not smart; they cannot sense context and meaning. Yet YouTube’s appeals system wouldn’t translate well to anti-harassment tools. What good is a system where you must report each and every instance of harassment and then follow through in a back-and-forth appeals system?

None of this is to suggest that harassment online isn't a serious problem. It is. And it's also possible that some enterprising folks may figure out some interesting, unique and compelling ways of dealing with it, sometimes via technological assistance. But this sort of "magic bullet" thinking is as dangerous as it is ridiculous -- because it often leads to reframing the debate, sometimes to the point of shifting the actual liability of the issue from those actually responsible (whether copyright infringers or harassers) to intermediaries who are providing a platform for communication.

The idea that tech companies "don't care enough" about harassment (or, for that matter, infringement) to do the "simple things" to stop it are arguments of ignorance. If there were some magical silver bullet to make online communications platforms more welcoming and accommodating to all, that would be a huge selling point, and one that many would immediately embrace. But the reality is that some social challenges are problems that can't just be solved with a dollop of javascript, and pretending otherwise is a dangerous distraction that only leads to misplaced attacks, without taking on the underlying problems.

Filed Under: abuse, algorithms, contentid, copyright, filtering, free speech, harassment, jessica valenti, sarah jeong

YouTube Briefly Shuts Down Blizzard's Own YouTube Channel For Copyright Infringement

from the three-strikes dept

YouTube's ContentID system gets mocked quite frequently for bogus takedowns, which happen with unfortunate frequency. The latest, as pointed out by YouTube star Total Biscuit is that Blizzard's own damn YouTube channel for World Championship Series StarCraft, WCSStarCraft, was down for at least 40 minutes earlier today. If you visited the page during that time, you saw the following: A YouTuber who follows Totalbiscuit, Ryan Wyatt, quickly noted that the company was "working on it", but it still looks bad -- and again raises questions about why YouTube has given in to pressures from copyright holders to do excessive things like shutting down accounts based on accusations and matches, all too often leading to these kinds of results. Yes, the DMCA requires a process for removing accounts of repeat infringers, but that should require them to be actual infringers.

Filed Under: content id, contentid, copyright, dmca, starcraft, takedown, wcs
Companies: blizzard, google, youtube

Islamic Extremists Use YouTube's Automated Copyright Dispute Process To Access Critics' Personal Data

from the the-further-breaking-of-a-very-broken-system dept

YouTube's infringement reporting system is -- like many others around the web -- fundamentally broken. Making bogus copyright claims is still an easy way to get channels shut down or to siphon ad revenue from existing videos. It can also be used as a censor -- a cheap and dirty way to shut up critics or remove compromising video.

Apparently, Islamic extremists linked with Al-Qaeda have found another use for YouTube's mostly automated dispute process: low-effort doxxing. According to German news sites, a YouTube channel (Al Hayat TV) known for its criticism of Islam has had to send its listed contact person into hiding after bogus copyright claims filed by extremists led to the exposure of his personal information.

On September 25th, someone using the name "First Crist, Copyright" filed bogus copyright complaints against Al Hayat TV. In order to prevent the channel from being shut down for multiple "strikes," Al Hayat TV was forced to file a counter notification. But in order to do so, the channel operators had to expose sensitive information.

From the YouTube Help section on counter notifications:

After we receive your counter notification, we will forward it to the party who submitted the original claim of copyright infringement. Please note that when we forward the notice, it will include your personal information. By submitting a counter notification, you consent to having your information revealed in this way.

Some of the people behind the channel contacted YouTube and tried to explain the danger of releasing this personal information, especially considering a majority of its contributors operated anonymously for safety reasons. These pleas went unheeded, thanks to the automation of the copyright dispute process. Each request was greeted with pre-generated responses from YouTube support. Discussions with actual humans at YouTube only confirmed that the channel wouldn't be reinstated without following the counter notice procedure -- including handing over details on the channel's contact person.

Unfortunately unaware of the fact that it could have used a legal representative to handle this, Al Hayat TV filed formal counter notices using one of its member's names. Shortly thereafter, it received threats from the supposed copyright holder warning the contact person to "watch your head" (a phrase basically understood to be a death threat in Arabic) and promising to spread this info across several extremist websites. The message also told the contact person to [paraphrased slightly] enjoy living in fear under police protection. The contact person has since gone into hiding.

The quid pro quo of the copyright dispute process netted Al Hayat TV death threats and a completely bogus "First Crist, Copyright" contact person: Samuel George of 245 George Street in Sydney, Australia. Google Street View shows this address to be right in the middle of some prime downtown shopping.

At this point, it would be beyond tedious to rehash the problems with these automated enforcement systems. But this story shows the system can be easily exploited to satisfy very twisted ends. YouTube's copyright dispute process is automated out of necessity. The fact that it instantly "sides" with the accuser contributes to the problem. Trying to sort out the legitimacy of copyright claims without chewing up thousands of man-hours would be a logistical nightmare and would quite possibly result in a system inferior to the irreversibly-broken one in place today. The unfortunate lesson to be drawn from this debacle is that those on the "inside" need to game the system as effectively as those on the "outside." If YouTube's going to treat copyright claims issued by "Crist" from the middle of the Establishment Bar in Sydney, Australia as wholly legitimate, Al Hayat TV should be shown the same disinterested "courtesy" and be allowed to issue a counter notices signed by an imaginary attorney residing at some random address. After all, if the dispute continues past this point, YouTube simply washes its hands of the entire situation and tells both parties to work it out themselves.

Copyright isn't really the culprit here. It's the systems that have been developed in response to rights holders' complaints. They're too easily gamed and little to nothing in the way of deterrents. Unfortunately, unlike incidents where copyright enforcement has been clumsily deployed as a censor, there's no Streisand Effect equivalent for those who greet speech they don't like with threats and violence. Extremists like this simply don't care what others think of their irrational hatred and colossally stupid worldview.

Filed Under: al hayat tv, al qaeda, automated process, contentid, copyright, dmca, doxxing, identification, terrorists
Companies: google, youtube

YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?

from the curious... dept

Remember those days when YouTube was "killing" the entertainment industry. You don't even have to look back very far. There are artists who still insist that YouTube is killing creativity and is nothing but a den of piracy. Viacom spent years trying to argue that YouTube was the equivalent of Napster, but for video, until that lawsuit finally settled just a few months ago.

However, reality is looking pretty different these days. A couple months ago, Businessweek had a big cover story about how YouTube has become Hollywood's "hit factory", and just this week, YouTube revealed that its ContentID program, which allows copyright holders to monetize unauthorized uses of their works, had paid out over $1 billion since its inception. This isn't to say there aren't problems with ContentID. We've noted in the past the problems with false flagging, revenue diversion and other issues -- but the simple fact is that it appears to be making money for content creators. Actually, quite a lot of money.

And this brings us back to a key point that we've hit on over and over and over again: given a chance to operate, these business models tend to come about without the need to pass draconian copyright laws and without the need to completely takedown and destroy businesses. When allowed to thrive, innovate and experiment, it's only natural that workable business models develop. We've seen it over and over again in the industry. The recording industry insisted radio was going to kill the entire industry -- and then it made the industry into a massive juggernaut. The movie industry insisted that the VCR would be its "Boston Strangler," but four years later home video outpaced the box office in generating revenue for the studios.

The continuous claims of "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" on copyright issues is so clearly bogus. As we've argued for years, it's the innovations of the tech industry that keep saving the entertainment industry over and over and over again. There's no "war" between the two when it appears that Silicon Valley is the one supplying the "weapons" that's making Hollywood very, very wealthy.

But when will those folks in Hollywood learn this? Instead, they keep attacking these new services, demanding more copyright "enforcement" and blocking these forms of innovation. Who knows what other innovations might have occurred had the industry not shut down Veoh. Or Grokster. Before the US government completely shut down Megaupload, it was experimenting with new revenue models were attracting the interest of lots of famous musicians. Imagine if that had been allowed to continue. Who knows what other kinds of cool business models would be in place today making more money for artists.

Attacking innovation seems to be the legacy entertainment industry's default position, no matter how many times that innovation actually opens up new markets, provides new revenue streams and makes pretty much everyone better off. Oh, except some of the gatekeepers. Those guys tend not to be able to keep quite as much of the revenue generated by these new platforms. And maybe, just maybe, that's the real reason they're so angry about innovation.

Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyright, culture, experiments, hollywood, innovation, silicon valley, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson

from the beat-it dept

I imagine in some room somewhere, a whole bunch of people in well-tailored suits came up with the idea of DMCA takedowns and thought it'd be just peaches. The practical application of that policy, however, has been something of a performance art piece on how intellectual property is a canard better left on the cutting room floor. YouTube in particular exemplifies this, what with their attempts to comply with rightsholders juxtaposed to a service model that just begs for case studies in inadvertent violations and strong arm attempts by confused non-rightsholders.

Peter writes in with the latest such example, concerning an uploader who put up his trek across the Brooklyn Bridge. The video was taken down for the silliest of reasons.

ANYWAY, I went through all of the trouble of uploading and editing both of these boring-ass videos to a popular Internet video hosting website, only to have the aforementioned website totally mute the Brooklyn Bridge video because there's a Michael Jackson impersonator at the foot of the bridge and he's performing to the song "Beat It," which you can hear in the background.

So, someone crossing a bridge has a video of the experience that includes the decades-old song of a deceased performer being reenacted by a street performer... and down the video goes. I imagine the originators of copyright are rolling over in their graves at this point, never imagining that automated systems would trip the flag on this kind of takedown. Even imagining for a moment that this wouldn't or shouldn't be considered fair use, can someone explain to me what the point of all this is?

I'm pretty sure incidental capture of a portion of a song being played by a street performer falls under "fair use," and I've disputed it because I have nothing better to do with my life, but in the meantime I'm inspired by the knowledge that our publicly-traded companies go to such great lengths to protect the copyrights of great Americans like Michael Jackson.

The reality of course is that the rights to the song are held by a third party label and this was just the automated system accidentally capturing a video that the label probably wouldn't even bother taking down itself and blah, blah, blah. All I know is this is really stupid and a hindrance to the simple sharing culture that humanity has always enjoyed. Thanks copyright.

Filed Under: ambient noise, brooklyn bridge, contentid, copyright, dmca, street performer, youtube
Companies: youtube