Slashdot Mirror
EFF Lawyer Calls YouTube ContentID Worse Than DMCA
Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID comes up with as potential infringement. We knew that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks about how, as bad as the DMCA process is — and it's pretty firmly against fair-use — YouTube's process gives remixers and digital creators even fewer options to assert their right to speak through the fair use of copyright material. While EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."
It's called the dispute button. It leads you to a page listing several categories of valid and invalid dispute reasons. One of the valid options is "this use does not require the copyright owner's permission"; select the radio button next to that and you'll get a text box for further information. Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case. I won the only dispute filed against me, which was for the use of "Take Me Out" in this video explaining how it sounds like an Animal Crossing song.
...he suggests that users boycott YouTube...
Good idea. I also suggest making a donation to EFF.
The New York Times reports that many YouTube users have found themselves in the same position as high school sophomore Juliet Weybret, who posted a video of herself playing piano and singing "Winter Wonderland."
Troy McClure: Oh, how darling! That is one swinging rendition, Juliet! ... but my grandma and mom play this song for the whole family every Christmas ...
Troy McClure: But today I'm going to teach you the magic of copyrights! Do you know that you're violating the law?
*Juliet shakes her head*
Troy McClure: GOOD! That just might hold up as a defense in court if you look a little more sweeter and innocent. But your fate is up to the RIAA to decide!
Troy McClure: You see, Juliet, copyright law is designed to be much too complex for any normal citizen to understand for a reason: so that you, the average citizen, will always lose. Now where did you learn that song from?
Juliet Wybret: My grandma.
Troy McClure: Jackpot! The RIAA loves to interact with the elderly that can't understand technology. I'm certain she paid a handsome sum to play that song for you though otherwise the two of you are thieves. You're not a thief, are you Juliet?
Juliet Wybret: I don't think so.
Troy McClure: Of course not! You see there is a simple law that states for works created after 1978 copyright lasts 70 years after the last surviving author's death (in the case of joint) and works between 1964 and 1977 are the same except were under the old model which had terms of 28 years starting in 1923 but they had to be renewed in order to enjoy the benefit of the full 95 year term after the last surviving author's death. Easy to remember, right? So you see, Winter Wonderland was composed by Felix Bernard who died in 1944 and the lyrics were written by Richard B. Smith who died in 1935. The good news is that you can publicly say the lyrics after 2030 and play the music on piano after 2039! So you're almost there!
Juliet Wybret: Bu
Troy McClure: Easy there, Juliet! The RIAA's got enough ammo against you as it is. Remember, the Senators and Congresspeople who represent you and your interests want it this way so be an American Patriot and embrace the law! They were only thinking of a fair system for you and the artists when they made these laws. See you next time!
My work here is dung.
Problem with fair use is that it's a very vague concept (at least in the USA) to begin with. RIAA is even claiming that it's not a right, but an affirmative defense. So anybody can claim that X is not a fair use of Y without committing perjury in any way.
The Raven
...which clearly had no copyright infringement besides mentioning an auto system cleaning product. I made the video myself. No answer was given to me, only that I had a hit against my account and if I got 3, it would be deleted. There's obviously no way to battle their decision. It sucks.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The penalties mentioned only apply if you're not actually the copyright holder. They do not apply if your DMCA claim is utter bullshit. In short, you can make false claims utter impunity.
They were very careful to write the law that way so that it would have minimal repercussions for copyright holders when abused, and maximum impact even when abused. For that reason it's about the most heinous and abusive law ever passed in the U.S. as far as favoring corporations over the people.
FYI: The DMCA a major focus www.chillingeffects.org.
Question everything
That might work if the RIAA hadn't already anticipated it and set up SoundExchange to collect royalties regardless of who it is created by. More info at the following: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870
Google is doing exactly what they're required to be doing here by taking down the videos. The fair users are supposed to be filing DMCA counterclaims saying that their work does not infringe, and at that point the work will be put back up.
It's not Google's job to be a mediator here. In fact, they open themselves up to legal liability (which they're trying really, really hard not to do with respect to Youtube) if they start becoming one.