YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music 730
New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."
Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
Complete bold-faced lie.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.
I kind of doubt that's it. I mean sure, they get a cut of the ads, but YouTube actually has to care about what YouTube users think. There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.
It seems to me more likely that the entertainment industry is behind it. Recall that YouTube has been trying to get Hollywood to let it compete with Hulu. Of course, Hollywood is run by tyrannical despots who claim to own everything anyone has ever created, so this sort of behavior is right up their alley. And, Hollywood has never cared one lick what the users think about it.
I mean think about it: Who is more likely to demand something user hostile? A company that makes its living based on users liking its service better than those of competitors, or a cartel that makes its money by filing lawsuits and screwing artists out of contractually agreed royalties?
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Until there's a reasonable alternative, people aren't going to "stop posting new videos".
YouTube's revenue is now all about their deals with other content providers, because their ad revenue is going to stay pretty stable (or go up).
This story, about Rumblefish claiming to represent the owner of the rights to a birdsong makes me sick. I think the target of our anger should be Rumblefish entirely. They're the bullies. They're the bad guys.
This is only partly a job for Anonymous. I don't know who Rumblefish really represents, but I'm guessing that somewhere down the line is someone who cares what the public thinks. Maybe it's a record label who has an artist who makes them a lot of money. A targeted campaign directed at that artist might well make an impression.
We're just going to have to make an example of some people to make doing business the way Rumblefish does business unacceptable. I don't know enough about them to know who to target, but unless we cause some pain somewhere, nobody's going to care. We have seen wealthy, powerful organizations brought to heel recently by public outrage. We're going to have to unleash holy hell on somebody, somewhere.
You're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to think like the big boys.
Sue Rumblefish for $150,000 for each time your video is played with their advertising on it.
Even better, file as a class action, that way you and your lawyer get paid for every case of Rumblefish doing this, and everyone else gets a coupon.
Re:You're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dummy, if "some lawyers" can do a good enough job to win a class action lawsuit and turn Rumblefish into a smoking crater, then they have earned the money.
The "youtube users" weren't getting any money anway, so who cares if they still don't get money? The guy in this story just wanted to put up a nice video of him walking in the woods. He wasn't looking for "any money".
I guess Rumblefish is just going to have to decide they own the name "Linux" and all distros and force every repository to shut down and force all distros of Linux to carry an indelible advertisement for Windows 8 before some people are going to wake up and realize how urgent this is.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Ack! I wish this hadn't been marked as "Insightful," although I understand why ... there have been a lot of shitty plays in the copyright world, and there are some big organizations that are clearly threatened by the Internet and Internet culture. Righthaven and others have (rightfully) made a lot of people very skeptical.
But ... that's not what we do. :) Rumblefish works specifically for independent artists, not labels or rights organizations. The company has been around for over a decade, helping get independent music placed in films, advertisements, etc. It's still a very small company -- the founder and owner (also a musician) has posted here on the thread, and I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together (IANAL, but I am the Lead Architect -- look me up on the Rumblefish website).
It sucks when things don't go right, especially when it's such a hot button issue, and we're really interested in doing the right thing -- both for independent musicians and video creators. We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video. We're here in the thread to answer questions.
Believe me ... everyone wins when good music is inexpensive and readily available on YouTube.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the kind of thing that can be put down to an honest mistake.
The claim that it had been reviewed by the content owner is obviously false becaue it's actually impossible for you to have done so.
You lie, and you lie systematically.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible that the "reviews" were done by an automated system on their side, which would be bad.
It is also possible that the "reviews" were done by a lazy human on their side who if there is any justice in the world, is in the process of being fired.
If the former case is true, it was a bad business model by the company which is now coming back to bite them.
If the latter case is true, then the company representatives posting here may just be decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Either way, I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt. If the bogus infringement notices continue after this, we can break out the pitchforks and torches - otherwise it can be counted as a lesson learned.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
All the emoticons typed since the internet began won't change the fact that this is, in fact, what you do. Your company is engaging in scummy behavior and you're defending it with a shrug off "It sucks when things don't go right."
Oh, I just quoted you. Maybe you can come after slashdot for the ad revenue whenever someone reads my post.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
And look at Righthaven today.
"As of November 2011, the company's assets are subject to confiscation by the US Marshals Service due to expired debts from legal fees to a successful defendant.[6] In January 2012, its domain name, righthaven.com, was sold at auction to an undisclosed purchaser to help satisfy its debts.[7]" h/t Wikipedia
This isn't going to be a short war. It's going to have to be something we're going to fight over and over and over. But even when it's asymmetrical warfare, there is a boundary condition after which certain business models just aren't worth the hassle. You find some names to drag through the mud, and you keep dragging them through the mud until it becomes a media story, and then they over-react with a libel suit or something and then it's game over, we win.
Do you understand that this "Rumblefish", these slimy pieces of shit who are probably well-known child molestors (the reason for their secrecy), do you understand that they forced Google to take down a completely original piece of work, something that somebody made, that contained no copyrighted material just by claiming it was theirs.
They do this and there's nothing that's safe. Even if you own something and you've got a piece of paper saying you own something, they can just clap their hands and take it away.
Rumblefish endangers every artist, every musician, every writer. They do not respect the rule of law, or even what's right. They just take what they want. And in this case, Google is complicit. So there we go: Google. Maybe it would make Google uncomfortable to be associated with these (alleged) child-molesting creeps at Rumblefish, but the least we can do is hang it around their necks to see how they react.
I read a lot of yadda yadda about how "big government" is taking away our rights and all about the "second amendment" and how big tough-talking freedom-loving Libertarian gun owners are going to face down anybody who's gonna threaten their liberties. Well here it is, you simple fucks. Here it is. Big as life and twice as ugly. If some faceless company can decide that, no, you don't really own those things you made with your own two hands, they belong to us, then your Second Amendment sacred right to feel manly with some shootin' iron don't mean a goddamn thing.
Now we find out who talks about liberty and who does something.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Interesting)
And look at Righthaven today.
"As of November 2011, the company's assets are subject to confiscation by the US Marshals Service due to expired debts from legal fees to a successful defendant.[6] In January 2012, its domain name, righthaven.com, was sold at auction to an undisclosed purchaser to help satisfy its debts.[7]" h/t Wikipedia
It gets better. [techdirt.com]
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why we should go to the company directly:
http://rumblefish.com/about-us.php [rumblefish.com]
Email them and let them know that as a potential customer and citizen you find their behavior unacceptable.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Or tell them that, while you cannot boycott them any more than you already do, their behaviour just earned The Pirate Bay or EFF another donation.
Supporting organizations who don't believe in copyright such as The Pirate Bay does not help protect copyright holders such as the YouTube video submitter. I don't wan The Pirate Bay profiting from my work any more than I want rumblefish profiting from my work.
In fact I think on principle Rumblefish is doing precisely what we as consumers and content producers have been demanding from the media industry: innovative ways for them to profit from their work.
What Rumblefish does is allow artists to profit from YouTube videos through YouTube ad revenue. Nobody gets sued, people can post their home videos with copyrighted music for free and the artists get paid. That's an excellent solution to the desires of consumers and content producers.
The *PROBLEM* is that Rumblefish is claiming copyright on other people's work. That's completely unacceptable--it's piracy. And that's what needs to be stopped.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
"The *PROBLEM* is that Rumblefish is claiming copyright on other people's work. That's completely unacceptable--it's piracy. And that's what needs to be stopped."
They need to be fined the same amount, or more, that any normal citizen would be fined for an act of piracy. But of course that's not going to happen, Rumblefish gets the high court treatment. Notice how they have CNBC at the bottom of their page, like I said, they get the high court treatment. They won't get fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per infringement, that only applies to us commoners.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Informative)
Let them!
Our local government is having budgetary fits right now. We are even laying off teachers,
We all are paying stiff property tax for our homes. But its not enough.
Corporations have spent boku bucks to have their rights to ideas, even music, dealt with as property.
Its high time the whole benefit of property ownership be awarded. Including the benefit of property taxes.
There are many things I would like to have, but the expense of having them makes it not worth having it.
Why would I want an elephant if it comes with a need to feed it, house it, and care for it, even if I can charge neighborhood kids a buck to ride it?
When I say our "Pledge of Allegiance", it starts off with my committment to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag... and ends with "Justice for All".
If MY property is being taxed, why are "they" getting off scot-free?
If its MY property, I have the right to tell others they can't have it. If THEY have the right to tell me I can't have it, then its their property.
So, I am not complaining about anyone's rights, I am just saying I pay for my rights and expect everyone else to do the same.
And I also believe we would all be better off if tax law rewarded DOING something rather than hoarding things. .
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Funny)
Hey there, it's Paul Anthony....the guy you want to send creepy letters consisting of cut up letters from magazines...I know, you were probably just kidding. I'm the Founder and CEO of Rumblefish and saw this thread and it seems to be getting rather heated up so I thought I'd chime in, answer whatever questions I can and make myself available for a little while (have to eat in a bit) if people have questions....which it seems like they very much do.
I'm not sure where to start b/c so much has been said but eeplox, if we have indeed mistakenly been sent a claim by YouTube's Content ID system and are inaccurately claiming a video...we'll release it. Our mission is to license music rightfully in order to compensate recording artists for their work. Claiming anything that other people / companies / organizations own is not what we're about. Rumblefish is an independent music company...not a large media conglomerate. We aim to do right by creators of all kinds.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Hey Bruce -- we've met a few times at open source / security related conferences in the early 2000s, although I'm not sure you would remember me. My work was with the Immunix Linux distribution, and some other Linux-related startups.
I can vouch for the parent (#39168105) being Paul Anthony, CEO of Rumblefish. I'm the Lead Architect at Rumblefish, and we've been working on this issue this evening. Forgive him; he's a musician, not a geek. :-)
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with your CEO's response is this:
if we have indeed mistakenly been sent a claim by YouTube's Content ID system and are inaccurately claiming a video...we'll release it.
He's treating it like a one-off. The claims so far are that the bird song was "reviewed" - if it was reviewed by a human then this should never have happened. Humans make mistakes, but confusing a bird song for a human performance is beyond the range of reasonable human error - suggesting a process where the human has been removed. Something we absolutely know happens with the big-time members of the MAFIAA in their over-zealous pursuit of pirates because they have admitted it in court in more than one case.
So the real problem here is the process and simply "releasing" one falsely claimed video is to miss the forest for the trees. The only satisfactory response is to explain what happened and then to take steps to make sure that it never happens again.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Heya,
Forgive us for being a little short in our responses -- it is a complex issue, and we're working through it on a Sunday evening. :)
The YouTube content identification and dispute resolution system is not a simple one; right now we're focused on resolving the critical issue with eeplox. This is something that will unfold over the next couple of days, and we'll be doing what we should -- make sure we figure out exactly what happened, and put guards in place to prevent it in the future.
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you are bing disingenuous here. Why have you and your CEO been posting here without first checking the YouTube video and "releasing" it? There are complex issues here, but there is one simple issue: whether this particular video has any copyrighted material that you control. The fact that you and your CEO have spent your Sunday evening posting in /. before checking the specific video speaks volumes about your priorities.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
No. This is NOT a complex issue. You claimed ownership of something that was not yours. Sure, the first time was an automated script. However, the SECOND time was apparently by the "copyright owners" and they verified ownership. This was a lie.
So, it boils down to this. Your company which supposedly represents artists is engaged in piracy. You are stealing IP from others by claiming ownership even when it is obvious to any sane human that it is not yours.
It is not complex. It is very simple. It is pre-school simple. You are thieves hiding behind a corporate mask.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Informative)
The simple and necessary action (reviewing, confirming, and releasing the video) was done very shortly after we became aware of the issue -- several hours ago.
Right now, I'm interested in responding to reasonable questions as best I can; next, we will be reviewing what happened, and following up appropriately.
It's not a wasted evening. People are pissed, and although I can't provide the ultimate answers right now, I don't think it's appropriate to simply disappear.
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Bird Chirping --- property of God (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, Rumblefish thinks that it's God, so it claims the bird chirping as their property
I think a more reasonable explanation is that their algorithm mistakenly flagged the audio track as a match, then when the poster challenged this their system automatically sent a "please listen and compare" message to the copyright holder of whichever work it is. The copyright holder has not done their due diligence (at all, it seems) and has simply clicked the "yes it is ours" button.
Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is with the stated policy and reasons for posting the advertisements. If they treated posting differently then the stated policy, they would have to either change the policy ot explain why. In this case, they chose to explain why which turns out to be a crock of crap highlighting the vary essence of the problems with automated infringement systems and the corporate drones claiming ownership of everything.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would be conspiracy to defraud. Other than your sarcasm, this isn't actually to far from that. Google makes money on false claims, the media company makes money on false claims. They claim it was reviewed. The claim of it being reviewed, and if it not in fact copyrighted, that attaches intent. The counter claim would have to be 'error'. However to go to court and claim error of the reviewers, in the case of birdsong, would be tantamount to claiming abject incompetence, bringing in to question every other alleged review.
Re:Attorneys (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad you asked, and I didnt go and put this in the first post as to not get off course.
It's not going to end. I predicted 'this' pretty much a decade ago. Any company who chose to get in bed with the media companies and start to proactively 'censor' would soon run into the gaping maw of corporate greed and be faced with 'you aren't doing enough'. Sadly, it's worse and will be worse. The media monsters want carte-blanche to expunge anything they deem damaging to their failing business model (rightly or wrongly). And even if you were to sue google and the media companies, they would just demand the laws get rewritten to allow them to get away with it based on some meaningless threshold that wont even amount to a slap on the wrist. They have already crafted an atmosphere in which 'look ppl we don't care about and end up firing anyway are gonna lose jobs because of blahblahblah.
Its part and parcel of the mindset that bundles boatloads of crap into your cable TV package you don't want, for the 6 things you do, all the time claiming they not only can't do anything about it, and that all the crap you dont want is in fact good for you.
Re:Attorneys (Score:5, Interesting)
All of that being said, it is obvious Rumblefish fucked up this time. Who knows exactly why, but they did. I think it is important that before crucifying them you understand that the service they provide is extremely valuable to artists not on a major label.... so at least give them that.
And before the venomous masses can call me a shill or whatever: we actually never did business together, nor did I remain contact with Paul, and so I have no reason to defend them other than what I stated above. People and companies fuck up some times. I have a feeling Rumblefish will learn from this mistake.
Re:Attorneys (Score:5, Funny)
False DMCA claims are now called "Rumblefish". EG: "My youtube video just got rumblefished. "
Re:Lies (Score:5, Funny)
It depends how you take the quantifiers. :-) In first-order logic, "all As are Bs" is automatically true if there are no As. In the case at hand, there are no content owners, because nobody owns the bird songs (not even the birds). So, all content owners have reviewed the video and confirmed their claims. Likewise, all content owners have seven legs.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca's lawyers called, they want his defense back.
Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)
This is the findamental problem with the USA system that "free" and "public domain" are not "owners" so they have no rights because public domain can't hire lawyers... As much was said when Lessing tried to argue that Public Domain needed a voice in copyright legleslation to the SCOUS.
So pretty much the first person to record and file gets the copyright... The law has no mechanism to verify that "nobody" can claim something...
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
In the case at hand, there are no content owners, because nobody owns the bird songs (not even the birds).
Not true. The content owner is the person who made the recording. It is copyrighted, and the owner can potentially pursue a claim against Rumblefish for infringement if Rumblefish has placed ads on the video and profited from it by claiming it's theirs. My law firm would be interested in representing this uploader (and others). That's the kind of case we would love.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Please identify exactly what work I am infringing, as my attorney is having difficulty finding similarity between my soundtrack and any performance by artists represented by your organization.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Hey it's Paul Anthony from Rumblefish. This claim has been released by Rumblefish as it was both A: improperly ID'd by YouTube's content ID system as a song from one of our artists and B: one of our content ID representatives mistakenly reinstated the claim. As soon as it came to our attention today that we had made a mistake, we promptly released the claim and I reached out to eeplox via YouTube to let him know.
I've been responding in an /IAmA on everything here:
http://redd.it/q7via
Thx and our apologies.
Best,
Paul Anthony | Founder & CEO | Rumblefish
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as it came to our attention today that people were drawing attention to the fact that we had made a mistake.
Fixed for accuracy.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Funny)
I have 5 arms
Now THAT'S a bold-faced lie.
Nope, not true. (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a DMCA notice, or a case of someone filing (under penalty of perjury) a notice that they own the material and demanding you take it down.
This is an issue of YouTube's user agreement and the way YouTube shares revenue.
When you upload content to YouTube's site, you obviously agree to allow them to show the video.
YouTube also has a separate revenue sharing program, where you can get revenue from your videos - but YouTube is NOT obligated to do this. They could simply run ads on your content, say screw you, we're not giving you any revenue share, and keep all the revenue for themselves.
What YouTube has done is put in place a program where content owners can have YouTube automatically match content on their site with the content owner's content. YouTube has chosen, in the event such a match is made, to give the content owner the OPTION of allowing the infringing content to stay on the site and getting the ad revenue share instead of just having the content removed entirely.
So you're in a grey area - no one is asking your content to be taken down, so there's no DMCA request. YouTube has just agreed with the 3rd party to share the revenue from your content with the 3rd party - which is YouTube's perogative since they can do whatever they want with their ad revenue. If you don't like what they decide to do with your ad revenue, your recourse with YouTube is simple: Don't put your content there.
I'm guessing that YouTube really just didn't think through how their program actually works when bad actors are introduced (ala rumblefish). If YouTube were smart, they would realize Rumblefish is a bad actor and kick them out of the program and force Rumblefish to submit DMCA notices instead.
ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
When will this copyright madness end?
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. The internet is more akin to the Wild West of yesteryear. Every company is out to commit highway robbery.
Darn those varmints.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
You may have heard of this group, "Anonymous"?
The governments of the world no longer have any claim on the concept of "justice", having ceded their moral authority to the highest bidders (usually corporations, who can outspend all but the wealthiest individuals). As a result, anarchy has become far more fair than the codified pro-corporate bias we can expect from the courts (regardless of country).
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
When will this copyright madness end?
In less than 200 million years, since by then Earth will have been rendered virtually uninhabitable from the point of view of intelligent animal life by the constantly rising power output of the Sun. So, nothing to worry about.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Sue the birds for using copyrighted content all the time.
Damn pirates.
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Rumblefish,
I see that you are using my music without proper authorization.
-- God
p.s. I could use ad's, hmmmm... Naa, Smite works just as well...
Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Rumblefish,
Did you see the Alfred Hitchcock movie starring us? If not, perhaps you should.
Sincerely,
The Birds
Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Funny)
2. Make a bunch of videos and post to YouTube
3. Wait for takedown
4. Sue Rumblefish in small claims court for the ad revenue they got from Google.
5. Profit!!!!
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Use birdsong as a soundtrack for a slideshow of self-shots taken by a monkey [slashdot.org].
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Funny)
You can't use self-shots taken by a monkey. They all have monkey butts and penises in them. Or slow mo shots of another monkey throwing poo.
It would never pass YouTube's decency standards.
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a lawyer, but....
While that might work, it's best to put a step
3a. Send a cease and desist notice to Rumblefish.
They'll ignore it and the courts will like you for doing it. It's only the cost of a certified letter, and you can add that to your lawsuit.
Also, if you want to be really annoying, claim copyright on the birdsong video and sue them for infringement, but that costs more and is out of the scope of small claims.
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Best reply so far.
In legal cases, it never hurts having more ammo. If only to threathen them back if they try to play hardball with you.
Also, check in with the EFF and ACLU. They may want to support you and get a precedent set. They love clear cases like this one.
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Small Claims DDOS (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't sue youtube. That would be under the ToS. Sue the party that claims to have reviewed the audio and decided you are infringing their copyright. That sounds like a lie that damages your reputation. In other words libel (or slander, I forget which is the written form).
I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but this seems like the kind of thing you could take to small claims court for say $1000 or so and win.
Of corse you would be better off with a lawyer, but I don't see how you could sue for enough to actually pay the lawyer. If you have access to a free half hour consult or something you could ask a real lawyer, they might have a different opinion.
Copyright means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)
Re:Copyright means nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, music itself would likely benefit greatly, just not the labels. As piracy has already demonstrated, free access to studio recordings has made the consumer perception of the value of live concerts greater. That is why ticket prices keep outpacing inflation.
Anecdotally, I've personally noted a pretty good number of once free venues switching to cover charges for better known (locally) acts which are remain unsigned by major labels. At least on my personal scale, this demonstrates positive force towards greater valuation of live music.
Lower prices and increased distribution of copyright material increases the overall quality of published works. A great example is the textbook versus subject oriented paperback categories. Textbooks exist in an overpriced, price fixed copyright vacuum. Their quality continues to remain virtually unchanged for 30+ years, making occasional incremental improvements and frequent vast drops in quality. On the other hand, books written for the layman about various sciences and arts continue to improve, drop in inflation adjusted price, and increase in availability. The very pressure of reduced prices and increased availability forces authors to review their peer / competition work and produce something better.
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Couldn't have been (Score:5, Funny)
A mockingbird, could it?
Yeesh (Score:5, Funny)
YouTube: Blurring the line between the RIAA and Monsanto.
Re:Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the RIAA takes their cut of something we could survive without, whereas Monsanto wants to demand a cut of every pound of food sold in the world.
Ineteresting... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing nobody farted in the background. (Score:5, Funny)
Rumblefish owns that as well.
And you know you're going to have to pay through the nose on that one!
myke
Use your political rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Use your political rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.
Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.
Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.
More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.
It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.
Now all we need... (Score:5, Funny)
Lars, meet Rumblefish. Rumblefish, Lars.
Who's got the popcorn for this show?
Slander of title (Score:5, Informative)
You own the copyright to the original recording you made of bird songs from nature.
They own the copyright to their recording of bird songs from nature, but not to yours.
For them to claim copyright to your recording, there must be an original artistic element they created that you have actually reproduced.
Re:Slander of title (Score:5, Funny)
Send this story to your elected representatives .. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Answer May Lie in the Details (Score:4, Interesting)
If the latter, it's entirely possible that he's using a recording that was made, and consequently copyrighted by someone else.
Movie and TV producers have been dubbing in bird sounds for decades, including one infamous time [nwsource.com] when CBS backed a golf match with the sounds of birds that have never lived anywhere near the game's location.
Anyhow, the point is that while you can't (yet!) copyright a bird song, you can copyright a specific recording of a sound.
(none of this should be taken to mean that Google does not have it's head up its ass.)
Talking (Score:4, Funny)
Use crowdfunding to pay for a lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Sue them and use crowd funding.
https://www.crowdtilt.com/ [crowdtilt.com]
Make it clear in your project description that you will not settle.
Slander of title (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminal fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me that if they're claiming copyright on your video, and claim to have reviewed it, and they're receiving *your* ad revenue, then they're guilty of fraud.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
summary (Score:4, Informative)
Get a lawyer. Get him now, because there are deadlines and the law takes deadlines very seriously. Ask the EFF or ACLU, they often love cases like these, and they have a couple really good lawyers.
Have your lawyer send them a cease & desist letter. You will need that later.
From what you describe, you should start in small claims court, which will very likely result in a default judgement in your favour, because most companies don't bother with defending themselves. If they cease&desist, sue them for whatever ad revenue they illegally made. If they don't c&d, sue them for the lot.
With the default judgement in hand, escalate. Sue them for copyright infringement, fraud and whatever else your lawyer comes up with.
Don't forget that copyright infringement is a criminal offense, too. And thanks to the content mafia, the penalties are considerable.
The one thing you shouldn't do is lie down, do nothing, or delete your video. On the contrary, why didn't you post the link? A quick /. effect later and there'd be many thousand views and the damages for your case would be there.
Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:5, Informative)
Hey all,
I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. I write a lot of the code that manages our music catalog, as well as interfaces with our partners (like YouTube), so I'm intimately (painfully) familiar with how all of these pieces fit together, and who's responsible for what.
First things first -- eeplox, I'm sorry this has been a shitty experience. Clearly something has been missed, and I want to make things right. Please contact me directly at peat@rumblefish.com, so we can sort out exactly what's happening with your video.
Automated content identification is a hairy problem, doubly so when mixed with synchronization (soundtrack) licensing. YouTube's system is one of the better ones out there, and even so, we get a ton of false positives coming out of it every day. The biggest source of false claims come from covers and samples, where it's particularly difficult to determine if the soundtrack for a video is or isn't in our catalog.
That said, we do listen to each disputed claim that reaches us, after YouTube has gone through their (rather terse) automated resolution system. We're working with YouTube and our other partners to make the process simpler and less legally threatening ... but we're the small fish at the table.
It's worth mentioning that Rumblefish isn't a subsidiary of a major label, media conglomerate, or rights organization. This is a very small company, founded and owned by an independent musician, and half our staff play in bands or work in independent film. We've focused specifically on independent artists who want their music to be used in soundtracks ... and for what it's worth, yes, there are several tracks that sound like birds chirping. :)
Regardless -- the media licensing industry is a horrible, horrible mess. No question about it. Our mission is to make it easier for independent artists (music and video alike) to make a living doing what they love, and it genuinely sucks to hear when people are let down.
I'm happy to answer questions about how we do what we do. IANAL, of course ... but I am a geek. :)
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. [...] Automated content identification is a hairy problem [...]"
"Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' "
Fuck you, Peat.
Reply from Rumblefish CEO... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Bakke, please explain how submitting the note "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content" is possibly acceptable when no one's reviewed it? This makes your company look awfully bad.
Alternatively, if someone did review it and sign off on that reply, then I hope this will reflect properly on that individual and their career at Rumblefish, as I'm pretty sure that this at least makes your company rather vulnerable from a publicity point of view, if not a legal one. If you're outsourcing this... then really, I hope your company can learn its lesson QUICKLY.
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:5, Informative)
Heya,
Many of those responses are pre-canned in the YouTube system, so unfortunately we get stuck when it comes to the responses. Even in clear cases of infringement (which this is not), terse and threatening legalese doesn't help anyone -- not us, the musicians, or the video creators.
We're looking forward to having a direct relationship with the people who use music from our catalog. Music copyright, particularly synchronization rights, are a highly charged topic -- legally and politically. If we can make it easier and safer for people to find and use the music, everyone wins.
We'll sort out exactly what happened, and set it right with eeplox directly.
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Heya,
We'll sort out exactly what happened in the next couple of days -- I really wish I could have a clear cut answer for you right now.
I completely agree on your point that it's a serious problem. I joined the company last year because they're out to fix an industry that's fundamentally broken and frequently abusive; that's why I'm spending my Sunday night trying to sort this out.
Anyhow -- I know this doesn't directly address your concerns. Sorry about that. When there's more to share, we'll figure out the right place to put it.
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't lie is a good start. Not you, Peat, but whoever claimed that the content owners reviewed it and certified it belongs to them. That sure SOUNDS dishonest, here. Reminiscent of the whole mortgage robosigning business, to be honest.
I don't have any issue at all with content owners protecting their rights. The problem is that content owners are often quite indifferent to trampling the rights of others. It's good that you're sorting this out, but really, if I get tagged inadvertently in the same way, do I have to get my story on slashdot to get it fixed? One would hope I'd just file a dispute and a real, live person would look at and see it doesn't belong to you guys. And by the way, that should be the default. Unless you're SURE, you let it go. We have stuff that sounds like birdsong isn't good enough.
Re:Hoping to Clarify ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I, too, am a geek. But I don't speak for my company. And you might want to think twice before you speak for yours. While you are trying to do the right thing, I assure you, somewhere in your company the legal department is figuring out an appropriate response. The CEO is likewise either shitting his pants, or seeing dollar signs. Either way, its his call, not yours.
Personal feedback might be nice for you, but either the CEO falls on his sword or the lawyers win.
Also, your company swore that it listened to and confirmed a violation of the audio. I assume you take personal responsibility for that? That you had a hand in creating that system, know its failings, and would swear that it is imperfect?
Or maybe you just want to improve your software. It's a nice gesture, but quite out of place. A personal reply might have been better. Going public was probably not the best way to get better.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
i understand your pain (Score:5, Insightful)
Letter from Rumblefish (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I contacted Rumblefish about this, and this was their reply.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you go about copyrighting sounds from nature?
Do you have to pay royalty's to the original artist (the bird, or a babbling brook for instance)?
If so how do you know you have the right one (in the case of the bird) or molecules (in the case of water)?
If you are not paying the artist aren't you stealing from them?
Hi Richard,
You have a completely legitimate question here. How would we pay this bird...seeds perhaps?
This was an obvious mistake by the YouTube content ID system. When we became aware of the problem, we acted quickly to release the claim. We have contacted the video creator to explain and to apologize for the mistaken attribution made by the YouTube content ID system. The whole situation is a little embarrassing and we certainly did not mean for it to happen. We just want to fix it, so we thank you for helping bring the problem to our attention.
We are serious about paying artists (have been for 15 years), and about letting bird songs remain in the public domain. There are enough people robbing the natural environment; we want the birds to feel free to sing without copyright claims filling up their nests.
Sincerely,
-Ben
ben@rumblefish.com
Thank you slashdot! (Score:5, Informative)
Updates (Score:5, Informative)
Hey all,
There's a lot of threads here and on other places, hopefully this sheds some light on the claim process, and what happened with eeplox's video.
Here's the sequence, as best as I understand it:
- eeplox posted a video to YouTube that contained bird sounds.
- The automated YouTube content identification system mistakenly assigned it to one of the tracks in our catalog.
- eeplox contested the automated claim, which sent it into the manual review queue.
- One of our reviewers reinstated the claim, which triggered the response eeplox received and posted above.
When we heard about the story on Slashdot, we reviewed the video and released it.
TL;DR: We messed up during the manual review process. We've cleared eeplox's video. We're working on fixing the manual review process.
I'm here in the discussion to answer what questions we can. We're not interested in screwing over independent musicians and video creators, and we want to be as open as possible about what's going on.
If you run into content claim issues with our catalog on YouTube, you're welcome to contact us directly at YouTubeContentID@rumblefish.com. We have a FAQ about the process here: http://rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php [rumblefish.com]
Paul Anthony (the CEO) has an AMA thread over at Reddit where he's answering questions. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_rumblefish_i_guess_were_the_newest/ [reddit.com]
Thanks,
-Peat
Re:Prior art ... (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're confusing copyright with patents. There's no prior art on copyright.
Re:Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordi (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good luck fighting this battle (Score:5, Insightful)
You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.
Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected based on your work.
First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization, then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.
Re:Good luck fighting this battle (Score:5, Informative)
The submitter is 'eeplox', search for his channel in Youtube. (ph34r my 1337 hax0r skills)
I watched part of one video, didn't see any ads at all. Possibly Rumblefish already backed down or eeplox is looking for easy hits.
..and is the bird song public domain? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, sorry... But someone has to ask this...
Where did the clip of the birdsong come from? Is this something the OP recorded himself? Or did he use an audio clip from some other source?
And if the OP recorded himself, did he make sure the birds were indeed singing a song that is in the public domain?
While birds aren't people and can't own a copyright, a flock of birds is more like a corporation and therefor a person.
Re:There is no solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Solutions. (Score:5, Informative)
Like, the $25 or so it would take to file against YouTube in local small claims?
Sheesh. Do not pass Go; go get a Nolo Press book on the legal system. Learn something.