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.'"

Comments

Re:Song Osmosis

[ackthpt]

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!"

First occurance I heard of this sort of back-ass-ward copyrighting was the voice of Foghorn Leghorn. The dialect humor of Kenny Delmar began with Counselor Carteblanche on the Alan Young radio show, followed by his use of the same character, but amplified a bit more on a southern character for his Senator Claghorn (see the name similarity?) on the Fred Allen radio show, in the Allen's Alley segments. Delmar even played a Claghorn character in the 1947 film "It's A Joke, Son."

Then of all things, the crazy and fun people making Looney Toons and Merry Melodies, who enjoyed a nod to other characters, people or fads of the day, incorporated a big blowhard of a rooster, The Foghorn Leghorn into a cartoon - with Mel Blanc doing the voice. Eventually Warner would Copyright the voice of Foghorn Leghorn, much to the chagrin of Delmar who had effectively created it and a few of the catch phrases "listen while I'm talking to ya, boy" & "That's a joke, son!", preventing Delmar from using the voice for his own profit.

Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement

[icebike]

Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Massive escalating fines for take down orders that prove to be false is the only solution here.

$100,000 for first offense, payable 90% to the victim, 10% to the hosting site, escalating 10% (compounding) for each instance.

The risk of even one false take down order should be enough to get their attention.

Re:Information was never...

[bky1701]

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.