YT channel copyright-claimed for using YT audio library song

[amdorintel]

great points there mr moose

@mr moose

 

id say its all due to money and the true copy right holders could make it a very bad day for yt

                                          

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Yes, that could be very bad for everyone except those at the very top.   The other issue is may not even go to a court and we will forever be at youtube mercy  as far as fair CR control goes. 

 

Up until all of this I would have said it wasn't that difficult to work out who the CR trolls are and ban them, but it appears youtube make more money (or don't risk losing as much money) by pandering to the trolls and leaving the smaller channels to defend themselves from the vultures.

My opinion here is that Sony isn't the bad guy here, rather, Google/YouTube should take the blame for allowing their creators to be negatively impacted. Google could've shot down the deal altogether, or negotiated a grandfather clause for videos already using the content. Google held all the chips here, and chose to allow creators take the fall.

 

So for the future for creators, probably to best play on the safe side, only music within the public domain should be utilized (assuming one is unable or unwilling to license protected content), as there's no chance of an entite to buy the rights later down the road? Unless some positive precedent is set otherwise later down the road, of course.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

My opinion here is that Sony isn't the bad guy here, rather, Google/YouTube should take the blame for allowing their creators to be negatively impacted. Google could've shot down the deal altogether, or negotiated a grandfather clause for videos already using the content. Google held all the chips here, and chose to allow creators take the fall.

 

So for the future for creators, probably to best play on the safe side, only music within the public domain should be utilized (assuming one is unable or unwilling to license protected content), as there's no chance of an entite to buy the rights later down the road? Unless some positive precedent is set otherwise later down the road, of course.

Sony know better.  I don't excuse youtube but I do have to wonder how many legal threats they have received in order to make it so easy to CR troll (against the law in some case I might add) and offer absolutely zero help to the content creators.

 

The thing that makes this so bad in my eyes is the sheer number of stories regarding content creators having unfair copyright issues.   Many of them very stupid on the surface,  unarguable trolling that should have been fixed on the first email.  Not lost revenue (and worse revenue gone to the trolls).

 

Like everyone else, I occasional wish I could have gotten into youtube earlier and started a channel (there are a few topics that I would have loved to make videos on), however there is no amount of excitement/drive in that to outweigh the shit nature of youtube right now.

[Kisai]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Like everyone else, I occasional wish I could have gotten into youtube earlier and started a channel (there are a few topics that I would have loved to make videos on), however there is no amount of excitement/drive in that to outweigh the shit nature of youtube right now.

 

At this point, you're likely to get content id claims if you play any game unless you've been protected by a MCN, and the next best option is vblog/animation-vblog. If you try to review anything that is media (eg music, film, animation) you're going to get a strike unless you use only your own voice in the video and no music or clips at all.

 

More to the point, and I want to make this super clear. Content ID is not perfect and will claim content that is not property of the claimed copyright holder. I've actually had this happen twice on my "gaming" channel. This is also one reason why I'm really not excited about putting any gaming stuff on youtube in the first place, cause any work you put into it can be destroyed by some jackass who made a no-effort karaoke version of the same song using the same midi instruments.  Copyright "owners" I've never heard of, and when I looked them up on the internet their only claim to anything was covers of the songs. I then used the feedback form and straight up said "This is not your content", and sure enough it was later released. I was never intending to monetize the gaming footage to begin with, but I sure the hell do not want to have these "snatch and grab" fraudsters to have any leverage. This is why I upload things to the channel unlisted first and wait a few days. If it gets a claim, it's staying unlisted, and I won't bother doing any further videos with that game. I basically stopped doing anything with Nintendo's games because it was not worth the effort. So alas, my Mother I (Earthbound Zero) play will remain incomplete.

 

Nintendo has a "sound trademark" on the Coin sound effect, you know how many things on youtube would be pulled down if Sony decided to pull them all because they have the license to do so?

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Same YT stuff, different day 

[Thaldor]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

???  my insistence for a citation is to see proof that what is being argued is true.  It has nothing to do with trying to maintain youtube jobs. 

 

Burden of proof,  also are you saying that copyright court cases where this happens are so common no one keeps a record?  I don;t think you understand how the legal system works.

Digital store fronts it's a every day business for things (at least games) to go missing because expiring licenses. Transformers, Alan Wake, Alpha Protocol are ones that have gained media attention (Alan Wake was later brought back with relicensing the music), all of the older GTA games have had music removed from them after Vice City was removed from sale because expired music licenses. There's also games that have been in sale but removed due licenses (not music) while they are still available in other countries even on physical media.

For physical media the line is probably where distribution becomes retailing (not buying the stock and paying percentage from sales vs. buying the stock) because the copyright infringement is when someone uses (reproduce, distribute, display or perform) copyright protected work or derivative work without permission (license). There's no examples (thank god for it) because even with digital distribution we talk about games that have been out for about a decade and it would be really odd to see that old game still sold as new in physical media (excluding remakes and leftover stocks which can be found from discount bins). Closest to get are Too Human and X-Men: Destiny which were ordered by court to be recalled and destroyed but Silicon Knights vs. Epic Games was more about using UE3 without license at all than about expired license.

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

For thiose wondering, here is a good article explaining the problems with youtubes system.

 

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/01/10/youtubes-copyright-insanity/

 

TL:DR  there are two systems, DMCA and the contentID.  Content ID gets abused more often than DMCA (which is allegedly less than 1%of all claims).  CR claims result in the channel losing revenue to the complainant hence the system being open to abuse.  youtubes contentID system is outside of courts and legal systems, youtubers have virtually no recourse other than to sue the complainant (in this case sony) or hope for a community backlash to fix the issue.

Well can't really blame YT for making extremely paranoid system. I could swear that it's not only once YT has been sued (or threatened with a sue) for copyright infringement made by it's users and  by now it shouldn't be a surprise how much CR holders are asking from private persons for "damages" let alone what they could ask from companies. I could see some organization like RIAA suing YT for at least for 10 number figures, probably even 11 numbers and quite unlikely even try the ice with a stick for 12 number figures, just because there is no limit how much record labels and their coalitions are ready to ask for their "suffered damages" (+60,000$ per song, like was that woman seeding them for years or did she had some extremely high bandwidth internet connection to seed them for millions? And how the fuck something can cause damage for $75 trillion? By sinking the whole North American continent with nukes?).

Personally I would probably just close the whole shit down after the first letter demanding couple billion dollars for copyright damages, hell, couple million dollars are enough for me to shut the shit down. Let alone getting a letter from RIAA "We can think you are to blame for this copyright infringement. The amount to settle this is 200 thousand billion dollars". Making a paranoid system to keep those lunatics in good mood is probably only thing that someone can possibly do without shutting a lot of their service down or going Pirate Bay and decentralizing everything and saying good big old FU to the laws.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Digital store fronts it's a every day business for things (at least games) to go missing because expiring licenses. Transformers, Alan Wake, Alpha Protocol are ones that have gained media attention (Alan Wake was later brought back with relicensing the music), all of the older GTA games have had music removed from them after Vice City was removed from sale because expired music licenses. There's also games that have been in sale but removed due licenses (not music) while they are still available in other countries even on physical media.

So you don't have an example of a solid product that can't be sold due to licensing only a handful of games that were made under limited license.     As I pointed out in the taylor swift issue.  Licensing can become problematic if you sign a license deal that has a limit on it (like game dev licensing music for a time period rather than for the whole product).  That is not the case here and is not the case in majority of material products (like car parts).

 

Again, this is not a CR law issue, this is a youtube issue.  If those game devs wanted the music or IP permanently for their game then they should have worked out a contract that included the IP for that.  If they can do it for movies and every other form of IP they can do it for games.   But you know as well as I do that game publishers are more interested in a few short dollars, why license the IP for the life of the game when all the profit is only in the first few months of sale.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Thaldor said:

For physical media the line is probably where distribution becomes retailing (not buying the stock and paying percentage from sales vs. buying the stock) because the copyright infringement is when someone uses (reproduce, distribute, display or perform) copyright protected work or derivative work without permission (license). There's no examples (thank god for it) because even with digital distribution we talk about games that have been out for about a decade and it would be really odd to see that old game still sold as new in physical media (excluding remakes and leftover stocks which can be found from discount bins). Closest to get are Too Human and X-Men: Destiny which were ordered by court to be recalled and destroyed but Silicon Knights vs. Epic Games was more about using UE3 without license at all than about expired license.

It wasn't more about using UE3 but only about using UE3.

 

8 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Well can't really blame YT for making extremely paranoid system. I could swear that it's not only once YT has been sued (or threatened with a sue) for copyright infringement made by it's users and  by now it shouldn't be a surprise how much CR holders are asking from private persons for "damages" let alone what they could ask from companies. I could see some organization like RIAA suing YT for at least for 10 number figures, probably even 11 numbers and quite unlikely even try the ice with a stick for 12 number figures, just because there is no limit how much record labels and their coalitions are ready to ask for their "suffered damages" (+60,000$ per song, like was that woman seeding them for years or did she had some extremely high bandwidth internet connection to seed them for millions? And how the fuck something can cause damage for $75 trillion? By sinking the whole North American continent with nukes?).

Personally I would probably just close the whole shit down after the first letter demanding couple billion dollars for copyright damages, hell, couple million dollars are enough for me to shut the shit down. Let alone getting a letter from RIAA "We can think you are to blame for this copyright infringement. The amount to settle this is 200 thousand billion dollars". Making a paranoid system to keep those lunatics in good mood is probably only thing that someone can possibly do without shutting a lot of their service down or going Pirate Bay and decentralizing everything and saying good big old FU to the laws.

 

hence why the issue is a youtube issue and nbot a CR law issue.   WE clearly have a combination of big players using money and the legal system to bully everyone else into submission and youtube (big enough to be honest) curtailing to those demands and throwing youtubers under the bus in the process. 

 

As I said before:

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

Sony know better.  I don't excuse youtube but I do have to wonder how many legal threats they have received in order to make it so easy to CR troll (against the law in some case I might add) and offer absolutely zero help to the content creators.

 

The thing that makes this so bad in my eyes is the sheer number of stories regarding content creators having unfair copyright issues.   Many of them very stupid on the surface,  unarguable trolling that should have been fixed on the first email.  Not lost revenue (and worse revenue gone to the trolls).

 

Like everyone else, I occasional wish I could have gotten into youtube earlier and started a channel (there are a few topics that I would have loved to make videos on), however there is no amount of excitement/drive in that to outweigh the shit nature of youtube right now.

 

There is some very obvious trolling that has come directly from youtubes immediate insistence on moving the revue stream to the complainant without question.   When it is so obvious that people are being caused financial grief over such frivolous CR claims then I am going hold youtube and sony to the same fucking standards as i hold people who pirate because they don't want ot pay for the content.   The only difference here is one of moral position and hypocrisy from sony. I say that because the average pirate will not take sonies work from a store where an innocent 3rd party loses money (just like the youtuber is the innocent 3rd party losing out here).  

 

 

 

On a separate note:

Many proponents of pirating argue that these youtubers haven't lost revenue because they didn't have it in the first place, I wonder if those people would still agree with that argument?

 

[SolarNova]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

SNIP~~

 

 

 

On a separate note:

Many proponents of pirating argue that these youtubers haven't lost revenue because they didn't have it in the first place, I wonder if those people would still agree with that argument?

 

 

Thats not the argument i see used.

 

The argument is:

 

Many of those who Pirate, will never buy the game/program in question if they didnt Pirate. As such money cannot be lost if one was never going to buy it in the 1st place.

(Pirate and dont pay. Dont pirate and still dont pay. = same result)

 

Thats different from the argument of  "Pirating a game/program and then saying its not 'lost revenue / stealing' because I didnt give u money then take it away" Thats an argument on the notion of 'stealing'.

Stealing money from someones wallet vs stealing someones possession that is worth money, which works in a physical sense, but which doesnt work with a 'copy' of software (like a game) that requires no cost to 'copy', unlike creating multiple copies of a physical item which incurs costs.

Taking a copy of software doesnt take money from the owner, but the argument is that it takes 'potential' revenue fro m what could have been a sale, that argument only works if the person taking that copy of software would pay for it in the 1st place. If they never intend on paying even if they cant 'pirate' its not lost revenue.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

 

Thats not the argument i see used.

 

The argument is:

 

Many of those who Pirate, will never buy the game/program in question if they didnt Pirate. As such money cannot be lost if one was never going to buy it in the 1st place.

(Pirate and dont pay. Dont pirate and still dont pay. = same result)

 

Thats different from the argument of  "Pirating a game/program and then saying its not 'lost revenue / stealing' because I didnt give u money then take it away" Thats an argument on the notion of 'stealing'.

Stealing money from someones wallet vs stealing someones possession that is worth money, which works in a physical sense, but which doesnt work with a 'copy' of software (like a game) that requires no cost to 'copy', unlike creating multiple copies of a physical item which incurs costs.

Taking a copy of software doesnt take money from the owner, but the argument is that it takes 'potential' revenue fro m what could have been a sale, that argument only works if the person taking that copy of software would pay for it in the 1st place. If they never intend on paying even if they cant 'pirate' its not lost revenue.

Either way it is prospective revenue, if you want to argue prospective revenue cannot be lost then you have to apply it to this situation too.  Everything else in the argument relies on speculating what people would and wouldn't,  i thing it's fair to say there are people who will pay for content when the pirate isn't available, just like it's fair to say their are people who won't buy the original regardless.

 

 

[SolarNova]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Either way it is prospective revenue, if you want to argue prospective revenue cannot be lost then you have to apply it to this situation too.  Everything else in the argument relies on speculating what people would and wouldn't,  i thing it's fair to say there are people who will pay for content when the pirate isn't available, just like it's fair to say their are people who won't buy the original regardless.

 

 

Indeed totally agree.  its just that so many people who argue against the point i made try to suggest that those people who will NEVER pay, simply dont exist, so just wanted to press that point.

 

Anyway yea all good ..

[Touch My Hamm]

YouTube is turning into the same thing as major television network channels. Where every show has to abide by the advertisers. Since YouTube users want to make the advertiser money they must follow the rules that they put down. As for this story in particular I would seek advise from someone who works in how copy rights work for their music. Youtube has been known to always side with the larger companies until proven otherwise so no surprise there. I find it silly that YouTube has just turned into a TV channel you can decide what to watch next, where most channels are boring stuff you can see on TV, bland stuff that isnt what built youtube. Too many just looking to make payday like Pewdiepie instead of making fun videos that they enjoy making to share on the internet. The internet has turned into the new wallstreet where everyone wants to make the big jackpot lol. 

 

Not saying I dont watch youtube but you can tell a huge tone shift from its early days where I would make videos about game consoles and at times when I couldnt fix the old consoles Smash them into little bits. Props to anyone who can find the Xbox smashing video that got our old group on MTV for an interview about "Internet Videos" about smashing electronics. Ah the good old days, where creating videos to share was just something to do after school. 480p highlights lol.

[Thaldor]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you don't have an example of a solid product that can't be sold due to licensing only a handful of games that were made under limited license.     As I pointed out in the taylor swift issue.  Licensing can become problematic if you sign a license deal that has a limit on it (like game dev licensing music for a time period rather than for the whole product).  That is not the case here and is not the case in majority of material products (like car parts).

 

Again, this is not a CR law issue, this is a youtube issue.  If those game devs wanted the music or IP permanently for their game then they should have worked out a contract that included the IP for that.  If they can do it for movies and every other form of IP they can do it for games.   But you know as well as I do that game publishers are more interested in a few short dollars, why license the IP for the life of the game when all the profit is only in the first few months of sale.

 

hence why the issue is a youtube issue and nbot a CR law issue.   WE clearly have a combination of big players using money and the legal system to bully everyone else into submission and youtube (big enough to be honest) curtailing to those demands and throwing youtubers under the bus in the process.

Unlimited licenses are extremely rare, mostly seen only in music business doing them within (like the Taylor Swift issue, which BTW would be impossible to happen at least in EU because as the original creator you have the origin rights which you cannot sell or give away and which go above any licenses you have sold or given). Even film industry uses mostly limited licenses (which is why some series have hard time getting out as home media after airing on TV). The difference is how the license has been limited.

As the article above pointed out that US licensing system is a mess compared to the EU system, it's still not a system that if it was a program code could be even considered good quality. At least in Finland the licensing system is not that broken, it's actually too good, so good that it causes problems to artists themselves and some go against it by using pen names to do some work because of it (there are some loopholes). Mainly the problem is that the licensing system in Finland, at least, is compulsory, like if you drive a taxi and play music in it, you have to pay the yearly licensing fee even if the music you play is something like CC-licensed and is free to use with that license and, to go to the extreme which every now and then rises it's ugly head as an example, if you are an artist and drive a taxi and play only music you have made by yourself to your customers, you still need to pay that IIRC ~80€/year license. The second part of the problem is that all of that money coming from those licenses, if not specifically earmarked (which isn't available for all), will be collected to a big pile and shared among all artists based on either by record sales or radio plays, which means that artists taxi driver most likely pays 80€/year to play his music in his taxi for his customers and while he pays it to license his own music, will not get anywhere near 80€ back when the license moneys are paid to the artists (if you don't have any remarkable record sales or radio plays you usually get something around 10€ if even that, most of the money goes to the top list artists or their record companies that handle their royalties).

 

Which, in my head, kind of well summarizes the situation: How broken the system must be if it can be used to bully a bully to be a bully? I can't believe that YT would be doing these out of their completely free will, I can believe that they are doing it because if they wouldn't do it all the record labels and others would be sending them legal threats and all that shit by ship containers daily. And out of personal experience it's the system that is broken because there is no punishment from misusing it (personal experience is that even when the law is that the owner of the internet connection isn't accountable for what others do with that connection, some companies pay for attorneys to try to milk money saying otherwise and when it comes out that the owner really wasn't accountable for it and the lawyers have clearly gone over the line, the punishment is just to pay the bills of that one court case, no fines from lying, no slap on the wrist for doing the same for thousands, not even reprimands).

 

Quote

-snip-

On a separate note:

Many proponents of pirating argue that these youtubers haven't lost revenue because they didn't have it in the first place, I wonder if those people would still agree with that argument?

The big difference here is that the pirates don't stop companies from doing money with their work completely, while in this case Sony uses YouTube to completely stop the YouTubers from making money with their work. Or have you heard pirates putting a movie in the net and so prevented the studio from publishing the movie? Like that would be a great idea (for a movie) to steal the master copy of a movie before it's copied for distribution and going "Robin Hood" and putting it up to the net for free. Mission:Impossible Movie Night?

[jagdtigger]

Sorry if this was mentioned already but i dont remember seeing it:

https://torrentfreak.com/royalty-free-music-supplied-by-youtube-results-in-mass-video-demonetization-191118/

Quote

Sure enough, if one turns to the WhoSampled archive, Dreams is listed as having sampled Weaver of Dreams, a track from 1956 to which Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC and Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. own the copyrights.

Same thing happened to Mumbo Jumbo with his intro song:

 

[Sauron]

Yet more reasons to advocate for the abolition of copyright.

On 11/16/2019 at 9:03 AM, jagdtigger said:

I have a sinking feeling that we are going to see a lot of this in the future. Buy up freely available content then extort money out from anyone using it. Next level of copyright trolling....

It's not trolling if they're using the system as intended. It's just a rotten system that shouldn't exist.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

Unlimited licenses are extremely rare, mostly seen only in music business doing them within (like the Taylor Swift issue, which BTW would be impossible to happen at least in EU because as the original creator you have the origin rights which you cannot sell or give away and which go above any licenses you have sold or given). Even film industry uses mostly limited licenses (which is why some series have hard time getting out as home media after airing on TV). The difference is how the license has been limited.

As the article above pointed out that US licensing system is a mess compared to the EU system, it's still not a system that if it was a program code could be even considered good quality. At least in Finland the licensing system is not that broken, it's actually too good, so good that it causes problems to artists themselves and some go against it by using pen names to do some work because of it (there are some loopholes). Mainly the problem is that the licensing system in Finland, at least, is compulsory, like if you drive a taxi and play music in it, you have to pay the yearly licensing fee even if the music you play is something like CC-licensed and is free to use with that license and, to go to the extreme which every now and then rises it's ugly head as an example, if you are an artist and drive a taxi and play only music you have made by yourself to your customers, you still need to pay that IIRC ~80€/year license. The second part of the problem is that all of that money coming from those licenses, if not specifically earmarked (which isn't available for all), will be collected to a big pile and shared among all artists based on either by record sales or radio plays, which means that artists taxi driver most likely pays 80€/year to play his music in his taxi for his customers and while he pays it to license his own music, will not get anywhere near 80€ back when the license moneys are paid to the artists (if you don't have any remarkable record sales or radio plays you usually get something around 10€ if even that, most of the money goes to the top list artists or their record companies that handle their royalties).

I am not sure how most of that supports your original claim or where the evidence is for that.  It seems you have made a claim that unlimited licenses don't exist, then conflated different CR and IP situations in order to exemplify that.  So far you haven't managed to show anything other than CR can be licensed in many different ways. We already new that, but in the case of this situation it is not licensed in many different ways, it is only licensed in one way and that was open ended under CC.  To wit your claims of car parts being mass produced whilst under license to avoid limitations doesn't apply and can't actually be evidenced anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

Which, in my head, kind of well summarizes the situation: How broken the system must be if it can be used to bully a bully to be a bully? I can't believe that YT would be doing these out of their completely free will, I can believe that they are doing it because if they wouldn't do it all the record labels and others would be sending them legal threats and all that shit by ship containers daily. And out of personal experience it's the system that is broken because there is no punishment from misusing it (personal experience is that even when the law is that the owner of the internet connection isn't accountable for what others do with that connection, some companies pay for attorneys to try to milk money saying otherwise and when it comes out that the owner really wasn't accountable for it and the lawyers have clearly gone over the line, the punishment is just to pay the bills of that one court case, no fines from lying, no slap on the wrist for doing the same for thousands, not even reprimands).

All legal systems can be used to bully people if you have the resources,  they are called nuisance lawsuits.  lawsuits with the intention of damaging anything that prevents you from making the most profit.  This is not a failing of specific laws like copyright, it is a failing of the legal system as a whole.    The bit in bold highlights flaws with the judicial system, not the laws.

 

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

The big difference here is that the pirates don't stop companies from doing money with their work completely, while in this case Sony uses YouTube to completely stop the YouTubers from making money with their work. Or have you heard pirates putting a movie in the net and so prevented the studio from publishing the movie? Like that would be a great idea (for a movie) to steal the master copy of a movie before it's copied for distribution and going "Robin Hood" and putting it up to the net for free. Mission:Impossible Movie Night?

I did say:

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 The only difference here is one of moral position and hypocrisy from sony. I say that because the average pirate will not take sony's work from a store where an innocent 3rd party loses money (just like the youtuber is the innocent 3rd party losing out here).  

 

 

I actually pointed out that what sony did cost an innocent person revenue while a pirate copy does not necessarily harm an innocent person.   Which I claimed is the only difference and is one of grave hypocrisy on sony's part.