EFF Lawyer Calls YouTube ContentID Worse Than DMCA 219
Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID comes up with as potential infringement. We knew that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks about how, as bad as the DMCA process is — and it's pretty firmly against fair-use — YouTube's process gives remixers and digital creators even fewer options to assert their right to speak through the fair use of copyright material. While EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."
Alternative? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there an alternative that's as easy to use and allows embedding of the videos on other sites?
Crazy Thought! (Score:1, Interesting)
Learn to play an instrument, write something, film your own original movie. Copy/paste is not art.
Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them
They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.
Accidental plagiarism (Score:5, Interesting)
Learn to play an instrument, write something
And get sued for accidental plagiarism. George Harrison got sued and lost (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music). Michael Bolton got sued and lost (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton).
Given that YouTube is pissing money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Under Penalty of Perjury... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
IANAL, but it seems obvious to me that misrepresenting something that is clearly fair use as something that isn't means that the notification was NOT accurate. Therefore, the law firm representing the copyright holder (and possibly the copyright holder themselves) should have charges of perjury filed against them. I haven't seen the EFF file any countersuits like this yet, though...
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:4, Interesting)
This started with the cult of the Baroque composer. Check this. [bepress.com] (warning: PDF)
Johann Sebastian Bach was often criticized in later (post-18th-Century) critical literature for "borrowing" from other composers. If he or his son Johann Christian were starting out today, they'd be mixers, not composers.
Scale of the takedowns (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now there are over 22,000 search results, the highest I've seen it was 300,000+ search results, meaning overall YouTube appear to have silenced over well over 1/3 million videos (and probably then removed most of them).
ran across some of this earlier today (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Write up your experience with filing your counter-claim. Add an easy to understand explanation of what DMCA is and why it's bad. The key is easy to understand and follow.
Post it to a blog or website. Report back to slashdot and we can distribute it among young YouTubers.
Education + youthful resentment of authority + Gen Y/Gen Z entitlement - Music videos == digital revolt.
They Must Be Running Low on Funds (Score:2, Interesting)
The EFF always slips into high melodrama mode when they need to raise funds. Slashdot has served as one of their principal PR platforms perennially. It's pathetic and smarmy, but it's nothing new.
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:2, Interesting)
But it is creative. Or I should say, it can be creative. [thru-you.com] That song did not exist until Kutiman made it. Not one of the videos he used were that song, they were their own songs (and in some cases just sounds), but not the one he created.
Re:Alternative? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're just send takedown notices anyway.
Re:Accidental plagiarism (Score:2, Interesting)
Per the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], that song's copyright status is extremely dubious, and they could have simply used Good Morning To You, which is most certainly in the Public Domain and merely has a quarter note where Happy Birthday has two eighth-notes. That is, so long as they don't use the lyrics.
Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (Score:5, Interesting)
unfortunately, you're at the mercy of whatever low-paid operator they have looking at those.
Other posters are correct though, the DMCA is too broad by miles, but Google couldn't run YouTube without the compliance laws. As long as Google continues to take down THEY stay out of court.
I think Google might be planning a coup soon though. Remember things like ContentID are designed for studios to police there own works because Google wasn't doing "enough". Google's making it dead easy to identify copyrighted works, but on the other hand they're setting the content publishers up to take a big fall. They say 37% of the DMCA notices are inappropriate or incorrect... the CONTENT OWNER is expected to know fair use rules too. Once Google can demonstrate a clear pattern that publishers aren't respecting fair uses they can take that mountain of data to court with them... with all those companies names on it and put some feet to the fire to get the laws changed.
Re:It's pretty sad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)