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 "YouTube has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor' to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all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.
She should ask Google to forget her (Score:2, Interesting)
after all her music should speak for itself and being listed on search results and YT should not matter.
Re:She should ask Google to forget her (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:She should ask Google to forget her (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:She should ask Google to forget her (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:She should ask Google to forget her (Score:5, Interesting)
The funniest part is, if Google actually deleted all of the "infringing" content, Maria Schneider and the RIAA Mafia wouldn't be very happy about it.
Time for a history lesson:
In 2013, a number of German publishers successfully lobbied for the passage of a very restrictive copyright law, intended to limit the amount of publisher content that could be shown by third parties (e.g., search engines), so that publishers could collect licensing fees from Google and others.
After the passage of the law, Google decided to avoid potential liability by removing publisher content snippets from search results, in compliance with the law. As a result, German publishers said they lost significant traffic and asked for the return of their “snippets” without a demand for licensing fees.
It's broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law is broken and doesn't work correctly anymore.
Sure is. Thank the voters. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the government getting the money instead of her a real problem for the rest of us?
Megaupload... (Score:2, Interesting)
One could say that Megaupload is doing far less that could be considered illegal. I would definitely trust them more.
Racketeering? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Racketeering? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Racketeering? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Racketeering? Really? (Score:2)
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
Abusing the DMCA huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about these organizations abusing the DMCA by issuing false requests for legitimate content?
YouTube as a Service (Score:2)
Re:YouTube as a Service (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Megaupload comparison (Score:2)
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)
Re:Recording Labels (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Minnesotan... (Score:3)
...(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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol is Gods own Antifreeze
from the major record labels to the MPAA (Score:2, Interesting)
"...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)
Translation:
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently there are people who don't understand economics, and just how wealthy some people are.
Several individuals on Google's board can buy a controlling interest in the entire US music industry -- lock, stock, and barrel, with personal money.
If only one of the board members wanted to go full asshole, they could buy out a controlling interest in the companies suing them, fire the morons who started the lawsuit, and ensure the artists involved never publish with a major label again.
And what could the music industry do? File a lawsuit because somebody bought (a lot of) stock in their company? Hostile takeovers are not new.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically Schneider seems not to be RIAA. She left her label quite a few years ago, and is an independent at the moment.
She also seems to be spitting mad that she wasn't able to get into ContentID, and absolutely convinced the denial was primarily because she doesn't have aYoutube channel. The "spitting mad" makes it hard to tell how much serious her proposals are, because they could just be hyperbole. Frankly it's incoherent enough that I couldn't finish reading it.
I don't doubt the RIAA will try to take
It's obvious Youtube is abusive (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
There's no motivation, other than "don't be evil." Otherwise, they're getting paid to wait for the DMCA takedown notice to come in.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Maria Schneider is a great jazz composer (Score:2)
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)
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........................
Sugar Free Jazz (Score:2)
Man I thought all those free jazz cats were long gone....
Re: (Score:3)
Wedding photograp
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Well she's right (Score:3)
Time to do some work! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how capitalism is sold, but never how it worked.
Cal we all say... (Score:2)
Streisand effect? I knew ya could
Siphoned where? (Score:2)
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.
Cry me a river... (Score:2)
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...
I thought this was already addressed, of sorts (Score:3)
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]
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Youtube demand money from her in exchange for fire, theft, and kneecap insurance?
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Did Youtube demand money from her in exchange for fire, theft, and kneecap insurance?
I hope so.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Did Youtube demand money from her in exchange for fire, theft, and kneecap insurance?
Yes, that's one of the main points of her open letter [wordpress.com]. Youtube has a system in place, Content ID, to stop piracy and it works quite well. The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them or at least that's assumed, as they don't publish any rules. Everybody else gets left in the dust and isn't allowed into Content ID and thus their content can be shared on Youtube without permission. Which according to her argument violates the requirements for "Safe Harbor" protection and makes Youtube guilty of mass copyright infringement, as that "Safe Harbor" law requires technical measures to be made available to everybody.
Safe Harbor and ContentID (Score:5, Informative)
The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them...
I don't know how you got the idea that there was some form of licensing going on. YouTube is not reproducing the works covered by ContentID, so they don't require a license for the works.
...as they don't publish any rules.
You mean these [google.com] rules [google.com]?
Google scans every video uploaded to YouTube against its ContentID system. That's a few hundred hours of video per minute. This is also not the only way to enforce ownership rights on YouTube. Google is under no legal obligation to provide their ContentID service. It is the copyright owner's job to enforce their rights. Google cannot do that for them without an explicit agreement, and they have no obligation to make any such agreement with anyone. It is not part of the "Safe Harbor" exclusions, and it would not remotely make sense if that were so, since the point of those exclusions was to prevent service providers from having to police their networks.
that "Safe Harbor" law requires technical measures to be made available to everybody.
No, it requires that the service provider "accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures" [cornell.edu]. They are not obligated to provide any such methods.
No matter how much content owners would like for the onus for copyright policing to be on service providers, it is not the case and will never be the case.
Re:Safe Harbor and ContentID (Score:5, Insightful)
Google scans every video uploaded to YouTube against its ContentID system. That's a few hundred hours of video per minute. This is also not the only way to enforce ownership rights on YouTube. Google is under no legal obligation to provide their ContentID service. It is the copyright owner's job to enforce their rights. Google cannot do that for them without an explicit agreement, and they have no obligation to make any such agreement with anyone. It is not part of the "Safe Harbor" exclusions, and it would not remotely make sense if that were so, since the point of those exclusions was to prevent service providers from having to police their networks.
tl;dr - It's the DMCA, not Youtube at fault for this.
Re:Safe Harbor and ContentID (Score:4, Insightful)
The lack of fines/punishment for huge numbers of false or fraudulent takedown notices. The law incentivizes false claims and claims against fair use. There's no harm in trying to flag whatever you want.
Re: Safe Harbor and ContentID (Score:5, Insightful)
A statement made with no understanding of section 230 of the DMCA at all. The section that clearly states that platform providers are NOT liable for copyright infringement on their site so long as they were not found to be willingly complicit in its uploading. The case against Mega Upload hinges on secondary liability, a concept that doesn't exist in the current copyright statutes, and the fact that Mega employees were uploading copyrighted content to the site.
So long as no one can prove that actual Google employees were explicitly aiding the infringement of copyright on their service then YouTube is protected by section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point of the safe harbour legislation is to remove this path provided the ISP meets the requirements of the safe harbour legislation.
You can sue (nobody can prevent you doing that) but the chances of success are negligible unless you can show the ISP isn't meeting the requirements of the safe harbour legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
As the prophet George Carlin would say "You're full of sh*t!" Someone uploads a cracked copy of Word to your server, you don't need Microsoft's permission to delete it. Same with any other material, copyright or not.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that she's upset that YouTube doesn't give away their stuff (in this case, ContentID) for free? And, at the same time, she doesn't want to give her stuff away for free?
Makes sense now....
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's look at the actual text of the safe harbor [cornell.edu]:
Is ContentID offered by multiple service providers? Is ContentID described in any standards document?
Are the costs associated with operating ContentID insubstantial is terms of not only money, but CPU time and storage?
If you cannot answer those questions with a yes, then the fact that ContentID is not being offered to "everybody" -- meaning everybody who wishes to agree to "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms," not merely terms of their own choosing -- is not relevant.
I've read the open letter, and it's self-serving mush. For example, in her analysis of whether YouTube is a racketeer:
A. ContentID is not a "standard technical measure" as defined in the DMCA.
B. Stephen Carlisle should be sued for malpractice. You send a certified letter containing the items listed in 512(c)(3) to the designated agent specified here [copyright.gov] according to 512(c)(2). Done.
C. Doesn't like 512(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer, which clearly exists and assumes that subscriber identities are confidential, but wants to conceal the identity of the copyright owner, a right that does not and almost cannot exist.
D. WTF? Seems to be the love child of a complaint concerning broken-link error message one gets after content has been taken down and a variation of the complaint in item C. Copyright owner authorizes the takedown of content allegedly owned by the copyright owner is pretty darn difficult to hide since we can pretty much infer that yes, the complaint was essentially made by the copyright owner.
E, part 1. But those questions are in the DMCA. 512(c)(3) requires them, so yes, you get to answer questions when making a notification. 512(f) also has some laughably weak language concerning misrepresentations, so yes, you should probably be aware of that. 512(g)(3) requires lots of similar questions for counternotifications and a statement made under penalty of perjury. Seems fair enough.
E, part 2. It's called a counternotification, not a pre-certification. Requiring pre-certification would be a fairly substantial violation of the first amendment. You're welcome to practice what you preach and pre-certify everything you post, including your own open letter, as a means of educating yourself as to why.
F. The possibility that YouTube might support a user in a wrongful takedown situation is unfair. It's just little old me (get back behind the curtain, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, RightsHaven, Guardlex, and the rest of you guys, they're buying it!).
G. Enforce my copyrights for me for free. Now.
H.
Re: Why does this matter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to explain this in far greater detail than you have. Google Inc. is a search engine that, until the recent reorganization into Alphabet and its subsidiaries, owned an interest in YouTube LLC.
The two are otherwise distinct legal and operational entities. In fact, the entire point of an LLC is that the members are not liable for the actions of the LLC above and beyond the value of the members'
Re: (Score:2)
They were doing it before the split. Google still makes infringing material available on youtube searches. Google bought youtube knowing that there was a huge copyright problem that the original owners were running into all the time.
"Gee, I don't know who I got it from - some guy said it fell off the back of the truck." Do you really think that's going to save your ass from possession of stolen goods in court? Same as any retailer who has stock that he doesn't have an invoice for that matches the descripti
Just more copyright extension.. (Score:5, Interesting)
No.
What she wants is for Google to, at THEIR cost, provide protection for HER content.
Remember, this is content that, due to copyright extension, will almost certainly NEVER enter the public domain which was originally part of
the social contract that was copyright. The government agreed to provide legal protections for works, in return for those works
entering the public domain after a reasonable time - a balanced agreement. That agreement has been continuously twisted by the copyright
owners, who see it as the job of everyone else to protect their works, and they should keep the money and the works for ever (in effect).
So no, she is just pushing the cart another inch forward, bending the social contract even further, and trying to claim that it is Googles job
to enforce HER copyrights - which it clearly is not.
If she wants her works protected on youtube its easy, employ someone to find content that is in violation, employ lawyers to write up the
required legal papers, and go for it. There is exactly nothing stopping her from doing this.
If she wants Google to do the work for her, then agree to Googles terms to provider her with this service.
What she is trying to do is the same as wanting a radio manufacturer to be legally responsible for checking that the local barbershop
isnt 'performing her works without a commercial license' because they turn that radio on, at the radio makers cost. ie: laughable.
This is just another attempt at copyright extension people, and the public, who are being shafted already (thank you Disney, etal), should be
rather angry at that. NO other industry has had such generous governmental and legal support for so long.
Or perhaps she would rather keep her works for herself, and we just revoke copyright, as she does not want to keep up her side of the contract?
I thought not..
Re: (Score:2)
<sarcasm> Of course I should sign a contract with a thief, so that the thief will check all his stolen goods to make sure none of them are mine. Make perfect sense. </sarcasm>
Hiding behind third parties does not remove your responsibilities. Much, perhaps most, youtube material is copyright violation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hiding behind third parties does not remove your responsibilities. Much, perhaps most, youtube material is copyright violation.
No third party has any obligation to enforce your copyrights. It is not the responsibility of service providers nor the public at large to defend your private interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding behind third parties does not remove your responsibilities. Much, perhaps most, youtube material is copyright violation.
That still doesn't make it YouTube's responsibility to proactively police the content. Hell, they don't even have to reactively police it if they don't want to. They can take your DMCA complaint and wipe their asses with it if they so chose. Doing so would exclude them from the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA but that's their call.
Re: Just more copyright extension.. (Score:2)
My understanding is that YouTube is guilty of copyright infringement if they allow people to view/listen to her work on their website without her licensing them to do so, and that the DMCA shields them from such liability if they provide a mechanism for her to notify them that they are infringing and take the content down when she notifies them.
So, no, they're not required to provide her with free services. But if she doesn't want their service hosting her content, and they do so, and they don't take the s
Re: (Score:2)
She got her JD from the School of Hard Knocks.
She's right of course (Score:3)
I can listen to any copyrighted song I want pretty much just by using Youtube. I'm actually surprised that I've never found a service that has a way to construct song libraries by scouring youtube for a play list and possibly even autoripping them. Seems like a good bussiness model since youtube is the one guilty of making available copyrighted works if it comes to a legal battle.
Re:She's right of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems like a good bussiness model since youtube is the one guilty of making available copyrighted works if it comes to a legal battle.
Seems you missed the whole point of the article and the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. Youtube is safe from litigation as long as they comply with DMCA takedown requests. If the copyright owner can't keep up with the hundreds of hours of video being uploaded per minute to Youtube, that's on them. That's the way the law was written.
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube is deliberately and with malice of forethought providing a streamlined method for massive copyright violation
Youtube is also the largest and most successful promotional vehicle for artists that's ever existed. Artists want the free promotional platform that earns them money through advertising and the subsequent record and concert sales, but also want Youtube to pay for for the massive effort of managing copyright violations for them.
An artist should be able to say to youtube "anything with my name on it is prohibited", and then it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to demonstrate that the material is not covered by copyright.
Yes that's not ripe for abuse or anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I can listen to any copyrighted song I want pretty much just by using Youtube.
Yes, and you'll never listen to those copyrighted songs that aren't on Youtube because no one knows or cares about the.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea who Maria Schneider is
Maybe you should look her up on YouTube [youtube.com] and find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has created a website that allows people to post copyrighted works they don't have the rights to.
If you don't want people posting works you own the rights to, Google has another service you can use to stop it.
Hmm, sounds like racketeering, or would if Google charged for ContentID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
assumptions based on patterns are not "unintelligent", even erroneous assumptions require intelligence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please keep in mind that we aren't yet aware what kind of agenda the new Slashdot owners will be pushing here, and this article may be an early astroturf attempt at generating bad press for technologies that even major record labels are using to propagate their media.
Youtube is a threat to their current business model of threatening to sue downloaders for random sums that sometimes number in the millions. Which ironically is more racketeering than Google's monitization of channel revenue.
At this point I see
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do things that matter have to affect you directly? That's another question to ask yourself. There are many things that are bad that don't affect you directly. The wildfire in Ft. McMurray for example, it doesn't affect you, yet it is vitally important to many people who's home are being destroyed and who's livelyhoods are being threatened. She feels it is important to her, and her industry. which actually includes many people besides just the artists, but the producers, the commercial jingle writers, anyone who has ever held a copyright.
Why is this important to anyone? Well, I actually don't think the letter has much merit, and that is important to me. YouTube has proven that they comply with takedown orders, they cannot control everything that is put up there, with ~300 Hours of content uploaded every minute, (2014 stats) that would require, let's do the math, 300 hrs x 60 x 24 = 432000 hrs uploaded per day, that would require 54000 8 hour shifts to go through all the content. 54000+ employees to monitor every video uploaded for copyright infringing content. Yeah, I don't think that's feasible. The use of digital fingerprinting leaves it open to false positives, and fair use violations, (It would cause an official release of Ice Ice baby to go down because it might match just enough to Queen's Under Pressure). How they're taking money from artists, is questionable, I suppose having to have a lawyer send the takedown notice. But usually the label does that, which they might charge back to the artist but that's not youtube's fault or responsibility, if anything that's racketeering on behalf of the labels not Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
with ~300 Hours of content uploaded every minute, (2014 stats) that would require, let's do the math, 300 hrs x 60 x 24 = 432000 hrs uploaded per day, that would require 54000 8 hour shifts to go through all the content. 54000+ employees to monitor every video uploaded for copyright infringing content. Yeah, I don't think that's feasible.
Disclaimer: I personally think she's wrong. Having said that, if she was right and YouTube is breaking the law, the fact that it would be impossibly onerous to comply with the law would be immaterial. A business doesn't get a pass on "criminal racketeering" because "expensive".
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the banks.
You don't like "the banks", got it. What "criminal racketeering" laws did they break, again?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if serious. (Score:2)
Identifying Ice Ice Baby as infringing the copyright on Queen's Under Pressure wouldn't be a false positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How does this affect me?
It is interesting to see other perspectives of copyright law, and what 'the other side' might be thinking of issues. If she is successful in convincing the masses of her position, it will strengthen what many on /. believe are already overly broad, overly strong and otherwise misguided IP protection laws.
It would affect you, in that any entertainment you consume would likely become even more expensive. Also, if you use youtube, it might eliminate the reason most of us go there, and
Re: Why does this matter? (Score:2)
It is important to music listeners (you?) because income is what motivates many artists to produce music (initially and on a continuing basis), and this is an issue that directly affects artist income. It is not by any means the only issue, but it is not a minor one either, either in their perception or in actuality.
Re: (Score:3)
It is important to music listeners (you?) because income is what motivates many artists to produce music (initially and on a continuing basis),
What percent of people that consider themselves "artists" make a profit? 1%? Less probably. No, artists aren't motivated by money. They are motivated by a love of the art. If money comes they take it like anybody would, and they take measures to increase their profitability like anyone would, but it isn't their motivation.
The proof is the fantastic amount of art out their produced by nobodies be it music, visual, coding, etc. If you shut off payment for art all together there'd still be fantastic artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Some artists do; some artists don't.
Some people, hearing such claims, realize that eating and paying the bills, not to mention planning for the future, aren't actually inconsequential issues, even if the claim is made in a perfectly hyperbolic manner.
You, for instance, may have a very strong lean towards X; however, somewhere in your outlook, likely you're thinking that money will be handy in your pursuit of X. Related, you may be annoyed - to say the least - if someone decides, in a very preemptive manner,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then some nobody "artist" comes along and tells google they are stealing from her. Right. I was totally going to buy her album, but I listened to it on YouTube instead.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
How does this affect me? Why is this important to anyone except Maria Schneider? I'll get modded down to -1 for asking this because Slashdot users don't like answering important questions. But this needs to be asked, and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
1) How does this affect me?
We cannot know the answer to that because we have no idea of who you are. Are you a musician? A Google/youtube employee? A lawyer? Those people would care a lot, but we have no idea who you are so we cannot answer your question. Only you would know what your interests are, and not everything that happens affects everybody.
Don't ask this question again.
2) Why is this important to anyone except Maria Schneider?
She is a member of a community (published musicians) that has the share a common experience (or belief) that their works are being unfairly posted and uncompensated. This also affects employees of google/youtube and attorneys who may be interested in copyright law.
Entertainment is a multi-billion dollar industry and an important part of the economy, as is google/youtube.
This is explained in the articles linked to, and tells us that you are posting to an article that you have not read.
You are asking us to read the article for you and explain it. How can you not know how annoying that is?
3) I'll get modded down to -1 for asking this because Slashdot users don't like answering important questions.
We do like answering important questions. We don't enjoy discussions with people who have NOT read the articles.
You get modded down because your questions are about you and not about the posted article.
4) But this needs to be asked,
No, you are mistaken. Your questions do not need to be asked. How the article affects you, who we do not know anything about, does not need to be asked.
5) and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me.
The purpose of Slashdot is to offer a variety of topics for discussion.
Look at the top of the Slashdot web page. There is a line that looks like this:
Topics: Devices Build Entertainment Technnology Open Source Science YRO
This article is about YRO and Entertainment.
People who are interested in YRO and Entertainment would be interested in this topic. others would skip over it.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Informative)
How does this affect me? Why is this important to anyone except Maria Schneider? I'll get modded down to -1 for asking this because Slashdot users don't like answering important questions. But this needs to be asked, and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
No, you are getting modded down to -1 because you ask the [slashdot.org] exact [slashdot.org] same [slashdot.org] question [slashdot.org] over and over again regardless of the topic, indicating that you are more interested in trolling than getting an actual answer to your question. The only reason I am responding and quoting you is so people can see and recognize your pathetic attempts at begging for attention.
Please people, stop responding to this guy.
Marketing. But for whom? (Score:2)
Marketing to those who habitually gravitate towards non-remunarative content. It's like marketing any free thing; without a reason to buy or re-buy, or enter into a separate cost-based consumer channel, it's an expense, not an income booster. The question is, as always, does youtube lead in that direction, or does it primarily replace purchases with free-to-the-consumer downloads? While, as TFC says, monitizing ads that lead elsewhere than into the artist's pocket?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google hopes the big-name content holders will accept ad revenue instead of out-right take-downs, which tick off small Youtube publishers and viewers, and risk Google being sued for censorship. However, that ad revenue is tiny compared to the old-fashioned way of selling entertainment.
But that's life in the Internet age: viewers have too many options to be forced to stare at boring, cheesy, blowhard ads for too long. Choice has watered-down profits, and many attention seekers publish entertainment for almos
Re: (Score:2)
“Congress seems to be too hypnotized by RIAA lobbyists, swarming like locusts, for the lawmakers to stand up straight with a firm sense of right and wrong, and defend the Constitution and the citizens of this country,” she added.
Too lazy to create an account.
ftfy