|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 15, 2018 1:56:45 GMT
I was the lead singer of Lodestone back in the late 90's and had posted a video of a live recording at a gig. www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6YjPLKYL8QThe song was Black, by Pearl Jam. I had the video unlisted until today as it's only really stored on YouTube for me, but I found out it has been flagged for a "Content ID claim" by a list of claimants. KOMCA_CS, Sony ATV Publishing, AMRA, SGAE_CS and UMPG Publishing ! Apparently, my video is now automatically monetised, with the proceeds going to these people. REALLY??? Having looked into it, I could have gotten a strike against my channel if the bots had spotted music that the "owners" didn't allow cover performances of. Now I know I am not a "youTuber" as such. I am simply an avid user of the platform for my own entertainment, but this seems to be a wider issue that the union could also address. |
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 15, 2018 5:14:10 GMT
Well, the situation with copyrighted music is kind of complex and YouTube simply decided not to involve itself into any disputes. I ran into a similar experience when I bought a license for a classic music title from a reputable service, for a hundred bucks, "guaranteed OK for YouTube". Three claims by others, the video was instantly demonetized. Saw 800 k views within a day or two, no cash for me. The offered a 50% refund...
But I fail to see how we can turn this into a demand to YouTube. They can't be judges for music rights. AFAIK no strikes because of audio copyrights. Worst case I have seen is that they mute the audio track.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 15, 2018 13:12:45 GMT
There needs to be a better way to handle and appeal copyright strikes. I'm not sure what youtube can do there because its a difficult legal situation for them. Perhaps they could limit copyright ID claims to 1. Then when recieving a new content ID claim they can inform the claimant that a claim has already been made and who by. Then ask for further evidence that someone is a content owner in order to switch teh claim over to the new claimant.
On teh front end, to users and creators the system would appear to run exactly the same, except they only have one claimant to appeal with. On the back end though it would very rapidly highlight users who were abusing the content ID system and it would prevent additional false copyright claims. It woudl also give youtube a big list f content ID abusers and then they can do something about that list, like ban them frommusing the content ID system, or pass their details to the authorities.
|
|
high
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by high on Mar 15, 2018 15:59:21 GMT
Youtube is not responsible for the actions of people on YouTube. They could simply say content creators rent server space by providing content and as such are responsible for whatever its usage becomes through their use of the platform. Then if they requrire proof from copyright holders that content is in breach and is theirs to defend before getting involved it would be more then reasonable beacuse the copyright holder should be in direct contact with the violator and not bothering the platform anyway.
I think at the very least some recourse should be available or better yet some standard comunication beacuse last time I checked you can't just say no covers. Weird al is a popular talking point for this beacuse despite every right to parody he asked permission for every song anyway and that makes him unique.
As for the viability of contacting people about this stuff. If its not worth the copyright holders time and effort to provide evidence for YouTube or to contact the supposed perpetrator themselves then it simply does not need done.
Even with YouTubes contract at the worst it's ever been wherein all content posted to YouTube belongs to YouTube. There is no law that says they have to treat every claim that comes in as a legitimate one and it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for proof of that claim.
We can't allow ourselves to be dissuaded by lies and excuses. Use your heads and question things before you accept them.
We believe they have our stapler? let's not internalize until things escalate to arson...
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 15, 2018 16:46:05 GMT
I think a big reason they assume every one is genuine and comply with a takedown, even blatantly fraudulent takeowns, is to comply with the DMCA, which is rather a messed up system since creators from all around the world can take otther creators video down all around the world based on an American law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 15, 2018 17:56:21 GMT
Well, if we want to add this to our demands, we have to settle on a clear, legal and plausible solution. I don't see it, frankly. Audio copyrights is a mess and we can not expect YouTube to be the judge in this. Honestly I don't know how I would proceed if I was the YT CEO. I'd probably keep the current process.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 15, 2018 22:57:23 GMT
Ideally DMCA takedown should only block content from being shown in the US. I'm sure in practice it might have more legal complications but I'd like an explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 16, 2018 17:45:08 GMT
Well, if we want to add this to our demands, we have to settle on a clear, legal and plausible solution. I don't see it, frankly. Audio copyrights is a mess and we can not expect YouTube to be the judge in this. Honestly I don't know how I would proceed if I was the YT CEO. I'd probably keep the current process. Thank you for your input Joerg. I have had a small peek into the issues with permissions for covers and the whole system is ridiculously complex. I may have been in even more trouble if my video had included the synced footage of the performance, as that in itself requires a separate "syncing license" apparently. I can see now that YouTube do not have many options when dealing with this issue. It literally means, even if a baby in it's high chair, sings a song badly, and the bots recognise it, the video could receive a Content ID claim. These are copyright rules and outside YouTube's control. However, I think it is still in YouTube's interest to support their community as much as possible and figure out if some limits could be set somehow. It might be worth bringing this to them, just to see where they stand on the issue. But I defer to your judgement on whether to do so or not. I wouldn't want it to detract from the bigger "adpocalypse" issue. I really appreciate what you are doing by the way. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by gizmoetheclown on Mar 22, 2018 19:37:06 GMT
I had a hit yesterday on a karaoke video. The song that they reported and the actual song are completely different. It's like they can just pick a random video and say "Thats my song" and nobody even questions it. I'm seriously ready to find a new platform completely. YouTube is failing.
|
|
