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.
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.
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 ($$$). Even the CEO of the licensing agency I used can't get an answer out of them.
The absurdity of claiming to be able to distinguish between two performances of common classical music ought to be obvious -- not to mention that what with sublicensing, multiple groups may have the right to grant buyout licenses for the exact same performances.
If you want a preview of what PIPA/SOPA would do, look no further that Youtube's Content Match process.
Anything that reduces the amount of rap music out there is a good thing.
Now get off my lawn!
I'm a bit confused as to what happened here. I recently posted a video of a portion of a motorcycle trip I took on YouTube (http://youtu.be/gQbwJjcO2N4 if anyone cares ;). The audio consisted exclusively of the sound of my motorcycle engine and wind noise (through the really, really crappy microphone on my camera) -- no music mixed in after the fact, no voice over, just motorcycle engine and wind noise -- and the video was all shot by me, on the road. A couple of weeks later, while on YouTube, I saw a notice that one of my videos contained "potentially infringing material". I followed the links, and sure enough, this was the offending video. There was another link that allowed me to dispute the claim, so I clicked it, and offered the justification that all of the audio and video was recorded by myself and that to the best of my knowledge, it contained no infringing material. Just checked YouTube -- the video is still there, and the "infringing content" notification has been removed.
Why did I have no trouble with this, but the artists in TFA did? Perhaps none of the **AA's are even remotely interested in my video (likely), but the rap artists had the potential of $$$ 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."
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
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.