Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music

Posted by timothy on from the estate-of-john-cage-winces-with-envy dept.

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."

55 of 730 comments (clear)

  1. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Complete bold-faced lie.

    1. Re:Lies by pruss · · Score: 5, Funny

      It depends how you take the quantifiers. :-) In first-order logic, "all As are Bs" is automatically true if there are no As. In the case at hand, there are no content owners, because nobody owns the bird songs (not even the birds). So, all content owners have reviewed the video and confirmed their claims. Likewise, all content owners have seven legs.

    2. Re:Lies by eriklou · · Score: 5, Funny

      Chewbacca's lawyers called, they want his defense back.

    3. Re:Lies by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Lies by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have 5 arms

      Now THAT'S a bold-faced lie.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey it's Paul Anthony from Rumblefish. This claim has been released by Rumblefish as it was both A: improperly ID'd by YouTube's content ID system as a song from one of our artists and B: one of our content ID representatives mistakenly reinstated the claim. As soon as it came to our attention today that we had made a mistake, we promptly released the claim and I reached out to eeplox via YouTube to let him know.

      I've been responding in an /IAmA on everything here:
      http://redd.it/q7via

      Thx and our apologies.

      Best,

      Paul Anthony | Founder & CEO | Rumblefish

    6. Re:Lies by Alranor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Rumblefish,
          I see that you are using my music without proper authorization.
    -- God
    p.s. I could use ad's, hmmmm... Naa, Smite works just as well...

  3. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Darn those varmints.

  4. Small Claims DDOS by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Go to the woods, record birdsong.
    2. Make a bunch of videos and post to YouTube
    3. Wait for takedown
    4. Sue Rumblefish in small claims court for the ad revenue they got from Google.
    5. Profit!!!!

    1. Re:Small Claims DDOS by heptapod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Use birdsong as a soundtrack for a slideshow of self-shots taken by a monkey.

    2. Re:Small Claims DDOS by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not a lawyer, but....

      While that might work, it's best to put a step

      3a. Send a cease and desist notice to Rumblefish.

      They'll ignore it and the courts will like you for doing it. It's only the cost of a certified letter, and you can add that to your lawsuit.

      Also, if you want to be really annoying, claim copyright on the birdsong video and sue them for infringement, but that costs more and is out of the scope of small claims.

    3. Re:Small Claims DDOS by Arch_Android · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Small Claims DDOS by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Best reply so far.

      In legal cases, it never hurts having more ammo. If only to threathen them back if they try to play hardball with you.

      Also, check in with the EFF and ACLU. They may want to support you and get a precedent set. They love clear cases like this one.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  5. Copyright means nothing by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    1. Re:Copyright means nothing by aaronb1138 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, music itself would likely benefit greatly, just not the labels. As piracy has already demonstrated, free access to studio recordings has made the consumer perception of the value of live concerts greater. That is why ticket prices keep outpacing inflation.

      Anecdotally, I've personally noted a pretty good number of once free venues switching to cover charges for better known (locally) acts which are remain unsigned by major labels. At least on my personal scale, this demonstrates positive force towards greater valuation of live music.

      Lower prices and increased distribution of copyright material increases the overall quality of published works. A great example is the textbook versus subject oriented paperback categories. Textbooks exist in an overpriced, price fixed copyright vacuum. Their quality continues to remain virtually unchanged for 30+ years, making occasional incremental improvements and frequent vast drops in quality. On the other hand, books written for the layman about various sciences and arts continue to improve, drop in inflation adjusted price, and increase in availability. The very pressure of reduced prices and increased availability forces authors to review their peer / competition work and produce something better.

  6. You know... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always said copyright is for the birds... (Well, someone had to say it!)

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  7. Profit & Lies by Mateorabi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    1. Re:Profit & Lies by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Profit & Lies by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Profit & Lies by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Profit & Lies by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you were really Paul Anthony, the first thing you'd do is get a login. The second thing would be to link to your Slashdot posting from a site known to be managed by your company, so we'd be able to identify that posting as real.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:Profit & Lies by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Profit & Lies by peatbakke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ack! I wish this hadn't been marked as "Insightful," although I understand why ... there have been a lot of shitty plays in the copyright world, and there are some big organizations that are clearly threatened by the Internet and Internet culture. Righthaven and others have (rightfully) made a lot of people very skeptical.

      But ... that's not what we do. :) Rumblefish works specifically for independent artists, not labels or rights organizations. The company has been around for over a decade, helping get independent music placed in films, advertisements, etc. It's still a very small company -- the founder and owner (also a musician) has posted here on the thread, and I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together (IANAL, but I am the Lead Architect -- look me up on the Rumblefish website).

      It sucks when things don't go right, especially when it's such a hot button issue, and we're really interested in doing the right thing -- both for independent musicians and video creators. We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video. We're here in the thread to answer questions.

      Believe me ... everyone wins when good music is inexpensive and readily available on YouTube.

    7. Re:Profit & Lies by peatbakke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey Bruce -- we've met a few times at open source / security related conferences in the early 2000s, although I'm not sure you would remember me. My work was with the Immunix Linux distribution, and some other Linux-related startups.

      I can vouch for the parent (#39168105) being Paul Anthony, CEO of Rumblefish. I'm the Lead Architect at Rumblefish, and we've been working on this issue this evening. Forgive him; he's a musician, not a geek. :-)

    8. Re:Profit & Lies by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:Profit & Lies by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Profit & Lies by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:Profit & Lies by slippyblade · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. This is NOT a complex issue. You claimed ownership of something that was not yours. Sure, the first time was an automated script. However, the SECOND time was apparently by the "copyright owners" and they verified ownership. This was a lie.

      So, it boils down to this. Your company which supposedly represents artists is engaged in piracy. You are stealing IP from others by claiming ownership even when it is obvious to any sane human that it is not yours.

      It is not complex. It is very simple. It is pre-school simple. You are thieves hiding behind a corporate mask.

    12. Re:Profit & Lies by peatbakke · · Score: 5, Informative

      The simple and necessary action (reviewing, confirming, and releasing the video) was done very shortly after we became aware of the issue -- several hours ago.

      Right now, I'm interested in responding to reasonable questions as best I can; next, we will be reviewing what happened, and following up appropriately.

      It's not a wasted evening. People are pissed, and although I can't provide the ultimate answers right now, I don't think it's appropriate to simply disappear.

      Thanks,
      -Peat

  8. Yeesh by sixtyeight · · Score: 5, Funny

    YouTube: Blurring the line between the RIAA and Monsanto.

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    1. Re:Yeesh by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  9. Use your political rights by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Use your political rights by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  10. Slander of title by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

    You own the copyright to the original recording you made of bird songs from nature.

    They own the copyright to their recording of bird songs from nature, but not to yours.

    For them to claim copyright to your recording, there must be an original artistic element they created that you have actually reproduced.

    1. Re:Slander of title by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yet bird songs might copy each other's tunes. So his bird song might sound the same as one they recorded. This is because birds have no copyright and reproduce other bird's songs as their own. They then use this to attract a mate and pass the other bird's intellectual property to their kids. Not only do they steal other birds song, but they show that if copying songs is legal, it makes all the birds lazy and not want to come up with new songs. This is why pirates always carried parrots on their ships. The parrot is the most efficient bird at stealing songs back when we didn't have computers and the Internet.

      --
      God spoke to me
  11. Re:Good luck fighting this battle by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Send this story to your elected representatives .. by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. ..and is the bird song public domain? by formfeed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, sorry... But someone has to ask this...

    Where did the clip of the birdsong come from? Is this something the OP recorded himself? Or did he use an audio clip from some other source?

    And if the OP recorded himself, did he make sure the birds were indeed singing a song that is in the public domain?

    While birds aren't people and can't own a copyright, a flock of birds is more like a corporation and therefor a person.

  14. Slander of title by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:There is no solution by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  16. Re:Solutions. by theNAM666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Like, the $25 or so it would take to file against YouTube in local small claims?

    Sheesh. Do not pass Go; go get a Nolo Press book on the legal system. Learn something.

  17. Criminal fraud? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems to me that if they're claiming copyright on your video, and claim to have reviewed it, and they're receiving *your* ad revenue, then they're guilty of fraud.

    But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?

  18. Re:Attorneys by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. You're doing it wrong. by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    paintball
    1. Re:You're doing it wrong. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  20. Nope, not true. by raehl · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't a DMCA notice, or a case of someone filing (under penalty of perjury) a notice that they own the material and demanding you take it down.

    This is an issue of YouTube's user agreement and the way YouTube shares revenue.

    When you upload content to YouTube's site, you obviously agree to allow them to show the video.

    YouTube also has a separate revenue sharing program, where you can get revenue from your videos - but YouTube is NOT obligated to do this. They could simply run ads on your content, say screw you, we're not giving you any revenue share, and keep all the revenue for themselves.

    What YouTube has done is put in place a program where content owners can have YouTube automatically match content on their site with the content owner's content. YouTube has chosen, in the event such a match is made, to give the content owner the OPTION of allowing the infringing content to stay on the site and getting the ad revenue share instead of just having the content removed entirely.

    So you're in a grey area - no one is asking your content to be taken down, so there's no DMCA request. YouTube has just agreed with the 3rd party to share the revenue from your content with the 3rd party - which is YouTube's perogative since they can do whatever they want with their ad revenue. If you don't like what they decide to do with your ad revenue, your recourse with YouTube is simple: Don't put your content there.

    I'm guessing that YouTube really just didn't think through how their program actually works when bad actors are introduced (ala rumblefish). If YouTube were smart, they would realize Rumblefish is a bad actor and kick them out of the program and force Rumblefish to submit DMCA notices instead.

    --
    paintball
  21. Hoping to Clarify ... by peatbakke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey all,

    I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. I write a lot of the code that manages our music catalog, as well as interfaces with our partners (like YouTube), so I'm intimately (painfully) familiar with how all of these pieces fit together, and who's responsible for what.

    First things first -- eeplox, I'm sorry this has been a shitty experience. Clearly something has been missed, and I want to make things right. Please contact me directly at peat@rumblefish.com, so we can sort out exactly what's happening with your video.

    Automated content identification is a hairy problem, doubly so when mixed with synchronization (soundtrack) licensing. YouTube's system is one of the better ones out there, and even so, we get a ton of false positives coming out of it every day. The biggest source of false claims come from covers and samples, where it's particularly difficult to determine if the soundtrack for a video is or isn't in our catalog.

    That said, we do listen to each disputed claim that reaches us, after YouTube has gone through their (rather terse) automated resolution system. We're working with YouTube and our other partners to make the process simpler and less legally threatening ... but we're the small fish at the table.

    It's worth mentioning that Rumblefish isn't a subsidiary of a major label, media conglomerate, or rights organization. This is a very small company, founded and owned by an independent musician, and half our staff play in bands or work in independent film. We've focused specifically on independent artists who want their music to be used in soundtracks ... and for what it's worth, yes, there are several tracks that sound like birds chirping. :)

    Regardless -- the media licensing industry is a horrible, horrible mess. No question about it. Our mission is to make it easier for independent artists (music and video alike) to make a living doing what they love, and it genuinely sucks to hear when people are let down.

    I'm happy to answer questions about how we do what we do. IANAL, of course ... but I am a geek. :)

    Thanks,
    -Peat

    1. Re:Hoping to Clarify ... by EPAstor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mr. Bakke, please explain how submitting the note "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content" is possibly acceptable when no one's reviewed it? This makes your company look awfully bad.

      Alternatively, if someone did review it and sign off on that reply, then I hope this will reflect properly on that individual and their career at Rumblefish, as I'm pretty sure that this at least makes your company rather vulnerable from a publicity point of view, if not a legal one. If you're outsourcing this... then really, I hope your company can learn its lesson QUICKLY.

  22. Reply from Rumblefish CEO... by gVibe · · Score: 5, Informative
    All... I wrote a pretty heated email to Rumblefish earlier, and below (with his permission) is the response I received from the CEO Paul Anthony. -- Jeff

    Hey Jeff, it's Paul Anthony, CEO and Founder of Rumblefish. I have to say, I appreciate your passion for what you believe is right and your willingness to go to bat for it.

    I just caught wind of the thread going on at Slashdot and have started replying to posts. It's very important to myself and everyone at Rumblefish that we do right by creators. If we have in fact been sent a claim from the YouTube Content ID system that has been misidentified...we'll happily release it. I'll make sure we look into it, and are doing so now.

    I'm gathering from the thread that the issue is obviously over singing birds....sounds like an outside case to me that we represent birds singing in nature....but in cases like this it could very well be A: Something completely different in the work B: A simple mistaken piece of content by the YouTube content ID system or an error on our part.

    Before you launch a full fledged, and rather passionate by the tone of your email, assault against my company...I'd appreciate the opportunity for my team to actually look into this. We're a group of people who love music, love content creators and show up at work every day to do right by our artists and labels by sending them royalties for the use of their music.

    Thanks.

    --
    Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
  23. Re:Attorneys by glenstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I did some negotiation with Rumblefish and Paul about 5 years ago when I ran a digital music company and I have to say that in the sea of bloodsucking fucktards that exist in music licensing Paul and Rumblefish were a breath of fresh air. They were the only company I dealt with that actually gave a flying fuck about their artists and were always very supportive of up-and-coming bands. Hell, their entire business model is around putting unknown artists on soundtracks, or in commercials, and henceforth are actually supporting the artists in a way that previously only the major labels would do.

    All of that being said, it is obvious Rumblefish fucked up this time. Who knows exactly why, but they did. I think it is important that before crucifying them you understand that the service they provide is extremely valuable to artists not on a major label.... so at least give them that.

    And before the venomous masses can call me a shill or whatever: we actually never did business together, nor did I remain contact with Paul, and so I have no reason to defend them other than what I stated above. People and companies fuck up some times. I have a feeling Rumblefish will learn from this mistake.

  24. Re:Attorneys by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 5, Funny

    False DMCA claims are now called "Rumblefish". EG: "My youtube video just got rumblefished. "

  25. i understand your pain by old+and+new+again · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Live Electronic Music
  26. Thank you slashdot! by eeplox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks to the slashdot effect, Rumblefish has now released my video and their ads were removed! It's good to know that these intellectual property management companies are capable of doing the right thing (when a ton of public scrutiny rains down on them). I got this message in my Youtube inbox: "Hello, it's Paul Anthony...the CEO & Founder of Rumblefish. Hey there. I just personally watched the video of yours that you posted about on Slashdot where you're picking and eating a wild salad. There is clearly no music in your video and I just got off of the phone with our tech lead who I asked to release the claim that was made by the YouTube system and associated with Rumblefish. We're not sure why the song was ID'd. My apologies to you for the inconvenience that this has caused you. I'd like to help make that right for you in some way. I have been spending the last several hours responding to posts on Slashdot and emails that countless people have sent to our email addresses b/c it's important to me and the team at Rumblefish that we always do right by content creators, the ones that we represent and the ones that we do not. My apologies again and best of luck to you. If there's anything else that we can do to help make things right, please do let me know. Here's my email address: paul@rumblefish.com All the best, Paul Anthony Founder & CEO, Rumblefish Sent to: eeplox"

  27. Re:Bird Chirping --- property of God by TranquilVoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In this case, Rumblefish thinks that it's God, so it claims the bird chirping as their property

    I think a more reasonable explanation is that their algorithm mistakenly flagged the audio track as a match, then when the poster challenged this their system automatically sent a "please listen and compare" message to the copyright holder of whichever work it is. The copyright holder has not done their due diligence (at all, it seems) and has simply clicked the "yes it is ours" button.