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

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.)

Comments

the system needs improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why is the video getting money at all?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Unless they bought the rights to 4'33"?

Re:Actually Entirely Reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why is the video getting money at all?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.