Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Music Piracy

YouTube Is Guilty Of Criminal Racketeering, Grammy Winner Says (torrentfreak.com) 246

An anonymous reader cites a TorrentFreak report (edited and condensed): YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering. That's the headline-grabbing claim of Grammy award winning musician Maria Schneider, who claims that the Google-owned site is abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to siphon money away from musicians into its own pockets. Over the years, Google has transformed into the new bad guy and the pressure is mounting in a way never witnessed before. The U.S. Copyright Office's request for comments into the efficacy of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions has resulted in a wave of condemnation for both Google search and the company's YouTube platform, with everyone from the major record labels to the MPAA and back again attacking the technology giant. Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider really ups the ante by stating that YouTube is guilty of the same criminal acts that Megaupload is currently accused of. "YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering," Schneider wrote in an open letter to the platform. "YouTube has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor' to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets."Digital Music News has more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Is Guilty Of Criminal Racketeering, Grammy Winner Says

Comments Filter:
  • after all her music should speak for itself and being listed on search results and YT should not matter.

    • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:26PM (#52129071) Journal

      You've mis-understood her complaint. She has a legitimate gripe here: either the DMCA is irredeemably broken, or YouTube's implementation of it is. Their system is:
      1. Make baseless DMCA complaint about someone
      2. Get all their ad revenue until they successfully fight the complaint - several days at least for high-profile YouTubers, perhaps forever for normal people
      3. Keep all that revenue after the complaint is found to be baseless
      4. Profit!

      There are dozens of videos from movie and game reviewers about this, who are constantly barraged by baseless takedown notices.

      Here's a good start to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      This search gives many, many viewpoints (from dozens, perhaps hundreds now, of YTers affected by this mess): https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @02:09PM (#52129421)

        Link? After RTFA, it seems she does not give a shit about people suffering that situation, and her proposals would make it worse (try contesting a DMCA claim when you have no idea who made the claim in the first place; have fun arguing your video is fair use when you can't even upload it thanks to fingerprinting; and do I really need to comment on how much of a cluserfuck take-down-and-stay-down would be?)

        Not-actually-an-Edit: Reading part of the actual letter, you are full of shit. She explicitly complains about Youtube offering financial support to people who wish to contest false DMCA requests. The problem you bring up is a real problem, but this leech doesn't give a fig about it or the people it affects; this is just the childish footstamping of someone who doesn't understand how things work, and feels that somewhere, somehow, they're losing out on a buck.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I agree that youtube has a serious DMCA / fair use problem, but do you really think the nostalgia critic is the best person to speak against this. His MO is to basically talk over other peoples content, it's the same deal to an even great extent with LPers.

        I've had automated copyright notices for background noise because some algorithm though it sounded like a samba. This robo-filing along with a "we'll get back to you when we feel like it, and probably affirm the claim anyway because actually checking thin

      • by markzip ( 1313025 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @03:15PM (#52129937)
        So, let's keep the Safe Harbor and add severe penalties for baseless claims. Perhaps something combining monetary damages and a time-out period during which that entity cannot make further claims.
      • I don't understand how a DMCA takedown complaint can result in royalties going to somebody else as the takedown complaint results in removal of the video.
      • There are dozens of videos from movie and game reviewers about this, who are constantly barraged by baseless takedown notices.

        Exactly. Googling on this topic shows quite the opposite of what most people are taking away from TFA. It's not that valid copyright holders can't get takedowns, it's that valid copyright holders are having their videos taken offline because of invalid DMCA takedowns. In other words, Youtube is acting on the (supposed) copyright holder's behalf too aggressively.

        You don't need a lawyer to get a DMCA takedown. It's quite easy and requires no proof / evidence.

        3. Keep all that revenue after the complaint is found to be baseless

        I tried hard to back this up but AFAICT this isn't

  • It's broken (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @12:49PM (#52128815) Homepage Journal

    Copyright law is broken and doesn't work correctly anymore.

    • As with much of the rest of the legal corpus. But the voters keep electing the rich, and they keep writing law that favors the rich. It's not a mystery. It's profound validation of the concrete social and economic effects of the Gaussian.

  • Megaupload... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HeadSoft ( 147914 )

    One could say that Megaupload is doing far less that could be considered illegal. I would definitely trust them more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @12:53PM (#52128835)
    Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider really ups the ante by stating that YouTube is guilty of the same criminal acts that Megaupload is currently accused of. "YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering," Schneider wrote in an open letter to the platform. "YouTube has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor' to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets."

    Pardon me for not shedding any tears, as the RIAA/MPAA members have upped the ante by thoroughly twisting, contorting, and abusing the original meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, turning into *real* theft from society.
    • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:13PM (#52128969)

      I have to agree this is the wrong term. Racketeering is mainly protection money and such. If Youtube was telling musicians that they better have their videos on Youtube or else Guido and the boys will come rearrange their vocal chords, that's racketeering. The RIAA's chasing after stores for having the radio on, waiters for singing Happy Birthday, etc, is a much better example of racketeering.

      • by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @02:55PM (#52129783) Journal

        If Youtube was telling musicians that they better have their videos on Youtube or else Guido and the boys will come rearrange their vocal chords, that's racketeering.

        I believe her argument is that Google will only "protect" her works if she gives them a license to use her works. That could be considered racketeering or extortion.

        That said, Google asks for this because it is up to the copyright holder to defend their copyright. It's not Google's job. And, frankly, I'm sure artists would bitch if Google was using their works without their authorization.

    • Pardon me for not shedding any tears, as the RIAA/MPAA members have upped the ante by thoroughly twisting, contorting, and abusing the original meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution

      Pardon me for not shedding any tears, as the congress members have upped the ante by thoroughly twisting, contorting, and abusing the original meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution

      FTFY

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @12:53PM (#52128839)

    What about these organizations abusing the DMCA by issuing false requests for legitimate content?

  • I guess she doesn't understand much about how YouTube works, and is claiming that they are just redistributing money. Not true, actually. In order to operate this FREE SERVICE that they are using, and get PAID THROUGH, they advertise. After they collect that revenue, they appropriate the funds according to percentages and costs of the ads. Sounds to me like she doesn't understand what operating costs are, either. And, they are a business, so they are out to make money, too.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:31PM (#52129117)

      Maria Schneider's complaint boils down to this: Google/YouTube makes a lot of money. If they didn't exist, all that money would go to musicians, therefore, Google/YouTube should be required to hand over all their money to the musicians.

      Ignoring the basic fact that she is wrong and her complaint is absurd, she has somehow managed to not notice that nobody has screwed and cheated musicians more than the record companies. The actual losses suffered by musicians as a result of YouTube or any other "piracy" are microscopic compared to the real money that they have lost at the hands of the record companies.

    • Sounds to me like she doesn't understand what operating costs are, either. And, they are a business, so they are out to make money, too.

      By this logic we can say that I am allowed to use any media you produce and redistribute it without my needing to compensate you in any way.

      The problem is that there are hundreds/thousands of people that upload assorted performances/concerts/albums/music videos with no real attribution to the source. Go ahead, look up the next song you hear on the radio on YouTube, look at the publisher to random uploader ratio. Look at the number of views for different videos and guess where the ad revenue is generated.

  • YouTube is guilty of the same "criminal" acts that Megaupload is currently accused of

    Well, she managed to get one thing right.

  • Recording Labels (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:00PM (#52128895)
    Hate break it to you miss, but it's the label under which you signed that's siphoning money away from you. If it wasn't for YouTube and other streaming services, your audience would be substantially smaller.
    • Re:Recording Labels (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @02:33PM (#52129633)

      Maria Schneider does not belong to a label. She broke with her label well over a decade ago for the reasons you allude to, and she now pays for her own CDs through ArtistShare, a crowd funding site mainly for musicians. www.mariaschneider.com You are right that labels siphon money and abuse musicians, and especially now with the internet by basically giving their artists music away practically for free in exchange for shares in Spotify and the like.

      And... since I'm not registered on this board or something, I guess I'm down as "Anonymous Coward". OK well, - I'm Kate, Maria Schneider's sister. There! Not anonymous!

      • You mean giving it away like this [mariaschneider.com]? Or perhaps like this [wbgo.org]? I can say with reasonably high confidence that it would be much harder to do this [efglondonj...val.org.uk] if it weren't for the modern version of a radio station.

        It's ironic that the only comments on Amazon for one of her CDs is samples please [amazon.com]. I also note that there's no offering for buying her work on MP3s [amazon.com]. I mean no disrespect to your sister but, from appearances it isn't YouTube and Spotify that's the problem. It's the out dated business model under which she's atte

      • by s.petry ( 762400 )

        And... since I'm not registered on this board or something, I guess I'm down as "Anonymous Coward". OK well, - I'm Kate, Maria Schneider's sister. There! Not anonymous!

        Wow, your sister was really quick to disown you. :)

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:09PM (#52128947) Journal

    ...(sigh).

    Why are the people from MN that have any sort of fame such nutballs?

    (looks at self)
    We're not ALL nutballs up here, are we?

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      It's the cold weather. I mean, every spring I find myself slightly less able to recover from another winter. I think it makes you crazy. I know it makes you drink, the people I know from North Dakota drink in amounts that would make the drunks I know in Minneapolis blush, and the North Dakotans think its just the normal amount you drink.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "...everyone from the major record labels to the MPAA and back again"

    That's not everyone. That's hardly anyone. In fact, that's pretty much only one, single interest group.

    "In closing, Schneider has several key demands. Front and center is a call for “takedown and staydown“, the mechanism championed by every Google critic thus far in this DMCA consultation."

    If we're going to be hard on that side of the issue, then it is only fair to be just as hard on the other side. What penalty should be appli

  • Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:17PM (#52129009)

    Translation:

    Google makes lots of money. I think I'm entitled to some of it. The government should make them give me some money.

  • Youtube violates the hell out of copyright.

    And that's in any sense of the word- not just stuff over 28 years old.

    Furthermore they make huge amounts of money via advertising off of other artist's copyrighted works without properly licensing the artists and (as far as I have been able to determine) without paying them a dime.

    The day after a new song comes out, there are many copies of the song on Youtube. Often entire movies are posted as well. It's so bad that I have to suspect it's a temporary situation.

    I

    • If Google was uploading these works, they would be violating copyright. They aren't (users are) and they have an effective system for removing videos that are copyright violations -- a system so effective it has also been abused by copyright owners to takedown videos which are not in violation of copyright (their use falls under "fair use").

      Your seem to be claiming that Google is making tons of money off of videos that are genuine copyright violations, but you're not offering anything to back that up.
      • Your seem to be claiming that Google is making tons of money off of videos that are genuine copyright violations, but you're not offering anything to back that up.

        For most videos that get taken down, they were up for a while first and got at least one view (most of the time). If a pre-roll ad plays on just one of these, they made money.

        A huge amount of their content is a copyright violation just waiting for a takedown notice. Need citation? 32% of all content uploaded to Youtube is taken down within 24 hours [beat.pexe.so].

    • I call bullshit. I've attempted to upload partial clips of movies and songs to youtube and it seems no matter how small a section or trivial the use is, Google's auto-detection system takes it down in minutes - often before it even goes live.

      Anything that slips by those filters is likely done with some consent from the content holder - be it explicit or back room "astroturfing" publicity. I suspect all of them are generating revenue that goes right back to the rightsholders. Now, the real issue is that rig

  • It seems that a lot of people in the comments don't know who she is, but she is one of my favorite musicians, and certainly one of the greatest living jazz composers. Obviously she has no legal argument for claims of racketeering, but her general opinion on matters of music and the business of music deserves attention. She is an extremely talented composer who is trying to make a living producing top-tier music. If anybody is making it difficult for her to do that, we ought to examine why that is, and we ou

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      It seems that a lot of people in the comments don't know who she is, but she is one of my favorite musicians, and certainly one of the greatest living jazz composers.

      The irony here is that Jazz isn't supposed to be composed........................

    • Talented as she may be, opinions like hers are born from a lifetime of entitlement under a Copyright system which lets them work once, and collect money for selling the same work over and over. No other business or occupation operates like this - after you've been paid once, if you want to be paid again, you have to do new work. The closest is the rental industry, and they still have to pay for maintenance and replacement costs as the things they're renting out break down and wear out.

      Wedding photograp
      • by art123 ( 309756 )

        Entitlement? Yes she is entitled if that means deciding how her creation should be distributed. Every musician, author, photographer, or software developer in existence chooses how their works should be distributed and if they choose to charge for each "copy" that is their right.

        • by hajile ( 2457040 )

          Your control of what you make ends when you sell it to someone else. In the digital age, this means selling something opens you up to that person having an infinite number of copies. The only difference is that the government believes selling what you bought is reason enough to strip you of your "god-given rights" it claims to provide, to steal all that you have worked for, to take away freedom and inflict permanent harm.

          What about the poor author then?

          There are many means of making money without harmin

      • Wedding photographers went through exactly this shift in business. They used to shoot the weddings for free

        Citation needed.

        It's true that they've moved to a pay-once scheme, but that's because people don't need prints any more if they can view them digitally. It's not because inkjet printers were putting them out of business. Nobody wants prints except maybe one 8x10...maybe.

    • She may be a great composer, but she comes across as a raging bitch who thinks that Alphabet is personally out to destroy her. She has the same myopic view as the libertarian prepper that thinks Google is out to look through their email for their private porn collection. Alphabet doesn't give a shit. At all. About any one person or entity. They sell eyeballs on a targeted, relevant basis. They match people who like things, with people who want sell stuff that matches the things people like. That's it.

      Now, t

  • by shellster_dude ( 1261444 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:44PM (#52129215)
    She is right, Google is every bit as guilty as Google...which is to say they both shouldn't be held liable for what users upload. It is idiocy to criminalize a tool that can be use for a crime, instead of the criminal action.
  • by GeekWithAKnife ( 2717871 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @02:07PM (#52129411)

    Maria who? what indignities has she suffered again? -free press??

    Sick and tired of artists crying because their work is "stolen" or someone is supposedly making millions on their work while they starve for food.

    The labels are milking you and tossing you out for the next "hip" thing. Worse, too many so called "artists" do not actually do any fucking work.

    They produce their one hit and expect an infinite revenue stream. Even football (not American) players do not feel so entitled.

    Once upon a time artists were paid for work. A performance, a sculpture, an act etc. Bands would go on tour and perform! (read work)

    So now just because we have ears we have to pay you every time we hear your song? because we have eyes we have to pay you every time we see a movie?

    I already paid for the movie/song/series. How? by paying for TV/radio license, for the netflix subscription, for spotify, for fucking cable; I paid for your shit several times over but they still want more. They say I was only renting it per use as per the EULA. Who the fuck reads the EULA that's a fucking joke. It can say I'm renting my dog to Satan no one will notice and because people are known not to read it it says things they;d not agree to.

    No additional effort was made for that additional use of mine, what was lost? nothing. It's not like money, It's not like copying a dollar bill. It does not inflate the economy and it certainly does not hurt sales by "making it available". Star Wars is highly pirated movie/content and does that decades long, multi-billion dollar franchise look like it's not profiting?

    So now we have a platform (many actually) that spreads some random "artist's" crap for free, leading to additional audiences and additional revenue opportunities for that artist and still some ignorant people keep bitching.

    How about you lazy fuckers work? You know, people work. Seen any surgeon that performed one operation then retire expecting money forever? that surgeon studied for many years, trained many years and has to perform yes, *groan* the same operations many times. Crazy huh?

    I'll pay to see an act in theatre per performance because you know, someone has to work to perform for my pleasure. I'll pay a band every time I see them because they do something for it.

    The entire model of charging "per use" for people to use their sense although legal is actually based in BS. One day we will be able to record thoughts, images we imagine and see and thus transfer them. What will happen then? will it be illegal to think copyrighted content? -this point may seem arbitrary but this is what copyright is, thought.

    I recorded a thought and now I want every to pay $9.99 for it. That's cool but unlike hardware thoughts do not seem to depreciate. I could sell a million copies and the price would still be $9.99 -the effort I put it was nothing compared to the effort so many people put in to earn $9.99.

    You see if I could automate my job function and sell it no one would need me to do any work any more. In order to earn money I would have to do a new function. Don't musicians do anything beyond record their work and sell that? after all, I already have a mastered copy of their best, auto-tuned performance. Why would I need them again? -unless of course, shockingly they did something new like performs live the way music actually sounds by doing actual work.
    I never promised to buy your shit to begin with, the fact I was willing to listen to it on youtube should be flattery enough that I'm a potential customer.

    The value of your copy of said work is what people are willing to pay for it. We are no longer willing to pay, fuck you, get a real job and fuck off.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "the fact I was willing to listen to it on youtube should be flattery enough that I'm a potential customer"

      Ladies and gentleman, we found the biggest entitle narcissist on slashdot. You listening to youtube video is flattery to that video. Aaaaalright. And no, you are not potential customer. You are just freeloader. Which is fine as far as I am concerned. I am freeloader too. At least I am aware that I am not paying money and thus am not customer.

      Nobody asks you to buy her album and even less listen to it.

  • Streisand effect? I knew ya could

  • where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets

    No, money is siphoned from consumers' pockets to theirs (Youtube's). The creator never had the money, and would never had it anyway since they don't own a distribution platform. What creators need to get over is that the magic isn't in their creation, it's in the distribution of their creation.

  • Seriously. If you are that concerned about Youtube profiting off your work - go and help with say, Diaspora, or ZeroNet, or BuddyCloud, or Identi.ca, or any of the other P2P social networks.

    If the top 100 most famous artists were to say "Allright, so here's the deal - we're going to start releasing our shit on this network" that network will take off like a space shuttle rocket.

    But, no, Youtube is good, preserve the status quo...

  • by non0score ( 890022 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @06:49PM (#52131133)

    Didn't YT already address this (recently) by holding onto the revenue while a complaint is being resolved, and then sending the accrued revenue to the winning party when the complaint is actually resolved?

    http://youtubecreator.blogspot... [blogspot.com]

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Working...