Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Is Guilty Of Criminal Racketeering, Grammy Winner Says (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader cites a TorrentFreak report (edited and condensed): YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering. That's the headline-grabbing claim of Grammy award winning musician Maria Schneider, who claims that the Google-owned site is abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to siphon money away from musicians into its own pockets. Over the years, Google has transformed into the new bad guy and the pressure is mounting in a way never witnessed before. The U.S. Copyright Office's request for comments into the efficacy of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions has resulted in a wave of condemnation for both Google search and the company's YouTube platform, with everyone from the major record labels to the MPAA and back again attacking the technology giant. Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider really ups the ante by stating that YouTube is guilty of the same criminal acts that Megaupload is currently accused of. "YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering," Schneider wrote in an open letter to the platform. "YouTube has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor' to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets."Digital Music News has more information.
How does this affect me? Why is this important to anyone except Maria Schneider? I'll get modded down to -1 for asking this because Slashdot users don't like answering important questions. But this needs to be asked, and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
after all her music should speak for itself and being listed on search results and YT should not matter.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Isn't she the acterr who took it up the pooper from Marlon Brando?
Copyright law is broken and doesn't work correctly anymore.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
One could say that Megaupload is doing far less that could be considered illegal. I would definitely trust them more.
Funny how some musicians and authors are still so brainwashed. They have to endure extensive gating processes from labels and publishing houses just for the privilege of being published or recorded. Then they are given a slight percentage of sales until the unlikely moment they "make it". They have no control over artwork or marketing and just hope that their work is sufficient to carry them through to success.
Youtube is publicity. Consider it marketing.
Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider really ups the ante by stating that YouTube is guilty of the same criminal acts that Megaupload is currently accused of. "YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering," Schneider wrote in an open letter to the platform. "YouTube has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor' to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets."
Pardon me for not shedding any tears, as the RIAA/MPAA members have upped the ante by thoroughly twisting, contorting, and abusing the original meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, turning into *real* theft from society.
This was well known before Google bought Youtube. Back then people wondered what the purpose of buying that site full of copyright violations, and that maybe Google thought they could get away with it due to being everybody's darling and sheer size. As it turned out, that's exactly how they did it: They got a lot of leeway at first, and used the time to clean up Youtube well enough to stay within the limits of the law. All this time, Google used its size to make the deals that made Youtube legal. Well played, Google. Now it's too late, Mrs. Grammy-winner.
What about these organizations abusing the DMCA by issuing false requests for legitimate content?
I guess she doesn't understand much about how YouTube works, and is claiming that they are just redistributing money. Not true, actually. In order to operate this FREE SERVICE that they are using, and get PAID THROUGH, they advertise. After they collect that revenue, they appropriate the funds according to percentages and costs of the ads. Sounds to me like she doesn't understand what operating costs are, either. And, they are a business, so they are out to make money, too.
YouTube is guilty of the same "criminal" acts that Megaupload is currently accused of
Well, she managed to get one thing right.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Hate break it to you miss, but it's the label under which you signed that's siphoning money away from you. If it wasn't for YouTube and other streaming services, your audience would be substantially smaller.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
IN OTHER NEWS: Sky is blue. Grass is green. Fish gotta swim Birds gotta fly.
YAWN
...(sigh).
Why are the people from MN that have any sort of fame such nutballs?
(looks at self)
We're not ALL nutballs up here, are we?
-Styopa
I have to agree this is the wrong term. Racketeering is mainly protection money and such. If Youtube was telling musicians that they better have their videos on Youtube or else Guido and the boys will come rearrange their vocal chords, that's racketeering. The RIAA's chasing after stores for having the radio on, waiters for singing Happy Birthday, etc, is a much better example of racketeering.
"...everyone from the major record labels to the MPAA and back again"
That's not everyone. That's hardly anyone. In fact, that's pretty much only one, single interest group.
"In closing, Schneider has several key demands. Front and center is a call for “takedown and staydown“, the mechanism championed by every Google critic thus far in this DMCA consultation."
If we're going to be hard on that side of the issue, then it is only fair to be just as hard on the other side. What penalty should be applied to an organization that files an obviously false takedown request? After all, they have knowingly falsified a legal document. Criminal prosecution? Or just a massive civil fine, payable to the owner of the copyright that they impugned? Funny, she didn't mention anything at all about this problem...
Translation:
Criminal Copyright infringement is on the list, and that's got to be what she's nattering on about.
The problem is, no specific examples are given, no dots are connected, no lines are drawn.
Without anything resembling evidence, I'd say she's gone out on a rickety limb marked "libel".
asshats from the movie/music industry are already claiming videos that don't even have any infringing content in it, really wish they'd stop complaining instead of shouting out loud "mah monay!"
As with much of the rest of the legal corpus. But the voters keep electing the rich, and they keep writing law that favors the rich. It's not a mystery. It's profound validation of the concrete social and economic effects of the Gaussian.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Youtube violates the hell out of copyright.
And that's in any sense of the word- not just stuff over 28 years old.
Furthermore they make huge amounts of money via advertising off of other artist's copyrighted works without properly licensing the artists and (as far as I have been able to determine) without paying them a dime.
The day after a new song comes out, there are many copies of the song on Youtube. Often entire movies are posted as well. It's so bad that I have to suspect it's a temporary situation.
I strongly disagree with copyright past 28 years (and don't respect it in my actions) but what Youtube is doing is 0 day copyright infringement. Enjoy it while you can, but it's so bad, I can't see how it's going to last. It's clearly illegal. It's clearly a massive pattern of behavior and repeated infringement.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And who the heck is Maria Schneider?
Pardon me for not shedding any tears, as the RIAA/MPAA members have upped the ante by thoroughly twisting, contorting, and abusing the original meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, turning into *real* theft from society.
But the Slashdot line has been that musicians (other than Paul McCartney and Britney Spears) have always been paid peanuts, right? Schneider isn't a rep for the RIAA.
Marketing to those who habitually gravitate towards non-remunarative content. It's like marketing any free thing; without a reason to buy or re-buy, or enter into a separate cost-based consumer channel, it's an expense, not an income booster. The question is, as always, does youtube lead in that direction, or does it primarily replace purchases with free-to-the-consumer downloads? While, as TFC says, monitizing ads that lead elsewhere than into the artist's pocket?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It seems that a lot of people in the comments don't know who she is, but she is one of my favorite musicians, and certainly one of the greatest living jazz composers. Obviously she has no legal argument for claims of racketeering, but her general opinion on matters of music and the business of music deserves attention. She is an extremely talented composer who is trying to make a living producing top-tier music. If anybody is making it difficult for her to do that, we ought to examine why that is, and we ought to listen to her opinion about what's fair and what's unfair. It's already hard enough to make good music. It's too bad that Slashdot is publishing this with a sensationalist headline, and linking to a sensationalist summary that goes out of its way to make her sound crazy. Here is a more pertinent quote that sums up the real issue: "for the vast majority of the artistic community, including me, and every musician I know (and I know thousands), YouTube is a resounding disaster." Here is her actual letter, if anyone cares: https://musictechpolicy.com/20...
“Congress seems to be too hypnotized by Alphabet lobbyists, swarming like locusts, for the lawmakers to stand up straight with a firm sense of right and wrong, and defend the Constitution and the citizens of this country,” she added.
Too lazy to create an account.
Artists and corporations have perverted copyright into eternal revenue streams. Part of the reason artists (musicians, authors, etc) were allowed to have copyright was for a LIMITED time for the public good. How many things ever actually make it into public domain anymore?
The criminals are the copyright holders...
She is right, Google is every bit as guilty as Google...which is to say they both shouldn't be held liable for what users upload. It is idiocy to criminalize a tool that can be use for a crime, instead of the criminal action.
Kim Dotcom would be proud.
Identifying Ice Ice Baby as infringing the copyright on Queen's Under Pressure wouldn't be a false positive.
Another millionaire complaining about wanted more money.... Why am I not shocked?
Maria who? what indignities has she suffered again? -free press??
Sick and tired of artists crying because their work is "stolen" or someone is supposedly making millions on their work while they starve for food.
The labels are milking you and tossing you out for the next "hip" thing. Worse, too many so called "artists" do not actually do any fucking work.
They produce their one hit and expect an infinite revenue stream. Even football (not American) players do not feel so entitled.
Once upon a time artists were paid for work. A performance, a sculpture, an act etc. Bands would go on tour and perform! (read work)
So now just because we have ears we have to pay you every time we hear your song? because we have eyes we have to pay you every time we see a movie?
I already paid for the movie/song/series. How? by paying for TV/radio license, for the netflix subscription, for spotify, for fucking cable; I paid for your shit several times over but they still want more. They say I was only renting it per use as per the EULA. Who the fuck reads the EULA that's a fucking joke. It can say I'm renting my dog to Satan no one will notice and because people are known not to read it it says things they;d not agree to.
No additional effort was made for that additional use of mine, what was lost? nothing. It's not like money, It's not like copying a dollar bill. It does not inflate the economy and it certainly does not hurt sales by "making it available". Star Wars is highly pirated movie/content and does that decades long, multi-billion dollar franchise look like it's not profiting?
So now we have a platform (many actually) that spreads some random "artist's" crap for free, leading to additional audiences and additional revenue opportunities for that artist and still some ignorant people keep bitching.
How about you lazy fuckers work? You know, people work. Seen any surgeon that performed one operation then retire expecting money forever? that surgeon studied for many years, trained many years and has to perform yes, *groan* the same operations many times. Crazy huh?
I'll pay to see an act in theatre per performance because you know, someone has to work to perform for my pleasure. I'll pay a band every time I see them because they do something for it.
The entire model of charging "per use" for people to use their sense although legal is actually based in BS. One day we will be able to record thoughts, images we imagine and see and thus transfer them. What will happen then? will it be illegal to think copyrighted content? -this point may seem arbitrary but this is what copyright is, thought.
I recorded a thought and now I want every to pay $9.99 for it. That's cool but unlike hardware thoughts do not seem to depreciate. I could sell a million copies and the price would still be $9.99 -the effort I put it was nothing compared to the effort so many people put in to earn $9.99.
You see if I could automate my job function and sell it no one would need me to do any work any more. In order to earn money I would have to do a new function. Don't musicians do anything beyond record their work and sell that? after all, I already have a mastered copy of their best, auto-tuned performance. Why would I need them again? -unless of course, shockingly they did something new like performs live the way music actually sounds by doing actual work.
I never promised to buy your shit to begin with, the fact I was willing to listen to it on youtube should be flattery enough that I'm a potential customer.
The value of your copy of said work is what people are willing to pay for it. We are no longer willing to pay, fuck you, get a real job and fuck off.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Maybe not Racketeering, but yes, imagine the billions of $$$ that Google has made from unlicenced audio and video. They tend to just pass the buck and let copyright owners do the real work. They could have done much more to keep unauthorized content off their site, but I'm sure they drag their feet because $$$. Also, IMHO they should be sued by the DOJ for abusing the DMCA while also generating revenue from things like hate speech and worse.
I can listen to any copyrighted song I want pretty much just by using Youtube. I'm actually surprised that I've never found a service that has a way to construct song libraries by scouring youtube for a play list and possibly even autoripping them. Seems like a good bussiness model since youtube is the one guilty of making available copyrighted works if it comes to a legal battle.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them...
I don't know how you got the idea that there was some form of licensing going on. YouTube is not reproducing the works covered by ContentID, so they don't require a license for the works.
...as they don't publish any rules.
You mean these rules?
Google scans every video uploaded to YouTube against its ContentID system. That's a few hundred hours of video per minute. This is also not the only way to enforce ownership rights on YouTube. Google is under no legal obligation to provide their ContentID service. It is the copyright owner's job to enforce their rights. Google cannot do that for them without an explicit agreement, and they have no obligation to make any such agreement with anyone. It is not part of the "Safe Harbor" exclusions, and it would not remotely make sense if that were so, since the point of those exclusions was to prevent service providers from having to police their networks.
that "Safe Harbor" law requires technical measures to be made available to everybody.
No, it requires that the service provider "accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures". They are not obligated to provide any such methods.
No matter how much content owners would like for the onus for copyright policing to be on service providers, it is not the case and will never be the case.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Streisand effect? I knew ya could
"Big Media has thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of Copyright to create a massive income redistribution scheme, where income is continually transferred from the pockets of the public, and siphoned directly into their own pockets."
"Schneider is an avid birdwatcher and enlisted band members to contribute bird calls on "Cerulean Skies" on her recording Sky Blue."...ummm no thanks. Not if you paid me.
If Youtube was telling musicians that they better have their videos on Youtube or else Guido and the boys will come rearrange their vocal chords, that's racketeering.
I believe her argument is that Google will only "protect" her works if she gives them a license to use her works. That could be considered racketeering or extortion.
That said, Google asks for this because it is up to the copyright holder to defend their copyright. It's not Google's job. And, frankly, I'm sure artists would bitch if Google was using their works without their authorization.
I think it is age, not the weather that is doing that to you.
I am from California and have run into the same issue, in California, the Carribean, and further North/South. The old you get the longer the number of days it takes for your body to adapt to the major variation in temperatures, to the point where it may take you longer to adapt your comfort to the local temperatures than it takes for the seasons to change, leading you to be miserable year round.
I am not entirely certain that isn't why so many people retire to the south, especially Florida and SoCal (I am less sure on the southern inland states, since most of them have fscking cold night year round, and miserably hot days most of the rest of the year.)
Man I thought all those free jazz cats were long gone....
The RIAA and "your publishers" are guilty of criminal racketeering...
Google follows the letter of the law regarding the DMCA notices, takedowns and Challengers.
Talk to your publishers you retard.
https://productforums.google.c...
Just read the comments.
Youtube is literally stealing other people's earned ad money with no justifiable cause, and either keeping it for themselves or giving monetization rights to the entity filing the false claim.
And they know it, and they do nothing about it.
Google/Alphabet needs to be shut down. This blatant theft is too egregious to be allowed to stand.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
She's a national treasure.
No.
What she wants is for Google to, at THEIR cost, provide protection for HER content.
Remember, this is content that, due to copyright extension, will almost certainly NEVER enter the public domain which was originally part of
the social contract that was copyright. The government agreed to provide legal protections for works, in return for those works
entering the public domain after a reasonable time - a balanced agreement. That agreement has been continuously twisted by the copyright
owners, who see it as the job of everyone else to protect their works, and they should keep the money and the works for ever (in effect).
So no, she is just pushing the cart another inch forward, bending the social contract even further, and trying to claim that it is Googles job
to enforce HER copyrights - which it clearly is not.
If she wants her works protected on youtube its easy, employ someone to find content that is in violation, employ lawyers to write up the
required legal papers, and go for it. There is exactly nothing stopping her from doing this.
If she wants Google to do the work for her, then agree to Googles terms to provider her with this service.
What she is trying to do is the same as wanting a radio manufacturer to be legally responsible for checking that the local barbershop
isnt 'performing her works without a commercial license' because they turn that radio on, at the radio makers cost. ie: laughable.
This is just another attempt at copyright extension people, and the public, who are being shafted already (thank you Disney, etal), should be
rather angry at that. NO other industry has had such generous governmental and legal support for so long.
Or perhaps she would rather keep her works for herself, and we just revoke copyright, as she does not want to keep up her side of the contract?
I thought not..
She's swallowed the RIAA party line and is replaying it. That effectively makes her an unpaid rep for the RIAA.
It's not like we required proof that winning a Grammy will make a person known or noteworthy in any way, but here it is.
I went to school with a girl named Maria Schneider (not the same one, we're about 20 years younger.) She was blond, pretty, and a bit of a stuck up mean cunt, to just about everyone. Fuck that bitch, I hope she found cocaine.
Launch a campaign against these so called artists and companies that support them. They are going too far with their garbage. Maybe it's time the net strikes back....
where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets
No, money is siphoned from consumers' pockets to theirs (Youtube's). The creator never had the money, and would never had it anyway since they don't own a distribution platform. What creators need to get over is that the magic isn't in their creation, it's in the distribution of their creation.
I read to the bottom of the article where she states her demands, and all of her already tenuous credibility flew out the window... Fingerprint scans required on any video upload? Also, she wants her takedowns to be private so the public won't "give her backlash"?
Seriously. If you are that concerned about Youtube profiting off your work - go and help with say, Diaspora, or ZeroNet, or BuddyCloud, or Identi.ca, or any of the other P2P social networks.
If the top 100 most famous artists were to say "Allright, so here's the deal - we're going to start releasing our shit on this network" that network will take off like a space shuttle rocket.
But, no, Youtube is good, preserve the status quo...
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Greedy cavemen trying to string together whatever combinations of words will get them more money, and to hell with the consequences for others. That is how the copyright lobby has been for decades.
Didn't YT already address this (recently) by holding onto the revenue while a complaint is being resolved, and then sending the accrued revenue to the winning party when the complaint is actually resolved?
http://youtubecreator.blogspot...
Wow. What a mess. I don't think there are any "good guys" here at all.
1. I think that Maria Schneider is actually correct in her main point. Google is absolutely abusing their power to get away with behavior that has been deemed criminal on the part of less powerful organizations, Megaupload being a prime example. I think that she makes a good case for calling their behavior "racketeering".
2. The RIAA (and their individual corporate members) have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to apply the "takedown" provisions of the DMCA in a non-abusive way, and it would be crazy to give them any more power in this regard. They also whine incessantly about how the artists are getting screwed, and then they turn around and screw the artists as hard as they can get away with.
3. The artists have been complaining for decades now that it is much harder for them to make a living than it used to be, and they are right. But by and large their proposed solution is "let's go back to the way things were", ignoring the fact that the public simply will not put up with that, and ignoring the fact that the Internet has changed the whole enterprise of music irrevocably.
4. The public has now gotten used to getting their music for free (or for almost nothing) without any consideration for how the artists are going to actually make a living. It's not clear how much longer "being a musician" will be a viable career except for a tiny group of superstars, unless people start accepting that they have to actually pay *something* for the privilege of listening to the latest music.
None of these groups seems to have any inclination to compromise, nor is showing any consideration for anybody's welfare except their own. What a mess.
Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider really ups the ante by stating that YouTube is guilty of the same criminal acts that Megaupload is currently accused of. "YouTube is guilty of criminal racketeering,"
How does Maria Schneider having a Grammy qualify her to interpret criminal statutes? Just some whiny asshole who wants moar moar moar
Also Grammy LOL
I believe her argument is that Google will only "protect" her works if she gives them a license to use her works. That could be considered racketeering or extortion.
And it seems to me that the artist has to license their work to Google, before Google has the legal ability to actually scan for it with their ContentID system. So basically, she wants Google to scan for copyright violations of her work, without legally allowing Google to do such a scan.
Have I got this right? If so, score +1 for artist stupidity. At least we got an entertaining read out of it.
The DCMA safe harbour requries a mechanism in place for copyright holders to be able to issue takedown notices and the safe harbour company to comply with these, Google/YouTube does this
She is asking Google to go beyond this and illegally stop people disputing DCMA takedown notices (which have shown to often be frivilous or mistaken), to put in place mechanisms to stop uploading and to give away freely to "artists" their system of identifying coywrighted works ... i.e. she wants Google to spend time and resources and then give these away on a system that offers no return for them and is not required by law ...
All so she can continue to be paid for work she has already been paid for ...
Perhaps to counteract the false claims made by RIAA/MPAA more US citizens should be writing in as part of this request for comment.