17 ms·

Warner music claimed my video for defending their copyright [video]

155 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

hyperpallium 7y ago
> I couldn't help it. It's in my nature. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
sirwitti 7y ago
Adam Neely's youtube channel is incredible. The musicologist (yeah, you can study that) in me loves it because the information he provides is accurate and easy to digest. The musician in me loves his videos because he documents many of his (to me) relevant experiences and thoughts. Apart from the claim being obviously fraudulent, he is one of coolest youtubers I know and deserves better than that.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  While he is one of my favorite youtube channels, I can't get into his recent musical endeavours; to me it's a lot of complexity and flourishes that I'm sure make musicians excited, but I can't get into it.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Two or three years ago he was having a live stream and I asked: if you hadn't studied music in college, what would you have studied. He answered Philosophy. Makes complete sense.
kjakm 7y ago
There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on YouTube but these larger publishers in particular are so aggressive because there is no reason for them not to be. They face no consequences for getting it wrong. I think YouTube has a '3 strikes' rule for creators who infringe - maybe they need something similar for false claims. If you are found to have made 3 false claims within a 12 month period you are not allowed to manually claim for the next 12 months. Alternatively a rule similar to the 'challenge' rule in the NFL - you get three claim ' credits'. If you use a credit correctly you get it back. Use it incorrectly and you lose it for the next 12 months.
- tssva 7y ago
  What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.
  - rahuldottech 7y ago
    Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.
  - jimhefferon 7y ago
    But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kjakm 7y ago
    > What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.
  - skunkworker 7y ago
    That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.
  - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
    Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.
DanCarvajal 7y ago
Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the DMCA. 15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.
  - peteradio 7y ago
    "knowingly" I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.
    - anonsivalley652 7y ago
      Are you a lawyer, or just have a keyboard warrior merit badge?
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack or respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Those things don't help. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
anonsivalley652 7y ago
IANAL so we need an actual copyright lawyer to break this down. Paging Leonard French.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  Actually, we don't need a lawyer; there was a lawsuit, the copyright claimants in this case lost the case, therefore they don't own the copyright on the segment that they claimed infringed on their copyright. The case was closed already.
bloudermilk 7y ago
Has anyone written extensively about these types of corporate contradictions? On the surface what happened in this situation is obviously absurd, yet I don't find it surprising at all. I can't begin to imagine how far removed the person who manually flagged that content is from anyone at Warner familiar with that lawsuit. Companies that big are simply incapable of managing this kind of minutia properly. I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how you avoid it.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Well, someone with more money than ways to spend it could start funding suits against YouTube, Google, the fraudulent claimants, etc. Maybe even a bunch of class actions, each against a suitable set of defendants.
wuz 7y ago
For more on how absolutely absurd Youtube's copyright system is, this video really highlights it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w
Vysero 7y ago
It really sounds to me like the owner of the video has an open and shut case against Warner music should he decide to file a lawsuit.
jccc 7y ago
Minutes ago: "Update - the claim was released, so I'm making this video unlisted. Thanks guys for watching!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-hougwB4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-...
jb775 7y ago
He just commented on the video saying the copyright claim was removed.
jsilence 7y ago
Please use other platforms like lbry.tv. thanks.
6510 7y ago
some info on the worm can factory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY imho the goal should be to get money to the people who created something and proportion it with the effort. Shit posts should be excluded for starters. Oh so you've pointed a camera at something! Lets sink tax money into defending your huger for lazy ass exploitation! A journalist traveling to some place to do some cheap crap news report on something should be modestly monetizable for a few weeks. A studio sinking millions into a production should enjoy a few years of ownership but if they fail to break even in say 2 years we should free up the system for actual efforts.

155 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

> I couldn't help it. It's in my nature. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

sirwitti 7y ago

Adam Neely's youtube channel is incredible. The musicologist (yeah, you can study that) in me loves it because the information he provides is accurate and easy to digest. The musician in me loves his videos because he documents many of his (to me) relevant experiences and thoughts. Apart from the claim being obviously fraudulent, he is one of coolest youtubers I know and deserves better than that.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago
While he is one of my favorite youtube channels, I can't get into his recent musical endeavours; to me it's a lot of complexity and flourishes that I'm sure make musicians excited, but I can't get into it.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
Two or three years ago he was having a live stream and I asked: if you hadn't studied music in college, what would you have studied. He answered Philosophy. Makes complete sense.

kjakm 7y ago

There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on YouTube but these larger publishers in particular are so aggressive because there is no reason for them not to be. They face no consequences for getting it wrong. I think YouTube has a '3 strikes' rule for creators who infringe - maybe they need something similar for false claims. If you are found to have made 3 false claims within a 12 month period you are not allowed to manually claim for the next 12 months. Alternatively a rule similar to the 'challenge' rule in the NFL - you get three claim ' credits'. If you use a credit correctly you get it back. Use it incorrectly and you lose it for the next 12 months.

tssva 7y ago
What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kjakm 7y ago
  > What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.
- skunkworker 7y ago
  That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.

DanCarvajal 7y ago

Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.

anonsivalley652 7y ago
After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the DMCA. 15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.
- peteradio 7y ago
  "knowingly" I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Are you a lawyer, or just have a keyboard warrior merit badge?
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack or respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Those things don't help. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

anonsivalley652 7y ago

IANAL so we need an actual copyright lawyer to break this down. Paging Leonard French.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Actually, we don't need a lawyer; there was a lawsuit, the copyright claimants in this case lost the case, therefore they don't own the copyright on the segment that they claimed infringed on their copyright. The case was closed already.

bloudermilk 7y ago

Has anyone written extensively about these types of corporate contradictions? On the surface what happened in this situation is obviously absurd, yet I don't find it surprising at all. I can't begin to imagine how far removed the person who manually flagged that content is from anyone at Warner familiar with that lawsuit. Companies that big are simply incapable of managing this kind of minutia properly. I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how you avoid it.

mirimir 7y ago
Well, someone with more money than ways to spend it could start funding suits against YouTube, Google, the fraudulent claimants, etc. Maybe even a bunch of class actions, each against a suitable set of defendants.

wuz 7y ago

For more on how absolutely absurd Youtube's copyright system is, this video really highlights it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w

Vysero 7y ago

It really sounds to me like the owner of the video has an open and shut case against Warner music should he decide to file a lawsuit.

jccc 7y ago

Minutes ago: "Update - the claim was released, so I'm making this video unlisted. Thanks guys for watching!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-hougwB4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-...

jb775 7y ago

He just commented on the video saying the copyright claim was removed.

jsilence 7y ago

Please use other platforms like lbry.tv. thanks.

6510 7y ago

some info on the worm can factory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY imho the goal should be to get money to the people who created something and proportion it with the effort. Shit posts should be excluded for starters. Oh so you've pointed a camera at something! Lets sink tax money into defending your huger for lazy ass exploitation! A journalist traveling to some place to do some cheap crap news report on something should be modestly monetizable for a few weeks. A studio sinking millions into a production should enjoy a few years of ownership but if they fail to break even in say 2 years we should free up the system for actual efforts.