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

Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement

[rhook]

Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement

[Anonymous Coward]

unsigned group's budget for lawyers: $20
Universal's budget for lawyers: millions

see the problem?

Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement

[wierd_w]

There are some things money can buy.

For everything else, there's lobbyists.

Re:Sue Universal For Copyright Ingringement

[masternerdguy]

He's making the mistake of assuming that big corporations are subject to the penalties of law. Forgive him, he must be new here.

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.

Song Osmosis

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

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.

It works just fine.

[MrMista_B]

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.

The music industry wins

[tatman]

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.

Youtube's copyright enforcement has a Catch-22

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Slander of title is more like it

[pixelpusher220]

They had *no* license to use the work. linky

The summary also makes it look like YouTube did this. In fact, Youtube allows the music labels themselves to add songs to filter on. So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...even though their artist was in fact the violator.

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.