41 ms·

Adam Neely (YouTube music educator) had an absolutely farcical run-in with this situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8 https://www.youtube.com/w

by xster 7y ago

Adam Neely (YouTube music educator) had an absolutely farcical run-in with this situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8) where he made a video defending Warner Music and Katy Perry's Dark Horse against Flame's Joyful Noise plagiarism suit. He lost the claim from Warner Music even though: 1- he was defending Warner Music 2- he didn't play any recordings, he just played 3 notes on a synthesizer (which is his whole premise that it's un-copyrightable) 3- Warner Music lost the actual suit (which implies they don't have copyright on those 3 notes?) 4- someone at Warner Music manually tagged the "infringing" part of the video, except the person tagged not the Dark Horse part of the play through but the Joyful Noise part of the play through (*^∀^)ノ彡┻━┻ changelog: improved ascii art

RandomTisk 7y ago
It's pretty simple, Alphabet/Google make it far too easy for mistaken, false or frivolous claims. It's obvious why, usually the claimant has the heavy bags of money to use as a bludgeon, but it's not right.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  IANAL but it seems to me Alphabet/Google can get in serious legal trouble for it if they continue the system. There are a number of companies who massively submit false copyright claims and YouTube let's them do their business, even though it's easy to check in particular cases that the claims are false. These bogus companies get at least part of the monetization from videos they falsely claim. Doesn't that mean that Youtube is knowingly facilitating fraud and in some cases - when legitimate content is taken over - even commercial copyright infringement? It seems to me that the only reason why Youtube has gotten away with it so far is that nobody has systematically collected the evidence and sued Youtube in a country like Germany, for instance. Edit: On a second thought, fraud seems irrelevant. It's about commercial copyright infringement.
- mcv 7y ago
  There really needs to be a class action suit about this. Google allows Big Content to claim other people's content. Instead of fighting copyright violations, they assist in copyright violations on a massive scale, and deprive artists of income from their content.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The interesting thing is that one idea behind the copyright change in the EU is to alleviate this point. I don't think it'll work, but that's what the politicians touted it as.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    It was the copyright lobbyist that pushed for it, so of course it isn't (to alleviate this point)
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.
  - rswail 7y ago
    Copyright is not Trademarks is not Patents. They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property. All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours. You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc). Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent. So your premise in your message is incorrect.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    However, trademark is not copyright.
  - thwarted 7y ago
    US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.
  - rolls-reus 7y ago
    I've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- guramarx11 7y ago
  somehow that explain some other issues on yt, like not only demonetizing the corona virus tagged videos but also other videos on the channel involved
- Veedrac 7y ago
  It's not just that it's easy, but that the theft is legal and profitable. You don't even need to be rich to do this, you just need stuff you can claim; see How to Break YouTube (Copyright Claim your own video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo
rebuilder 7y ago
It's not a copyright system. Sure, YouTube are required to take down copyright-infringing material as defined by law, but AFAIK they are not required to apply considerations for fair use etc. I'm not sure there's any requirement for them to consider the truthfulness of copyright claims at all. IOW, YouTube's system may be a response to copyright legislation, but it does not apply that legislation. Appeals to the fair use doctrine are missing the point. The doctrine does not apply since YouTube's actions are not constrained by copyright law. IANAL, as you can probably tell. I may be wrong about what YT are required to consider, but in that case, I don't see how they can operate as they do.
- afiori 7y ago
  part of the issue is that fair use is something that needs to be proven in court
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  If youtube's automated system detects a copyrighter (eg.) song, the user should be given an option to say "no, it's not copyrighter, or it's fair use, etc", after that, the claim should be forwarded to the copyright owner. The copyright owner would then verify if it is indeed a copyright infringement, and if they believe it is, and the user still believe it isn't, the case should be brought to some quivalent of "small claims court", where both sides would present their sides, and the loser has to pay some fine (not too large, but still high enough to deter pointless cases.. eg $1000 (to cover the court cost), and damages up to eg. $1000 due to lost views, or damages due to unlicenced distribution). Basically, make it worth fighting for, if you're sure you're right in what you're doing, and not too expensive, when eg. Sonys lawyers build a multi-year case, destroying you financially, even if you're doing the right thing.
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    Well, that sounds like something to take up with the legislator, not YouTube.
- andykx 7y ago
  From another non-lawyer perspective, might it be different since there is money involved? I view it as potentially infringing on some people’s livelihoods. Again, just spitballing. I have no idea what the reality of the situation is.
adtac 7y ago
There should be a strike system against claimants falsely claiming videos, just like the users have a strike system. Three incorrect claims and every claim you make will be reviewed by an independent third party (billed to the claimant, of course).
ralusek 7y ago
That is so, so hilarious. Any one of those things individually is funny. Together; glorious.

by xster 7y ago

RandomTisk 7y ago

It's pretty simple, Alphabet/Google make it far too easy for mistaken, false or frivolous claims. It's obvious why, usually the claimant has the heavy bags of money to use as a bludgeon, but it's not right.

jonathanstrange 7y ago
IANAL but it seems to me Alphabet/Google can get in serious legal trouble for it if they continue the system. There are a number of companies who massively submit false copyright claims and YouTube let's them do their business, even though it's easy to check in particular cases that the claims are false. These bogus companies get at least part of the monetization from videos they falsely claim. Doesn't that mean that Youtube is knowingly facilitating fraud and in some cases - when legitimate content is taken over - even commercial copyright infringement? It seems to me that the only reason why Youtube has gotten away with it so far is that nobody has systematically collected the evidence and sued Youtube in a country like Germany, for instance. Edit: On a second thought, fraud seems irrelevant. It's about commercial copyright infringement.
mcv 7y ago
There really needs to be a class action suit about this. Google allows Big Content to claim other people's content. Instead of fighting copyright violations, they assist in copyright violations on a massive scale, and deprive artists of income from their content.
Mirioron 7y ago
The interesting thing is that one idea behind the copyright change in the EU is to alleviate this point. I don't think it'll work, but that's what the politicians touted it as.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  It was the copyright lobbyist that pushed for it, so of course it isn't (to alleviate this point)
LeoTinnitus 7y ago
It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.
- rswail 7y ago
  Copyright is not Trademarks is not Patents. They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property. All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours. You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc). Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent. So your premise in your message is incorrect.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  However, trademark is not copyright.
- thwarted 7y ago
  US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.
- rolls-reus 7y ago
  I've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
guramarx11 7y ago
somehow that explain some other issues on yt, like not only demonetizing the corona virus tagged videos but also other videos on the channel involved
Veedrac 7y ago
It's not just that it's easy, but that the theft is legal and profitable. You don't even need to be rich to do this, you just need stuff you can claim; see How to Break YouTube (Copyright Claim your own video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo

rebuilder 7y ago

It's not a copyright system. Sure, YouTube are required to take down copyright-infringing material as defined by law, but AFAIK they are not required to apply considerations for fair use etc. I'm not sure there's any requirement for them to consider the truthfulness of copyright claims at all. IOW, YouTube's system may be a response to copyright legislation, but it does not apply that legislation. Appeals to the fair use doctrine are missing the point. The doctrine does not apply since YouTube's actions are not constrained by copyright law. IANAL, as you can probably tell. I may be wrong about what YT are required to consider, but in that case, I don't see how they can operate as they do.

afiori 7y ago
part of the issue is that fair use is something that needs to be proven in court
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
If youtube's automated system detects a copyrighter (eg.) song, the user should be given an option to say "no, it's not copyrighter, or it's fair use, etc", after that, the claim should be forwarded to the copyright owner. The copyright owner would then verify if it is indeed a copyright infringement, and if they believe it is, and the user still believe it isn't, the case should be brought to some quivalent of "small claims court", where both sides would present their sides, and the loser has to pay some fine (not too large, but still high enough to deter pointless cases.. eg $1000 (to cover the court cost), and damages up to eg. $1000 due to lost views, or damages due to unlicenced distribution). Basically, make it worth fighting for, if you're sure you're right in what you're doing, and not too expensive, when eg. Sonys lawyers build a multi-year case, destroying you financially, even if you're doing the right thing.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Well, that sounds like something to take up with the legislator, not YouTube.
andykx 7y ago
From another non-lawyer perspective, might it be different since there is money involved? I view it as potentially infringing on some people’s livelihoods. Again, just spitballing. I have no idea what the reality of the situation is.

adtac 7y ago

There should be a strike system against claimants falsely claiming videos, just like the users have a strike system. Three incorrect claims and every claim you make will be reviewed by an independent third party (billed to the claimant, of course).

ralusek 7y ago

That is so, so hilarious. Any one of those things individually is funny. Together; glorious.