Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed 181
New submitter BraveThumb writes "One independent rap group found it impossible to post their song on YouTube. When they tried to put up their video, they were informed that the copyright belonged to Universal Music, even though the rap group wasn't signed to any label. Another group working with Universal had used the music in a video of their own, which then accidentally leaked online. YouTube's filtering software then blocked the original. The Hollywood Reporter shares what happened and concludes by saying, 'For an industry that's pursuing copyright reform, the portrayal of a copyright regime that works against young artists can't be a good thing.'"
Slander of title is more like it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What exactly is the problem with this? (Score:2, Informative)
> Just not Youtube.
THIS. Youtube should stay out of this battle and NOT provide one side with a tool that lets it take down videos without proper procedure.
Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement (Score:0, Informative)
>Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement
hahahahaaaa...
>Give them a taste of their own medicine.
oh.. you're serious... let me laugh even harder.. HAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Youtube's copyright enforcement has a Catch-22 (Score:5, Informative)
This has happened to me multiple times.
I upload a video that uses classical music, which I have a buyout license to use. Within seconds, it is flagged as infringing by a DIFFERENT licensor of classical music.
There is an appeals process. It has no provision for reporting a false positive, and the appeal is "judged" by the company claiming I am infringing. They then proceed to monetize my video.
There is no way to inform Youtube of this issue, other than firing off a lawsuit ($$$). Even the CEO of the licensing agency I used can't get an answer out of them.
The absurdity of claiming to be able to distinguish between two performances of common classical music ought to be obvious -- not to mention that what with sublicensing, multiple groups may have the right to grant buyout licenses for the exact same performances.
If you want a preview of what PIPA/SOPA would do, look no further that Youtube's Content Match process.
Re:"we believe in strong (c)!" (when it suits us!) (Score:5, Informative)
The only 'artistry' the media companies are interested in is the artistry needed to hide profits from the artists themselves. You don't really think all that money goes to rock stars, do you?
I got the chance to look over a 'standard starup contract' for a new band a few years back. Yeah, they got a $30,000 advance, on 3 albums. The fine print said, they had to use the label's recording studio at the usual rate, plus the label's engineers & techs, also at the usual rate. The label wiould supply the producer, paid for by the band at the producer's usual rate. Advertising and promotion would be provided by the label and paid for by the band at the label's usual rate. And so on and so forth. All of this was supposed to come out of the band's share of the profits before they got paid a dime. Oh, they also had to pay back that $30,000 advance before they saw any money. And they only got a small percentage of the profits.
I remember a commercial for a tax service that aired about 3 years ago where one guy played a musician and said "I made 250,000 last year. If I do that good this year, I might break even!'.
Re:Slander of title is more like it (Score:5, Informative)
The summary also makes it look like YouTube did this. In fact, Youtube allows the music labels themselves to add songs to filter on. So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...even though their artist was in fact the violator.
The problem isn't Universal. It's the DMCA. (Score:5, Informative)
There should never be a law in the United States that forces compliance without first having to go through due process. The system wasn't broken, and the DMCA didn't fix it. The DMCA made things worse.
I was against these provisions of the DMCA and protested them before the law was even passed. We are merely seeing the results that many of us knew had to happen if such a bad law was passed.
As far as I am concerned, the ONLY good parts of the DMCA are the "safe harbor" provisions. Given a choice, I would shitcan the entire rest of the Act.
Re:Slander of title is more like it (Score:4, Informative)
So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...
No, actually, UMG listed the song after someone had leaked a ripped copy of the Yelawolf version so that nobody could upload the Yelawolf version to YouTube again. They were protecting the product that they believed they had clear copyright to, but didn't know at the time it contained music from a different author.
Whuzi wasn't the target of the takedowns, ripped copies of Yelawolf were. It's just that the detection system caught the fact that Yelawolf had used the Whuzi music, and now the issue is did he do it with or without permission. Whuzi isn't clear on that, and didn't answer that explicit question when asked.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Informative)
In my comment, I gave UMG the benefit of the doubt, ass-uming it had licensed the sample from ATS,
And from what I read in TFA, it appears that Yelawolf used the music and presented it to their label as their own work. I don't know if UMG had the responsibility to verify that claim or not. I'd think it would be rather hard to do that, considering that the music was from an unsigned indie artist who, it appears, hadn't published it yet anywhere.
It looks, to me, like Yelawolf is the bad guy here, not UMG. I should be able to leave it unsaid that the fact that I think UMG isn't the bad guy in this case doesn't say anything about any other actions.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Informative)
It's sad but this is indeed the way it works (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube doesn't follow a standard DMCA model where they file a claim, you file a counter-claim, and then YouTube steps out and leaves it between the two of you. Instead, YouTube hands the keys over to the labels and lets them be judge. You file a counter-claim, and they respond with "Nope. Counter-Claim rejected" or they simply don't respond at all. Either way, your soundtrack stays banned. I've had this happen to my videos twice now using Creative Commons *mash-ups*. There are indeed bits and fragments of their music mixed in there, but mash-ups are on pretty firm ground when it comes to fair use. The licensing rights should lie with the artist, who in turn released i t under a CC license for anyone to use.
Nevertheless, once now with BMG and once now with Universal I've had them file claims (disabling the soundtracks for anyone viewing in Germany) and ignore my counter-claims. At that point, there's nothing I can do anymore. Even if I were willing to indemnify YouTube and tell the labels to come after to me if they don't like it, it's just not even an option.
It's the same crap that happened to Tech News Today when their news show included a clip of the MegaUpload song in a story about it. Normally a counter-claim would be the end of it and they'd have to sue you (which they wouldn't do in cases of obvious fair use), but they feel empowered to ignore legitimate fair use because, apparently, they can.