Slashdot Mirror
Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed
New submitter BraveThumb writes "One independent rap group found it impossible to post their song on YouTube. When they tried to put up their video, they were informed that the copyright belonged to Universal Music, even though the rap group wasn't signed to any label. Another group working with Universal had used the music in a video of their own, which then accidentally leaked online. YouTube's filtering software then blocked the original. The Hollywood Reporter shares what happened and concludes by saying, 'For an industry that's pursuing copyright reform, the portrayal of a copyright regime that works against young artists can't be a good thing.'"
Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Independent artist: "Yay, we made this awesome song!"
Universal: "We like this song. We'll use it in a video that we will then put a copyright on." ...days pass...
Independent artist: "Why can't we post our song on YouTube?"
Universal: "Oh, you mean this song? It's ours now. Thanks!"
Wouldn't the proper claim be "slander of title"? Universal represented to YouTube that it had the exclusive right to block a work from appearing on YouTube, when it in fact had only a nonexclusive license from this rap group.
Really, how is this any different than the commerically incited mass copyright infringements from criaa labels on their back catalogs 3 years ago? Or how they all shamelessly violated copyright on an anticopyright psa?
These fuckers are classic hipocrites. Hello kettle. I am pot. You are black.
They only support "artist interests" when it suits their profit motive. The same is true for their support of copyright.
It is not adverse to small bands. It is adverse to the COPYRIGHT OWNER. Damages proved!
We keep asking for more intelligent and/or rational application of Copyright laws, including people bitching about draconian use of lawsuits, etc.
The alternative is something like this. IT'S NOT YOUTUBE'S FAULT. Youtube discovers someone else has uploaded this music and (presumably) claimed copyright over it. Someone "else" uploads it, and their software catches it. Good job, Youtube. The "original" artists should work things out with the other group, and/or sue someone.
Just not Youtube.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Flaw #1 - Using YouTube to distribute your video. There ARE alternatives now.
Flaw #2 - Not suing UMG in Small Claims Court for damages. You want Small Claims since Universal would expressly be prohibited from using any lawyers.
If enough people who've had their videos taken down erroneously sue UMG in small claims court you'll literally bankrupt them.
How is this not working as it is intended to? The point of copyright, as the big labels intend it, is to prevent competition from unsigned artists.
This is a win for the big labels. They want young artists not affiliated with a label to have a hard time getting their music out there.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
Where does it state the "other group working with Universal" had a non-exclusive license?
On a quick reread, I discovered that it doesn't. In my comment, I gave UMG the benefit of the doubt, ass-uming it had licensed the sample from ATS, the same way that (say) a judge would when considering a motion for summary judgment.
'For an industry that's pursuing copyright reform, the portrayal of a copyright regime that works against young artists can't be a good thing.
The copyright reform being persued is clearly aimed at further control of new artistic works by the old corporations that have been such a heavy weight on artists for the past century.
If we want true "reform", we'll use this as a tool to push for legislation that supports the rights of artists to control of their own works.
If there were any justice in the copyright issue, Universal Music would be hit hard with a fraud charge (and serious fines) for their part in this atrocity. We all know that this won't happen, though, and they'll continue to commit such acts in the future.
It might be interesting to start a collection of the Big Labels' claims of copyright for things that they don't in fact own.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This is one of the many use cases for draconian copyright persecution. It allows the big name corps to lay exclusive claim to all media, even those who they do not represent.
Not saying the actual chewbacca defense, just the story in the episode, where a major label appropriated Chef's song.
Sounds like the rap group has a good copyright claim against Universal. Why haven't they filed complaints to have Universal's product yanked off the market?
This has happened to me multiple times.
I upload a video that uses classical music, which I have a buyout license to use. Within seconds, it is flagged as infringing by a DIFFERENT licensor of classical music.
There is an appeals process. It has no provision for reporting a false positive, and the appeal is "judged" by the company claiming I am infringing. They then proceed to monetize my video.
There is no way to inform Youtube of this issue, other than firing off a lawsuit ($$$). Even the CEO of the licensing agency I used can't get an answer out of them.
The absurdity of claiming to be able to distinguish between two performances of common classical music ought to be obvious -- not to mention that what with sublicensing, multiple groups may have the right to grant buyout licenses for the exact same performances.
If you want a preview of what PIPA/SOPA would do, look no further that Youtube's Content Match process.
Or perhaps after a few small-claims cases are decided against a company, a lawyer might try to find more plaintiffs with similar cases and take it to class action, seeking an injunction against further misbehavior. I agree that it won't bankrupt a company, especially a diversified one, but I bet it'd still be worth it just to get a certain kind of misbehavior declared wrong.
'For an industry that's pursuing copyright reform, the portrayal of a copyright regime that works against young artists can't be a good thing.'"
Newsflash: They don't care how bad they look. they're like the NRA, tobacco companies, and people who murder orphans, dolphins, and eat babies, then pee on the corpses and set fire to them using antique shredded american flags from the civil war... reputation doesn't matter. Profit matters.
Get 'em hooked young, and a whole generation will grow up clueless about how free the internet used to be...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You assume that its for the little guy.. it works quite well for the industry.
They consider it a good thing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Be careful, you know what happens if you piss off Universal, no matter if you are in the US or NZ.
Anything that reduces the amount of rap music out there is a good thing.
Now get off my lawn!
I'm a bit confused as to what happened here. I recently posted a video of a portion of a motorcycle trip I took on YouTube (http://youtu.be/gQbwJjcO2N4 if anyone cares ;). The audio consisted exclusively of the sound of my motorcycle engine and wind noise (through the really, really crappy microphone on my camera) -- no music mixed in after the fact, no voice over, just motorcycle engine and wind noise -- and the video was all shot by me, on the road. A couple of weeks later, while on YouTube, I saw a notice that one of my videos contained "potentially infringing material". I followed the links, and sure enough, this was the offending video. There was another link that allowed me to dispute the claim, so I clicked it, and offered the justification that all of the audio and video was recorded by myself and that to the best of my knowledge, it contained no infringing material. Just checked YouTube -- the video is still there, and the "infringing content" notification has been removed.
Why did I have no trouble with this, but the artists in TFA did? Perhaps none of the **AA's are even remotely interested in my video (likely), but the rap artists had the potential of $$$ with their video?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Seriously. For those who don't remember, the DMCA put in place this ridiculous takedown process, which requires sites to take down works based merely on somebody's say-so, without any due process. That has inevitably led to situations in which some people do not have access to certain media at all. And of course, as usual in recent years, the whole process is slanted toward big corporations.
There should never be a law in the United States that forces compliance without first having to go through due process. The system wasn't broken, and the DMCA didn't fix it. The DMCA made things worse.
I was against these provisions of the DMCA and protested them before the law was even passed. We are merely seeing the results that many of us knew had to happen if such a bad law was passed.
As far as I am concerned, the ONLY good parts of the DMCA are the "safe harbor" provisions. Given a choice, I would shitcan the entire rest of the Act.
Copyrights aren't for protecting artist...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Their license agreement was Agreed and Assented upon when they Asserted the Assumption that they owned said Intellectual Property.
The license agreement was agreed to after 3-days of implicit satisfaction of such'n'such thousands of dollars for every assertion Universal Music Group claims towards vendees, or Universal Music Group implies agreement to the Offer to Buy said Intellectual Property for One---Hundred----millllion----dollars. %D?
"For an industry that's pursuing copyright reform, the portrayal of a copyright regime that works against young artists can't be a good thing."
They aren't pursuing copyright reform. They are pursuing aggrandizement, extension, enlargement, enforcement, enhancement, globalization, privatization, and institutionalization of copyright.
It's coming...and I feel almost every negative emotion possible about it.
They sue them. Then get the damages.
They they try and post their song. When if fails, they sue them again.
Repeat.
Beats working for a living.
Sure, then Universal appeals their loss in Superior Court, on any specious basis, it doesn't matter what. Now you're in "real court" with "real lawyers" that cost "real money" on both sides. Even if the basis of the appeal is unfounded, you're going to have to have lawyers to file the appropriate papers to claim that they are, and that doesn't come cheap.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/07/1517239/artist-not-allowed-to-stream-his-own-music
Whenever I read a story about copyright I am reminded of a great quote from Pablo Picasso: good artists borrow, great artists steal.
Artists do not depend on copyright to make their art or benefit from it. Only business-types need copyright, so they can keep making money off of someone else's work for decades after the artist has expired.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
They're an indy artist; they probably suck anyway. And play venues like Cafe Brazil on Central. You Dallasites know what I'm talking about.
Indy bands just have a high suck percentage, like this unsigned band for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7pDNDuoJ0
Yes, Universal is evil and greedy and etc, but all the reactionary comments are glossing over a key fact here:
Per the article in link 2, Universal was asserting rights over a song by an signed artist called Yelawolf. Yelawolf sampled the music without getting permission and released his own rap over the original song. He happened to be signed by Universal, so their lawyers assumed *(and here's the part where Universal fucked up)* that Yelawolf owned the rights and issued a takedown notice. So Universal was lazy and presumptuous, but it's Yelawolf who was the most to blame for this.
While this is not entirely Universal's fault, they clearly dropped the ball here by not looking closely enough into it. They just assumed they were right and that the original artists were lying/wrong/hatin' and didn't do their homework. The brunt of the blame is on Yelawolf, but Universal's lawyers got caught napping when they should have treated this more seriously. Hence, incoming PR landmine.
The real problem here is that YouTube trusts Universal and their lawyers with the policing of copyrights without giving equal weight to a complainant. And then the foxes guarding the chickens just did what comes naturally. If you're going to proclaim to be a neutral site for hosting videos, you have to really fight to stay neutral and give everyone the same fair shake. Otherwise you're being controlled just as if you were owned by them, they just have a more convoluted method of giving you orders.
Shame on Yelawolf for being a groove-thief, Shame on YouTube for trusting the Devil, and then any leftover shame can go to Universal for not properly checking up on their signed artists' work.
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
Maybe there's a limit on Rap by YouTube?
I mean, how many rap songs do you really need before expressing every possible permutation of rap culture?
Must be redundant by now....
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Shouldn't the title read:
Another Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed.
There's no scientific consensus that life is important.
Their stupid system identifies gameplay recordings from the 80ies-games as "music owned by Sony".
YouTube doesn't follow a standard DMCA model where they file a claim, you file a counter-claim, and then YouTube steps out and leaves it between the two of you. Instead, YouTube hands the keys over to the labels and lets them be judge. You file a counter-claim, and they respond with "Nope. Counter-Claim rejected" or they simply don't respond at all. Either way, your soundtrack stays banned. I've had this happen to my videos twice now using Creative Commons *mash-ups*. There are indeed bits and fragments of their music mixed in there, but mash-ups are on pretty firm ground when it comes to fair use. The licensing rights should lie with the artist, who in turn released i t under a CC license for anyone to use.
Nevertheless, once now with BMG and once now with Universal I've had them file claims (disabling the soundtracks for anyone viewing in Germany) and ignore my counter-claims. At that point, there's nothing I can do anymore. Even if I were willing to indemnify YouTube and tell the labels to come after to me if they don't like it, it's just not even an option.
It's the same crap that happened to Tech News Today when their news show included a clip of the MegaUpload song in a story about it. Normally a counter-claim would be the end of it and they'd have to sue you (which they wouldn't do in cases of obvious fair use), but they feel empowered to ignore legitimate fair use because, apparently, they can.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them. It was about the physical objects, not the content. Information that did not need a physical medium to be communicated, such as musical lyrics, was almost universally free up until the 19th century.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history. The Romantics believed creation of art was a divine act (as in divine inspiration) which entitled the artist to profit from it and control it. Sadly, the Romantics were horribly wrong about that, as they were about many other things, like science. I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.
Great Intellect...
This is not a flaw.
I make my living teaching, and sometimes post lecture videos online.
The problem is that big companies copy my videos, and their corporate lawyers automatically copyright them. (WOLFRAM!!!)
Then, my web sites get taken down with phone notices.
Hollywood, the software industry, and the recording industry make their livings by stealing from people like me.
This is why I love coming to Slashdot. It's full of idealistic people you won't hear anyone else fantasize about a world that just won't exist, and yet they never stop to realize how unrealistic their position is. We're living in the information age - of course people want to control it; if information were free, who'd make money off of it? You can't communication a position like this without coming off as some crackpot or idiot who just wants pirated material. Just because copyright and patents are abused doesn't mean their original purpose isn't without merit.
I believe a balance needs to be set such that we can reward the producers of said content fairly, without ripping them off and without them ripping us off. It's the only ideal which would be fair and make reasonable sense to everyone.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Man Bites Dog is news. Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process is not news. YouTube Takedown Process Works As Intended is news.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
Yet the video still remains online.
I have a Minecraft video showing how to use the world edit program and build a very long structure
(base and track for the "on a rail" achievement).
If it's one thing that bothers the heck out of me is listening to someone Uh, Uh,
attempt to tell you how to do something in a video
I made signs, not a word was spoken nor music played, I have this notice posted to the video: "Matched third party content."
For the nonbelievers: http://i41.tinypic.com/29d74t2.jpg
It links to:
"Copyright Info: On a Rail achievement 0r WorldEdit tutorial 4.6 how to make stuff
your video, On a Rail achievement 0r WorldEdit tutorial 4.6 how to make stuff , may include
content that is owned or administered by this entity:
Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition"
"What should I do?" ( this was part of the page)
But what do I do.. I've tried to contact someone and mention I'm being accused of
stealing the sounds of silence (Simon and Garfunkel complaint?) It's not an easy feat,
so I'm just ignoring it.
I would very much like my day in court over this one. :}
Just in case the band wants to sign up with the label.
So you're saying, because I don't think people should make money off it (by the current model), my position is unrealistic... because this is the information age? That is like claiming steam should have been taxed in the industrial age, because otherwise, governments would go broke. Obviously, you think people have a right to control information. I do not. I think that is what got us into all these problems with patents and copyright trolling in the first place. As long as people respect a "right" to control information, information will be limited. The "information age" happened not because information was controlled, but because, for a time, it wasn't.
That you totally disregard everything I said and call me a crackpot and my positions fantasy I think says far more about you than it does me. The fact you are completely unable to see how the current situation is flawed (beyond pointing out the symptoms) and that it could be made better is your problem, not mine. The fact is, there is growing discontent about this state of affairs. Being a person holding this stance, I have seen almost startling growth in the number of people totally rejecting copyright as an idea. It is still a small number, but like happened once before, we might yet see a total rejection of this kind of made-up property by the masses. You can complain about crackpots and fantasy when you are in the minority.
Great Intellect...
Your position is unrealistic because you don't provide an alternative method for people to make money from information. You just say "well the old way of making money from information hasn't kept up with technology - let's just abolish all the protections that have existing up to this point". It's crackpot because you're pointing out the problems without a tangible alternative that people can work with.
You will never be able to convince someone who wants to sell their music, software or other content they have created, that they don't have a right to want to distribute the information THEY CREATED under their own rules of distribution. Just because it's easy to pirate doesn't make it morally sound to take what's not yours. The content creator has no right to expect they'll succeed in making money off what they created though - but just because people can take their stuff for free doesn't make it right.
That's why it will remain a crackpot idea unless you stop with this "I think says far more about you than it does me" bullshit and address that missing fact - WHY I should give up the information just because it's easy to do so.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Because you have no right to control it. It's pretty simple. If I say something stupid, it's your right to tell others I said it. If I say something smart, it's your right to repeat it. If I write something smart, it's your right to repeat it. So on. Piracy is not immoral. Stealing art out of the public domain, which is largely unquestioned by supporters of copyright like you, is. Manipulating markets, preventing independent artists for gaining traction, censoring communication mediums, etc., is immoral. Yet we can now see these things are the end result of copyright. The right to control information is not one society needs to be handing out. It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not. Your ability to do so is given to you by the government, which we all have a say in - if you want to keep claiming rights you don't have... that's your problem. As I see it, that concept got us in a bad position and now it needs to go away once and for all. No amount of you claiming I am a crackpot can change that.
As for other business models - we already have them. If you're a musician, go perform your music. If you are an artist, draw/paint on commission. If you are a programmer, program specific things for people who need them. If you are a writer, it might be a little more complicated, but the current system doesn't do much for writers, anyway. Basically - do what was done for centuries before the copyright industry was created. The internet opens up even more options, like feasible donation systems, advertizing, open source, etc.. There is no shortage of alternatives. The problem is that people cling to the status quo, because they are told to do so by those making bundles on it at their expense.
As it stands, you will only make enough to live on creating copyrighted material in a very narrow set of fields, like software. Even then, you're only really depending on copyright if you work for a company selling end-user software. Web development, lower level system development, control software for machinery, etc., all will be totally unchanged by if copyright exists or not. The fact is that outside of software, you will not survive on your "right" to control information unless you sell it to a cartel. You will not survive on music unless you are chosen by the RIAA to become super-rich, which is not really a practical outcome.
So to directly answer your last question(?): it's not your information, it isn't your right to control it, and it isn't our duty to find a way for you to profit off of it. Hope that makes my position clear.
Great Intellect...
Universal and all of the major media labels have moderator privileges on Youtube. They don't have to make any claim at all - they just click the "ban this" button. They went so far as to ban an advertisement for MegaUpload that was legitimate content they had no right to. Watch that video. Unless UMG has been making advertisements for MegaUpload they could not possibly own any of the content in it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Actually, I do. The Government grants me that right. It's called Copyright. :)
Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do? I still would like to make games because I enjoy it, but if I am not allowed to make an income by selling the games because I have no right to control the distribution, then I have to get a day job and code in my free time. This might result in fewer games or games with less polish/depth due to a lack of time/energy. But if I can sell the games, I can finance myself and work on them as a full time business. I have see extremely few FOSS games that reach the quality of even paid indie games (they exist, just not many).
Basically, I just see your ideal as nice, but hopelessly idealistic. It will never work due to the inherent desire of humans to want credit and recognition for what they create, which in modern times often enough means money. And when you think about it, that's quite fair.
Anyway, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this, but thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I do appreciate reading other people's viewpoints even if I personally see them as unworkable. From a personal standpoint I'm currently working to reduce my pirated content to zero as soon as is feasible. I already have a lot of paid/FOSS software and know of a lot of legal places to obtain music/shows/etc that are also given away for free, so I'm OK. You might consider me a fool for taking these steps when it's so easy to get pirated content of the highest quality (and you wouldn't be the only one), but I believe such measures have side benefits as well, plus it's the only way I remain morally at peace.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
And I am advocating its abolition, because it is founded purely in emotional appeals made by an industry which wants to remove the rights of the public, and not on logical arguments. Controlling information is in direct conflict with freedom to communicate - which we need to understand is the modern form of free speech. The communication between two willing parties should not be interfered with in any situation.
I am sure it would. I think the trade-off is reasonable, though. A smaller percentage of computer games a year, for economic and social good. Anyway - it's kind of a comparative matter. The corporately-produced games of 10 years ago barely compare to many of the open games we have. In time, we'd be right back to where we are, but without the sinister underlying system of copyright. I'd also argue that with less corporate games, there would be more interest in creating open ones. Supply and demand; where there's a will, there's a way; etc.
I honestly do not see how you can say that the status quo up until a few hundred years ago is "hopelessly idealistic." Copyright was hopelessly idealistic: it was supposed to get rid of the patron model. Do I need to tell you how that worked out? I hope not.
It depends on the case. I think if a company is freely offering their shows (like with hulu), then you probably should watch them there and let them have their advertising, if you intend to watch them at all. Same goes for trying to use open source over proprietary-pirated. Same goes for donating to people who use the CC. It's a matter of rewarding good behavior (freely offering, not being copyright-trolling scumbags). Further, I stand by the idea that piracy helps sell a product, so I do not advocate pirating the materials of the worse companies out there: it can only help them.
Wanting to abolish copyright does not mean I want everyone to donate their efforts and then go to the drum circle afterwards and sing Kumbaya: it means I see copyright specifically, and the idea that information and ideas are something you can lay a legal claim on, as flawed and immoral concepts. I think if people do a good job, they can make money and support themselves without copyright as well as with it. Of course, like with games (and possibilities movies), there will be downsides... but I think that is a trade-off that needs made. A country cannot survive forever by creating "intellectual property," nor should it.
Great Intellect...
They went so far as to ban an advertisement for MegaUpload that was legitimate content they had no right to.
Unless one of the performers appearing in that advertisement was appearing in violation of an exclusive contract in which the performer agrees to appear only in videos approved by the performer's label.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them.
Actually, not. The reason copyright came about was not because of the costs of duplicating something. It was based on the costs of creating the "informatiom" that you claim has always been free.
That song you call "information" that you think should be free cost someone something to produce. Even if they just sit around in their free time writing songs, it has cost them time, and that time could have been used working for someone else and making money. I doubt that all you want is the song lyrics, however. That means it cost someone studio time and performer time to convert the chicken scratch on paper information into an audio version.
So yes, the extreme costs of making COPIES of existing informaion have dropped considerably (although still not free), creating that information has not.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history.
In large part, because the artists were paid by patrons who then owned the works. Artists who weren't, I'm sure, would not have been very happy if someone had started making copies of their work contemporaneously and flooded the market for the real ones so the real one couldn't manage to sell anything at all.
I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.
I've seen this "copyright exists because of modern industry" meme a couple of times in this discussion. Please tell me, exactly which modern industry was operating in the thirteen colonies at the time the Constitution was written to grant copyright? MPAA? RIAA? Sony? UMG? UA? Comcast? I'm curious.
Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do?
Let's look at the not-hypothetical-at-all practical and functional answers to this question, which has already been handled quite adroitly by that community...
Fund them upfront -- granted this seems to work a lot more for Board and Card games (too many examples there to list even a significant fraction of them), but there's no specific reason it couldn't be used by indie video game developers (and maybe they'd get better at estimating costs after a project or two).
Let people decide how much they think your work was worth -- hey look, you could buy them all for $0... but people don't.
Free-To-Play -- provide services, cosmetic add-ons, and bonuses for revenue
Those are just your basic answers. Handing out your game for free isn't the end of the world... and in many cases has proven to be a far better business model than actually trying to sell it!
P.S. It also works for music -- give it away, sell performances and physical copies worth actually owning.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.