Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warner Music Files Copyright Claim on A Silent 'Star Wars' Video On YouTube (wired.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the using-the-force dept.

rgh02 writes: Earlier this summer, popular YouTube channel Auralnauts received some unfortunate news: Warner/Chappell had filed a monetization claim on their "Star Wars Minus Williams" video through YouTube's Content ID System. More than anything, the Auralnauts were confused -- the video the music company was claiming rights over didn't have any music in it at all.
In fact, the video is almost entirely silent, augmented with a few awkward coughs as Han Solo and Luke Skywalker plod noiselessly toward Princess Leia in a two-minute scene where they're awarded ceremonial medallions. Wired's article describes it as "a tongue-in-cheek tribute" to John Williams' Star Wars score for the film's final scene, also reporting that it had been online for almost three years before Warner/Chappell music publishing claimed rights to all money the video would receive: When I tried to get Warner/Chappell's side of this story, the company offered no comment. But apparently my reporting helped bring the "Star Wars Minus Williams" copyright dispute to an unexpectedly speedy resolution. When Koonce told his YouTube partner manager that a journalist had interviewed him, YouTube stepped in and removed the copyright claim against the video.
YouTube has also created a "Fair Use Protection" program covering legal costs for channels they believe are unfairly targeted with video takedown notices. But the article points out that 95% of the time music companies just chose YouTube's "monetize" option to claim the ad revenue rather than asking that a video be blocked -- and that last year YouTube paid the music industry $1 billion. (Though the music industry insists that amount is still below what they're receiving from streaming music services.)

73 comments

  1. Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They removed the music but all the video is copyrighted.

    1. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Still, Warner MUSIC does not deserve to be paid for it either.

    2. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fair use applies. also it's only a two minute clip. neither the video (fox, lucasfilms) nor soundtrack (warner bros) should be compensated through royalty payments.

      warner bros. and others who make false claims like this should be penalized in some way--either through fines or by losing their right to file claims in the future.. length of such penalty determined by frequency of abuse of the system. the way it is now, they just shoot automated scatterguns at everything. that has to stop.

    3. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      warner bros. and others who make false claims like this should be penalized in some way--either through fines or by losing their right to file claims in the future..

      Better yet, they should lose their copyright privileges. That would put a swift stop to it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      That seems fair. Especially since copyright, despite having the word "right" in it, certainly is a privilege. A temporary one, granted by society and for the benefit of society.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless they bought the rights to 4'33"?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a REAL song for the benefit of society. I wonder if the Cult of Scientlology owns the rights to it.
       
      spoiler warning: L. Ron Hubbard keeps pressing the keyboard to make horse sounds in a disturbing fashion.

    7. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by magusxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law. That's defamation of character. I'm wondering why people haven't filed a court claim like this. Even if it's small claims. And refuse to settle until your terms are met. Even if you go to court, then there'd be standing which could be stockpiled and used for an even bigger case. And remember, since Youtube took the video down they could be called as a witness. Several times a week in fact if enough people filed at the same time.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    8. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Better yet, they should lose their copyright privileges. That would put a swift stop to it."
      Sorry, I have to play Advocatus Diaboli here...
      Copyright Law in General, and US Copyright Law in particular, is Broken.
      There are three Principles involved, the Copyright itself which is generally assigned at Creation unless assigned otherwise, Due Diligence which means that those involved are aware of the Legal aspects of Copyright, and Fair Use which is so loosely defined that it has no definition at all. Fair Use when it comes to the Courts is usually judged on a case-by-case basis, and it always goes back to Intent.
      For instance, Satire and Parody are generally respected, because a new work using Satire or Parody based on an older work is in itself a new work. That jerk Larry Flynt made a Supreme Court case out of this.
      Academic discourse is generally respected, because it is the province of Ideas. Censorship, especially Economic Censorship, is against any concept of Academic discourse.
      Fair Use is a new concept that is a spear in the side of that on the Copyright Cross. Fair Use basically means that unless an airtight case can be made of outright Theft, we as the Public are allowed to freely do whatever we like with that which has been otherwise legally put out of bounds.
      Which goes back to Intent. Yankovic can parody Jackson because he is not in any way pretending to be Jackson. Harrison was found guilty of Infringement, even if not intentional, because he insisted that "My Sweet Lord" was an original work. In this case, Harrison was really guilty of not paying Due Diligence. He was lazy.

      Warner/Chappell is in the fortunate, or unfortunate position, depending on how you look at it, of having certain Intellectual Property Rights, sometimes overlapping and at odds with each other. They _have_ to go Batshit Crazy on what they perceive to be Infringements because of the awful uncertainty of Fair Use, and the Legal concept of Precedence. Every time that they admit Defeat, that sets another Precedent. Because Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Law, in the the US in particular, is Broken.
      So what about "Orphan Works"?
      "Orphan Works" are defined as those products of Intellect that have been abandoned, either through deliberation or neglect. Putting work into the Public Domain is an act of Deliberation. Having such work ending up in the Public Domain due to neglect is legally the failure of paying Due Diligence.

      I have a book. It is over 400 pages long at this point, with no end in sight. In it are certain examples of Artistic, Technical, and Scientific Technique that I think are pertinent for it. But they are not my works. So I set out on obtaining Rights. The Berne Convention is utter crap in these matters.
      The SF Chronicle was a joy to deal with; just give a Credit. Gladly done.
      There are couple of Patents that I refer to and quote from. No problem. (Yea Luis Alvarez!)
      But there are photographic examples of three Russian Photographers, two from the Ukraine, two from Brazil, and one each from France, Japan and Switzerland that I want to respect the Rights of, (None from the US, I make a point of this.)... but it's fucking impossible.
      I paid what I think is Due Diligence, but that may be for the Courts to decide later on... if anybody reads my book.
      The statistics are such: 0.004% of all Professional Photographs put online have been registered by the US Copyright Office. I ran all my example Photographs through their pathetic excuse for a Database, and nada. Zilch.
      But Copyright Law is quite explicit on this; Copyright begins at the moment of Inception, regardless of the circumstances during or afterwards. It's the fucking Right-To-Life arguments all over again, only without the Birth or Death Certificates. Even abandonment means nothing to these nutjobs. This is exactly why, right now, a Monkey took a Selfie, and as a result, the career and livelihood of the owner of the Camera involved have been ruined by Legal fees. (The Scopes Monkey Trial nearly a Century ago was ju

    9. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      It's 18 seconds right at the beginning. This clearly shows the limits of an automated content ID system.

      As I understand it, the content ID would give a link to Warner Chappell saying your music is used here. Do you want to take down, monetize, or ignore? And same with 21st century fox for the video.

      Fox either hadn't seen the video or clicked ignore, that's why the video stayed up. Warner took 3 years to notice because they have a long queue, and it may sort by length, or have an option to, or multiple people clicked next, unsure what to do, or any number of possibilities.

      The only thing I see wrong here is the lack of a way for a poster to claim fair use and force a review by Warner. But that's not the way the law was written, which has been hashed out a billion times on this website.

    10. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warner Bros. owns the music for the movie - there is no music in the video - therefore, false claim.

      I can't comment on the video being fair-use, that's for others to discuss. The point is that Warner Bros., the company filing the monetization copyright claim, owns absolutely nothing from the video in question.

    11. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it, the content ID would give a link to Warner Chappell saying your music is used here. Do you want to take down, monetize, or ignore? And same with 21st century fox for the video.

      This wasn't ContentID. This was a manual takedown.

      The only thing I see wrong here is the lack of a way for a poster to claim fair use and force a review by Warner. But that's not the way the law was written, which has been hashed out a billion times on this website.

      You mean like Youtube's mechanism by which the uploader files a counter-claim and gets the video automatically reinstated, and the rights-holder gets notice of the counter claim along with legal details obligating them to pursue legal action if they wish to make a further claim?

    12. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting subpoenas for "witnesses" in small claims court.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some states you are allowed to do that.

    14. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law. That's defamation of character. I'm wondering why people haven't filed a court claim like this.

      No it doesn't, no it isn't, and because they actually know something about the law, respectively.

      The law is not a child's toy, and if you tried the sort of childish antics you're proposing then you would rightly be laughed out of court and possibly left with a significant bill for your legal fees.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    15. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by chuckugly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The entire film should be in the public domain by now.

    16. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by sjbe · · Score: 1

      If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law.

      No it does not. It simply is a reflection of someone accusing you of violating their copyright. Furthermore it appears in this case that the person who posted the video likely DID violate copyright - just not Warner Music's copyright.

      That's defamation of character.

      Insert eyeroll here. No it is almost certainly not defamation of character. For it to be defamation there has to be real and quantifiable damage. While possible in certain circumstances the mere act of issuing a DCMA takedown request or asserting a copyright (even when non exists) would be unlikely to result in provable harm (financial, reputational, or otherwise) to anyone in the overwhelming majority of cases. If there is no provable damage then by definition it is not defamation of character.

      There are legal avenues one can take to combat frivolous copyright claims but defamation of character would be a really stupid one in most cases.

      Even if it's small claims.

      Small claims court is very rarely an appropriate venue for libel cases. Libel cases are difficult to prove and typically require the aid of a lawyer. Small claims courts are for small and simple contractual disputes. While it's theoretically possible to take a libel claim to small claims court it's probably a really dumb idea.

    17. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a short bit, and one of the things covered under fair use is criticism. It's actually quite interesting to see such a well-known scene with the music removed, so it does make a critical statement about the way music alters a scene.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they did the work of altering it to illustrate how important musical scores are to movies. It's called a derivative work.

    19. Re: Why is the video getting money at all? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      See the second sentence in the summary.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re: Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just 1 person needs to bring a false DMCA claim to trial and set a precedent...just 1.

      Considering most of them are blatantly false a win wouldn't be all that difficult, even more so when you show the massive numbers of false claims they make.

    21. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Industries

      That is Warner Music Group. They do not make movies.

    22. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that DMCA doesn't agree. It allows just a simple notice to be enough to take down a video, then it's up to you to argue to get it back up. That's why this takedown happened, probably no actual person did this just a bot scanning through videos looking for Star Wars segments that it recognizes.

    23. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the simple notices are sent "under penalty of perjury" which means that not only is this notice potentially defamatory, it's also a crime.

      It's too bad that carries no teeth, because Warner Music should certainly be charged for filing this one.

    24. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the rules - basically the penalty of perjury is so narrow, it's worthless.

      Under penalty of perjury, the the complainant states they are a legally authorised agent of the copyright holder of the work the complainant is citing. HOWEVER, the missing connection is that the 'accused' has actually infringed the copyright of the work cited. THAT is not under penalty of perjury.

      If I'm a duly authorised agent for BAND_AAA, and I send out a DMCA takedown of your video claiming it was BAND_AAA's latest song but it's actually your own recording of birds? That is NOT subject to perjury.

      If I'm a duly authorised agent for BAND_BBB and I send out a DMCA takedown of your video claiming it was BAND_AAA's latest song but I'm not actually authorised as an agent of BAND_AAA, then that WOULD be.

    25. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, all legal proceedings and acts under contract are immune from libel/slander laws. Suing someone, threatening to sue them, threatening to depose them, or other "legal" acts is never libel or slander or defamation. Neither is it assault, when threatening to kill or harm someone is assault. Contracts are enforceable and saying to someone that they are in breach of contract is again, neither assault, libel, slander or defamation.

    26. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Harrison was found guilty of Infringement, even if not intentional, because he insisted that "My Sweet Lord" was an original work. In this case, Harrison was really guilty of not paying Due Diligence. He was lazy.

      What are sufficient steps to avoid accidental infringements like this?

    27. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how to fix this "if u dnt pwotect ur twademark u woose it" bullshit; If you try to protect it, and it turns out you're just being a bully or it falls under fair use, THAT'S what weakens it.

    28. Re:Why is the video getting money at all? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they have the rights to John Cage's 4 Minutes & 33 Seconds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  2. the system needs improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I continue to receive fake claims on a video where the music is something I made in garage band. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    It's sounds so awful that it's really a joke that someone would claim it. Sometimes multiple people/companies have claims of the same passage in the "music".
    I once tried to find the music they claimed that I had "copied" and it sounded like someone had made a record of all the loops in Garageband to get as many hits as possible. It didn't even remotely sound like music.

    I can understand why they have the ContentID system, but people who try to game the system, are given way to much power. I guess I should dispute it, even though it is a shitty video I made because I was bored, but is it worth getting another fake copyright strike?

    1. Re:the system needs improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand why they have the ContentID system, but people who try to game the system, are given way to much power. I guess I should dispute it, even though it is a shitty video I made because I was bored, but is it worth getting another fake copyright strike?

      Yes, otherwise you're helping a bad system perpetuate

    2. Re:the system needs improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistically, it's going to perpetuate no matter what he does, because the moneyed interests want it so. As long as Congress has a price tag, it will continue (or get worse!)

  3. The Wonderful World of Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Disney is extremely sue happy in general, but tyrannical when it comes to YouTube. They're the Micro$oft of the film world.

    1. Re:The Wonderful World of Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disney is extremely sue happy in general, but tyrannical when it comes to YouTube. They're the Micro$oft of the film world.

      Ironic that you are saying this in this article. That Star Wars VIDEO has been on youtube for 3 years and Disney has NOT tried to have it removed. WARNER is the one harassing them..

    2. Re:The Wonderful World of Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this was warner bros. the copyright holder of the star wars (first film) soundtrack; and FOX, btw, owns that first film, lock, stock and light sabre, not disney.

    3. Re:The Wonderful World of Disney by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I know it's hard to read and it's Slashdot tradition not to RTFA, but you didn't even read the fucking title. This is newsworthy in large part because it's not even Disney who filed the claim, it's Warner.

  4. monetization claim by mapkinase · · Score: 3, Interesting

    monetization claim: this is the most interesting part for me: prediction of the future.

    The future is behind content identification, not behind content blocking. All content will be quickly identified and ISP will be paying content owners a fee from the money they collect from our ISP fees.

    Pirate site and owner site - both will exist and compete in technology and convenience of content delivery (for example, a site might to choose to slap ads on the content, the other site might choose not to, the third site might choose that you pay an additional fee for content delivery, guess, who will be winning the users?) but the ISP will pay only content owners for our clicks.

    Never mind this particular monetization claim is ridiculous. 2 min excerpt should be covered by Fair Use act, but in general, that's how it will work in the future.

    Users will pay a fixed fee and get all the content on the Internet for the price of that fee. ISPs will take care of owners.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re: monetization claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America yes. Nobody else would accept this however.

    2. Re:monetization claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, in the future, content will be free. Anyone who thinks that paying for content is sustainable despite an absolute glut of existing content is living in a fantasy world.

    3. Re:monetization claim by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      All content will be quickly identified and ISP will be paying content owners a fee from the money they collect from our ISP fees.

      And the moment an ISP tried that, almost every customer would either switch providers or start using end-to-end encryption for all connections, making the content identification system a useless investment.

    4. Re:monetization claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken.

      There is no fair use here, because the party alleging copyright doesn't own the video portion, and is claiming the silent audio portion.

      Warner Music is in fact violating copyright by claiming the video, and is also committing prejury by submitting false DMCA claims.

  5. Cost of fraud should be reclaimed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone making fraudulent and criminal claims should have to pay the cost of their illegal claim, and should have to pay damages. For example, suspension of all payments for 1 year for each offence, and resumption of payments should be subject to the dismissal+prosecution of whoever was responsible for engaging in this type of fraud.

    1. Re:Cost of fraud should be reclaimed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite easy to get fraudulent claims made against you. You don't even have to use a single frame of "fair use" content. Just perform various pieces of classical music - stuff which is centuries old, supposedly public domain, and quite well-known. Upload to Youtube - ContentID will flag it and various publishers have their own performances will automatically claim yours and start making fraudulent legal claims against you.

    2. Re:Cost of fraud should be reclaimed by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, but would you care to point out which criminal laws are violated by agreeing to take ad revenue from a video when YouTube's Conten tD system flags it as being something you own?

      At best, they've violated YouTube's Terms Of Service, which is not illegal or criminal. The only penalties for violating TOS are the ones spelled out in the OTS.

    3. Re:Cost of fraud should be reclaimed by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The only penalties for violating TOS are the ones spelled out in the OTS.

      Its not the only possible penalty. Breach of Contract, the court doesnt necessarily care about the penalties spelled out in the contract that you breached. You breached it. The court cares about making the harmed party "whole" again.

      ("whole" is a legal term here)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  6. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warner Music collected royalties for a song that was public domain for years. Now they collect royalties for silence too. Everybody pay up, some idiot executive needs a 6th Porche.

  7. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The amount of time that you have been getting away with illegal behavior is utterly irrelevant.

    This is completely untrue.

    The amount of time Warner Music has gotten away with their criminal and illegal behavior is completely relevant.

    Filing a DMCA takedown for something copyright law does not grant the copyright holder rights over is a federal crime, and the damages Warner is legally responsible for increase the longer their crimes are permitted.

    Warner is very clearly guilty of a federal count of perjury (they do not own the copyright over "silence" like Warner has claimed), and a count of fraud and a count of theft of a value that is continually rising with time.

    They are also likely going to be guilty of one of two other crimes depending on their near future actions.

    Filing a DMCA takedown notice, that has been counter claimed, is a crime if you do not actually follow through with a court case to sue the defendant.
    Alternately, if they DO sue, then instead their lawyer is in violation of legal bar ethics laws for proceeding with the case after they are required by law to inform their client there is no basis for the case.

    In the first situation above, they can be fined for SLAPP damages. In the second, the legal department is subject to damages for using the courts time and possibly punishments from the bar association.

    The simple fact of the matter is that copyright law dictates exactly what a copyright holder can and can not dictate regarding their works, and a 2 minute video with no sound is completely exempt from any assertion of their control.
    Also copyright law only allows you to dictate control over works of art you actually have copyright protection over.

    You making one song does NOT grant you ownership over every song anyone world wide has made over all time.
    Additionally that copyright protection doesn't grant you the right over specific uses of your protected work.

    If you don't like that fact, go complain to the government which is forcing you to place any and all works you create under the preview of copyright law that you don't want applying to your works.
    It's hardly OUR fault the government is forcing these laws on you and us just the same, but you don't get to choose to ignore the laws and claim rights you don't have simply because you happen to hold copyright protection over something.

  8. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Calydor · · Score: 1

    And one billion dollars revenue. What is that, like 0.01% of their expected income. Yep, they should be grovelling at their knees...

    Are you saying they have a projected yearly income of 10 trillion dollars?

    Maybe if they cashed in on ALL the lost sales of ALL pirated music ever.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  9. I'm waiting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for someone to make a video about ways to prepare corn only for Monsanto to file a copyright claim.

  10. "it's just good business" by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it costs them less to file the claim than the claim than they will get back on the average, they'll do it. There are only two ways to stop them - [1] make it illegal (and then they will only stop some of the time) or [2] make it unprofitable.

    Right now the way the system is set up, for very little effort they can file a claim and siphon off the ad revenue. It's a "click here for free money" button. Who in their right mind wouldn't press the button? Right now the ONLY negative side-effect is bad press. And just look what happened here. "You discussed our abuse of the system with a journalist?!" *DING* ((claim dropped)) Imagine that!

    It's not that they don't know what they're doing is wrong - it's that they simply don't care. It's just free money until it attracts bad press. I don't blame them, I blame the rules. If I were in their position, I'd probably be doing the same thing. The problem is the "click here for free money" button. The only way to fix the problem is to fix the rules.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:"it's just good business" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't blame them, I blame the rules. If I were in their position, I'd probably be doing the same thing. The problem is the "click here for free money" button. The only way to fix the problem is to fix the rules.

      They WROTE the rules in the first place. Why would you let them "fix" the rules, -again-?

  11. That cough at 1:00...https://news.slashdot.org/sto by pinzvidz · · Score: 1

    ... priceless!

  12. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Filing a DMCA takedown for something copyright law does not grant the copyright holder rights over is a federal crime, and the damages Warner is legally responsible for increase the longer their crimes are permitted.

    Unfortunately you're completely wrong. Filing a DMCA notice for something you don't have rights to isn't a crime. The crime (perjury) is in falsely claiming to represent a given rights-holder (e.g. a person falsely claiming to represent Warner Music, filing a DMCA takedown in Warner's name.)

    The filing agent would be committing perjury if they filed a DMCA notice on the Star Wars Soundtrack if they weren't the rights-holder for the Star Wars Soundtrack. They're not committing perjury if they file a DMCA notice for something that doesn't include the Star Wars Soundtrack.

    Warner is very clearly guilty of a federal count of perjury (they do not own the copyright over "silence" like Warner has claimed), and a count of fraud and a count of theft of a value that is continually rising with time.

    Nope. Youtube isn't actually using the DMCA system. They've provided a related system with no actual force of law behind it, so the DMCA's perjury law wouldn't apply even if it was perjury to file an inaccurate claim.

    Filing a DMCA takedown notice, that has been counter claimed, is a crime if you do not actually follow through with a court case to sue the defendant.

    Nope yet again. Where are you even getting this from?

  13. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    Those numbers are even funnier when you realize the global GDP has been hovering around $75 trillion. Apparently the AC you responded to thinks that Warner Music is responsible for ~13% of the entire world's economic output.

  14. There should be financial penalties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For any claims which do not meet expectations, the claimant should pay a fine 5X what they would have been able to claim from the monetary gain of the claim.

  15. "the video ... didn't have any music in it at all" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    What's this if not Williams, then?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Fair use, probably, but why is anybody with three brains cells to rub together surprised an algorithm matched on this?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    You're using an old shilling formula - you should not get paid your piecework rate for this post due to an overall lack of effort.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  17. Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had my videos targeted, even though I used Youtube's own free music selection in the YouTube video editor!

    Totally broken system.

  18. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... do not own the copyright over "silence" like Warner has claimed ...

    The DCMA does not require the complainant to own the infringing content. It requires them to believe any content they own, is being misused: Soft-of like believing I am writing in French when you are not reading it. Many think a law against mailing a pig is stupid but the DCMA is more stupid. It also gives all the power to the content-owners with everyone else being totally liable.

  19. Seriously? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    and that last year YouTube paid the music industry $1 billion. (Though the music industry insists that amount is still below what they're receiving from streaming music services.)

    Holy... you could give these people the contents of Fort Knox and they'd complain they'd rather have greenbacks. Just wow.

  20. Re:"the video ... didn't have any music in it at a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this if not Williams, then?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Fair use, probably, but why is anybody with three brains cells to rub together surprised an algorithm matched on this?

    Problem is this wasn't an algorithm match. It was a manual takedown that didn't even identify the clip you've tagged. The three second audio you mentioned there is the Ending Theme.

    ...in the case of "Star Wars Minus Williams," someone at Warner/Chappell took the rare step of manually filing a claim against the Auralnauts video. Warner/Chappell has been notably enthusiastic in manually flagging multiple Auralnauts videos, according to Koonce....

    ...the Warner/Chappell claim incorrectly identified the "Star Wars Main Title" track as being present in the Auralnauts video.

  21. Reciprocity by Solandri · · Score: 1

    But the article points out that 95% of the time music companies just chose YouTube's "monetize" option to claim the ad revenue rather than asking that a video be blocked

    So just make it so that if your video is determined to have been unfairly monetized by someone else, that their monetization money for that same period of time is given to you as retribution. e.g. Warner Music monetizes Auralnauts' video for 48 hours before YouTube decides their claim is wrong, then all the money Warner Music gets from YouTube for 48 hours goes to Auralnauts instead. Yeah Warner makes a lot more money in that time than these guys would, but that means they could've afforded to hire someone to check carefully that this was an actual violation before filing the monetization claim.

  22. Re: Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the AC you responded to thinks that Warner Music is responsible for ~13% of the entire world's economic output.

    It gets even funnier when you realize that Warner thinks they're responsible for ~8500% of the entire world's economic output.

  23. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if you have a single copyrighted piece of music or video, you could freely file a DMCA takedown on ANY music / video that doesn't even contain your work?

  24. Public's interest is more important than business by jbn-o · · Score: 2

    If it costs them less to file the claim than the claim than they will get back on the average, they'll do it.

    Reminds me of the "Happy Birthday" song scam Warner/Chappell Music pulled on so many artists who included that song in their work, collecting royalties from them based on a fraudulent copyright ownership claim that was later deemed invalid in court (the music and lyrics of "Good Morning and Happy Birthday" were published without a copyright notice which was required at the time so the song was already in the public domain). Jennifer Nelson sued based on her research showing the copyright claim was invalid. She paid $1500 in royalties and wanted her money back and monies returned to those who paid. Warner/Chappell had been earning $2M/year on licensing this song and ended up agreeing to pay back $14M to licensees since 2009 (which was quite generous to Warner/Chappell since Warner/Chappell had been collecting royalties well before 2009. She won and liberated the Happy Birthday song that Warner/Chappell Music never should have been able to collect any money from in the first place.

    This is a good example of why people shouldn't be so quick to take a corporation's word for what they own and what the public owes them. Also another example why a 'business first' orientation to looking at situations (as is commonplace and entirely unquestioned on /. as well as the corporate media /. repeats and points to) is costly and dangerous to one's civil liberties.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  25. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DCMA does not require

    The DCMA doesn't require ANYTHING, since the initials of the law are DMCA.

    Now go away, since all of your further points are invalid by virtue of not even knowing the name of the law you are trying to talk about.

  26. More than just a TOS violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you agree with ContentID when it flags something as yours and either have it blocked or monetized, you are asserting copyright of the flagged content (Youtube also notifies whoever uploaded the content that someone else asserted copyright over it). If you do not actually hold such a copyright, then it is a fraudulent claim. If you do not even bother reviewing the content to ensure your claim is accurate and are just going by what Google's algorithm says (which is well-known for giving false positives), then you are also being negligent.

  27. Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yip.

  28. uhh.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Why is the video not removed, and why do they get money, it's not even their work. You can bitch at the big companies, but these channels are getting money by showing other people's work with only a few alterations they made themselves.