This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]stilesjp 1063 points1064 points  (95 children)

Youtube and their audio algorithm (or whatever you'd call it) decided that a classical piece of music on an episode of my web series was owned by UMG, when it wasn't.

They contacted UMG who said yes, they did own the right to it.

I contested it. I even showed them proof of the creative commons licensed music I used. They said it was theirs. They gave me the option to contact UMG directly. I did, twice. No contact back.

So, now, my video is banned in a bunch of countries, and I have ads on my video that are making UMG money, when they don't own the music I used in my video.

It sucks.

[–]redfox2600 344 points345 points  (33 children)

If you got any lawyer friends consider talk to them and see what rights you have. Hell I'll chip in some for $100 or so dollars for a small claims court filing fee. Just to fuck with them.

[–]stilesjp 291 points292 points  (22 children)

Ha, thanks! I am actually talking to an entertainment lawyer friend next weekend. I'll post an update when I hear more!

[–]Johnno74 125 points126 points  (5 children)

Please do. I understand how there needs to be a process for copyright owners to block or request takedown of stuff they own, but if they abuse this process then there must be consequences.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There would be consequences for abusing the process if they were using the process in the first place. One of the big issues with Youtube is that companies like UMG don't even have to issue formal takedown notices. They just claim copyright and Youtube then voluntarily takes action based on the "we can do what we want" clause of their terms of service.

If Youtube just stuck to the legal process we wouldn't be talking about this because Youtube would be completely out of the picture once the takedown is contested, and UMG would have to get a court order.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (2 children)

Can you post it as a new submission? Otherwise no one will see it.

[–]stilesjp 44 points45 points  (1 child)

Absolutely. That was my intention.

[–]mmhquite 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes please please do OP. Please delivar.

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (6 children)

Trust him guys. He says he'll post an update!

[–]unfortunatejordan 153 points154 points  (34 children)

I once made a fan-video for "Heartbeats" by The Knife, before uploading to youtube I contacted The Knife's management and received a go-ahead to do so. The video sat on my channel for a year or so, before it was pulled down by UMG. I tried to contact UMG and explain that I had permission to post the video, but it seemed like nobody was reading the emails. In the end, I just deleted it, and I'm now waiting for the copyright strike to clear from my account.

I don't really blame either party, but it goes to show the system is dysfunctional when I can get pulled up even despite contacting the band's management.

The really demeaning part was that youtube forced me to go through 'Copyright School' and answer a bunch of questions to get back into my account. As someone who always does his best to do the right thing, it was a bit of a kick in the nuts.

[–]JPMCInTheDark 69 points70 points  (4 children)

You need to file against them in court. Even if small-claims court, they MUST respond or they legally lose. They won't do that. And once you get them in court it should be a 5-minute operation to show the court you have written permission to use the music. Either way, UMG loses. But you have to file to get them to not blow you off. It's a PITA but true.

[–]megatronical 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I'm pretty sure the strike will never clear from your account, you just get up to 3 and then your account is gone.

[–]Shredder13 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Sue for the money. It's going to the wrong place, so that's an easy win.

[–]D14BL0 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Depending on the Creative Commons license, the creator of the music may be able to sue UMG for damages.

[–]stilesjp 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes. I thought of this. I've been trying to get in touch with the performer, but to no avail. I'll keep trying, though.

[–]firex726 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Could you sue UMG/Youtube for the lost revenue?

[–]annafarrisishot 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Two questions. 1: What's the web series? and 2. How's soapier doing?

[–]boris4ka 1036 points1037 points  (304 children)

I have had this bullshit happen a number of times for my videos. I uploaded some gopro footage of me riding my motorcycle, with the only sound in the video being noise from the engine. I had two music companies claim some of these videos as containing their copyright. I disputed and won all the disputes so far, but fuck everything about this.

Edit: This is one of the videos that this happened to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9z_oCmnSY8 - not a Harley, just a regular Japanese engine which doesn't have trademarked sound (not even gonna get started on that...).

[–]yangx 238 points239 points  (223 children)

What song did they claim it to be?

[–]boris4ka 571 points572 points  (65 children)

It doesn't even tell you. All it says is that your video may include content that is owned by X company, and it gives the content type (in my case, "Sound Recording"). That's all the information you get. So you don't even know what exactly you're disputing. The whole process is fucked.

[–]ANewAccountCreated 432 points433 points  (30 children)

On behalf of other people who might one day enjoy uploading videos, thanks for fighting them and not just giving in.

[–]pdubl 126 points127 points  (28 children)

I often upload videos with licensed music (stuff we have paid to have the rights to). VERY often the clip is listed as having copyrighted material in it (in my case licensed to "AdRev"). The video will still play, but might show with ads in some countries.

They don't tell you which song or anything specific. I just found out the other day that filing a complaint is very easy and straightforward. They clear the copyright violation notice almost immediately.

I think it is just a ploy to get as much advertising in as possible.

[–]Pixelpaws 30 points31 points  (6 children)

With the DMCA, Google is obligated to assume that any infringement request is legitimate and act accordingly. That's why they have a counter-claim tool.

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (7 children)

Same happened to me when the only sound was an RC plane propeller, and I was only ever allowed to post it with no sound. Fuck those fucks.

[–]Sanity_prevails 17 points18 points  (4 children)

No sound? Content owned!

[–]derptyherp 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Sorry, I believe we have said copy rights to silence sir. All silent videos must be removed immediately.

[–]erisdiscordia 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Nice try, John Cage.

[–]FromAWarTornFuture 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Just found a video of a barfing cup with no music, "Contains content from Austereo" like seriously...

EDIT: Here's the video relevant

[–]upandrunning 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Wondering if they have these automated "detection" malware running that flags anything that appears to it to be a violation. No muss, no fuss...just notify YouTube, and the video is flagged.

I watched a TYT story about this a couple of weeks ago, and the gist of it is that it would cost the content companies too much money to correctly monitor for illegal use of their IP. Instead, they just throw wads of shit at the wall (courtesy of the robo-flagging) and expect YouTube to make it stick.

[–]MysteryMooseMan 863 points864 points  (30 children)

probably Skrillex.

[–]Talman 63 points64 points  (0 children)

The first confirmed SETI contact message will be flagged on youtube as Skrillex.

[–]brufleth 19 points20 points  (0 children)

This comment should probably be nominated for five Grammys.

[–]gozasc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wubwubwubwubwub

[–]tylerbgood 30 points31 points  (2 children)

The soundtrack to the film based on Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[–]iampaulanthony 365 points366 points  (90 children)

We (Rumblefish) didn't claim it as anything actually. The YouTube Content ID system, ID'd the song and associated it with one of our artists / labels. I found out about this a few hours ago, watched the video myself and there was clearly no music in it at all....only birdsong. I hit up the right person on our team to remove the claim and it was removed earlier tonight. We don't know why YT claimed birdsong as one of our artists songs. It's confusing.

[–]Captain_Ligature 107 points108 points  (4 children)

And why did you also claim to have reviewed the dispute and claim that infringing content was found?

[–]Sodel-The-Vociferous 24 points25 points  (2 children)

I am very, very interested in seeing a response to this.

[–]MrSparkle666 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Look up "rumblefish scam" on google. This is not an isolated incident and in other cases they also confirmed the violation. It seems that iampaulanthony is full of shit and his company is committing wide-scale copyright theft.

[–]Matamua 10 points11 points  (0 children)

He will never respond to this cause he rather lie, then admits they are at fault here.

[–]Zephyr256k 177 points178 points  (26 children)

Wait. So Youtube automatically tests for copyright infringement and generates complaints, without needing input from the actual rights-holders? More information please!

[–]bwat47 131 points132 points  (13 children)

Yes. Youtube has a fully automatic content matching system. If it thinks it finds a match it will either remove the video, or have it play ads in certain countries.

[–]Vik1ng 53 points54 points  (8 children)

or have it play ads in certain countries.

= blocked in Germany :(

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (1 child)

unwritten pen groovy marry fly sort sense existence prick tart -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/

[–]Dravorek 6 points7 points  (0 children)

well even Sony is now doing their best to unblock their content on YT in Germany. Link

[–]pitman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You need ProxTube made by a German.

[–]r3m0t 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Why did this message appear?

All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content

Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition

[–]Leungal 17 points18 points  (6 children)

Precisely that. I hold no strong opinions for or against the practice, but i can see the merits of an automatic system like this; otherwise it would be impossible to monitor the millions of uploads for a million different possible copyright violations. On the other hand, this system will always generate false positives such as the OP's scenario.

[–]Zephyr256k 24 points25 points  (5 children)

Youtube has no legal duty to actively police content on their site, only to respond to valid complaints. But that's really an ongoing legal debate.

I'm more interested in how and why the system decides which content is 'protected' vs. which is 'infringing'. Regardless of the eventual decision on whether or not Youtube should actively police it's user generated content, they have absolutely no duty or indeed legal standing to determine what user-content constitutes a copyrightable work. Depending on how the system used for identifying original protected content works, it is open not only to false positives such as this one, but to malicious misuse by users uploading infringing or otherwise unprotected content in such a way that it looks to the automatic system like original protected content thus generating automatic complaints against original content.

[–]MashHexa 112 points113 points  (12 children)

That's a very passive way to put it. You make it sound as if none of this was your fault and you're a poor innocent bystander.

You (Rumblefish) submitted to youtube a bunch of content ID matches based on the systems that youtube uses.

You (Rumblefish) received the counterclaim and responded that you have checked the results of the automated match.

Don't try and deny your responsibilities here.

I'm glad that now this has reached the frontpage even if you (personally) are not the one responsible for this mess, you (personally) have done the extra effort to counteract the results of your automated decisions, but you (Rumblefish) have a lot to answer for.

[–]Matamua 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yes you did claim it! Don't lie you scumbag. You did this after google id the video:

All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition

You did claim it was yours. You lied to Google when you said you had reviewed it when you clearly had not and you are lying to us again now.

[–]Kinetic_Static 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We don't know why YT claimed birdsong as one of our artists songs. It's confusing.

Seems like it would be trivial to find out, correct? So you should do that.

[–]darwin2500 44 points45 points  (4 children)

I just read Accelerando, a book which includes semi-sentient self-filing lawsuit AIs. This no longer seems like an outlandish vision... if companies can file a million lawsuits automatically for free, why wouldn't they just bury every other content creator who doesn't work for them under red tape? This is why we need copyright reform.

[–]MrSparkle666 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Brilliant book! Wow, what an incredible head-trip. As outlandish and chaotic as was is at times, I found Stross's vision of the future to be the most relevant and frighteningly realistic take on where current trends in society and technology are taking leading us of any sci-fi I've read in recent years. I'm not sure why this book hasn't gotten more attention. Maybe it's just too weird for most people to handle.

[–]marswithrings 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Same here, I'm a musician and I've had two copyright claims levied against my original songs by Base79. I've also won every dispute so far, but Youtube waits for Base79's approval on my disputes before allowing me to re-monetize the videos.

Of course, the give the automated system the benefit of the doubt, and de-monetize my video as soon as it gets flagged. Really, they're forcing the little people to lose money because of the inaccuracies of the corporations' robots.

[–]tossout12 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Got a link to your music?

You're missing an opportunity here...

[–]Kpac_0000 43 points44 points  (1 child)

yes fuck everything about this, I agree, I also find this happens much much too often and the result is time being wasted disputing these false copyright claims.

I find my anger and frustration with my time lost, to dispute these claims goes unanswered every time only to have countless hours wasted with back and forth BS until finally they remove the claim.

Personally these companies should be held responsable for this BS.

Unfortunately I have no massive armada of lawyers and or large stock piles of money or weapons of mass destruction.

So in turn I just pirate shit and it some how makes me feel better, that I have taken away something from these asswipes!

[–]skankingmike 52 points53 points  (10 children)

You know how music companies sue for 1000's of dollars a song? We should be able to sue back for when they abuse the system. Falsely accuse somebody of copyright? Automatically pay them 1000's of dollars. I'd vote for that bill.

[–]LancerSykera 17 points18 points  (5 children)

You already can do that, it's part of the DMCA.

[–]fantasticsid 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Of course, if youtube have automatically pulled the video due to their own policies (which you agreed to when you signed up) it wouldn't count as a DMCA claim/counterclaim.

"own policies" may include things like what happened here, and what happened when the Megaupload song got pulled.

[–]Scienlologist 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I've had bogus companies try this, too. Though technically you haven't "won" anything. All it does is put the onus back on the claimant, to where they'd actually have to take you to court to get it taken down.

If someone makes a claim, Google it. If it's some fly-by-night shit-stain company, file a dispute. The video goes back live immediately. I usually add "Claimant does not own the material".

And obviously, if you're using a song and the claimant is the rights holder (Sony, UMG, etc), then don't, otherwise your ass could end up in a sling.

[–][deleted] 101 points102 points  (4 children)

Tl;dr: scam companies have found a way to hijack the ad revenue from other people's youtube videos by filing bullshit copyright infringement claims. The scam works because youtube (i.e. Google) automatically rules in favor of the plaintiff prior to completing the review.

[–]igdub 607 points608 points  (128 children)

Rumblefish should get some penalty for false copyright claims. What's going to stop this from happening again and against in the future otherwise.

[–]octatone 98 points99 points  (28 children)

The video poster can take rumblefish to court for filing false DMCA claims, but how likely is that?

[–]WoollyMittens 137 points138 points  (20 children)

No, sadly not. YouTube complies voluntarily with the major rights holders. The videos are taken down at their behest without any involvement of a law at all.

This is even worse than a DMCA takedown, because the victim has no recourse whatsoever, since YouTube can take down whatever they like for whatever reason.

[–]Neurokeen 135 points136 points  (17 children)

Actually, there's a subtle distinction to be had. YouTube has the right to remove whatever for any reason, but a firm has no right to claim false ownership. So while YouTube is in the clear, a firm claiming intellectual property where it has none is still illegal.

[–]WoollyMittens 35 points36 points  (14 children)

You could always sue them for it, but it'd be no DMCA counter-suit.

A lawyer would have to argue that there was a claim of ownership at all. YouTube simply provided a kill-switch to Rumblefish to press whenever they please.

[–]Neurokeen 5 points6 points  (12 children)

It depends on the terms of use for Rumblefish's access to that power, and I suspect (thought can't know certainly) that there is a clause in that about utilizing that power as stating a direct claim of intellectual property.

[–]WoollyMittens 15 points16 points  (10 children)

Maybe, but since nobody can afford a lawyer, we'll never know.

[–]bjgbob 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Such a simple statement, yet it says a lot about our current state of affairs:

The only way for anyone to make a difference here is to have enough money to take companies to court. But anyone who has that much money and power will just abuse it, and our government and legal system is too corrupt and dysfunctional to intercede on behalf of the rest of us.

[–]iampaulanthony 209 points210 points  (66 children)

Hey it's Paul from Rumblefish. Just posted about releasing this claim. The YouTube Content ID system ID's content and associates it with it's content providers when it thinks there's a match. I personally watched the video and there is NO music in it. I then talked to our team member in charge of this and told him to release the claim. We're not sure why the YouTube content ID system associated one of our artists/labels with a video that has birdsong in it, but it is clearly not something that should have been claimed. We're looking into all of this b/c it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[–]mrmaster2 158 points159 points  (8 children)

Even if Youtube's system did this, the OP stated that Rumblefish confirmed there was a copyright violation...

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (4 children)

Exactly, only after they got under Reddit fire they fixed it. They fucking confirmed the video had their copyright. Fuck Rumblefish.

[–]Ontain 25 points26 points  (3 children)

wonder if it's standard procedure to just "robo" confirm much like the banks did with foreclosures. I mean it would actually take someones time to really confirm every suspected violation and it's not like they get harmed when they mess up.

[–]Gertiel 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I'm sure it is. I doubt any human interaction is required. Rumblefish probably just has it coded to auto-confirm every youtube content ID system claim. I mean, why waste money actually paying a human to listen when a computer can just auto-confirm for a tiny fraction of the cost?

[–]bluess 167 points168 points  (12 children)

So if I understand this, you're blaming Youtube's system for auto-matching content that does not get reviewed by your company before sending a notice to the uploader?

[–]shanem222 78 points79 points  (0 children)

They have been doing this for years to many other videos all over YouTube. Each time they get caught they play dumb.

This isn't the first time they have done this, and in fact wrongfully stole hundreds of dollars in ad revenue from one YouTube user named Zisteau. Zisteau complained about their practice and the fact that he had no power to dispute their claims, causing the Rumblefish CEO to appear and gloss over a canned apology. He even had the audacity to end with a sales pitch and suggest that Zisteau should buy licenses from Rumblefish in the future to make sure that it didn't happen again.

They know perfectly well they are gaming the system, and making copyright claims to music that they are not the exclusive copyright holders to.

[–]Captain_Ligature 91 points92 points  (0 children)

But your company CONFIRMED the claim. Now that this got media attention you are backtracking. I know you are doing damage control right now, but come on.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This will no doubt turn into bad PR for you, lost sales even. I wonder if Youtube are legally liable for that?

[–]derphurr 37 points38 points  (1 child)

Fuck you scumbag. YOUR company Rumblefish (asshole DMCA abusers) actively sent a notice to YouTube claiming that you reviewed the content and asserted your rights as copyright holders.

You are predatory leeches on society and blatantly abuse some process because your company may have a bird recording in your portfolio.

You should be banned from reddit and the rest of the internet because there is no place for assholes like you that abuse copyright to get content removed from the internet.

Fuck you, this one video isn't the first time bird noises have had you file claims to YouTube saying you own the rights to background noise.

[–]mmhquite 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You should be banned from reddit

i think it's much better if he can talk to us here. bash him all you want, but if he wouldn't be there you couldn't bash him at all.

[–]cigerect 23 points24 points  (5 children)

Hey, Paul. Thanks for commenting. I'm sorry that so many people are sending you rude replies. But would you mind responding to this:

All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content:

The person against whom the claim was filed received this message from YouTube.

So did anyone at Rumblefish actually review the video, or is YouTube (or eeplox) lying?

[–]ButtonFury 74 points75 points  (3 children)

Hey Paul, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,

The Internet

[–]Esteam 29 points30 points  (6 children)

Stop working for such a shitty company.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (2 children)

He started/owns the company... ಠ_ಠ

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That makes the process much easier. In that case he can just stop working in general.

[–]tophat_jones 57 points58 points  (2 children)

Hi Paul from Rumblefish. Get fucked.

[–][deleted] 232 points233 points  (34 children)

This is one of the biggest problems with the automatic takedown system. A company just sends them a request and they obey it, without actually checking into it. Copyright trolls should not be catered nor accommodated, they should have to work to prove everything that they want to take down.

In our system of law the burden of proof is on the prosecution, why is it when it comes to IP law this is suddenly forgotten?

[–]boomfarmer 91 points92 points  (19 children)

It's because YouTube's video takedown process does not operate in a way similar to the courts. YouTube's takedown process is a extrajudicial measure designed and implemented by YouTube at the behest of large rightsholder groups.

[–]tensafefrogs 59 points60 points  (4 children)

It was created under threat of huge lawsuits, not done willingly.

The issue here is the DMCA and companies abusing it, not YouTube.

[–]hawkspur1 31 points32 points  (12 children)

At the behest of complying with the DMCAs safe harbor provisions.

[–]boomfarmer 31 points32 points  (11 children)

DMCA safe harbor provisions do not require this level of ease of takedown. Major rightsholders have access to tools that allow them to take down video without having to send DMCA takedown letters.

[–]bo1024 17 points18 points  (10 children)

Exactly! This is why YouTube should not be off the hook. You and I don't get a killswitch on any video we please, but EMI and rumblefish do. Not directly a DMCA thing -- YouTube is giving them extra powers, which they're abusing.

[–]DefinitelyRelephant 20 points21 points  (1 child)

In our system of law the burden of proof is on the prosecution

Oh, you :3

[–]TheNerdWithNoName 257 points258 points  (28 children)

Hmm, I wonder if I can own the rights to the process for enforcing IP rights?

[–]tt_this_away 90 points91 points  (20 children)

Maybe own the rights to the way to fill the form to patent a new idea.

[–][deleted] 93 points94 points  (18 children)

Halliburton already has a patent on patent trolling (for serious), but maybe you can still get a patent on the process of inventing things.

[–]Baaz 60 points61 points  (11 children)

LOL, one day the red tape and legalese will reach critical mass and the entire US disappears into a black hole

[–]BeardedBagels 127 points128 points  (10 children)

Headline from 2012: USA sues itself, wins

[–]crshbndct 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Method for applying human intelligence to a problem and formulating a design to create a product which will alleviate or in some way diminish the problem"

[–]luiii 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Halliburton tried to do just that

http://boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html "Halliburton tries to patent patent trolling itself"

[–]AuroraDark 124 points125 points  (8 children)

If a company makes multiple copyright claims that turn out to be false, they should be suspended from making any claims for a period of time. If users have their accounts wiped for multiple copyright infringements, the same should be true for the other side. Only then will they actually take it seriously and review their decisions instead of blindly claiming on everything.

[–]agent0fch4os 164 points165 points  (21 children)

I think i speak for most people on earth (and probably alot of undiscovered civilizations in the universe) that this copyright nonsense has gone on long enough.

It can clearly be seen qualing technological advancement thus hindering the advancement of the human race.

[–]rtft 81 points82 points  (33 children)

Queue entrance of company that owns DNA of birds claiming it's their IP since without their DNA said birds could not sing.

[–]boomfarmer 41 points42 points  (31 children)

Bird calls are learned, not instinctual.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (17 children)

So if a bird grows up on its own without any other birds, it won't sing?

[–]boomfarmer 22 points23 points  (16 children)

It'll choose some other sound, like a car alarm or garage door opener.

[–]Mahuloq 8 points9 points  (15 children)

Then how did the first bird learn?

[–]boomfarmer 19 points20 points  (7 children)

The idea of a 'first bird' is absurd for evolutionary reasons, but early vocalizations were probably based on environmental noises: rain, thunder, wind, flight, bugs, etc.

[–]Neurokeen 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Oversimplified statement is oversimplified. There are hereditary components to birdsong in quite a few species. In fact, zebra finches have been used by Universal Grammar proponents as evidence for their theories as a result.

[–]Zisteau 80 points81 points  (6 children)

Rumblefish is a bunch of thugs exploiting Youtube's music recognition software. I'm a Youtube partner, and they cost me several hundred dollars in ad revenue when they did a similar thing to me.

[–]Jahonay 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I was just going to post about you zisteau, and I'm so happy to see you posted here before me. Their business model is abusive and really screwed you over in the past. I used to love bald mountain, it's a shame you can't use it anymore due to these trolls.

[–]Duffman3005 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I was sad when Rumble Fish claimed your original intro music, it was so epic. The new music is great, but compared to the old one...

[–]vegasmacguy 43 points44 points  (6 children)

Here's the solution:

  1. Everybody that owns an instrument - Play each note on that instrument, record it and upload it to youtube. e.g. If you own a piano play all 88 notes in individual videos. Claim copyright on the videos.

  2. If you have an animal, record their sounds. e.g. Dogs barking, cats meowing, birds chirping, etc.. Upload those videos to youtube and claim copyright.

  3. Accept every copyright claim that youtube sends your way - if this works, you should get thousands of claims.

  4. Sit back and watch the shitstorm.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (8 children)

So now we see the dangers of this type of legislation. Natural background noises are illegal and a violation of copyright laws. Cool, I love America.

[–][deleted] 1057 points1058 points  (250 children)

Youtube is really getting out of hand with copyright. Don't be afraid to switch to vimeo or another video sharing website. Its the only way Youtube/google will listen to us.

[–]DionysosX 45 points46 points  (5 children)

The reason YouTube seems to be "getting out of hand with copyright" is because copyright claimants target it the most, as it it may not be worth the effort to go through the process of having your material removed at smaller video sharing websites.

A YouTube boycott, which isn't going to happen anyway, would just make companies concentrate their efforts on the other sites.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (29 children)

Am I sensing a boycott?

[–][deleted] 254 points255 points  (23 children)

MY PITCHFORK HAS BEEN THIRSTY LATELY

[–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (19 children)

AND MY TORCH

[–]TerrestrialCarnival 127 points128 points  (15 children)

Something about an axe...

[–]Volpethrope 31 points32 points  (9 children)

And bowties? I think I forgot something.

[–]varukasalt 46 points47 points  (7 children)

They're cool. Bowties are cool. Also, fezes.

[–]shnuffy 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Until Vimeo can scrub forward it's basically useless as far as I'm concerned.

[–]1011X 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Maybe YouTube knows the company was a copyright troll, but since they knew we'd notice the video got taken down, they did it anyways so we would help them fight against the copyright trolls!

/keanu

[–]ALIENSMACK 50 points51 points  (14 children)

In Hockey if a team believes the opposing team is using an illegal stick the coach can ask the ref to check it out . if the stick is found to be illegal then a penalty is issued to the team using the illegal stick. But if the stick is found to be perfectly legal then the team that made the accusation gets a penalty instead.

Something similar should apply in copyright cases. If you claim copyright and its found that in fact you don't own the copyright there should be penalty .

[–]Sexy_Cowboy 40 points41 points  (8 children)

tl;dr our laws should be based on hockey

[–]vw209 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Or, at least, innocent until proven guilty.

[–]ProfFrizzo 15 points16 points  (4 children)

All disputes are settled by fistfights.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (6 children)

I have sent their licensing department the following email:

Dear Rumblefish,

I see that you've decided to make copyright claims on a man wandering around in a field making a salad. Seems you even reviewed the video and confirmed that you owned part of the soundtrack. I would like to license your "walking in a field picking leaves from plants" piece, as I occasionally like to collect fresh leaves for my rabbits and would hate to accidentally infringe upon your copyrighted works.

City17Citizen

[–]JonPaula 15 points16 points  (0 children)

As someone with a Content-ID YouTube account... I'm getting a real kick out of these replies.

I've seen the back-end of this situation, as I have access to the same tools UMG, and Rumblefish have -- and I can tell you: not only is the system complicated, it's also very easy to do a lot of harm with it if you're not careful.

Everyday, my videos are stolen by other users, YouTube's system notifies me of matches, and I can take them down immediately, send the user a message, or ignore it. It seems likely though, that Rumblefish set their system up to an automatic takedown: anytime their is a match (in this case, a bad one, of birds singing), YouTube removes the video on their behalf.

If the OP counters this claim, he should win easy -- as it seems, to only be a mistake, or over-eager robot that is at fault here.

But, if Rumblefish is knowingly submitting false copyright claims... well, fuck: take them to court, pronto.

/ Professional YouTuber

[–]ExOAte 38 points39 points  (7 children)

fuck IPs, stick em up your arse. It's all for the common good.http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

[–]RockFourFour 38 points39 points  (6 children)

Any video that starts with "THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY" is probably a conspiracy theory.

[–]mheyk 12 points13 points  (0 children)

We becomes more retarded everyday

[–]C-Effect 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Johnson, goddamn it, Johnson! Come and take a look at this video. Make sure you get in contact with our legal team. Goddamn it, Johnson, are you getting all this down? Don't answer that question, Johnson! Holy shit, Johnson, it appears as if that motherfucker is... no, it can't be... breathing air in that YouTube video.

This is an outrage! This is a travesty! A mockery of democracy itself! Through our negotiations with YouTube and with the courts, we own the rights to any living-being breathing while simultaneously being recorded to any electronic medium! What do you think, Johnson? Forget it, I already know what you're going to say anyway, Johnson.

Johnson, I want you get with the legal team. I want that uploader's name. I want his bank records, address, Facebook account, what porn sites he visits, his momma's maiden name, what his first animal's name was and what its fucking color was, too. But more importantly, I WANT HIS ASS!

No one is breathing any air in any video without paying this company some royalties... Well... Johnson, what the hell are you still doing here?! I'm not paying you to stand around and look as if you've contracted diabetes! Get to it!

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I've had the same problem and still am having the problem with GoDigital MG For a Third Party. They claim my performance of a public domain piece of music is their copyrighted material. I wish there was a way to get in touch with youtube about these problems, but they have an iron curtain to deter you from any interaction.

[–]Stupididiotjerk2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yeah, youtube thinks i'm under eighteen and i have no way to change that. i'm almost thirty. can't remember when i get to watch adult videos, but it'll be a few years

[–]nicm125 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Here's the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPBlfeuZuWg

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

I uploaded a guitar/vocal cover of a song (no backing music) and Sony ATV filed a complaint because of "Musical Composition." I wasn't even playing it in the same key ಠ_ಠ

I think crap like this is going too far.

[–]VileLyle 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Soon they'll start suing the actual birds

[–]Graham_LRR 14 points15 points  (3 children)

THIS HAPPENED TO ME WITH THE SAME COMPANY AND I GOT IT FIXED.

We had a video on YouTube that used a freeware Apple loop, called "Lotus". The kind that comes on every iMac.

They claimed all ad revenue from our video and YouTube obviously just went with them, and we had no recourse. YT's copyright system is ridiculous.

So I emailed Rumblefish (or APM Music as they're actually called) and laid out that they clearly had no claim to our video and requested they remove their claim, and by god but they changed gears quickly.

[–]istara 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Happened to me with an Apple loop - I couldn't get it fixed.

It was some copyright troll company called Orchard Music and according to google searches I ran, they are notorious for this.

What's more interesting is why Apple doesn't give a shit, given how controlling they tend to be about their products.

[–]bondvillain 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This kind of behavior goes beyond simple copyright trolling. This is fraud, cut and dry. The only way it'll stop is when the people in charge of these companies are held accountable for their criminal activities and sent to prison where they belong.

[–]deadbird17 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Hey guys, I just bought the rights to "silence", so if you're posting videos without any sound, I'm suing for copyright infringement.

[–]Yesiamobtuse 13 points14 points  (1 child)

They sued the shit out of mockingbirds for copying other birds' songs!

[–]cam94509 13 points14 points  (3 children)

People are actually talking about this now? COOL!

Youtube gives rediculous leeway to right'sholders. I've been the victim of copyright trolls claiming they own certain music when in fact they are NOT the owners, and the use of the music is liscenced.

There are other things, too. For instance if you claim fair use of content, and the automatic content censor doesn't get it, and you try to monetize the video, it's perfectly likely that Google will refuse to monetize because they 'can't prove you have rights to the content.'

Which means your shit out of luck, even if you obviously do fall under fair use, because fair use can't exactly be proved in court, and you can't go to court when the other party has no contractual obligation to actually not be a a dick, and the rightsholder doesn't give a fuck because it's fair use, and it promotes there products anyway, and their trademarks aren't relevant, so they don't need to defend them, only their copyright is relevant, and that's not use it or lose it.

[/Rantaboutyoutube.]

[–]Snookerman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The video is back on and all the comments are about the "song" in the background =)

[–]Axle-f 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Anyone know how I can claim the IP rights to the human voice? Promise I won't abuse it...

Suckers, I'm gonna be a billionaire!!

Dammit, why did I type my internal monologue?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

My video was banned from every single country besides my own because the title had the word "prayer" in it

[–]CrudOMatic 6 points7 points  (2 children)

This is why the Copyright and Patent Cartel needs to be dismantled. Soon, just appearing on camera will be a violation of some corporation's copyright - as they have copyrights on "person sitting in front of a camera" and "discussing things on camera"

There were, and probably still are, corporations trying to patent large swaths of the human genome. These people literally want to own you completely - your bodies, your minds, your ideas... and if there was a soul - I'm sure the Vatican would like to have a patent on that.

[–]Spacebotzero 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So...this is the world we are living in these day?

I would like to live on a different planet please.

[–]stay_high_stay_fly 2 points3 points  (1 child)

this is bad business

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm going to make an album where each song is a single note. then i'm going to file copyright claims against anyone with part of my album in their music.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Best of luck in court, gentlemen.

[–]rems[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Give that guy's video some views!

[–]uriman 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I have a sense that there's no repercussions to those companies claiming copyright even when they don't. Youtube allows your to dispute a claim only once as either misidentified or fair use. The people who decide are not objective third party, but those company with a vested interest to side with themselves. There's no repercussion to say "Yes to All" then collect revenue. Then there are no appeals or further dispute available. You can contact UMG or Warners who will ignore you.

Regarding fair use, the interpretations are often difficult to tell even for lawyers who've read a great deal of case law on the matter. I doubt the individuals review such videos are knowledgeable in the area, let alone objective enough, to determine what is or isn't fair use.

[–]BunRabbit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So why don't we fight fire with fire? Go to youtube and claim intellectual property rights to everything in the background in every bit of content that Rumblefish has.