Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed 181
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the in-the-case-of-chicken-v-egg dept.
from the in-the-case-of-chicken-v-egg dept.
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.'"
What exactly is the problem with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
We keep asking for more intelligent and/or rational application of Copyright laws, including people bitching about draconian use of lawsuits, etc.
The alternative is something like this. IT'S NOT YOUTUBE'S FAULT. Youtube discovers someone else has uploaded this music and (presumably) claimed copyright over it. Someone "else" uploads it, and their software catches it. Good job, Youtube. The "original" artists should work things out with the other group, and/or sue someone.
Just not Youtube.
Re:There are flaws alright. (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright reform? (Score:5, Interesting)
'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.
The copyright reform being persued is clearly aimed at further control of new artistic works by the old corporations that have been such a heavy weight on artists for the past century.
If we want true "reform", we'll use this as a tool to push for legislation that supports the rights of artists to control of their own works.
If there were any justice in the copyright issue, Universal Music would be hit hard with a fraud charge (and serious fines) for their part in this atrocity. We all know that this won't happen, though, and they'll continue to commit such acts in the future.
It might be interesting to start a collection of the Big Labels' claims of copyright for things that they don't in fact own.
Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement (Score:5, Interesting)
Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Take down Universal Music, because, you don't know they aren't pirating other artists works, too.
Re:Song Osmosis (Score:5, Interesting)
Independent artist: "Yay, we made this awesome song!"
Universal: "We like this song. We'll use it in a video that we will then put a copyright on." ...days pass...
Independent artist: "Why can't we post our song on YouTube?"
Universal: "Oh, you mean this song? It's ours now. Thanks!"
First occurance I heard of this sort of back-ass-ward copyrighting was the voice of Foghorn Leghorn. The dialect humor of Kenny Delmar began with Counselor Carteblanche on the Alan Young radio show, followed by his use of the same character, but amplified a bit more on a southern character for his Senator Claghorn (see the name similarity?) on the Fred Allen radio show, in the Allen's Alley segments. Delmar even played a Claghorn character in the 1947 film "It's A Joke, Son."
Then of all things, the crazy and fun people making Looney Toons and Merry Melodies, who enjoyed a nod to other characters, people or fads of the day, incorporated a big blowhard of a rooster, The Foghorn Leghorn into a cartoon - with Mel Blanc doing the voice. Eventually Warner would Copyright the voice of Foghorn Leghorn, much to the chagrin of Delmar who had effectively created it and a few of the catch phrases "listen while I'm talking to ya, boy" & "That's a joke, son!", preventing Delmar from using the voice for his own profit.
Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement (Score:2, Interesting)
Why Google doesn't take a step and sets a precedent on this issue? It's no like SOPA/PIPA/UMG weren't planning on going against them... so Google should use this type of incidents to fight back.
Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement (Score:5, Interesting)
Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Massive escalating fines for take down orders that prove to be false is the only solution here.
$100,000 for first offense, payable 90% to the victim, 10% to the hosting site, escalating 10% (compounding) for each instance.
The risk of even one false take down order should be enough to get their attention.
Just Curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why did I have no trouble with this, but the artists in TFA did? Perhaps none of the **AA's are even remotely interested in my video (likely), but the rap artists had the potential of $$$ with their video?
Laugh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyrights aren't for protecting artist...
Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just Curious... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Information was never... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history. The Romantics believed creation of art was a divine act (as in divine inspiration) which entitled the artist to profit from it and control it. Sadly, the Romantics were horribly wrong about that, as they were about many other things, like science. I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.