Slashdot Mirror
Rumblefish Claims It Owns 'America the Beautiful' By United States Navy Band
ptorrone writes: Adafruit is now shipping the USA-made open-source Arduinos. In celebration Ladyada the engineer posted an Arduino rotating in front of an American flag with the public domain "America the Beautiful" by the United States Navy Band as background music. Adafruit immediately received notice from from YouTube stating that the song is owned by Rumblefish. Rumblefish previously claimed to own copyright to ambient birdsongs, too.
404 no news found
No.... The algorithm worked just fine; it identified it as America the beautiful.... The point of the article still stands.
Algorithm continually favors wealthy media conglomerates. Said conglomerates suffer no penalties for making false claims, while sharing unearned ad revenue with Google.
On a method and process for conveying meaning or emotion via modulation of ambient air pressure (using a computer, of course).
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
There should be a penalty for companies making claims that are obviously false. Doesn't have to be huge, maybe $100 to the up-loader and another $100 to the web site owner. That would be enough to stop the claim spam but not so much that it deters real claims. The weak point is that "obvious" would have to be determined by some arbiter, hopefully someone who isn't an idiot or in the pockets of big media and the trolls.
Isn't there anything in the law to penalize frivolous claims of ownership as harassment? Copyright does not need to be defended as voraciously as trademark, so there is no need for them to keep pumping the entire Youtube side through algorithms and blindly send takedown notices.
Even if there were, well-- you'll have to hire employees to vet the hits. That's the cost of doing business.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
it was the Christmas display that violated copyright if the music wasn't licensed for broadcast (and I opined that it was licensed), not me.
Are you sure that's the case? Let's consider that you made advertising money on the video, would the makers of the Christmas display still be considered at fault and liable to pay the publisher/author based on how much money you made?
My question is serious, I don't know, but I suspect that
1) the end user is ultimately at fault... although they may have recourse if the product was sold under a false claim
and 2) the fact of infringement does not consider whether profit was made (but damages may bring that into consideration)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
This is another example of what I call "barbarians at the gate". I didn't come up with that phrase. I don't remember where I first came into contact with that phrase.
The idea, as best as I can recall, is something like this: The empire won't fall simply because of the increasing decadence of the empire. It falls because it eventually gets weak enough that the barbarians, ever-present at the gate, can bring it down with a simple raid.
These people are "barbarians at the gate". They don't care that they are trying to destroy the Internet. They are after chaos or, maybe, simply trying to "earn" a dollar. They are no different to ISIS. That group of fanatics trying to force the world to submit to their stupidly strict interpretation of Islam. Or to those hate-mongers in many forums who should probably have "Poor Impulse Control" tattooed on their forehead... i.e. Barbarians.
I think I first came across the phrase in a book by Larry Niven.
- X/Y -
The Navy's got a lot of ships, and jets, and submarines and... tubas. Rumblefish wouldn't want anything to "happen" to them, right??
I'm just waiting for S.E. Hinton to slap Rumblefish with a copyright claim...
If this scum has a history of making false claims then why are they still allowed to make claims at all? Better yet, why haven't they been banned from Youtube altogether? Even better yet, why aren't they being investigated for fraud?
Youtube blogging is stupid in another way, and it's structural. Since it's so easy to get ad revenue from youtube and so difficult from regular advertising people are increasingly using the wrong medium for their messages.
Got a list? Make it a video! A paragraph of text? Video! Series of static pictures? One picture and a line of text for a FAQ? Two bar charts? video, video, video! And watch that revenue pour in. It's fucking ridiculous and it's transparent. Don't use video format unless your information is best presented by video dammit!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
> I posted a video on YouTube of a singing Christmas display that used copyrighted music and there was a copyright violation complaint filed with YouTube on that, and I claimed Fair Use protection because it was the Christmas display that violated copyright if the music wasn't licensed for broadcast (and I opined that it was licensed), not me.
That's not fair use.
Reading your comment brings back the memories of when I was briefly working on a Drupal project. The firm impression I came away with is that the Drupal community prefers to document things by making a half-hour video rather than by writing a page of text, even though written documentation could be read and re-read several times in the time it takes to watch the video.
They're omitting a really, really important point here in the OP..they barely hint at it in the title, but that's it. The claim isn't against the music itself; it's against a recording of a specific performance of it. That performance is, actually, copyrightable.
Here's another way to look at it. Let's say someone uses the song "Dear Prudence," off the album by the Beatles, in a movie. They owe royalties to the owner of the library that holds the rights to that. But let's say they use "Dear Prudence," the cover done by Siouxie and the Banshees...essentially the same song, but a different performance by a different artist. They would then owe royalties to a different owner, even though the two recordings (while slightly different in instrumental arrangement) are from the same original song written by the same person.
In this case, Rumblefish isn't saying "every time someone plays 'America the Beautiful' we deserve to get paid." Rumblefish is saying "The US Navy Band pays us to hold and manage the licensing to their performance of that song. When someone uses that recording for commercial purposes, we deserve to get paid." And they're right.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Then they need to fix their "algorithm" or hire actual humans who have an IQ above 80 to identify music. All of these legal threats they keep issuing are in themselves becoming illegal and I would take them to court for barratry.
Reuters claimed to own Nasa's video of the 1969 Moon Landings
CD Baby claimed ownership of music by an artist sang by the artist and used with their permission.
I have frequent claims on classical music especially military marches that are clearly out of copyright and are live performances.
The organization should lose all rights to claim copyright via youtube's content id after one false claim of copyright.
Youtube should also be liable for allowing blatantly false claims once they have received notification of the copyright status of public domain works.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
I think the idea is that too many Carols and Bob ought to lose the right to cry wolf against Alice.
Here is a family member through father (Wikipedia link below of Henry Clay Work).. .. without some fucker trying to steal from them. .. Don't steal public domain at home. .. some disOrdered family member of the old dead person that created it for all to use .. will come to your house and thank you with your own f.ing can-opener on your testicles, or whatever you have at hand .. he's creative! )
but looking through the list of songs *there* I didn't find "America the Beautiful" which I'm pretty sure I found published that way in an old song book compiled from Henry Clay Work's old songs my family had when I was a kid. My Father has passed, and the book could be anywhere by now.
.
I would have like to have found it, just to send it to whomever those assholes are with a big 'Fuck You!' and perhaps someday a good ass-kicking for that shit.
.
Claiming ownership of a public domain resource deserves a good ass-kicking from every bastard that ever enjoyed something they made themselves and gave to all other
.
The Cock suckers.
.
(Let this be a lesson, Kids
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are ads on youtube? No wonder there's so much crap coming from there. "Please watch this ten minute video where I tell you some news that is shorter than this sentence." And all the ridiculous "please subscribe" crap, and "remember to 'like' us" like it was some stupid facebook clone.
They got me back in 2009 or 2010 for posting video game footage. Fuck those guys with a rusty rake.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
I agree that Rumblefish is probably a content ID troll that makes incorrect copyright claims all the time. It's very common these days and a huge headache for content producers to have to swat away these illicit, automatic claims. However, this composition is probably not in the public domain. The arrangement by Carmen Dragon was made in the late 1950s and is still well within the time window to be copyrighted. (Yes, arrangements of public domain works can be copyrighted). The source of the claim, this "sookietex" that uploaded the Navy Band recording to archive.org, likely without permission from DoD or the Navy Band, has extremely questionable legitimacy for making such claims and shouldn't be quoted as an authoritative source for anything. So the actual copyright holder, whomever that is, would be entirely within their rights to monetize this video themselves or even demand that it be taken down.
How about a Three Strike rule for takedown requests? You earn a strike for every successful counterclaim. After three strikes "automated" takedowns no longer need to be honoured, only human-verified ones.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Sounds legit. Those birds probably have been listening to too many boomboxes.
Missing the point of the video then aren't you. They're there to generate income, not provide information. Why oh why are people like you unable to grasp this simple fact. You are never the customer, you are the product.
Let's see. Find all the public domain songs that others claim copyrights to. Create videos - lots of videos. Post to all the video sites. Repeat until the problem is fixed. Gives the trolls something to do to.
each armed services band has filmed both the national anthem and American the Beautiful as sign-on /sign-off video for TV stations since the 1950s. those freebie films were sent gratis to all licensed stations. anybody who wants to fight need just get some copies of those promos and authenticate their release dates through the public affairs group of each service.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
America the Beautiful was not written by the United States Navy Band. They are, obviously, one of the groups that performed it.
Not sure if the tune in question was synthesized or if this was a playback of a USNB recording. Being modern, it could be that someone owns rights to the USNB's recordings. (Although I find it VERY strange that a commercial entity would hold rights to a government band.)
If it was just the melody, that predates America the Beautiful based on the sources I can find quickly. (yeah, Wikipedia...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?