Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician
from the not-cool dept
We’ve talked in the past about how YouTube’s ContentID system fails at fair use and the public domain — whereby it is unable to distinguish public domain material. That has resulted in ridiculous situations, often where large companies with huge catalogs end up shutting down perfectly legal content. Sometimes it’s crazy stuff like taking down a video because of birds chirping in the background, but other times it can result in public domain music being pulled down.
Musician Dave Colvin appears to be dealing with the latter, as he noted in a frustrated Facebook post about how the publishing arms of the major labels keep claiming copyright on public domain cover songs that he’s been recording and posting to YouTube. The end result is that, even though all of these claims are bogus, YouTube is threatening to take away his ability to monetize his account, and have already disabled it on a public domain song.
I am fed up with YouTube. Several times I have provided evidence that my video “O Little Town of Bethlehem” is a Public Domain song and each time I get an email saying the song is owned by either Warner Chappell or UMPG or Sony. Now they have disabled my being able to earn any money for the number of times the video is viewed. We are only talking about pennies but no one “owns” a Public Domain song.
They now have threatened to totally disable my account from monetizing any of my videos because of multiple “false” claims of ownership. Since there is no way to speak to a human being directly, there will never be a way to convince them of the error of their ways….Fed up!
(And just to cut this argument off before it even begins: you can absolutely make money from public domain material, you just can’t stop others from doing the same thing). Again, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing, and it’s a situation that YouTube really needs to figure out a solution to.
Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyfraud, dave colvin, monetization, music, public domain
Companies: google, sony music, universal music, warner/chappell
Comments on “Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician”
As much as I hate the lawsuit as a tool (or weapon), this seems to be a situation where it might be useful.
The solution is to disable DCMA take-down requests from Warner Chappel, UMPG, & Sony.
Re:
I think the solution is to shoot all the lawyers. But I may be feeling bitter and angry.
as YouTube seems to only consider take down notices, particularly when from the major labels, there isn’t a hope in hell of anything changing. that’s the main reason a person can never be contacted and another reason why stupid politicians fall for the labels BS every time!
Did he file counter-notices? If so what was the finding?
If he didn’t, I don’t think he has room to complain.
Re:
Agreed, this would defiantly be a situation where a class action lawsuit might be a reasonable way to get a response from YouTube on this issue–although I doubt it would actually be winnable. YouTube, as a private company can do whatever it wants.
Re: Re:
Actually Keroberos YouTube is owned by Google, which is a publicly owned company.
The solution is to disable DCMA take-down requests from Warner Chappel, UMPG, & Sony.
What, and risk all those mafiaa bribes, er “political donations” in a US election year? Not bloody likely.
Google/Youtube needs US president “insert figurehead name here” of the week to protect their racket and they know it.
Time for a Lawsuit.Youtube is being very lame and unfair.
Also time to step up the Boycott of RIAA,MPAA, ETC Material
Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
You can easily make money off of public domain. It is how it is arranged that makes the copyright.
I see a few heads scratching and I want to clear up what I said:
Since the sheet music is public domain, you can arrange it to your liking till your heart’s content.
This made it possible for this infamous version of Beethoven’s 5th to be made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ouMaLRth-s
When this version came out, it was subject to copyright.
It was at one point copyright material that made money.
It is still subject to copyright now but only of terms of giving credit to the artist who made the arrangement…it is free to use under public domain as long as credit is given where it is due.
Only Slightly Relevant
I created an Alternate History of the RIAA and, although the only thing it has in common with this post is the record labels, I’m dying to have people read and enjoy it.
Please pardon my impatience.
Re:
These aren’t DMCA claims. From what I’ve read they’re ContentID takedowns. I don’t know what recourse (if any) YouTube has to deal with counter-claims for false takedowns under the ContentID system. If you read the article he’s provided evidence of false takedowns multiple times, and has so far only received canned responses. This is the major problem with the ContentID system (it heavily favors big content owners.
Re:
As much as I hate the lawsuit as a tool (or weapon), this seems to be a situation where it might be useful.
It was my gut reaction, too. But suing usually only works for the ultra-wealthy that bribe the politicians and every other greedy and/or dumb sob-on-the-take that they can find.
Somehow, I doubt he owns enough corrupt people.
On Second Thought
I’ll just post it here:
A couple of days after reading about the RIAA having its budget cut, I left a comment on this story, which was the genesis for the following:
An Alternative (Recent) History of the RIAA
1999: Realizing the inevitable, the RIAA convinces member labels to set up all-you-can eat buffets. All music available as DRM-free downloads, $5/mo. 100M of storage, additional available for increased monthly fee. The RIAA uses superior marketing muscle to “drown out” competing “free” alternatives, insists people should only download from “legitimate” sources to ensure data integrity and security. It recommends the gradual reduction in the production, marketing, storage and sales of CDs, vinyl and tape, keeping only a small reserve capacity*.
2000: RIAA negotiates a small increase in financial support from labels’ substantial savings from physical media reductions to create the Online Strategy Group (OSG), hiring engineers, programmers, technologists, musicologists and a futurist or two and forms FoM, Future of Music, Incorporated to handle subscriptions.
2001: On OSG advice, the RIAA convinces member labels to cross-offer artists by genre in online sites with fun names like, “soultology.com”, “hitsnmisses.com”, “netrockstar.com”, “eargasm.com”, etc. Marginally increased monthly fee ($1 more each) gets access to all sites and membership in forums, discounts on t-shirts, tickets, posters, etc. FoM takes over all profit-making ventures. FoM buys Creative and with the help from the OSG brain-trust, designs and sells a fantastically popular line of MP3 players.
2002: Capitalizing on the psychology of “sharers”, OSG introduces memberships that encourage people to find and upload obscure and out-of-print audio. Uploaders compete for discounted memberships, back-stage passes, artist access and the most important prizes, minor fame, street-cred and a custom avatar. The RIAA creates work-arounds for copyright issues removing limits on fan’s abilities to upload, modify and share work.
2003 – 2005: Recognizing the growth of social media, the OSG introduces groups and messaging. Higher-access users get expanded pages on OSG sites and are encouraged to rate and critique music. OSG makes available interaction with music journalists, holds contests for album & t-shirt art, gives prizes for mashups with highest votes by the communities. The OSG makes “Locker” space available, 1G free, $1/mo for each additional gigabyte. OSG introduces “Rip Me” – user puts a factory CD in the computer drive tray, and is given the option to rip/upload tracks or have recording company copies put in his/her locker. (Subsequent attempts to upload the same CD from another computer is allowed with a minimum new subscription)
2006 – 2010: FoM buys Pandora, iTunes, YouTube, RIM, Turntable.fm, Facebook and controlling interest in Sirius. OSG helps FoM branch the Blackberry, creating the “Rockberry”, a consumer-oriented “mobile media sharing device”. OSG solicits auditions from all musicians everywhere, showcases the best on YouTube. FoM makes record profits from tours, downloads, streams, hardware, music licensing and merchandise. Cary Sherman becomes fifth richest man in the US.
2011: *FoM introduces choice “retro” vinyl, CD and tape catalogue for hipsters worldwide. OSG and RIAA move into “palatial” FoM office campus in Los Angeles, work begins on 30-story FoM tower in Manhattan.
Re:
I think the solution is to shoot all the lawyers.
You’ve got to start somewhere.
I can easily see how this could happen. If you’re a little guy just starting to work with Google, you can easily get stuck in a loop and get completely frelled before you even begin. I’m stuck in a similar loop with Adsense. There’s no way to get a hold of a real person and no one from Google seems to go to the forums that provides the only support (A link provided on Adsense’s own troubleshooting page). I know a magical number exists, but it seems to be only for the big guys.
Google may have damn good software, but they’re absolute shit when it comes to customer support.
Re:
If he didn’t, I don’t think he has room to complain.
He says in the post that he responded each time, so I think the answer is that yes, he did, and it doesn’t matter because they keep coming back and claiming it again.
Will you admit that, if that is the case, that he’s got a legitimate complaint?
Re:
They’re not doing anything illegal. These aren’t DMCA claims. And Youtube has a right to take down any video they want.
Gootube (remember that Youtube is GOOGLE) couldn’t give a Tinker’s Damn” about the “major labels” (or as I like to call them “dead guys”).
But Gootube is scared silly of breaking US “laws”, no matter how stupid those laws are and no matter what corrupt entity paid for those “laws”.
As long as those asinine “laws” stand, nothing will change.
Re: Re:
I really do Agree, as a young programmer, these actions are driving me nuts. I have pandora playing in the background and talk over it and I have pretty much all of my videos banned in one country or another. but as for the law thing, whether your american or not. the head honchos upstate right suck. and they’re the right autocrats only in it for themselves. People complain about CEOS being evil, but a these guys are dirtier then the black market. if we want something done, don’t just shoot the lawyers, shoot the politicans and hire some “real” and “worthy” ones.
>you just can’t stop others from doing the same thing
Seems that this is not the case.
Re:
Yes, if that’s the case he might have a beef. But, I don’t know what the responses said and whether the copyright claim was legitimate or not.
Re:
From EFF:
“When you submit a dispute for a Content ID removal, the copyright owner has three options: (1) let it slide, leaving your video up; (2) sue you; or (3) send a DMCA takedown notice. For copyright owners who object to your video, and want to keep it down, the third path is generally the easiest. By sending a formal DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, the copyright owner can get your video removed again almost immediately, at which point you’ll need to decide whether to counter-notice (see below). The takedown notice will also count as a “strike” on your account ? after three strikes, YouTube will cancel all of your YouTube accounts and remove all of your videos. This probably explains why DMCA takedown notices are much more common on YouTube than lawsuits against uploaders ? they are cheaper and faster for the copyright owner.”
Freetard /s
Re:
Wow, where is your moral high ground now?
Wait…an article where Mike criticizes Google? Nope, can’t be real, must be evidence of the vast Google conspiracy that is trying to take over the world. This is PROOF ™ that Mike is a Google shill!
/sarcmarc
Re:
It might be hard to win a lawsuit against YouTube, but what about going after the companies that issue the notices?
The unfortunate thing is that when one of these big companies sues the courts usually let them off with an “I’m sorry” and not even a promise to take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Perhaps the solution is to wait until a company does it 31 times and then sue them for $675,000.
YouTube has a graduated response program for people who are accused of violations. They should also have a graduated response program on ContentID users to limit their ability to file claims if they issue too many bogus takedowns.
Re:
It’s not possible to have a legitimate copyright claim on public domain works.
Re:
Yes it is. Read my comment here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/22533320172/major-labels-claim-copyright-over-public-domain-songs-youtube-punishes-musician.shtml#c142
Re:
These aren’t DMCA claims.
Bad trolling and terrible astro-turfing.
We all know that youtube created the horribly-flawed content-ID system to avoid having to properly deal with DMCA claims.
The DMCA is indeed the root of the problem.
Where’s the Abuse it, You lose it clause, that should be apply to all copyright/IP issues.
I would think google or this guy has pretty good ground to claim harassment.
Being Automatic isn’t an excuse either, if I get phone calls all night from an ‘automatic’ system, the responsible party is not relieved of any responsibility.
Re:
PUBLIC DOMAIN.
NOT COPYRIGHTED.
How is this not comprehensible? Are we speaking Wingdings, with a dash of Verdana Gothic?
Re:
It’s not clear. From my understanding of the EFF analysis of the ContentID system, you can contest a Content ID notice and the complainant can do nothing; sue you; or issue a DMCA notice. It seems that maybe he just let it slide after it was taken down by ContentID and it never made it to a DMCA takedown. It’s a very incomplete picture. For example, was this him sing or was it another performer?
Re:
No it isn’t the DCMA of 1998. It is really just Google bending its back over to the MPAA and RIAA making it easier to post takdown notices without due process.
Re:
DMCA may be the root of the issue. His point that these aren’t DMCA claims is accurate though.
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They’re a private entity, so you can’t make first amendment arguments.
It’s unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don’t sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn’t_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
When someone is behaving illogically, the key to success lies in exploiting the consequences of their illogical behavior. So, for example:
Problem: Google won’t screen DMCA and ContentID requests.
Solution: Google won’t screen DMCA and ContentID requests.
Do you see the opportunity there?
Re:
It will take more than this to remove the indelible stain of shilldom after the epic shaming over being outted as a Google shill.
Re:
What shaming?
Ohh…right…the shaming that you and you alone brought, the shaming that you shouted from the rooftops, only for no-one to believe a word you said.
Re:
Here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/22533320172/major-labels-claim-copyright-over-public-domain-songs-youtube-punishes-musician.shtml#c142
Re:
I really was wondering why he cannot sue the companies who filed the false DMCA for lost income and generate a nice income from the companies.
Re:
So your account will be stricken once you’ve got three DMCA notices regardless of whether your counterclaim was ultimately successful? That’s how the text reads. Is that what Google does in practice?
If so, then how is it that any of the YouTube critics can argue with a straight face that Google doesn’t deal adequately with copyright claims? That policy seems unbelievably draconian to me.
Re:
Where was he outed as a google shill? Did I miss something?
(heres a hint: i didnt)
Re:
Did you forget this public snivel?
… and that gets me named on a list of “shills” just doesn’t seem right.
Re:
So your account will be stricken once you’ve got three DMCA notices regardless of whether your counterclaim was ultimately successful? That’s how the text reads. Is that what Google does in practice?
That is not correct. But good alarmism.
Re:
Google can do whatever it wants, but the people falsely reporting can’t. Sue Warner and others for tortous interference with legal business operations. RICO is an option that hasn’t quite worked yet.
At a minimal you should be able to get Warner and others on liable-
For liable you must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message (Yes- copythief message); that the material was published (Yes on Youtube), meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff (Yes- anyone with a dead link or copythief message box on Youtube); that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material (Make sure your name is clear on the Youtube account); and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication (Yes-Disabling service that provides payment).
Sue for damages on broadcasting and retransmission and not for damage on advertising. 250k per violation of retramsimission rights per xmany users…
Re:
You do know the word shills is in quotes? You do understand what that means? It means that when you read that sentence, the word shills isn’t to be taken at face value.
Re:
MyTube aka YouTube 2.0
Re:
Oh please……
This outting of Masnick by Google is so epic, it will shame generations of Masnicks to come.
Re:
I love the fact you immediately attack him for trying to exaggerate and distort, where he was actually asking a simple question. It’s an honest concern – the way it’s worded, notices count as strikes against the account. I don’t see any reference to whether or not these “strikes” are removed if the notice is later proven fraudulent or a simple mistake. Therefore, an honest concern exists that the account may be disabled despite the account holder being proven innocent. If this concern is indeed correct, then the later concern is also justified.
Since you know that this will not happen, do you mind citing how you know this? No, “I’m not reading it that way” doesn’t count. If you have such citations freely and easily available, I suggest that you replace personal attacks with politely cited evidence.
Re:
Aw, so your ego is arguing for you then?
Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
“You can easily make money off of public domain. It is how it is arranged that makes the copyright.
I see a few heads scratching and I want to clear up what I said:”
Possibly because you made 2 completely separate points and pretended they were the same?
Different arrangements/recordings may have different copyrights attached. That’s not in question. If it is indeed the arrangement rather than the song that’s triggering the complaints, this clearly needs to be discussed with the musician in question. The musician is clearly making his own recording of a public domain work – he needs to be notified that the arrangement is the issue if you are correct here, as that’s the only way this will be cleared up.
If nothing else, this just shows how blunt and unworkable the current system really is. You have a musician who’s distributing what he believes to be a legitimate and legal recording, and a corporation that seems to believe these takedowns are correct. They need a way to discuss this, and ensure that information gets out that this arrangement is actually copyrighted despite the song being public domain, or for the corporation to stop attacking innocent musicians. Sadly, of course, the corporation have insisted that a 3rd party with no knowledge of the reasons for the takedown act as copyright police, and just accept their automated notices as fact. If the corporations were using systems with human interaction and accepting challenges themselves, such issues would easily be cleared up. Not so when you have an automated system taking down content based on flags from (presumably) another automated system.
But, your first point has nothing to do with any of this. Yes, it’s possible to make money off public domain material – with the same arrangement as the one that’s in the public domain. All it means is that the original copyright holder is no longer the only person who can do this. If you think that rearranging the original in order to get a new copyright is the only way to make money, you’re really missing the point, and a number of facts.
please show me the relevant “law” that he has a “right” to use someone else platform to make money, I will wait
public domain stuff can be cpoyrighted/trademarked, etc… disney will explain it to you
Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
You can easily make money off of public domain. It is how it is arranged that makes the copyright.
True, if the arrangement is substantially different (called “Original work of authorship” by the US Copyright Office.) It is still a derivative work, so you can’t copyright someone-elses’ work that is still under copyright. According to Circular 14: “To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and formatting are not copyrightable.”
But while you own the copyright on the new work, you can not legally prevent someone else from accessing the original work, at least not unless you are Disney.
:
Re:
That does not make you wrong though. 🙂
Re:
“epic shaming”
Hmmm… I must have missed that. Any chance of a link? I’ll even give you the benefit of a doubt and pretend that it’s not just a link to either your own anonymous rantings or the “Mike had something at Google’s campus that one time so he’s paid to say good things about them till doomsday” crap.
Re:
We could always start by trying that, then if that doesn’t work we can then come up with a Plan B… =P
Sure, YouTube "needs to figure out a solution"...
but you apparently can’t reach a human. How will they ever know? This begs the question, who at YouTube is pulling the plug on videos then? Are there not humans on the front end? How are decisions made or directions decided in that company? If there are people there, then where’s the public’s access to humans working at YouTube? Frustrating.
Re:
This outting of Masnick by Google is so epic, it will shame generations of Masnicks to come
The “outing” in which they revealed information that was already revealed, and which made it clear that I didn’t do any shilling for Google?
Yeah. Gee, that was so shameful.*
* And, since you seem to be “unable” to understand what “quotes” mean around “words” the sentence above is called “sarcasm” meaning that when I said “shameful” I was making a joke in that it was not, actually shameful. Just like when I said “shill” list it was a joke, in that it didn’t actually name any shills. But you knew that.
In the meantime, in the interest of transparency, care to reveal who funds the organization you work for?
Re:
As PaulT commented, it’s not alarmist to ask a basic question.
I just checked over all of YouTube’s explanations of the process and found lots of wording to the effect of “three strikes and your out”, and repeated definition of a “strike” meaning “content removed due to a DMCA claim”. There is no clear answer to my question that I can find, though.
The generous interpretation is that if the counterclaim is successful, the video is restored, and therefore according to the Google’s official language would no longer be defined as a “strike” — but that’s just an interpretation, not Google’s officially stated stance.
Another reasonable interpretation is that the “strike” counter increments when the video is taken down and isn’t decremented for 6 months (strikes expire after 6 months).
Does anybody know what the actual policy is?
Re:
It was stated quite clearly in the article that this was public domain material that he performed a cover of and recorded. Your comment relates to someone else’s recording of a work.
There is no possible legitimate copyright claim against him.
Re:
Make a competitor that _doesn’t_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
And be hit with billion dollar nuisance lawsuits from every major label and studio until the legal costs destroy your business.
Re:
We’re gonna contracept the lawyers? XD
Re:
There is not enough political pressure on them to do that. In fact, there is a probably a fair bit of pressure for keeping this kind of system open to as many ContentID users as possible and ignore the abuse and shortcomings in these “early days”.
Re:
I was merely sighting another example of how it can happen. It was already clear to me that the work was public domain. The arrangement of how you use the music sheets is copyright, but still usable as public domain.
Re: Re:
Wally said: “I was merely sighting another example of how it can happen.”
Where did you sight it? Perhaps if you cite what you sighted by providing a link, I can sight it too.
Only Slightly Relevant
I imagine morose studio executives staring into their scotch-and-waters, seeing their career termination lights winking towards them, thinking about how reasonable the RIAA sounded back then, thinking the two saddest words in the world: If only…
Well done!
Re:
“This outting of Masnick by Google is so epic, it will shame generations of Masnicks to come.”
This statement shows that the NFL should take their players head injuries very seriously.
Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
“But while you own the copyright on the new work, you can not legally prevent someone else from accessing the original work, at least not unless you are Disney.”
Precisely 🙂
Re:
What is bad faith? Trying to get a lawsuit through on these grounds is gonna get shot down before it begins since the issues are separate instances and google is an intermediary making the communication between the sides in the suit very distorted. I do not think there is any chance of a case unless google is the one on the agressive and even then we are looking at something with very little substantial evidence for googles side since they have to proove that the abuser does not own what they say and that they ignore requests for getting their act together.
“But, you can just sue” is truely one of the worst evasions in the world and it ignores reality.
Only Slightly Relevant
…staring into their scotch and waters, seeing their career termination lights winking towards them…
I cannot express how much I like that!
Liquor, maritime, technology – it’s like modern Hemingway or something. wow.
The key is there needs to be a penalty and fairly rough one for companies abusing it. Or they just need to remove content ID altogether since its so broken.
“Again, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing, and it’s a situation that YouTube really needs to figure out a solution to.”
It’s a solution that our broken, corporate bought, legal system needs to figure out a solution to. Our broken legal system encourages this sort of behavior because Youtube faces all the liability if they don’t take down infringing content but IP extremists face virtually no liability if they falsely claim public domain works. Our one sided penalty structure needs to change, for every false infringement takedown the penalty should be at least thrice the penalty for infringing.
Re:
“They should also have a graduated response program on ContentID users to limit their ability to file claims if they issue too many bogus takedowns.”
Youtube is not to blame, it’s our broken legal system that’s to blame. The problem is Youtube has to deal with a one sided penalty structure. It’s very easy for Youtube to lose an infringement case and they can easily lose a ton of money. It’s much more difficult for a public domain theft to lose a case and the penalties, if any, are very minimal. Don’t blame Youtube, blame the publishing arms, the record labels, the MPAA/RIAA, those that bribed our politicians to create such a broken legal system, the politicians, and the legal system. It’s not Youtube’s fault.
Re:
public domain thief *
The only real solution here is to not use YouTube, use a competitor. I know I am not going to post another video there after getting 2 DMCA notices on my videos.
Providing a quick and easy DMCA mechanism for “rights holders” is one thing, going beyond that to create an automated system so “rights holders” don’t even have to do the hard work of actually identifying copyright infringement is way out of line.
My guess is they have this content ID alert setup to go to some generic corporate inbox and the secretary sitting on it is told simply “when you get one of these emails, just click the DMCA button and that’s it”.
Send Google and these twats a message. Stop using YouTube.
Re:
Yes, they have gone way beyond three strikes.
Re:
The problem is that we must deal with a one sided penalty structure. If you infringe you can easily face insane damages. If you steal from the public domain it’s much more difficult for someone to successfully sue and the damages are much lower.
The penalty for public domain theft should be much greater than the penalty for infringement. Those claiming copy protections over something are in a better position to know if they have IP privileges over that which they claim than a third party like Youtube so the burden should be on them and the penalty for false takedown requests should far exceed the penalty for infringement. Unfortunately, those that are filing false takedown requests are the ones who have bought our politicians and our laws through revolving door favors and campaign contributions. This is what we should be angry about, at least until the law changes and becomes more reasonable.
Re:
A new arrangement is a derivative work, and thus copyrighted. It is no longer the same public domain piece. Also, an artist can hold a copyright on /their/ recording of a copyright piece, but then cannot still sue someone for making their own recording of the same piece. You’re off on a tangent, I’m afraid.
Re:
Just like when I said “shill” list it was a joke, in that it didn’t actually name any shills.
I’m a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of — and that gets me named on a list of “shills” just doesn’t seem right.
Odd, this sounds like a snivel, not a joke. Plus just about every bonafide news organization in the world is also calling it a “shill” list…. and they’re not joking…either.
Politicians fall
The problem is not that politicians are too stupid (okay, maybe a little), but mostly that they are corrupt. Oh, you want to give me thousands of dollars in campaign contributions? Why I’d be happy to oppose copyright reform on your behalf!
They just need to arm copyright maximalists with guns so that when they shoot first, and never ask questions prior, during or after, it will be literal. Then people will scream “think of the children” when some teens get shot for downloading “Call me, maybe”, and the people shooting the guns will finally be dealt with in a manner befitting their actions OR the political prostitutes will legalize murder over copyright infringement, either / or.
Re:
Maybe your unfamiliar with their handy work in taking down companies they dislike with no legal basis.
Running up the legal bills so even if they are wrong they still win by crushing the other guy.
Viacom vs Google seems like just a warning shot in these terms, and at the peak of their power MegaUpload, DaJaz1, and a host of other sites facing legal issues at someones direction ignoring actual law.
No one wins in Cartels vs Google, but it can make users lives even worse than the shit systems in place now.
Re:
Wow, hurricane head, you are an idiot of the highest order.
Public domain stuff can be trademarked but only the interpretation of said stuff. You cannot prevent others from doing so.
Also, “right” to use someone else’s platform to make money? Seriously? I think you’d better tell the RIAA/MPAA that then. Unless they produce their own filmstrips, CDs and other raw materials, they’re all in violation. But you wouldn’t dare claim that, would you, you industry douchenozzle.
Re:
So you still don’t understand what “quotation” marks around a word mean? You really can’t be that stupid, can you?
And the media all used “shill list” as short hand for the list, but also pretty much all of them admitted that there was no “there” there in Google’s list.
Finally, for all your claims of an “epic outing,” everything Google said about me in their filing was already very, very public, so there was nothing to “out.” Also, none of it involved even the slightest bit of paying us to write about anything on the blog.
But you knew that. It’s just that your pretty spectacular flop in “guaranteeing” SOPA has you so angry at anyone who helped stop it, that you will stop at no lie to smear us.
And I notice the conspicuous lack of an answer about who funds your salary. 🙂 Of course, of course…
Re:
I do not think ContentID sends out notices to the rightholders. It has a scan of all the crap the cartels want to protect, and when it hits a match it strikes.
You want Google to make it better… point out that the “King” of search uses a crappy search to make these matches. If they can’t figure out how to tell a bird song from someone singing how can they serve you what you want when you search.
ContentID and secret agreements allowing cartels to takedown content no questions asked really need to be investigated. It looks like several corporations forcing another one to do things to circumvent the law. Maybe it is time to stop giving the cartels everything they demand and force them to do better.
Step 1 is automatic fines for every bogus DMCA notice, paid to the target and the host for wasting their time. I’m sure people would then not have to worry about losing their YT accounts after 3 strikes, because Google would be getting paid for the “inconvenience” of dealing with it.
Thousands of bogus DMCA takedowns are filed everyday simply because the law seems to think the cartels are always right.
I think its time to remind them they can buy laws but they are not above them.
Re:
And the media all used “shill list” as short hand for the list, but also pretty much all of them admitted that there was no “there” there in Google’s list.
Yes, it is universally referred to as a ‘shill’ list. And while you may not consider yourself a shill, apparently Google does and chose you among many to put on that list. Despite your claims of a tenuous connection.
But you knew that. It’s just that your pretty spectacular flop in “guaranteeing” SOPA has you so angry at anyone who helped stop it, that you will stop at no lie to smear us.
As disappointing as the SOPA outcome was, the industry is in a better place today by virtue of the outgrowth of industry agreements. Six strikes, Google demotions, ad network and payment processor cut offs all exist outside of the legal structure. I was actually pretty impressed by SOPA’s undoing; and harbor no grudge against those who orchestrated it- nor the guy carrying their briefcases and fetching their coffee. Shill on, brother!
Re:
Lets make something clear, Google is not to blame here. Our legal system is. When Google does do something wrong then we should criticize them. Here Google is merely responding to the incentive structure (and penalty structure) of our outrageously broken legal system.
Don’t criticize Google just for the sake of criticizing them just so that you can tell the shills “see, I’m not shilling for Google, I’m willing to criticize them”. If you have a valid criticism then express it. Otherwise, address your blame accordingly. The blame here lies squarely on our legal system and on the major labels, not on Google.
Re:
Yes, it is universally referred to as a ‘shill’ list. And while you may not consider yourself a shill, apparently Google does and chose you among many to put on that list. Despite your claims of a tenuous connection.
So you still can’t read? Telling.
If you look at the details of the list, Google was pretty clear in pointing out that no one on the list was a shill, and most of the press reports were clearly more intelligent than you and also pointed out the lack of anything shill worthy.
In the meantime, I note a second time that you’ve ignored the question. Who funds your salary? 🙂
Re:
Parse words all you like Masnick, here’s what the judge was looking for and what Google responded to:
The August 7 order was not limited to authors ?paid . . . to report or comment? or to ?quid pro quo? situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whose statements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money from Google or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant. Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the blogger?s reports on issues in the civil action.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1306195/Google_v_Oracle_Disclosure_Order.pdf
Though you may not realize what potentially constitutes a shill, the Court does.
Re:
“So your account will be stricken once you’ve got three DMCA notices regardless of whether your counterclaim was ultimately successful? That’s how the text reads. Is that what Google does in practice?”
I’ve noticed this type of practice from Google since they bought out Motorola Mobility.
“If so, then how is it that any of the YouTube critics can argue with a straight face that Google doesn’t deal adequately with copyright claims? That policy seems unbelievably draconian to me.”
I second that notion 🙂
Re:
“They’re not doing anything illegal. These aren’t DMCA claims. And Youtube has a right to take down any video they want.”
They are illegally taking down videos without due process with ContentID. The claims are not taken to a judge for approval which means it ignores the DCMA provisions to a court order. They cannot just take any video down without first letting the user complain.
Re:
*They cannot just take down a video with having the user contend the claim.
Re:
PEDANT ALERT!!!
“tinker’s dam”
(tinker being an itinerant metal smith who went house-to-house to repair pots/pans; the ‘dam’ was a method of keeping solder in an area being repaired; the dam commonly of clay, i believe: thus ‘not worth a tinker’s dam’ meaning a used bit of clay that was scraped off after the soldering was done, ie worthless)
/pedant off/
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Well, I just wanted to give you an example since I was just looking. Robert Browning wrote a poem called Pippa Passes, which most of the people wouldn’t remember since, well, it’s public domain, but the relevance is still around today. I came about this because I was watching デュラララ!! (Durarara!!), which in turn referenced 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Looking for the quote like an おたく (anime fan) like I am, I stumbled upon the quote, “God?s in His heaven?All?s right with the world!”. Of course any anime fan would recognize this, but the original is rather opaque for the general viewer. Now I would think that this poem would be readily available as an audiobook, since not only is this a classic, but also referenced in a cult classic and referenced in a recent popular anime, this would be up for sale almost anywhere. So looking around, the only thing I could find was a Librivox recording, and thank God that someone actually cares enough about the spoken word to keep poetry alive. I would have gladly paid for this piece especially a professionally read poetic drama, much like the BBC does, but it’s sadly a lost art.
There should be a better feedback loop
I’ve been okay with the concept of ContentID because it allows YouTube to exist for the moment. If we had to wait until copyright laws were changed before YouTube could exist legally, then we might be YouTube-less for decades. It strikes me as workable interim system to keep YouTube up and working while people adapt to new music industry realities.
That being said, there should be ways to correct errors like this. No, these companies shouldn’t be able to take down public domain songs. What likely happened is that they claimed copyright on versions of public domain songs their companies recorded and ContentID didn’t know the difference. Every label that has recorded a copy of “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem” has probably submitted its recorded version to YouTube, so there are multiple copyright claimants for the same song. Each recorded version has its own copyright, but the song itself shouldn’t be under copyright.
There should be a way to tweak YouTube each time copyright is falsely claimed. And I am sure there are ways to enter false claims like this into the ContentID database so that after it happens once, it doesn’t trigger any more of them. But maybe Google isn’t in any hurry to do that, or maybe it has been done, but the musicians getting caught in the system haven’t been told that. I don’t know.
Re:
plan b from outer space
Re:
Oh this is getting to be fun: Who funds your salary?
Do tell. 🙂
And, no, you are (either purposely or stupidly) misinterpreting the court’s statements and the filings here, but, then again, given your unwillingness to answer the question, we can guess why.
Politicians fall
Exactly. I can’t even grasp that they are getting away with this, they are not even hiding the corruption any more.
Lawsuit?
Can’t major labels be taken to the court for claiming ownership over what’s not their and making trouble for others this way?
I mean, in normal world when someone steals my car, I find a similar one and take owner to the court only to find out the car isn’t the right one, I’m the one in trouble.
Re:
Ma, get my gun. That little sunuvabitch is outside on the fence hollerin’ agin! Think he’s hung up.
Re:
Little fart derailed the thread for like 9 pages.
A hefty fine for bogus takedowns would solve the issue I think. You don’t do your research before sending out the notice, you pay both YouTube and the musician/author for the inconvenience you caused. Youtube could just put this in their Terms of Service.
This is actually a massive barrier to smaller independent music licensing for video.
I had an interesting conversation with music bed recently who match up independent artists with music for indie video production.
They admitted their customers get trolled, which also removes the incentive for legitimate licensing. After all, why pay $15 for a decent sound track to your indie video if you are going get screwed anyway when you put it online?
Re:
Oh I agree, but the Viacomm case was actually Viacomm methinks.
Can you imagine how they are going to handle their lawsuit against Apple through Motorola Mobility?
In my humble opinion though, Google lstarted loosing its integrity the moment it bought out Motorola Mobility.
Re:
“DMCA may be the root of the issue. His point that these aren’t DMCA claims is accurate though.”
ContentID does not rely on DCMA takedown rules. All you have to do is send a request in, the video gets pulled, and then the user is notified. All without a court order which is a specific clause to in the DCMA.
In other words, it skips the DCMA for the takedown of a video.
Re: Groan! Not just at you, but all the ill-informed Johnny Come Latelys in this thread.
In other words, it skips the DCMA for the takedown of a video.
That sentence is correct. Now everyone use your brains for a minute and don’t just knee-jerk, like so many of you did.
Once again (and I’ll type slowly this time) Google developed its so-called Content-ID to avoid having to deal with the DMCA.
Content-ID wouldn’t even exist if the DMCA hadn’t existed. So, contrary to all the Johnny Come Lately “history-lite” b.s. in all the posts (history did not start the day any one of you became self-aware), the DMCA is ROOT CAUSE and the real problem.
After all, (the sane and sober among) you don’t swerve to avoid a non-existant road-hazard. And Content-ID would not exist were it not for the DMCA.
I don’t give a bleep-bleep bleep what f*** was used in this particular case, the DMCA is the real problem.
The DMCA was a miserable, horribly-thought out, failed attempt that needs badly to be repealed, re-thought and replaced. Ditto for GooTube’s DMCA avoidance system (aka Content-ID).
End of story.
you can absolutely make money from public domain material, you just can't stop others from doing the same thing
Well, obviously, the music industry can.
Re:
Did you READ the article dumbass? It specifically states that one of the reasons his account is being cut off is for “too many false claims of ownership”, meaning yes, he did respond to the take down notice with a claim of ownership, which was not properly acknowledged by YouTube, in part because there is no way to interact with a human being.,
Problem
Problem: Google only allows ContentID claims from “trusted partners”.
Solution: ???
Google and Loss of Humanity
Yeah, I got pulled out of the monetization program recently as well. I got a long email stating that there was either A **or** B **or** C activity which violated blah blah balh – and if I wanted to fight it to go fill out the form a a webpage.
I did – it asked questions like “Have you been doing anything that violates the terms of your user agreement?” and such. I replied that I had no idea, could they give me an idea of they think has been wrong?
Never got an answer, and was summarily dumped from the program. There is no recourse, no appeal, and no getting back in without creating a new persona.
Granted, I’d only made $10 over 10 years, but it IS aggravating to be accused and never facing your accuser.
So I’m not using Bing when searching!
Re:
OMG! … O_O .. he’s gotten Masnick to start trolling the trolls .. bwahahahaha!
Re: Re:
Well, if u think about it, this is one epic win for this specific shill. To be trolled by Mike 😉
Hey if it contains the notes “do re mi fa so la ti do” WE OWN IT!! Scum!! -RIAA
The MAFIAA trying to lock up public domain? You don’t say! *cough*Disney*cough*
The workaround
Musician Posts Public Domain Songs, Major Labels Claim Ownership, YouTube Attacks Musician – hypebot:
“Brian Hazard said…
It’s annoying, but you can dispute the claim right inside your YouTube video manager. I deal with this on an almost daily basis, and the claims are always released.”
Re: The workaround
I got 2 channels suspended for Youtube Poop almost 2 months ago.I found out last month that WMG released one claim after they filed a DMCA notice.I did send a counter notice prior to my channels going down I was so mad that they DMVA’d my videos I said things I shouldn’t,Those counter notices didn’t go through.I did sent out manual ones by emailing YouTube directly but no word on them.I didn’t mean to sent out that many counter notices (I think it was about 50-100),but I just wanted these people to listen that is fair use,that I’m only intended to make a parody videos even though it’s falls in gray areas of fair use.
Mine got taken away for public domain movies
I had my monitization disabled because one week I didn’t log into my account and had 5 or 6 3rd party matches on public domain movies. Now on all 8 of my accounts I can not earn 1 cent for 6 months. I provided all information I could find on the films being in public domain and I have been ignored for a month and a half. All accounts are in good standing and no strikes are currently on any of my accounts.
Me Too
ADD A REPLY
I have uploaded the film “The Battle of Russia:, after which I received several content notices.
This film was produced by the US Department of War and is in the Public Domain.
Sometimes music can have special exceptions….
However, a visual portion of the upload has been tracked and claimed by an extremely large network, which produces Primetime TV. They’re worth billions. The largest in Europe.
What am I supposed to do about that? What are my liabilities if I dispute the claims? This is clearly not fair.
They don’t own content produced by the US War Department…
Not the right society claiming ownership
I have cover songs on YouTube where a copyright claimant has stepped in, permitting the continuance of the video,yet it is owned by BMI and ASCAP has monetized it. What is up with that and wouldn’t BMI go crazy over that?
It’s 2022 and the issue is still present – YouTube copyright-protects videos containing works that belong to public domain, especially those with phonograph recordings made by artists who passed away well over 100 years ago.