7 ms·

The US recording industry is stealing from me

237 points by mitchie_luna 15y ago

bengl3rt 15y ago
Interesting to hear about the company pursuing royalties for the use of the default sounds that ship with Sony Vegas. I've always wondered what the legal specifics of using the included loops and samples in Logic, Reason etc are, since I hear them in pop songs and commercials and so on - definitely could trigger a pattern match.
- leviathant 15y ago
  It's probably mentioned in the documents that come with the software. I know that when I bought my Korg ER-1 way too long ago, I pored over the manual and the bit about the presets definitely stuck out to me - you were apparently not allowed to use any of the preset beats in any commercial music. Is that ever enforced? I can't possibly see the legal department of a musical instrument company going after a musician for using presets. That's especially true for music software companies, which (I presume) operate on much smaller budgets.
  - jlogsdon 15y ago
    I know Native Instruments doesn't pursue anything if they have the same clause; dance music producers love Massive and it's presets, you here them all over the place.
  - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
    " The FM office was alive with debate this morning as it surfaced that both the drum loop and the main riff from the club-classic Faxing Berlin by Deadmau5 are available as loops in FL Studio 8. Not only that, but a little-known artist is currently being struck down by the wrath of the law for using the loop (which he assumed was Royalty-free and claims to have used not knowing it was Deadmau5's riff) in a recent release. " http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/dont-use-fl-studio-loops-246394 http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/dont-use-fl-studio-loo...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Arjuna 15y ago
  "I've always wondered what the legal specifics of using the included loops and samples in Logic, Reason etc are [...]" I cannot speak for all music composition hardware and software, but from my experience, the primary constraints on the products that I use (e.g., Reason) are generally two-fold: 1. Packaging or recording factory-included loops or sounds for the purpose of re-distribution as a stand-alone audio library is prohibited. 2. Using factory-included sample tracks for commercial purposes is prohibited. Otherwise, factory-included loops and sounds can be used commercially in your compositions. Again, the above are just my experiences. However, as noted by leviathant's comment with the Korg ER-1 experience, it is always a good idea to read the license agreement.
tsunamifury 15y ago
Several companies have falsely filed claims on the stock sounds in Final Cut Pro and GarageBand as well. It irritates me to no end. More importantly though, it illustrates how Google likes to make sweeping solutions based on generalizations. They created a system which allows content owners to claim they own any and all content, regardless of the veracity of their claim.
- revelation 15y ago
  Certainly Google doesn't "like" to make any kind of solutions to help a dying industry. The content recognition system likely cost in the tens of millions in development and is probably eating up lots and lots of processing power just to operate it.
  - gergles 15y ago
    Which makes one wonder why they pandered to the content industry with it at all. There's no requirement they make such a system, and it makes their service less desirable and usable. Google's responsibility is to respond to DMCA notices; that's it. They have no requirement to create a Draconian copyright monitor. (The standard response is "so the content industry would work with us!!!" Who gives a shit? Oh no, we wouldn't have any of the shitty "Vevo" channels laced with advertising without Content ID. What a terrible loss that would be.)
    - jdietrich 15y ago
      If the record industry is dying, how much do you imagine they're willing to spend on lobbying to delay their fate? Any regulation of the internet places a disproportionate burden on Google, simply because of their size. They know this, the RIAA/MPAA know this. The RIAA would happily spend billions and kill Google in the process if it bought them another few years of the good old days.
    - jaylevitt 15y ago
      Because responding to DMCA notices would take people, and Google always prefers algorithms over manual labor. I'm half convinced that the whole reason they're developing driverless cars is for Google Maps, the one Google property that requires a huge labor force.
TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
Oh, the solution's simple: YouTube should just not check for rap music!
alan_cx 15y ago
Its likely I have missed something, if this guy's video matched another video, why is it his one which is the offender and not the other video? Does this mean that the videos uploaded by the record companies are flagged as being legitimate by default ? If so, who decides that one then? Must every "legit" publisher register are some how legitimate? If it were me, I would want to find out which video was supposed to be the original of which the IP was allegedly stolen, and accuse them of taking my material. Surely by these standards one of r them must be illegal, right? Or does this lark only work one way for the benefit of the dear old mega-corps?
- biot 15y ago
  His video isn't identical to another video. Rather, something within the video (it might have been a five second sample) triggered a false positive match against something else that someone thinks they own the rights to.
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    I understand that. But then surely that match works both ways. Something in the other video must also match with his, right? So, why is it this guys getting accused and not the other video? If his video came out first, then the newer video can be said to be copying his video. See what I'm getting at?
    - jellicle 15y ago
      The samples provided by companies who have a deal with Google - the recording industry - are the only "master" samples, not your uploaded stuff.
  - ImprovedSilence 15y ago
    If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that maybe the title of his video "talking head to camera" triggered the match, as there is a band called "the talking heads" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads] Now this raises the whole question of, is using a title that overlaps a band name a copyright infringement, a trademark infringement, or none of the above. While we all may agree the latter is the correct answer, YouTubes infringement algorithm probably says otherwise. And while we're on the subject, how interesting is it that you tube filters content based on title, and most likely not based on actual content.
billybob 15y ago
TL;DR - "They flagged my video as containing their content, even though it doesn't, which means they get my ad revenue."
- billybob 15y ago
  Is there no penalty for incorrectly claiming others' content? Perhaps the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality is justified by saying that there is so much infringement, that due process would always be 3 steps behind the uploaders. Even if that's true, is there no financial penalty for incorrectly flagging others' content? What incentive does the RIAA currently have for not flagging every video on YouTube simultaneously, other than public opinion?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Who says they are claiming it? For all we know, the videos were flagged by Youtube's content matching system, and of course they are free to take down any video they want or share part of their ad profits with whoever they want - it's their website.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      YouTube is not free to do whatever it wants with the videos of legitimate creators. The true content owners don't waive all their rights when they upload their videos.
      - simonbrown 15y ago
        But they give YouTube a license to them: "8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant: A. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;"
ck2 15y ago
Can non-US-citizens sue US corporations in small-claims court? Because at $5k or $10k a pop, you might find them stop this behavior. They do it now because there is no downside for them for false DMCA claims. $10k a pop might become a downside.
- semisight 15y ago
  I think the time and money investment just isn't worth it. I'd fight it, but that's just me being an agitator. Even if you did win 10k, most of that money would go to lawyer's fees anyway.
  - andylei 15y ago
    there are no lawyers in small claims court
- icebraining 15y ago
  We have no evidence that they're actually sending DMCA claims at all.
- pavelkaroukin 15y ago
  Nobody sent DMCA claims in this case (at least, this was not covered in the story). It is Youtube's automagic copyright-infringement-detector falsely labeled one of author's genuine clips as something using copyrighted material. Author need contact Youtube in this case to fix this.
  - TheCapn 15y ago
    DMCA or not Google's negligent algorithm is causing people with a legitimate income to lose out. Maybe they should be at the end of the lawsuit to have them drop their automated system?
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Lawsuit for what? Google has every legal right of rejecting any video they feel like it. That's defined in their ToS and there's no law that overrules it.
maeon3 15y ago
The only language riaa understands is money, to fight back, it will take far more than whining about morality or fairness or justice. They need to be destroyed, and the only way this will be possible is to starve the corruption engine of its fuel: money.
ecounysis 15y ago
Is there a viable alternative to YouTube that isn't as persuaded by the powers that be? If so, and if this problem were pervasive enough, wouldn't the independent content providers prefer that service over YouTube. Then most independent content would eventually be on the other service which would drastically reduce the value of YouTube.
- jmaygarden 15y ago
  Well, there is http://megavideo.com/ http://megavideo.com/ Oh yeah, the FBI seized that domain didn't they? ;)
  - ecounysis 15y ago
    That's probably why YT is being so aggressive then: to keep the FBI off them. It is truly a depressing world when film/recording industry lobbies and law enforcement agencies get away with stifling free market competition in order to maintain the status quo distribution of wealth.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  There used to be this site called Megavideo.
amatus 15y ago
I'd be interested to know what the YouTube ToS says about this. It's likely that they can take away your ad revenue for no reason at all. Instead of complaining that someone stole your ad revenue, you should be thanking the all mighty Google every time they are gracious enough to give you a single cent of their ad revenue.
da_n 15y ago
Wow, all I can say is fuck Google, three passes in as many weeks is to much for me. The golden child has surely now turned to rust.
showkhill 15y ago
Just on youtube's copy checking, I got a FB message from a friend who stumbled on a vid that uses one of my songs, it has 280k + views and advertises a motorcycle shop. No mention of the song or my band. Normally we license stuff through jamendo pro (all our music is cc). Anyone know how youtube polices this kind of thing? It's obviously a commercial usage but we got ne'er a penny nor even an attribution.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Maybe you can fill out an application for ContentID: https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid, or try contacting the video uploader first.
  - showkhill 15y ago
    Thanks, just looking at that link now I'll get on it. We did have a licensing issue before with a video blogger who asked my permission to use one of our songs as his theme. Youtube were fairly sticky about it, that's why I was surprised something like this slipped through. I did contact the uploader nothing back from them yet. I'm a massive advocate of CC and I'm old school in that I believe the number one consideration for an artist is to be heard (as opposed to being paid) but being open and with so many platforms holding your work it's hard to keep track of things. I wonder is there a way to use a Shazam like system to index audio usages on the web? Then scale could come into play and perhaps help to get cc artists paid on a fair and rational basis.

237 points by mitchie_luna 15y ago

Interesting to hear about the company pursuing royalties for the use of the default sounds that ship with Sony Vegas. I've always wondered what the legal specifics of using the included loops and samples in Logic, Reason etc are, since I hear them in pop songs and commercials and so on - definitely could trigger a pattern match.

leviathant 15y ago
It's probably mentioned in the documents that come with the software. I know that when I bought my Korg ER-1 way too long ago, I pored over the manual and the bit about the presets definitely stuck out to me - you were apparently not allowed to use any of the preset beats in any commercial music. Is that ever enforced? I can't possibly see the legal department of a musical instrument company going after a musician for using presets. That's especially true for music software companies, which (I presume) operate on much smaller budgets.
- jlogsdon 15y ago
  I know Native Instruments doesn't pursue anything if they have the same clause; dance music producers love Massive and it's presets, you here them all over the place.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  " The FM office was alive with debate this morning as it surfaced that both the drum loop and the main riff from the club-classic Faxing Berlin by Deadmau5 are available as loops in FL Studio 8. Not only that, but a little-known artist is currently being struck down by the wrath of the law for using the loop (which he assumed was Royalty-free and claims to have used not knowing it was Deadmau5's riff) in a recent release. " http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/dont-use-fl-studio-loops-246394 http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/dont-use-fl-studio-loo...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Arjuna 15y ago
"I've always wondered what the legal specifics of using the included loops and samples in Logic, Reason etc are [...]" I cannot speak for all music composition hardware and software, but from my experience, the primary constraints on the products that I use (e.g., Reason) are generally two-fold: 1. Packaging or recording factory-included loops or sounds for the purpose of re-distribution as a stand-alone audio library is prohibited. 2. Using factory-included sample tracks for commercial purposes is prohibited. Otherwise, factory-included loops and sounds can be used commercially in your compositions. Again, the above are just my experiences. However, as noted by leviathant's comment with the Korg ER-1 experience, it is always a good idea to read the license agreement.

tsunamifury 15y ago

Several companies have falsely filed claims on the stock sounds in Final Cut Pro and GarageBand as well. It irritates me to no end. More importantly though, it illustrates how Google likes to make sweeping solutions based on generalizations. They created a system which allows content owners to claim they own any and all content, regardless of the veracity of their claim.

revelation 15y ago
Certainly Google doesn't "like" to make any kind of solutions to help a dying industry. The content recognition system likely cost in the tens of millions in development and is probably eating up lots and lots of processing power just to operate it.
- gergles 15y ago
  Which makes one wonder why they pandered to the content industry with it at all. There's no requirement they make such a system, and it makes their service less desirable and usable. Google's responsibility is to respond to DMCA notices; that's it. They have no requirement to create a Draconian copyright monitor. (The standard response is "so the content industry would work with us!!!" Who gives a shit? Oh no, we wouldn't have any of the shitty "Vevo" channels laced with advertising without Content ID. What a terrible loss that would be.)
  - jdietrich 15y ago
    If the record industry is dying, how much do you imagine they're willing to spend on lobbying to delay their fate? Any regulation of the internet places a disproportionate burden on Google, simply because of their size. They know this, the RIAA/MPAA know this. The RIAA would happily spend billions and kill Google in the process if it bought them another few years of the good old days.
  - jaylevitt 15y ago
    Because responding to DMCA notices would take people, and Google always prefers algorithms over manual labor. I'm half convinced that the whole reason they're developing driverless cars is for Google Maps, the one Google property that requires a huge labor force.

TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago

Oh, the solution's simple: YouTube should just not check for rap music!

alan_cx 15y ago

Its likely I have missed something, if this guy's video matched another video, why is it his one which is the offender and not the other video? Does this mean that the videos uploaded by the record companies are flagged as being legitimate by default ? If so, who decides that one then? Must every "legit" publisher register are some how legitimate? If it were me, I would want to find out which video was supposed to be the original of which the IP was allegedly stolen, and accuse them of taking my material. Surely by these standards one of r them must be illegal, right? Or does this lark only work one way for the benefit of the dear old mega-corps?

biot 15y ago
His video isn't identical to another video. Rather, something within the video (it might have been a five second sample) triggered a false positive match against something else that someone thinks they own the rights to.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  I understand that. But then surely that match works both ways. Something in the other video must also match with his, right? So, why is it this guys getting accused and not the other video? If his video came out first, then the newer video can be said to be copying his video. See what I'm getting at?
  - jellicle 15y ago
    The samples provided by companies who have a deal with Google - the recording industry - are the only "master" samples, not your uploaded stuff.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that maybe the title of his video "talking head to camera" triggered the match, as there is a band called "the talking heads" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads] Now this raises the whole question of, is using a title that overlaps a band name a copyright infringement, a trademark infringement, or none of the above. While we all may agree the latter is the correct answer, YouTubes infringement algorithm probably says otherwise. And while we're on the subject, how interesting is it that you tube filters content based on title, and most likely not based on actual content.

billybob 15y ago

TL;DR - "They flagged my video as containing their content, even though it doesn't, which means they get my ad revenue."

billybob 15y ago
Is there no penalty for incorrectly claiming others' content? Perhaps the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality is justified by saying that there is so much infringement, that due process would always be 3 steps behind the uploaders. Even if that's true, is there no financial penalty for incorrectly flagging others' content? What incentive does the RIAA currently have for not flagging every video on YouTube simultaneously, other than public opinion?
- icebraining 15y ago
  Who says they are claiming it? For all we know, the videos were flagged by Youtube's content matching system, and of course they are free to take down any video they want or share part of their ad profits with whoever they want - it's their website.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    YouTube is not free to do whatever it wants with the videos of legitimate creators. The true content owners don't waive all their rights when they upload their videos.
    - simonbrown 15y ago
      But they give YouTube a license to them: "8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant: A. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;"

ck2 15y ago

Can non-US-citizens sue US corporations in small-claims court? Because at $5k or $10k a pop, you might find them stop this behavior. They do it now because there is no downside for them for false DMCA claims. $10k a pop might become a downside.

semisight 15y ago
I think the time and money investment just isn't worth it. I'd fight it, but that's just me being an agitator. Even if you did win 10k, most of that money would go to lawyer's fees anyway.
- andylei 15y ago
  there are no lawyers in small claims court
icebraining 15y ago
We have no evidence that they're actually sending DMCA claims at all.
pavelkaroukin 15y ago
Nobody sent DMCA claims in this case (at least, this was not covered in the story). It is Youtube's automagic copyright-infringement-detector falsely labeled one of author's genuine clips as something using copyrighted material. Author need contact Youtube in this case to fix this.
- TheCapn 15y ago
  DMCA or not Google's negligent algorithm is causing people with a legitimate income to lose out. Maybe they should be at the end of the lawsuit to have them drop their automated system?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Lawsuit for what? Google has every legal right of rejecting any video they feel like it. That's defined in their ToS and there's no law that overrules it.

maeon3 15y ago

The only language riaa understands is money, to fight back, it will take far more than whining about morality or fairness or justice. They need to be destroyed, and the only way this will be possible is to starve the corruption engine of its fuel: money.

ecounysis 15y ago

Is there a viable alternative to YouTube that isn't as persuaded by the powers that be? If so, and if this problem were pervasive enough, wouldn't the independent content providers prefer that service over YouTube. Then most independent content would eventually be on the other service which would drastically reduce the value of YouTube.

jmaygarden 15y ago
Well, there is http://megavideo.com/ http://megavideo.com/ Oh yeah, the FBI seized that domain didn't they? ;)
- ecounysis 15y ago
  That's probably why YT is being so aggressive then: to keep the FBI off them. It is truly a depressing world when film/recording industry lobbies and law enforcement agencies get away with stifling free market competition in order to maintain the status quo distribution of wealth.
nitrogen 15y ago
There used to be this site called Megavideo.

amatus 15y ago

I'd be interested to know what the YouTube ToS says about this. It's likely that they can take away your ad revenue for no reason at all. Instead of complaining that someone stole your ad revenue, you should be thanking the all mighty Google every time they are gracious enough to give you a single cent of their ad revenue.

da_n 15y ago

Wow, all I can say is fuck Google, three passes in as many weeks is to much for me. The golden child has surely now turned to rust.

showkhill 15y ago

Just on youtube's copy checking, I got a FB message from a friend who stumbled on a vid that uses one of my songs, it has 280k + views and advertises a motorcycle shop. No mention of the song or my band. Normally we license stuff through jamendo pro (all our music is cc). Anyone know how youtube polices this kind of thing? It's obviously a commercial usage but we got ne'er a penny nor even an attribution.

nitrogen 15y ago
Maybe you can fill out an application for ContentID: https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid https://www.youtube.com/t/contentid, or try contacting the video uploader first.
- showkhill 15y ago
  Thanks, just looking at that link now I'll get on it. We did have a licensing issue before with a video blogger who asked my permission to use one of our songs as his theme. Youtube were fairly sticky about it, that's why I was surprised something like this slipped through. I did contact the uploader nothing back from them yet. I'm a massive advocate of CC and I'm old school in that I believe the number one consideration for an artist is to be heard (as opposed to being paid) but being open and with so many platforms holding your work it's hard to keep track of things. I wonder is there a way to use a Shazam like system to index audio usages on the web? Then scale could come into play and perhaps help to get cc artists paid on a fair and rational basis.