'Royalty-Free' Music Supplied By YouTube Results In Mass Video Demonetization (torrentfreak.com) 156
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A YouTuber who used a royalty-free track supplied by YouTube itself has had all of his videos copyright claimed by companies including SonyATV and Warner Chappell. According to the music outfits, Matt Lownes' use the use of the track 'Dreams' by Joakim Karud means that they are now entitled to all of his revenue. [...] Worryingly, searches online show that not only are other people affected by similar mass complaints, but there may -- may -- be an explanation for what is going on here.
"SonyATV & Warner Chappell have claimed 24 of my videos because the royalty free song Dreams by Joakim Karud (from the OFFICIAL YOUTUBE AUDIO LIBRARY BTW) uses a sample from Kenny Burrell Quartet's 'Weaver of Dream,'" a Twitter user wrote on Saturday. Sure enough, if one turns to the WhoSampled archive, Dreams is listed as having sampled Weaver of Dreams, a track from 1956 to which Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC and Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. own the copyrights. If the trend of claims against 'Dreams' continues, there is potential for huge upheaval on YouTube and elsewhere. Countless thousands of videos use the track and as a result it has become very well-known. Sadly, people trying to claim it as their own is nothing new but fingers crossed, common sense will sort out the present issues.
"SonyATV & Warner Chappell have claimed 24 of my videos because the royalty free song Dreams by Joakim Karud (from the OFFICIAL YOUTUBE AUDIO LIBRARY BTW) uses a sample from Kenny Burrell Quartet's 'Weaver of Dream,'" a Twitter user wrote on Saturday. Sure enough, if one turns to the WhoSampled archive, Dreams is listed as having sampled Weaver of Dreams, a track from 1956 to which Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC and Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. own the copyrights. If the trend of claims against 'Dreams' continues, there is potential for huge upheaval on YouTube and elsewhere. Countless thousands of videos use the track and as a result it has become very well-known. Sadly, people trying to claim it as their own is nothing new but fingers crossed, common sense will sort out the present issues.
Art and business (Score:5, Insightful)
Go together like cake and crude oil.
Re: Art and business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Art and business (Score:5, Insightful)
I just compose my own music for my videos. That way there is no argument over copyright or ownership.
They'll try and claim it anyway if you use any of the same 8 notes used in their copyrighted music.
Re: (Score:2)
Scared... (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube has since the implementation of DMCA has made errors in the favor of RIAA/MIAA. Their copyright takedown system is too good, they'll believe anything the major publishers say. In this case, it needs to be referred to a judge, because there's a questionable copyright claim here. There's been a time when everything has been pulled from YouTube because there was no validation of the claims, just a pull form.
YouTube has posted the song as free, but the copyright lawyers claim that's in error. If that's true, it shows how little YouTube knows about copyright.
Affected users are just collateral damage (Score:3)
Youtube doesn't give a crap about users as long as it is the major record labels who bring in the advertising dollars.
And why waste employee's time on checking the validity if there are numerous other users with content that Youtube visitors also like.
Re:Affected users are just collateral damage (Score:5, Interesting)
YouTube does give a crap about people who upload videos. Particularly ones who upload popular videos. Those are the people who produce YouTube's product.
demonizing (Score:3)
those are replaceable.
And demonizing them gives youtube more cash.
Re:Affected users are just collateral damage (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that they don't, because youtube's product is data being mined from the users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Affected users are just collateral damage (Score:5, Funny)
The first against the well? So instead of a firing squad, we just push them?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think YouTube gets those users? The popular content creators produce them. As I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like Slashdot commenters to add some surreal to the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you're going to pretend that you don't know what that phrase means and instead claim that this is somehow related to nazis and holocaust?
Music owner should have a 10% cap (Score:3)
A video that only has 5% of it using the music, should never be 100% claimed.
There is no way, a 20min edit effort should be 100% awarded to Sony, or any music author, since the music is not the primary work of art. Time to screw the (C) holders, upload 100000 videos of cat videos with their music, just so they waste their time asking for (C), and YT can waste 10x the value of the (C) on disk space. Lets DOS overload the DMCA system
Re: (Score:2)
But I think they are focused on monetized videos. Taking the monetization is a revenue stream for the RIAA/MPAA, while low-view and not-monetized videos are just potential future revenue.
Re:Music owner should have a 10% cap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. They reason that they can get away with it, because they can, and fuck the actual creative person.
Re: (Score:2)
Say I write a song. What can I do to determine whether in writing that song, I accidentally used someone else's music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen to this and say "there's *NOTHING* creative about using someone else's music"
John Coltrane "My Favorite Things" [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A video that only has 5% of it using the music, should never be 100% claimed.
There is no way, a 20min edit effort should be 100% awarded to Sony, or any music author, since the music is not the primary work of art. Time to screw the (C) holders, upload 100000 videos of cat videos with their music, just so they waste their time asking for (C), and YT can waste 10x the value of the (C) on disk space. Lets DOS overload the DMCA system
It would be interesting what would happen if a particular piece of royalty free music used 2 or more old samples held by diffrenent companies. Would they go for 100% each or agree to divy up between themselves the revenue from this seperate piece of work that they had zero to do with?
Re: (Score:2)
People have played companies off against each other before. Some asshat was putting their ads on other people's videos, so they added a few seconds of Nintendo game footage at the end of the video so that Nintendo would demonetize the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me take your idea a bit further.
Patents and copyrights are meant to ensure that creators can profit from their work or innovations. However, corporations do not create or invent anything. The people inside a corporation do. I propose that no corporate entity can own more that 10% of a patent or copyright, and the patent and copyright ownership lasts the lifetime of the authors plus maybe 10 years.
This does a couple of things. The corporation is incentivized to retain the creators or inventors. It puts a
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit against YouTube.
Youtube doesnt care about creators. (Score:2)
Youtube doesnt care about content creators.
It cares about advertisers.
Thats nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube doesnt care about content creators. It cares about advertisers. Thats nothing new.
And they don't realise driving the creators away means less eyes to sell to advertisers and then the advertiser will start to go elsewhere until youtube has a big drive to get people back on and the cycle repeats.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube thinks they are unique and can't be duplicated, because they are largely the "Only" place to go at the moment.
The problem with that logic is you become complacent and ignore the actual trends of your customers, and you'll end up like Microsoft, spending 20 years chasing trends instead of leading. YouTube will die a slow death, eventually. And once it is no longer profitable for Google/Alphabet, it will be killed off like all the others.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Scared... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop fucking lying
Can we stop it with the angry acuative bullshit already. Very few people are "lying". Most are just ignorant, or only have partial information to go by. By claiming someone who said something wrong is lying and doing so aggressively just makes you look like an idiot.
Re: Scared... (Score:2)
"claiming someone who said something wrong is lying and doing so aggressively"
How do we tell the aggressive lying from ignorance? AC isn't going to go look up his post to find the responses and get butthurt over it, so maybe the forceful response will make future mods stop and think critically for a second instead of + I hate copyright blank song infringement sounds troothy hur der durrr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop it with the angry acuative bullshit already. Very few people are "lying". Most are just ignorant, or only have partial information to go by.
By putting themselves forward as an expert on something they know fuck-all about, they're lying about their level of competence and relevance. In an age when you can fact-check most claims for free, and it therefore costs nothing to be right, that's a kind of lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact checking is only free if your time is worth nothing?
Fuck the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Fuck the system (Score:2)
Stop Google now, before it's too late.
Re: (Score:3)
K-Mart took over retail. A decade or so later Walmart was crushing them. A decade or so after that Amazon is crushing Walmart.
It was Yahoo. Then it was Altavista. Then it was Google.
Google has expanded into too many businesses. Their position cannot be defended for long in a free market, particularly the advertising side of it. Google isnt actually adding much value and the primary reason they currently dominate the advertising business is because not so long ago t
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that at some point, the fish is so big that the pond is full and there will never be a bigger fish than the current one. I think Amazon and Google cannot be replaced by a bigger fish, only another already existing big fish (ex: imagine Amazon replacing Google in a decad
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft used to be the big fish in the pond. Then the pond flowed to a new spot, and Microsoft is still the biggest fish in a much smaller pond. Ponds flow as the environment shifts. Desktop market has been largely replaced by mobile devices, of which, Linux/BSD is 99% of the market. Even the desktops are being replaced by the likes of Chromebooks in large portions of the marketplace.
Microsoft is still a fish, itts pond size is slowly shrinking. We used to say the same thing about Microsoft, only 20 years
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should be modded to eleven. I know that 11 is more than the maximum of 5 but there should be a "yes, but this goes to 11" button.
Re:Fuck the system (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't it that.. (Score:5, Funny)
You get the Demon etizarion if you play the music backward?
No Clear Rules, By Design (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
To a large degree, the system seems to function as designed, if you consider that the design is to ban certain topics, allow big media and content farms to crush organic and legit channels, favor certain political leanings, and avoid accountability for all of the above.
Here's a topic that was banned, without any explanation of what specific content was banned or any ability to appeal for one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here's a legit cooking cooking channel that's outcompeted by (TOS-violating) content farms with repeated content and simply fake recipes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here are channels whose "trending" status is clearly being suppressed by Youtube, such that they rarely trend, unlike the big corporate (old media, etc) channels they outcompete:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:No Clear Rules, By Design (Score:5, Informative)
It appears Youtube demonitize whoever they want, and strategically never provide a clear reason (i.e. specify neither the content in violation nor the rule that was violated). This provides at least the appearance of a possibility of legitimacy, except when they apply it to a channel with ZERO videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Youtube can of course be as arbitrary as they want, however in this case they weren't. At 00:22 you can see the mail he recieved from youtube where it is stated that he is not in line with the youtube partner policies with a link to the policy and that additional information is available on the monetization page where the specific policy violated is listed. He is also informed that if the violations was a mistake, he can reapply for the partner program in 30 days. At 01:08 you can see his monetization page where it is stated that the reason for the violation is re used content with a description of what that means. Now, as he at that time had no videos on his channel he's puzzled as to how this could be, but then at 02:08 he remember that all his videos where removed because of hate speech, again with a link to what youtube considers hate speech.
To a large degree, the system seems to function as designed, if you consider that the design is to ban certain topics, allow big media and content farms to crush organic and legit channels, favor certain political leanings, and avoid accountability for all of the above.
Here's a topic that was banned, without any explanation of what specific content was banned or any ability to appeal for one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
At 00:23 there is a screenshot of him being informed that he has violated youtube's hate speech policy (as the message is cropped it's not possible to say if a link was included). The policy is however quite easy to find https://support.google.com/you... [google.com]
Here's a legit cooking cooking channel that's outcompeted by (TOS-violating) content farms with repeated content and simply fake recipes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That's a video review of other cooking channels with 3.3M views and 3.8M subscribers, it's not obvious to me that it should be higher. TOS violations is of course something that you can report if you have a google account.
Here are channels whose "trending" status is clearly being suppressed by Youtube, such that they rarely trend, unlike the big corporate (old media, etc) channels they outcompete:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The author of the video seems to assume that "trending" status is something that ought to be determined by views alone. However, youtube is free to use any metric they want and it's easy to imagine that they don't want to put up videos that has the risk of being TOS violating and that has a broad appeal so previous posting history might be a factor, which obviously benefits "traditional media" channels such as the mentioned ESPN, Ellen show, Fallon, Kimmel, Colbert etc. The example given where Logan Paul is said to have a much higher threshold for being placed on the "trending" list, could if my guess is correct be explained by him previously posting a video of a corpse from a suicide victim.
Re: (Score:2)
The key problem is that appealing the demonetization means jack shit. Most views happen right after a video goes online. Who gives a fuck about a 30 day old video? That a video gets re-monetized after 30 days is as good as being able to sell a 30 days old newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
> At 01:08 you can see his monetization page where it is stated that the reason for the violation is re used content with a description of what that means. Now, as he at that time had no videos on his channel he's puzzled as to how this could be, but then at 02:08 he remember that all his videos where removed because of hate speech, again with a link to what youtube considers hate speech.
While what you say is true, you fail to tell The Rest Of The Story. The videos removed had been deleted 9 weeks prev
Not Penalized for Content (Score:2)
all his videos where removed because of hate speech, again with a link to what youtube considers hate speech.
No they weren't. A few were removed by YT, and then he himself deleted the rest. I repeat: he manually removed almost all of his own videos, leaving zero videos, and this happened months ago. The demonetization notice he recently received pretended his channel had unspecified "violating" content, but there was no content at all.
Youtube slipped up and showed their hand.
They do it over CC songs as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I got a notice a few months ago that a video I put up had a song under copyright and THE LABEL COULD PLACE ADS ON MY VIDEO. The way to dispute it? Send a letter to YouTube which they would then forward to the record label's lawyers who got to decide whether to pursue it or not. Now, I'm just an average Joe. Most people in my place will just take it rather than go personally toe to toe with the record label's lawyers.
The problem was, the guy released an album under Creative Commons. It resulted in him getting signed to a label. He rerecorded some of his previously released material for his new album...hence, the record label asserting copyright. Luckily, I actually had in my video: "The song playing is by [this guy]. His album is released under the Creative Commons license and you can download it freely [from here]". If I'd not had that text in the video and couldn't show where his album had actually been there, I'd probably have been screwed.
It's ridiculous YouTube is letting the lawyers who work for the record label decide your case...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's ridiculous YouTube is letting the lawyers who work for the record label decide your case..."
Holy shit. I've never heard of something like that happening before...
Are you being sarcastic?
Re: (Score:3)
I think he's being sarcaustic. It's very irritating.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a democracy, it's one wolf and 2 sheep with the wolf deciding on dinner because sheep shouldn't be allowed a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately YouTube doesn't have much choice. They have to respond to copyright take-down notices (DMCA) and set up the revenue-stealing scheme as a way to at least keep videos up while they are disputed.
YouTube can't have a copyright resolution system where you can appeal to them directly, they are forced to make you go the legal route. It's the law.
What you really need is a new legal mechanism for handling copyright complaints, ideally with some kind of punishment for bogus claims so that they are disco
Re: (Score:2)
Not forgetting that for a lot of the people who produce original content on YouTube, their local court is not in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
It should really be possible to do this stuff online now. No need to attend an actual court.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a technological problem. This is a laws/countries problem.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They problem they had was the very widespread infringement resulting in vast numbers of DMCA take-downs and the music companies complaining that YouTube was doing little to deal with the problem, despite having tools available (automatic music match) to do so. Either they were going to get sued or worse the RIAA would buy some laws regulating them, so they came up with the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
What you really need is a new legal mechanism for handling copyright complaints, ideally with some kind of punishment for bogus claims so that they are discouraged. Some kind of Small Claims Court
The USA is trying that with the CASE Act, which has passed the House. EFF's analysis [eff.org] explains how big publishers are likely to abuse this process, as it makes it easier for a copyright owner to send an RIAA-style $30,000 demand letter instead of just a cease and desist.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, looks like it needs to be balanced much more in the defendant's favour.
I'd suggest something like amending the DMCA so that the notice doesn't force an automatic take-down unless they tick a box, and ticking that box puts them on the hook for damages. So they can use it if they are losing lots of money fast and are sure it's infringing, e.g. pirated movies, but for stuff like YouTube they will be encouraged to use the non-takedown version that goes to arbitration.
The arbitration would be easy for peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately under the DMCA they have to take down first or they lose their legal protections.
when will this ever end? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that at some point a big content creator would lawyer up and go after YouTube for reckless and harmful application of demonetization.
Sony etc only do it because they can. They're a business, and have a legal obligation to pursue opportunities to make their shareholders more money. They may be involved with this problem, but they're not really the cause, they're just a necessary result of YouTube's demonetization system and how it's being handled.
Considering the large number of complaints on this front, it shouldn't have difficulty turning class-action either. No shortage of "me too!"
Re: (Score:2)
Get a class action going where YouTube creators who have had their content hit by bogus take-downs etc (and YouTube has refused to follow the DMCA counter-notice process) to all sue YouTube to force YouTube to follow the DMCA and accept/follow valid DMCA counter-notices.
Following the DMCA process might be better (Score:4, Interesting)
It *might* be better if YouTube followed the DMCA process, which includes the counter-notice provision you mentioned. Counter-notice is a big deal.
For those who don't know, a DMCA counter-notice is when somebody replies to a complaint by saying "no, don't take this down. It's not infringing." The web host or forum or whatever then has to leave the content up.
The thing about YouTube is that they don't take it down. They just demonetize it. So DMCA doesn't actually come into play. It would be a tough law suit against Youtube since YouTube isn't violating DMCA, they are using a different process to which DMCA doesn't directly apply. Plaintiffs might win, but it wouldn't be an open-and-shut case.
Another option would be a tortious interference or similar suit against people who recklessly send DMCA complaints.
If we demonetization had been a thing back in 1990s it might have been included in DMCA. Same with voluminous automated reckless or negligent complaints. The "bad" complaints we had back then were just not specific enough, or sent by a slightly incorrect party, such as a party who distributed the content but didn't actually hold the copyright. So those were the things we dealt with during the lengthy comment periods. We got provisions included saying the complaint has to be specific in identifying exactly which image or video is claimed to be infringing, and we got a clause requiring them to swear by penalty of perjury that they actually represent the copyright holder, not just a magazine which published pics copyrighted by the photographer. I wish we had predicted demonetization and automated complaints.
Class action against YouTube? (Score:2)
They won't be able to join a class action against YouTube - their contract with YouTube will disallow it.
But the guilty party here is Sony. They uploaded samples to YouTube's content match system that matched to content they don't own without first checking it. And then they didn't rapidly pull that sample as soon as it matched many samples. And the victims have no contract with Sony to hold them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YT exists and is successful by the grace of content creators. Not because of the big labels or their âoeoriginal contentâ.
Most of the video on YT will never be watched, though certainly some of the small-producer content is very popular. Big label content is definitely frequently watched, because they own content people want to consume. Official music videos are highly-consumed. It seems like both are responsible for YT's success.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a group in Germany that is doing that. Unionizing with legal representation.
However, going after YouTube won't work because YouTube is only meeting its legal obligations. YouTube has to respond to DMCA take-down notices. They can offer an alternative to the take-down, in this case the copyright holder putting ads on your video, but they can't ignore the notice or try to arbitrate it. Their hands are tied.
Some of the bigger YouTubers do pursue the people submitting bogus copyright claims. There migh
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the bigger YouTubers do pursue the people submitting bogus copyright claims. There might be some competition issues when one channel sends a bogus claim for a rival channel, as happens quite often. The problem is the law requires that if the other party offers to settle you pretty much have to accept or risk losing a lot of money. If you go to trial even if you win the court can and probably will only award you what was in the original settlement offer and then award costs to the loser, since they made a good faith effort to avoid further expense.
https://youtu.be/KSs5bQGxpas [youtu.be]
Can't you fight bogus copyright claims in small claims court?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly in the UK. You could in theory claim your lost revenue from the claimant.
Re: (Score:2)
But YouTube is not doing that. YouTube is NOT taking these videos down. What they do is keep the videos online and either rake in the ad profits themselves or hand them over to whoever is complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was their attempt to improve the situation by keeping the videos up but transferring ad revenue while the dispute was in progress. The copyright holder can choose to just have an immediate take-down as is their legal right, or YouTube's offer of advertising revenue instead.
To be fair to YouTube they have improved it since it started. Initially you lost that revenue but now they hold it while the dispute is in progress and pay it out to you if you resolve it in your favour.
Unfortunately legally the
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to spin it like it's something YouTube did because they're the good guys here. They did it because people caused a stink and went on to other streaming portals when content suddenly became unavailable on YouTube and they lost those eyeballs. To the viewer, it doesn't really matter who gets the ad revenue as long as they can watch their videos.
And that's all YouTube really cares about, that people don't leave for other portals that give them what they want. Can't have your product run away!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to spin it like it's something YouTube did because they're the good guys here.
I'm not. I'm explaining what happened.
Why do so many people think that merely explaining the facts of something is supporting it? You see the same anger at Wikipedia for having factual information without the correct spin on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it came across like you're trying to apologize what YouTube is doing here.
Taking videos down due to a DMCA claim is one thing. Not taking them down and pretending everything's allright so people don't rock the boat while at the same time shafting the actual content creators in favor of leeches that contribute nothing but simply have the legal muscle to actually be a nuisance to YouTube, something that actual content creators simply can't do because they invest their time and energy into creating cont
Re: (Score:2)
If you can give me an example (with a link) I'll look into it. Believe it or not I am always trying to improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think YouTube does its best to demonize (and of course demonetize) its largest independent content creators? Take a look at the "independent" YouTubers with a large follower count (yes, these people are hardly really independent, pretty much all of them have some kind of marketing staff milling about, but they aren't owned by one of the big fives) and realize that the very nanosecond they dare to push the envelope they get not only demonetized but slandered like there's no tomorrow.
Fuck Sony (Score:2, Informative)
Fuck Sony for multiple crimes, including mafia style jackbooting copyright scamming, and messing Blu-Ray up so completely that it just too annoying to use and is well on the way to extinction, after forcing out the other format by less than scrupulous means, that might have actually been better for the consumer. Everybody lost that one including Sony, WTAF? Oh, and the rootkit. Oh, and other stupid offensive pr and business fiascos too numerous to mention, but please do not hesitate to tag on. Might as well
Re: (Score:2)
"Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
--Thomas Hesse, Sony BMG's (then) president of global digital business
Re: (Score:2)
...mafia style jackbooting copyright scamming...
I think you misspelled MAFIAA (Music And Film Industry Association of America [mafiaa.org]).
Not good at all (Score:2)
"...but fingers crossed, common sense will sort out the present issues."
What with money and Sony involved?! The best you can hope for is some sort of long term payment scheme from Sony et al. What's so worrying is that if Sony win anything from this, anything at all, it leaves the scumbag lawyers plenty of room to go after all sorts of derivitive artworks. You taking a photo of a famous landmark in the same light and weather as one being licensed by a huge online image library, next thing you're on the hook
This has gotten crazy (Score:3)
I had thought that *IF* I ever uplosd a video to youtube with music, I'll record a small child pounding on a toy piano. Then I realized that even that has a non-zero chance of being claimed as a copyright violation.
Re: (Score:3)
Well there's your problem! (Score:2)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Limited. Then it should go into the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
We get to see soon if they will finally let Mickey Mouse into the public domain where it should have belong for decades.
The limit is now menopause (Score:2)
As long as Disney is standing, the copyright will be extended indefinitely
I doubt it for two reasons. For one thing, the Authors Guild has pledged to fight another extension [arstechnica.com].
For another, there hasn't been a new consensus in the underlying rationale for setting a copyright term. The copyright term of life plus 50 years under the Berne Convention, established in the mid-nineteenth century, was intended to represent three generations, or the life of the author's grandchildren [copyrightalliance.org]. The term extension from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years that began in Germany in 1965 did not chan
Overhaul the patent system (Score:2)
Fraudulent trolls are commonplace (Score:2)
Your video -- shame if something were to happen... (Score:3)
Oh, it was just one song? Same thing. Oh, you wrote it yourself? That's great, we're here to help you make sure no one else steals it. Including you. Don't you remember signing that non-existant contract when you wrote it? You should; go read the manual we never sent you over your membership that you never applied for.
Oh, you DIDN'T include a song in your video. That's strange, because we have you saying words that sound JUST LIKE a song. It has pitch, intonation, inflection, and a range, tempo, and volume _just_ like a song does. Maybe you wrote a rap song, registered it with us, then forgot about it?
Don't worry though, to insure your safety we'll collect all of the money that your song/non-song generates and save it for you, waiting for you to come by our offices which are helpfully open between 11:32:17 and 11:32.17.1 PM. I forget the timezone though, DST always gets me confused. You'll need to provide at least 1 form of official picture identification produced by, well, US, and your bank account numbers, credit cards, your original home mortgage paperwork, and your Facebook, Google, and Twitter credentials. Oh, we'll need your DNA and a penis-print to _absolutely_ make sure it's you -- we've found fingerprints and retina-prints can be forged and we want our customers to be safe.
What, you're female? Well just identify as male and get a sex-change operation, we'll be more than happy to wait. Oh and make sure that your new DNA matches up with the rest of you or we might suspect we have a forger on our hands and might have to call security, and bad things sometimes happen when you do that. Just ask Epstein when you see him; he's got a LOT of funny stories to talk about.
Relying on Google or YouTube ... (Score:3)
... or any other proprietary commercial web service for business always has these kind of risks.
problem with royalty free (Score:2)
That's the problem with 'royalty free', you always have to make sure it really IS royalty free, so not having any samples used (longer than a specific few seconds). But it's the person who publishes the music as 'royalty free' who is the culprit here and they should be held responsible and accountable.
It's the same with google's video encoder, they claim it's royalty free, but unless someone actually really researches the formula's/technology used and none of that found to be patented, it's actually royalty
Re: (Score:2)
so not having any samples used (longer than a specific few seconds)
I might be wrong - and please tell me if I am - but I don't think there is any exemption for sample length at all in law. Use a sample - even of just one second - and you've used copyrighted content.
Whether that's ethically right or wrong I suppose depends on whether you're a "sampler" or a "samplee" (or neither) but I seem to recall discovering that the whole "less than four beats" or "under four seconds" rule was not a rule at all. Can anyone be bothered to verify this?
Three strikes and you're out (Score:2)
The first video I had a copyright claim on included a piece of music from a website that said I could use it without paying royalties. I chose to delete the video as I didn't have time to redo the music.
Second video, I used samples from GarageBand iOS. I had time, so I challenged it and won.
Third video, just recently, I used a piece of music that's made available by Apple for use in iMovie projects, assuming that I'd avoid copyright claims. I just don't have time to deal with this one.
After a while it start
No indemnification? (Score:2)
If Youtube is providing these tracks as royalty-free and free-to-use, this would seem to suggest that they have done their due diligence and have the right to make such a guarantee in the first place. This is certainly true in other cases, like stock photography, and I would be surprised if YouTube were any different. If Youtube has made false representations over tracks they make available, they don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of pushing the liability down to the user.
I love how... (Score:2)
...everyone basically seems to have agreed to ignore the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA.
Hungry Hippos (Score:2)
Is it just me that thinks Youtube is like a game of Hungry Hippos? I mean, Google throws a bit of money into the middle and all sorts of people try to scoop up as much of it as possible. Seemingly some people have bigger hippos than others.
It all seems pretty crazy to me, but then maybe it's because I haven't ever really uploaded anything to Youtube, much less expected to make anything off it.
Had that happen once (Score:4, Informative)
I put a video of my HS graduation ceremony up on YT a few years ago. Didn't turn on monetization as it was just for a few friends to view. My graduation was in 1987.
Almost immediately after I posted it, I get a copyright strike from some firm that represented a shitty English electropop band from the early 2000s, claiming I ripped off their song. The only song in the video, is our school band playing 'Pomp and Circumstance' (Which has been in the public domain for YEARS). Rather than take the video down, they decided they would let me keep it up, but with monetization that went to them. Turns out that in one of their songs, they sampled 'Pomp and Circumstance', and because I was also using 'Pomp and Circumstance', they decided that I was violating their copyright.
I immediately challenged the copy strike: "This is a 30 year old VHS recording of a high school band playing a 90 year old public domain song. Both the song and the video are older than this shitty pop band. They happened to sample 'Pomp and Circumstance', a public domain song, 15 years ago and seem to think that they can now exert copyright over said song. They have no standing and the fact that this claim was allowed in the first place is ridiculous."
The copyright strike and monetization was removed within an hour.
TLDR; (Score:3)
Music came from a source that calls itself "YouTube Audio Library", which is not owned by YouTube.
Also, to state the obvious, copyrights last too long and are exploited by Megacorps. Hopefully the sample in question can be classed as fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube has ads now?