Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background

from the that-ain't-right dept

A whole bunch of folks have been sending in this Slashdot story about a guy who had one of his videos "claimed" via ContentID on YouTube due to a purpoted match with content that Rumblefish claims to hold the copyright on. We actually saw this post early on, because it links to an old Techdirt post about questionable Rumblefish takedowns. In this case, the guy says that there was no music in the video, but that Rumblefish said that the birds singing in the background violated its copyright:
"I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."
While it's still not fully clear what happened, the idea of claiming copyright on birds singing is actually not an entirely new concept (though, yes, it is ridiculous). In 2010, we wrote about Apple getting sued buy a guy, Martyn Stewart, who had recorded a bunch of bird sounds. Someone else had used those sounds in an app called iBird. As I said then, I'm not sure that there really is much "copyright" to claim over recording birds, but even if someone wants to make an argument that recording birds is copyrightable, it's pretty clear that the guy in the story above was just recording his own sounds -- not using someone's "copyright"-covered bird songs...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Vincent Clement (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    WTF?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    minerat (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:37am

    The CEO of Rumblefish has gone on Reddit to answer questions. The response has been mixed.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_rumblefish_i_guess_were_the_newe st/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:38am

    O Rly?

    So, Rumblefish owns a copyright on all bird songs ever? Man that is genius! Be right back guys, I'm gonna go copyright whale songs, or maybe car traffic noises, those are used so much I'll make a FORTUNE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:42am

    Re:

    well, look at the company policy:

    http://rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php

    read #4.

    It's not an apology. It's a "we're making money off you, shut up and suck it up".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    Quick! Someone copyright ranting on Mike!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    Obviously a cover band

    I think it is obvious that the birds eeplox recorded were doing a cover of the tweets from an earlier group of birds. Covers are covered by Rumblefish, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:48am

    Re: O Rly?

    Yes, his account only highlights the damned problem, which he doesn't seem to understand. Here's what he says happened:

    1. Guy uploads video
    2. Content ID system flags it as infringing
    3. Guy appeals flagging
    4. RumbleFish human being somehow supposedly watches the video and "mistakenly" upholds the ingringement objection with YouTube.
    5. Guy reads second objection, pinches his own wang to ensure he's not somehow sleeping and dreaming of retarded amounts of stupidity, turns to bird and asks if he sang an infringing song. Bird, being a bird, declines to answer. Guy feels that this should be taken as a sign that it's not him that's insane.

    So, we have a guy with a video who did nothing wrong and does every step right. We have the infringement police fucking up at every turn. In the end, the only parties doing ANYTHING FUCKING WRONG AT ALL were Google and RumbleFish.

    I hate this shit...I really do....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:49am

    *rehash of my boingboing post cause well its true*

    Isn't the bigger problem Content ID itself?
    We have tons of cases where things are mistakenly tagged/flagged/bagged and the default answer of the system is Copyright Holders are always right.
    Content ID was thrown together to make content holders happy, and make them stop suing You Tube. It appears to be a flawed system randomly flagging things, but then your comparing it to millions of things the content industry has shoveled into it.
    We found 12 seconds of your video to be infringing, it matched 12 seconds of silence from 435 films... the first one the system spit out will get to place ads on "their" video.

    Maybe its time to demand YouTube stop with secret deals (UMG vs MegaSong anyone), and demand they fix Content ID.
    When the system creates a claim of ownership on actual real world bird songs, you shouldn't need more hints that it completely screwed up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:54am

    Did the original birds give all copyright to them? I thought so. Fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:54am

    "it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."

    Guess I'll claim the sound of the wind in the trees, then.

    Morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    MPHinPgh (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Re:

    WTF indeed. Time for a bogus copyright lawsuit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Royalties

    If Rumblefish and Martyn Stewart can claim copyright owners of birds singing, do they pay said birds their content creator royalties? Did they have the birds sign away their given copyrights since they created the song themselves? Are they paying the birds royalties for performance rights?

    Do Rumblefish and Martyn Stewart provide feeders for said birds whose content they copyrighted without the birds signature or even contacted the birds' lawyers? That sounds like theft to me.

    Think of all those singing birds who never get their fair pay (in worms or seed) for their efforts in singing their songs. Hell, I'm surprised Rumblefish and Stewart LLC are not out there shooting birds for performing their copyrighted music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    Re:

    And by the Hammer of Thor don't do a silent video longer than 4:33 or you'll run afoul of of the John Cage Estate for infringing on his seminal composition 4'33".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:59am

    Re:

    I'm pretty sure TAM holds a patent on that.

    "Method or process describing how Mike is a pawn of the freetards and Google."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:59am

    Re: Royalties

    I expect that the labels pay the birds a percentage comparable to what they pay the rest of their artists, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    when will this copyright insanity finally end?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    When I was reading this the first thought was shouldn't they be suing Disney too for Cinderella and snow white for singing bird
    Threes a typo you wrote buy instead of by

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:02am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    There*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: O Rly?

    Hold on now. Turns out that there's a video showing exactly how those birds, and thus the guy in question, could have infringed.

    Rumblefish, I am available as an expert witness for reasonable rates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Murray (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Do the birds have to pay a performance royalty when they sing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:05am

    Re: Royalties

    Right! After all where will be the incentive for birds to keep singing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Royalties

    haha, I see what you did there

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:08am

    PRS, ASCAP etc

    PRS,ASCAP etc

    Are now sending operatives out into the woods to collect licence money from the avian community

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: O Rly?

    Oh no! This means Rumblefish is going to sue Hasbro! o.0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:11am

    Re:

    I'm gonna vote insightful on this post, because it's so true

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:15am

    Re:

    Reading through the AmA, I am not all that convinced of the guy's sincerity. While the situation was resolved, it was only resolved after getting a media storm. Had this thing never blown up on Reddit and elsewhere, the video would still be falsely flagged today.

    The problem is not that there is so much content for them to review, it is that the system is designed to flag as much content as possible without any controls in place.

    One of the problems with prescreening content, which many here have pointed out, is that there is just too much stuff being uploaded to site like Youtube to be effectively screened. This situation proves that point. Content ID is meant to automate the process, but it fails on a way too regular basis to be useful for anyone but big interests like Rumblefish. Add to that the fact that any artists that wish to participate then have to sign a licensing deal with a company like Rumblefish and at the same time signing over up to 50% of the revenue to said company.

    Another issue I saw in that thread and the FAQ linked is that even if you license the music properly, Rumblefish can still claim it and force ads around your legal content. This is double billing and should not stand.

    This is not the way to move forward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: O Rly?

    Good luck treating Fluttershy as a hostile witness. Girlfriend can stare down a frakin' Cockatrice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Stolen from someone funnier than me...

    You wouldn't download a bird...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Re: PRS, ASCAP etc

    ...and presumably hunters to make examples of those who fail to respond appropriately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Re: O Rly?

    Be right back guys, I'm gonna go copyright whale songs, or maybe car traffic noises, those are used so much I'll make a FORTUNE!

    I'm going to copyright the sound of crickets and sue for every reference ( *crickets* ) on every on discussion forum on the web. Plus every TV show and movie with an outdoor evening scene. Maybe I'll even sue Disney for that silly singing cricket named Jiminy, since they obviously based him on real crickets. And all of the UK too, for naming a national pastime after them.

    $$$ CHA-CHING! $$$

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    drkkgt (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:26am

    Payment

    I didn't see anything about them having to pay back and money made while the ads run. In reality, if rumblefish did this with a bunch of vids that weren't really theirs and only half of the owners stopped them by arguing RF would still make quite a bit of change wouldn't they? Maybe that was their plan? (I get that they won't make a ton on ads but I could see where it would all add up if they did this a lot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:27am

    I'm loving the CEO's excuse on reddit, one of their reps made a "mistake" while reviewing the video. How does one make a mistake like that? I'd be willing to bet that they've never made a mistake going the other way. This is just an example of a company using (abusing) YouTube's content ID system to make some quick free ad revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    Or maybe Disney should sue them, the examples you posted are from a long time before rumblefish existed. Maybe then they'd go bankrupt fighting it and disappear (one can only hope).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:33am

    Re: Stolen from someone funnier than me...

    You wouldn't download a bird...

    True.

    But, I have been known to give the bird to people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Vincent Clement (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Royalties

    Depends. Could be possible that these birds are under contract to God. What happens next depends on your version of God.

    If he is the Old Testament vengeful God, he will sue Rumblefish and then charge back the cost of that lawsuit to the birds. If he is the New Testament kinder gentler God, he will forgive you. I'm sure there are other versions. Feel free to expand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re:

    In one of his posts the guy literally argues that they should be able to put ads they earn money from on content that uses works they hold the copyright too even if the use is fair. That's beyond double billing, that billing for a use that doesn't require a license in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    The only way a mistake could have been made in this instance was if the reviewer just flat out didn't watch the video. Had a human watched the video from beginning to end, there could not have been a mistake made. If that reviewer was like me and watched about 30 seconds of the video and got too bored to watch it all the way, I could see them saying to themselves "The infringing stuff is probably later. I will flag it anyway" That is absolutely wrong.

    Of course, no amount of "training" will fix this problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Are they really trying to collect performance royalties from birds now? Perhaps this is why we have angry birds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re:

    No wonder the birds are angry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Royalties

    L
    O
    L

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re:

    It's not about content creator, it's about content owner.

    Sheesh... ;P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Re:

    My question to him would be, "ok, you made a mistake, how are you recouping the loss revenue of the person who had to feel the mistake you made?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re:

    This whole thread should get funniest post of the week.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re:

    Or the "mistake" was just plain getting caught abusing the system. From the looks of it this kind of "mistake" is reported with alarming frequency--which begs the question; how many times has this happened and not been reported? Now it looks like some poor schmuck of a low level employee who's gonna get thrown under a bus for it.

    When there is no penalty placed on content owners that abuse the system for profit, it will be abused (and no, the threat of a lawsuit from some guy with no money isn't gonna stop them--although it might make them laugh).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re:

    I don't think the Google part is TAM. I'm sure he's still around, but I think his freetard rants get lost amongst the fake trolls (such as myself on occasion). I don't know that he has the significant voice that he used to have.

    Every time TAM is mentioned, I start missing angry dude and dorpus.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Royalties

    On the AMA the guy claims royalties are paid at 50%. That's a pretty good living for a bird no matter how you slice it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:28am

    Maybe the birds were making an unauthorized performance of Rumblefish's composition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Stolen from someone funnier than me...

    "But, I have been known to give the bird to people."

    You should always use both hands to give the bird to people. This also keeps your middle fingers free from performing sinful acts with your lady-friends. Hence the well-known axiom: a bird in two hands is worth one in the bush.

    Wait...I might have fucked that up....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Three Strikes for DMCA Abuse

    Hey, since the content industries are just in love with three strikes laws, maybe we can amend the DMCA to include it for takedown abuses, get three strikes for wrongly claiming copyright on something, lose the ability to make any more DMCA takedowns. Think they'll go for it?.........nope they wont.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: O Rly?

    yeah...you think you are so smart...i am going for the sound of people talking and explosions...yeah, I will be a 1%er

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    JP (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:53am

    Re: Re: Royalties

    Well, they did try to pay the birds, but it seems they flew the coup!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    I-Blz, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O Rly?

    Brohoof, my friend.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Joe, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    The Bird is the WORD

    When a business does something wrong, it's a "mistake". When a regular person does something "wrong", it's a crime.

    The Bird is the WORD!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    don't forget Wierd Harold....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    WH and TAM are the same stupid, highly disturbed "person", possibly reptilian in ancestry....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    Content ID the problem?

    Chirping birds run afoul of YouTubeís automated copyright infringing system: We (Rumblefish) didnít claim it as anything actually. The YouTube Content ID system, IDíd the song and associated it with one of our artists / labels. I found out about this a few hours ago, watched the video myself and there was clearly no music in it at allÖ.only birdsong. I hit up the right person on our team to remove the claim and it was removed earlier tonight. We donít know why YT claimed birdsong as one of our artists songs. Itís confusing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Content ID the problem?

    Suzanne, if you follow the Reddit thread that Rumblefish is reportedly responding on, that's absolute bullshit. what you're quoting misses the important step in the middle where Rumblefish FIRST reviewed the video and "accidentally" reaffirmed the infringement claim....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    artp (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    Wrong target...

    What's the problem. Just sue the bird! They infringed first!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Obviously this video never should have been flagged. I wonder if there is a correction system so that whatever soundprint linked the sound in this particular video to Rumblefish can be removed from the Content ID system. A self-educating ID system would be interesting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

    If I ever decided to use bird sounds, I certainly wouldn't pay anyone for permission.

    The bigger issue: Why is YouTube (Google) bending over backwards to the pro-copyright thought police? I'd tell 'em to get lost. What are they gonna do, take down YouTube? Pffft, yeah, right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Yes, that'd be interesting, but it still wouldn't alleviate the problem of the content rights owner "accidentally" affirming infringement after supposedly manually reviewing the video. I mean.....there's no damned music at ALL!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I start missing angry dude...

    Careful, mentioning angry dude is like saying Beetlejuice three times. Now he's going to show up and bitch at us for talking about him.

    Like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Dark Helmet:

    See that? This is exactly how it happened with the first "review".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

    Re:

    No, someone pulled birsongs out of public domain and copyrighted them. Procedure now is to harass birds for public performance rights payments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Royalties

    Discovered there was no such person, contract was void.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

    Re:

    The bigger issue: Why is YouTube (Google) bending over backwards to the pro-copyright thought police? I'd tell 'em to get lost. What are they gonna do, take down YouTube? Pffft, yeah, right.

    Content ID has been a great way to push music licensing forward, so I think it was an inspired move on Google's part. YouTube could not have rolled back copyright laws any time soon (if ever). Rather than fighting it, Google found a work around which showed copyrights holders how they could make money, which was better for them than tying up the system in endless lawsuits.

    I suppose there gets to be a point where Google is so big and powerful that it can tell governments to shove it, but that bigness generates its own set of backlashes. And I'm seeing signs of it all ready for Apple, Google, Facebook, and others. They are no longer the warm, fuzzy underdog startups.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

    "YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music"

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/26/2141246/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted- music

    One interesting comment

    "The *PROBLEM* is that Rumblefish is claiming copyright on other people's work. That's completely unacceptable--it's piracy. And that's what needs to be stopped."

    Posted by im_thatoneguy

    But will Rumblefish get slammed for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for an act worse than infringement? Of course not, they get the high court treatment. Had it been anyone else ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Don't forget RJR.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

    Re:

    Oh, and their excuse (from the reddit.com link)? It was a single mistake, by and large we don't make these kinds of mistakes very often given all the content we do foster.

    But this 'mistake' argument would never hold for anyone else who infringes, IP extremist lawyers would sue them into the ground, so they should be given the same exact merciless and unforgiving treatment that IP extremists are quick to give anyone they suspect of infringement. They should be fined hundreds of thousands, I have no sympathy for them just like IP extremists have no sympathy for those who infringe and demand ridiculous sums of money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Yes, that'd be interesting, but it still wouldn't alleviate the problem of the content rights owner "accidentally" affirming infringement after supposedly manually reviewing the video.

    No it wouldn't. So this would end up being a case-by-case correction. Each time a video is wrongfully tagged and removed, whatever resulted in the tagging in the first place is corrected. I'm not saying it is the best solution to the entire situation, but at least it would eliminate having the same mistake occur multiple times.

    If there isn't a self-educating system, I suppose every video with a certain type of bird sound is going to get flagged and each one is going to be sent to Rumblefish for review.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O Rly?

    /)(\

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    If you believe that then you beleive Rumblefish either never engaged the Reddit community to respond in the link cited earlier, or you believe they're lying in that earlier response.

    I, on the other hand, believe what they said on Reddit, that they reviewed initially and affirmed infringement, though I find the idea that this reviewer actually watched the entire video suspect to say the least. More likely he/she simply chose to reaffirm without actually taking the time to watch the video.

    After all, as they said on Reddit, there's like, lots of videos to go through, yo, and it's, like, really hard and stuff....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    c0c0c0 (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    mockingbirds

    Ok, this is wrong on so many levels. The guy recorded mockingbirds and they were singing a tune that was covered by Rumblefish's copyright. Rumblefish knew it and so they verified the claim.

    What about this don't you understand???? Think of the children!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:27pm

    Why YouTube?

    Why does it have to be YouTube? There are any number of places you can post videos now. Vimeo seems quite popular among a certain circle I hang out with. And even Tumblr allows video uploads.

    After all, people find your video via a link. And a link can just as easily point at one site as another. YouTube isnít a walled garden.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    Re:

    They should stick to fish before someone flips them the bird.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    You are still missing DH's point. After Content ID falsely flagged it and the flag was disputed a REAL HUMAN from Rumblefish reafirmed that the video was infringing.

    How are you going to fix that problem? When one of your employees can't tell the difference between birds chirping and one of your songs, that is a HUGE weak link in the system. Bigger than the automated Content ID system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    angry dude, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you just keep that link handy in case someone mentions my fucking name? Go back to wondering about artistic qualities and pissing the bed so the adults can talk in peace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    How are you going to fix that problem?

    Once a video is wrongly tagged, it is no longer sent to that company. So for each screw up, hopefully it would only happen once.

    Are there ways to remove human error altogether? Perhaps. The "ideal" Content ID system would work so flawlessly that no human intervention would ever be necessary. That's not going to happen, of course, but if the technology were continued to be improved each time there is a failure, that would help.

    As I have said here many times, you are all welcome to try to eliminate copyright altogether, but you'll have a long haul ahead of you. YouTube has at least found a reasonable solution until that point. It's not perfect, but at least it keeps YouTube functioning in the meantime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    I am not asking how things would work under ideal circumstances with an ideal Content ID. I am asking how you are going to fix things in the here and now with the resources currently at your disposal.

    Here is my best guess of the sequence of events:

    1) Man uploads his video to YouTube.
    2) Content ID scans it and flags it as having Rumblefish IP in it.
    3) Youtube puts ads around video which pay money to Rumblefish.
    4) Man disputes Rumblefish's claim.
    5) Rumblefish employee "inspects" the complaint and decides the video is infringing, when it is clearly not.
    6) Man's dispute is brushed aside and Rumblefish continues to get ad revenue for non-existent infringement.

    We are not asking how to fix step 2. We are asking how you plan to fix step 5.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    We are not asking how to fix step 2. We are asking how you plan to fix step 5.

    Obviously I'm not going to fix anything. I don't work for Google.

    Google could add some penalties to punish companies inappropriately requesting that videos be taken down. But given that this problem has happened in the past and Google hasn't set up any system to correct it, it's probably not a high priority for Google right now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:53pm

    Here's an idea ...
    Teach a parrot to sing a Prince song, dress it up and put the vid on YT - do it the lulz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 6:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All I have to say about 'angry dude' is that he's a dick. Acts like a dick, replies like a dick, makes him a dick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 6:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    What does Google have to do with fixing a problem with Rumblefish employees falsely flagging content as its own?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 7:38pm

    Re: Re:

    And because your not facing charges of copyfraud, its completely one sided and wrong.
    Google found a system that was demanded by a bunch of rights holders to go above and beyond their required duty in this manner as a service provider to actively work to protect your IP.
    It is completely 1 sided and your not the first company who has wrongfully snagged content and made money from things they are not entitled to. It is completely in favor of the gate keepers, and it is assumed no one else can own anything.
    Your employee reaffirmed a claim because you allowed it, because in every previous case of this Google tells the little guy to suck it, they must be lying. This time you made the mistake of screwing someone who actually managed to get attention focused on this. It is completely insane that actual bird songs matched anything, it is completely insane that someone working for you thinks you license recordings of wild birds.

    Here you talk about how wonderful Content ID is and earlier you try to blame it all on Google matching to much. You want Content ID when it works for you, and when it gets to be to much your employee just slaps whatever button makes the report go away faster. If Content ID is creating to many reports for you, maybe as a content holder you might speak with them about the failure that the system has become and look for ways to improve it, but as it stands now its making you money so why shake the boat.

    If you had to pay a $3000 fine for everytime your employee accidentally reinstated a bogus claim, do you think you might have demanded more diligence then?

    This is the problem, everyone else gets screwed because your assumed to be right. Content ID was designed to stop lawsuits from IP holders to freaking lazy to build their own system to protect their own IP and shifting the blame and responsibility to Google to take care of.

    You get to hold copyrights longer than the lifespans of most people using the internet today, you get to make money that entire time, but claim there is not enough if you have to actually work to legitimately protect your IP, I say BS. If it is that important and that valuable you should be contributing something to protecting your property instead of pushing the burden onto someone else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:32pm

    Re: Re: O Rly?

    I'm gonna record the sounds of locusts, who are close relatives to crickets, sue your butt off then play the locust sounds over top of your crickets, then declare that I have a copyright on all the sounds any and all insects, combination of insects or assembly of insects make!!!!

    Take THAT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    What does Google have to do with fixing a problem with Rumblefish employees falsely flagging content as its own?

    Rumblefish could completely disappear (which seems to be what you'd like) but that by itself won't eliminate potential problems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your employee reaffirmed a claim because you allowed it, because in every previous case of this Google tells the little guy to suck it, they must be lying.

    You do realize I don't work for Rumblefish, have never sent them any music, and have absolutely nothing to do with either Google or Rumblefish.

    I've been paying attention to Content ID since Google first announced it because I know a lot of musicians who record themselves singing other people's songs and upload them. It's never been fully explained by Google or anyone else which of those songs will be allowed to remain up and which ones won't be. Most musicians know about obtaining a mechanical license from Harry Fox, but there is no easy way to obtain a synch license and therefore most don't. Google doesn't want to discourage this because it isn't in itself self-interest to do so, but on the other hand, it hasn't really provided info on how to obtain the proper licenses in advance. Content ID sort of handles the problem by identifying songs and then letting the video creator knowing after the fact whether the video gets to stay or not. It's a work around given current laws and their interpretation. I'd rather this than no YouTube while the various companies spend years trying to sort out copyright laws. This work around allows YouTube to function in an environment which is still being defined legally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 9:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Royalties

    I guess that means that woodpeckers get 50% of the insects in the trees, that crows get 50% of any carrion around or whatever pisses them off at the time, seagulls get to steal half of kid's hot dogs and ice cream and the beach and them poop on half their parents?

    This could get incredibly complicated. Requiring much wisdom, the patience of Job and the ability to split splittable hairs.

    We need a politician to sort this out!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Bas Grasmayer (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 2:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Google provides content owners with tools for flagging. Some of these tools are not available to most of its users - only content users (who usually have to send a fax to request them).

    If people are abusing these tools, Google should 'fix' that, by restricting their use of these tools. Else their automated system can be grossly abused.

    People that abuse these tools really should be told to fax/mail DMCA notices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 2:09am

    Re: Re: Royalties

    actually, old testiment God is more like 'send a guy to tell them they're doing it wrong and shall be smitten if they do not change' .... then find weird and inventive ways to kill 'em all off.

    New testiment God (not that they're actually any different, but that requires caring about the theology) would be like 'hey, realise what you did was wrong, admit it, and stop doing it and you'll be fine. fail to, and when i wrap this thing up, you BURN!' (please note that there's a fair bit of evidence that this is not 'tortured for eternity' so much as 'combust and stop existing because that's a heck of a lot more merciful than spending an Eternity alive and completely separated from God. as with 90% of everything, some people disagree.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 2:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Stolen from someone funnier than me...

    *epic facepalm*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    dcee (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 4:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Suzanne, I know you're trying hard to answer but I think you're still missing the point, of course if Rumblefish disapears the problem would also disappear, because step 5 would have never happened.

    The problem is that a human at Rumblefish confirmed company ownership of a wrongly identified video. If Rumblefish wouldn't have confirmed it, then there would have been no problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Andy, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:25am

    The same thing happened to me on SoundCloud.

    "Our automatic content protection system has detected that your upload "Drums_RIDE.wav" may contain content that is owned or licensed by EMI UK (Oliver Wallace, En El Tejado).
    As a result, we have paused the upload of your audio for the time being.

    If you are the original creator of the audio in all its parts, or have obtained all necessary licenses and permissions to upload and share this content, please contact us using the form below."


    The song they're referring to is on Disney's Peter Pan soundtrack, and the Spanish version to top it off!

    My track was the ride (cymbal) track from the drums of one of our songs. Just to make sure everyone understands what that means, I'm talking about the a single element of the drum track from a song. Yeah, just a guy banging on a cymbal! This track was from a remix kit we put on soundcloud so our fans could remix our songs.

    The situation sorted itself out within 48 hours but it's a taste of what's to come.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    If Rumblefish wouldn't have confirmed it, then there would have been no problem.

    In this instance there wouldn't have been a problem. But there have been other cases where companies have falsely claimed copyright on a video they really have no rightful claim.

    I'm not trying to defend Rumblefish. I have no interest in the company.

    What does interest me is how Content ID works since I know so many musician friends who upload themselves singing songs they didn't write. Content ID is the system that will decide if those videos stay or go. I am not anti-Content ID by any means. It's a great interim solution to music licensing involving online video.

    I just spend a lot of time looking for some answers to pass on to musicians. The Rumblefish incident illustrates a glitch in the system. One can either accept that these things will happen, or one can try to find solutions to reduce or eliminate these problems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well you honestly give an amazing impersonation of them.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-gets-bogus-youtube-copyright-claim- birds-singing-background.shtml#c719

    We use quotes to show the use of others words, so as not to leave the reader with confusion about ones position.

    YouTube is in a screwed position because on the one side you have the public who want to upload and share. On the other side you have corporations who demand the burden to "protect" their IP falls onto everyone else.

    IP holders want every possible cent they can find, and have found fun ways to get more than their fair share by exploiting systems. They purchase Congresscritters, They use threats of massive lawsuits to get their way, They fake documents showing how they are bleeding money because someone didn't pay them what they feel they are owed.

    The system is loaded against the public, who were tricked into letting these corporations "own" imaginary property with promises of they would become part of the shared culture everyone could use.

    The issue is clouded with the loaded argument of won't someone think of the "artists", when there is undeniable evidence that these corporations will use every possible "trick" to keep them from getting what they are owed.

    You have people making laws who gleefully celebrate their total ignorance of the internet, and are handed enough money to believe the lie that Google is rich only from the sweat of someone elses brow. The truth is these corporations are the ones who are rich from the sweat of others brows.

    The simple fact that Content ID matched wild bird songs to ANYTHING show that there is a bias flaw. The fact rightsholders have no accountability for lying in these situations, and demand a private system honestly needs to be addressed with laws written by people with an understanding of reality. That if you tape your child doing something cute and there happens to be a few seconds of a song in the background that the label, artist, etc... are not owed a damn thing.

    They like to talk about the entitlement of the consumer, and consumers should be entitled to quite a bit. The entitlement of companies like this dwarfs anything consumers feel entitled to.

    Google should dump Content ID, but they can not because the paid lackeys believe the lies. They gleefully support getting extrajudicial solutions to the "problem". Content ID could become a useful tool, but only if rightsholders are forced to give more than demands to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That quote was taken from the Reddit article. I just used the "Blog This" tool (created by Google) to pull the quote out with the link. Sorry that confused you.

    Google set up Content ID to keep YouTube in business. Of course it is self-serving for Google, but I like the fact that YouTube is still in business.

    You guys can declare war on IP laws, copyright holders, Content ID, and/or Google for all I care. Please attack your "real" enemies. Not me.

    Here's the issue facing musicians. They are encouraged to cover songs and upload them to YouTube. Over and over again they are told how doing this will launch their careers. However, technically to do that they need synch licenses. Those are hard to come by because there is no set clearing house and no set price for them. Google on the one hand wants musicians to upload these videos, but on the other hand, doesn't explain how they can obtain the proper licenses.

    So someone like me ends up saying, "There's no guarantee that the video will remain if you don't have a license you probably can't get anyway, but almost no musicians run into trouble, so do it." I'm just trying to push Google to clarify what is allowable. However, they don't really want to say because they don't want to go on record about encouraging people to upload videos without proper licenses.

    What I am hoping is that the new deals with publishers will turn Google into the Harry Fox of synch licensing so that there is an understandable system to explain to musicians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here. This is what I wrote about 1 1/2 years ago. I've updated it a bit as people ask me questions in the comments section. I have maintained that YouTube is doing its best to put music licensing forward without actually rewriting the laws (which will be a long and drawn out process). So I think what Google is doing is good.

    Music, Copyright, and YouTube

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    Then you misinterpret my quip. I agree with you here. My point was, just as Suzanne completely failed to address what you actually said, the review(er) entirely failed to review the claim.

    More likely he/she simply chose to reaffirm without actually taking the time to watch the video.


    Exactly.

    You:
    what you're quoting misses the important step in the middle where Rumblefish FIRST reviewed the video and "accidentally" reaffirmed the infringement claim....


    Suzanne:
    Obviously this video never should have been flagged. I wonder if there is a correction system so that whatever soundprint linked the sound in this particular video to Rumblefish can be removed from the Content ID system. A self-educating ID system would be interesting.


    Me:
    Lolwut?

    I mean, she's really pushing the diversion by the end there. But ignorant affirmation or diversionary tactic, in both cases, the actual subject was not addressed at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Royalties

    You could go that way, but what actually happens is that the artificial person (gods/corporations) has believers and the minions of believers (some form of law enfarcement) to go and attack the sinners (infringers and those wrongfully accused of infringement). And birds. Those birds are going to hell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?

    What I have been saying is that the Rumblefish incident is just one of many involving multiple companies. I'm concerned with how ContentID works. In this case, it wasn't able to properly identify content, and then the problem was compounded by the fact that a company claimed copyright on video content it should not have claimed copyright.

    It's a multiple part problem and pointing to Rumblefish will not fix it. You guys think that since I won't limit my focus to Rumblefish, I must be the enemy. In fact, I am saying that the entire system is flawed. It's much better than having YouTube not exist. And it's a good system to spread advertising venue to content creators. But sometimes videos are misidentified. I'd say it's probably a relatively small percentage of videos that are misidentified, but it does happen.

    What's interesting whenever people attack me on TechDirt is that I am actually more radical than most of you. I'm all in favor of democratization of creativity and am wary of any big companies involved in the process. It's been interesting watching the tide start to turn against Apple, Facebook, Google, etc., and to watch them all battle against each other.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    heartlessgamer, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:40pm

    Re:

    In reality it is Google/YouTube that are pirating and profiting from the work. Content ID just allows the 3rd parties to get automatic checks from Google/YT instead of having to sue over infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    ahow628 (profile), Feb 29th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Interesting situation

    What would happen if Rumblefish and the nature dude were both out in the woods, unaware of each other, and ended up recording the same bird at the same time? I'm assuming this would be similar to simultaneous invention in patents.

    But it just shows how insane it is that Rumblefish can copyright this in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Mar 20th, 2012 @ 6:40am

    Re: Re: O Rly?

    I'd copyright Manhattan 5 o'clock traffic sounds, but I think Karlheinz Stockhausen already has that locked up with his early woodwind quintet works...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    earllee, May 3rd, 2012 @ 5:23am

    I use tracks from Ezvid

    as all of their tracks are YouTube-legal and thus allows me to have a background music. Thus, no longer worry if my account gets deleted or muted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    cyberscan (profile), May 27th, 2012 @ 6:25pm

    You Tube Poster Should Sue

    If the youtube poster can come up with the money to sue Rumblefish, he should sue Rumblefish for copyright infringement for "stealing" his work and claiming it as their own. These copyright trolls should see what it is like to be on the other end of the court system. If the poster can prove that he recorded the birds, then it should be pretty much an open and shut case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Michael Wade, Aug 14th, 2012 @ 12:25am

    Rumblefish

    Well, hopefully, for Rumblefish's sake, no one will give any of their offices a Holmes style shoot up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Kimberly, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 3:08pm

    Really?!

    Do the birds get royalties?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    mary, Apr 9th, 2013 @ 1:54am

    unbelievable! So someone just claimed nature! WTF???? Seriously Youtube needs to get some shit in order!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This