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."
An alternative is giving the giant middle finger to the RIAA and using ONLY independent music in your YouTube videos. Go creative commons, go attribution only, etc, and fully credit those artists so people can discover them and realize they can get good or better music without the RIAA
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.
Whatever google does is going to end up being bad, including doing nothing. The online user submitted content arena is a total hell hole. I would not touch that stuff with a 10Gbit/s foot tube.
You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them
They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Learn to play an instrument, write something
And get sued for accidental plagiarism. George Harrison got sued and lost (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music). Michael Bolton got sued and lost (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton).
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.
Whoa. Hold on there, son. Yes, I agree: there is a strong need to change the laws that define patents, copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property. The current set of laws are either based on older laws or have been designed by the wrong people.
But - and I need you to put down the remote and listen to me, child - there needs to be a balance between inventors, writers and the public. DMCA was written too broadly by the entertainment industry. Another hurdle that hurts the common man is the costs involved in getting a patent, copyright or trademark are at times higher than the expected revenue to be derived by having a patent, copyright or trademark.
Fair use also needs to be protected. If a video of a child's music recital is taken down because of copyright laws, then those laws have gone too far. The song "Happy Birthday" apparently is still copyrighted, but the public is allowed to sing the song at special events without paying anything to the copyright holder.
Art and music are vital parts of culture, the artists should have credit and benefit of sales; but, the public has a right to experience art and music without undue burdens that treat the enjoyment as a commodity. Fucking kids!
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
... to the tune of 470M per annum according to Credit Suisse analyst Spencer Wang, maybe we should pile on instead of boycotting them. :)
...he suggests that users boycott YouTube...
Good idea. I also suggest making a donation to EFF.
We don't NEED warner's music/movies. With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.
Think hak5, collegehumor, derrik comedy, truenuff.
Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.
They don't like YouTube, they don't like Obama... does the EFF like anything?
Seriously, write a press-release about how much you love little puppies or something. Your grumpiness is making me depressed.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
IANAL, but it seems obvious to me that misrepresenting something that is clearly fair use as something that isn't means that the notification was NOT accurate. Therefore, the law firm representing the copyright holder (and possibly the copyright holder themselves) should have charges of perjury filed against them. I haven't seen the EFF file any countersuits like this yet, though...
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
This started with the cult of the Baroque composer. Check this. (warning: PDF)
Johann Sebastian Bach was often criticized in later (post-18th-Century) critical literature for "borrowing" from other composers. If he or his son Johann Christian were starting out today, they'd be mixers, not composers.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Earlier this year when YouTube started silencing user posted videos in response to WB, someone posted this link which did a search for silenced YouTube videos.
Right now there are over 22,000 search results, the highest I've seen it was 300,000+ search results, meaning overall YouTube appear to have silenced over well over 1/3 million videos (and probably then removed most of them).
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
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.
"Learn 'blah' to 'blah' play 'blah' an 'blah' instrument, 'blah' write 'blah' something, 'blah' film 'blah' your 'blah' own 'blah' original 'blah' movie. 'blah' Copy/paste 'blah' is 'blah' not 'blah' art.'blah' --- yes it is"
Let's play "spot the person with no significant artistic talent". Can I go first?
Probably the dog...
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.
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
There is nothing 'sad' about it. Many movements are pushed by a minority of people who understand the issue. For the same reason that YouTube can choose not to stand up for fair use, people who understand how important it is can criticize them for not doing it. They can also make as big of a stink as they can to try to bring awareness to the issue. Heck, they can even work to get the average Joe to get riled up and pissed at YouTube to make fighting for fair use the thing that best protects their profit margins. Writing them and e-mailing them to gripe isn't the answer. The answer is to get lots of people to write and gripe and boycott. This is accomplished through lots of public complaining.
... buy music that comes with clear permission to use the music you buy on places like YouTube.
Disclaimer: My only association with Magnatune is being a happy customer.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
No, you are missing the point. YouTube is selling our services. That is how advertising funded businesses work. We are not their customers. We are their laborers. Their advertisers are their customers. When you do work for someone, and you don't like their behavior, one option is to quit. Another option is to complain and try to get their other laborers to quit helping them behave socially irresponsible.
I would go so far as to say that it is the corporate sense of entitlement that is the problem here. They are allowed to exist for the benefit of the citizens, but the sense of entitlement has gotten so bad that the idea that they owe anything to the people who make their existence possible is incomprehensible to them.
YouTube's very existence that is not a right.