YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music

New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."

Comments

Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

Complete bold-faced lie.

Re:Lies

[MrLint]

Which would be conspiracy to defraud. Other than your sarcasm, this isn't actually to far from that. Google makes money on false claims, the media company makes money on false claims. They claim it was reviewed. The claim of it being reviewed, and if it not in fact copyrighted, that attaches intent. The counter claim would have to be 'error'. However to go to court and claim error of the reviewers, in the case of birdsong, would be tantamount to claiming abject incompetence, bringing in to question every other alleged review.

Re:Lies

[Alranor]

As soon as it came to our attention today that people were drawing attention to the fact that we had made a mistake.

Fixed for accuracy.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. The internet is more akin to the Wild West of yesteryear. Every company is out to commit highway robbery.

Darn those varmints.

Copyright means nothing

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)

Profit & Lies

[Mateorabi]

Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.

Re:Profit & Lies

[Anthony Mouse]

Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

I kind of doubt that's it. I mean sure, they get a cut of the ads, but YouTube actually has to care about what YouTube users think. There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.

It seems to me more likely that the entertainment industry is behind it. Recall that YouTube has been trying to get Hollywood to let it compete with Hulu. Of course, Hollywood is run by tyrannical despots who claim to own everything anyone has ever created, so this sort of behavior is right up their alley. And, Hollywood has never cared one lick what the users think about it.

I mean think about it: Who is more likely to demand something user hostile? A company that makes its living based on users liking its service better than those of competitors, or a cartel that makes its money by filing lawsuits and screwing artists out of contractually agreed royalties?

Re:Profit & Lies

[im_thatoneguy]

Which is why we should go to the company directly:
http://rumblefish.com/about-us.php

Email them and let them know that as a potential customer and citizen you find their behavior unacceptable.

Re:Profit & Lies

[PopeRatzo]

There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.

Until there's a reasonable alternative, people aren't going to "stop posting new videos".

YouTube's revenue is now all about their deals with other content providers, because their ad revenue is going to stay pretty stable (or go up).

This story, about Rumblefish claiming to represent the owner of the rights to a birdsong makes me sick. I think the target of our anger should be Rumblefish entirely. They're the bullies. They're the bad guys.

This is only partly a job for Anonymous. I don't know who Rumblefish really represents, but I'm guessing that somewhere down the line is someone who cares what the public thinks. Maybe it's a record label who has an artist who makes them a lot of money. A targeted campaign directed at that artist might well make an impression.

We're just going to have to make an example of some people to make doing business the way Rumblefish does business unacceptable. I don't know enough about them to know who to target, but unless we cause some pain somewhere, nobody's going to care. We have seen wealthy, powerful organizations brought to heel recently by public outrage. We're going to have to unleash holy hell on somebody, somewhere.

Re:Profit & Lies

[PopeRatzo]

They probably have all the rights that Righthaven had.

And look at Righthaven today.

"As of November 2011, the company's assets are subject to confiscation by the US Marshals Service due to expired debts from legal fees to a successful defendant.[6] In January 2012, its domain name, righthaven.com, was sold at auction to an undisclosed purchaser to help satisfy its debts.[7]" h/t Wikipedia

This isn't going to be a short war. It's going to have to be something we're going to fight over and over and over. But even when it's asymmetrical warfare, there is a boundary condition after which certain business models just aren't worth the hassle. You find some names to drag through the mud, and you keep dragging them through the mud until it becomes a media story, and then they over-react with a libel suit or something and then it's game over, we win.

Do you understand that this "Rumblefish", these slimy pieces of shit who are probably well-known child molestors (the reason for their secrecy), do you understand that they forced Google to take down a completely original piece of work, something that somebody made, that contained no copyrighted material just by claiming it was theirs.

They do this and there's nothing that's safe. Even if you own something and you've got a piece of paper saying you own something, they can just clap their hands and take it away.

Rumblefish endangers every artist, every musician, every writer. They do not respect the rule of law, or even what's right. They just take what they want. And in this case, Google is complicit. So there we go: Google. Maybe it would make Google uncomfortable to be associated with these (alleged) child-molesting creeps at Rumblefish, but the least we can do is hang it around their necks to see how they react.

I read a lot of yadda yadda about how "big government" is taking away our rights and all about the "second amendment" and how big tough-talking freedom-loving Libertarian gun owners are going to face down anybody who's gonna threaten their liberties. Well here it is, you simple fucks. Here it is. Big as life and twice as ugly. If some faceless company can decide that, no, you don't really own those things you made with your own two hands, they belong to us, then your Second Amendment sacred right to feel manly with some shootin' iron don't mean a goddamn thing.

Now we find out who talks about liberty and who does something.

Re:Profit & Lies

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The problem I have with your CEO's response is this:

if we have indeed mistakenly been sent a claim by YouTube's Content ID system and are inaccurately claiming a video...we'll release it.

He's treating it like a one-off. The claims so far are that the bird song was "reviewed" - if it was reviewed by a human then this should never have happened. Humans make mistakes, but confusing a bird song for a human performance is beyond the range of reasonable human error - suggesting a process where the human has been removed. Something we absolutely know happens with the big-time members of the MAFIAA in their over-zealous pursuit of pirates because they have admitted it in court in more than one case.

So the real problem here is the process and simply "releasing" one falsely claimed video is to miss the forest for the trees. The only satisfactory response is to explain what happened and then to take steps to make sure that it never happens again.

Re:Profit & Lies

[Hognoxious]

This isn't the kind of thing that can be put down to an honest mistake.

The claim that it had been reviewed by the content owner is obviously false becaue it's actually impossible for you to have done so.

You lie, and you lie systematically.

Re:Profit & Lies

[whoever57]

Forgive us for being a little short in our responses -- it is a complex issue, and we're working through it on a Sunday evening. :)

I suspect you are bing disingenuous here. Why have you and your CEO been posting here without first checking the YouTube video and "releasing" it? There are complex issues here, but there is one simple issue: whether this particular video has any copyrighted material that you control. The fact that you and your CEO have spent your Sunday evening posting in /. before checking the specific video speaks volumes about your priorities.

Use your political rights

[Required Snark]

Contact your US senator and House members. It won't do any good, but it is very easy to do. If enough voters do this it can have an influence. It's like voting; if you don't bother to vote you have abandoned your right to have an opinion. Posting on Slashdot will get you exposure, but I don't see how it will help much.

Re:Use your political rights

[Dhalka226]

Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.

Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.

Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.

More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.

It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.

Re:Small Claims DDOS

[Arch_Android]

In all honesty though, I really with it was more feasible for people to actually fight back against these large corporations. It's really a shame when all you need is money to hire lawyers and you can do anything.

Re:Good luck fighting this battle

[mysidia]

You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.

Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected based on your work.

First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization, then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.

Send this story to your elected representatives ..

[whoever57]

... as a clear example of why SOPA and PIPA would have been a disaster for the Internet.

Slander of title

[gnasher719]

Assuming that your video was recorded in the wilderness, you can sue for "slander of title", like in SCO vs. Novell. All conditions are met: A false statement was made to a third party, claiming that you are not the copyright holder. The claim is malicious since they cannot reasonably believe they are the copyright holder. And finally there are special damages, since ads are added to your video and the revenue is sent to them.

Re:There is no solution

[symbolset]

Sure there's a solution. Abolish copyright. It no longer serves its purpose and should be discarded. That's what you do with things that are used up: discard them.

Re:Yeesh

[dkleinsc]

On the other hand, the RIAA takes their cut of something we could survive without, whereas Monsanto wants to demand a cut of every pound of food sold in the world.

Re:Attorneys

[MrLint]

I'm glad you asked, and I didnt go and put this in the first post as to not get off course.

It's not going to end. I predicted 'this' pretty much a decade ago. Any company who chose to get in bed with the media companies and start to proactively 'censor' would soon run into the gaping maw of corporate greed and be faced with 'you aren't doing enough'. Sadly, it's worse and will be worse. The media monsters want carte-blanche to expunge anything they deem damaging to their failing business model (rightly or wrongly). And even if you were to sue google and the media companies, they would just demand the laws get rewritten to allow them to get away with it based on some meaningless threshold that wont even amount to a slap on the wrist. They have already crafted an atmosphere in which 'look ppl we don't care about and end up firing anyway are gonna lose jobs because of blahblahblah.

Its part and parcel of the mindset that bundles boatloads of crap into your cable TV package you don't want, for the 6 things you do, all the time claiming they not only can't do anything about it, and that all the crap you dont want is in fact good for you.

You're doing it wrong.

[raehl]

If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to think like the big boys.

Sue Rumblefish for $150,000 for each time your video is played with their advertising on it.

Even better, file as a class action, that way you and your lawyer get paid for every case of Rumblefish doing this, and everyone else gets a coupon.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[PopeRatzo]

Class action lawsuit? Great idea. Then youtube users can get zero dollars (since it is a free service) and some lawyers can rake in big bucks if it works out.

Dummy, if "some lawyers" can do a good enough job to win a class action lawsuit and turn Rumblefish into a smoking crater, then they have earned the money.

The "youtube users" weren't getting any money anway, so who cares if they still don't get money? The guy in this story just wanted to put up a nice video of him walking in the woods. He wasn't looking for "any money".

I guess Rumblefish is just going to have to decide they own the name "Linux" and all distros and force every repository to shut down and force all distros of Linux to carry an indelible advertisement for Windows 8 before some people are going to wake up and realize how urgent this is.

i understand your pain

[old and new again]

i was having trouble with youtube flagging all my uploads of original live material as warner and other shitty faceless corporations properties every time i sent emails to the companies and youtube requesting the exact time of the video and infringing song after about 1000 emails, 1 got 1 reply, pointing me to an exact time in a video, so i listened to their track and the 22 seconds of my video my 22 seconds was a bass drum playing on every beat with a white noise filtered with a lowpass filter, no melody, no music (and there was nothing similar in the pointed song besides there was a kick on every beat) so i decided to test the content ID, i uploaded 15 minutes of ONLY a 909 bass drum playing on every beat (not even a 8th bar 4th beat 1/8th note, juste plain four on the floor it was flagged by 13 entities (my most flagged video ever) and they ALL confirmed their claim to my 909 playing alone while i was preparing supper that proves that: 1- the content ID system is crap 2- nobody ever listens to the content when you make a counter claim 3- youtube sides with the "record companies" and shit in their users face