HomeForumsOther TopicsAbout the youtube user who downloaded one of my youtube videos and reuploaded it

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 16 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  bdickens 2 weeks, 3 days ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #22171

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    I previously had a message about how someone had downloaded one of my videos from my youtube channel and uploaded it as their own video to their own channel, in complete length and even the same title as mine. (Maybe the first thread disappeared in the spam cleanup) Having a video stolen was bound to happen eventually I guess..

    Here’s the update..

    But first..

    I have always hated youtube because it was literally started for the purpose of stealing content. The founders were pro-piracy and pro file sharing regardless of royalty rights, so they start youtube, and let it thrive based on spreading stolen content (especially stolen music put on top of people’s home videos). Remember Prince freaking out about the early viral video where a baby was dancing to Let’s Go Crazy, without any royalties or recognition going to Prince.. yet youtube shrugged it’s shoulders and basically said, “meh, screw the artists, we can get away with theft, as long as the government doesn’t force us to act properly, we don’t care”. Meanwhile all other video sites, like vimeo etc, were and are very careful about copyright, so they grew much more slowly and didnt become household names like youtube did.. later google acquired youtube because it had the fastest growth of all the video sites, and the thieves won again.

    So ultimately I get a youtube account and ta da, someone downloads one of my videos from my channel and uploads it verbatim as their own and youtube does not bat an eyelash. I happened to find their copy by coincidence, not by any youtube notification sent to me. I filed a claim through youtube’s copyright form thing, they took down the person’s video several days later.

    The update..

    Months later, I get an email from youtube. It’s a counter-claim. The person states that my copyright notification was a false claim and legally swears that they’ve never visited my channel (which is obviously false, considering they have re-uploaded my video from my channel).

    This is what youtube sends as their email. Saying I have 10 days to take legal action in federal court otherwise youtube will put the stolen video back up.

    We received the attached counter notification in response to a complaint you filed with us.

    We’re providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you’ve filed an action seeking a court order against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity. In most cases, such evidence would include a lawsuit against the uploader who filed the counter notification, which names the specific YouTube URL(s) at issue.

    If we don’t receive notice from you, we may reinstate the material to YouTube.

    If you have any questions, please contact copyright@youtube.com.

    Counter-Notification as follows:

    Videos included in counter-notification:
    Display name of uploader: xxxx

    [blah blah this isn’t valid because blah blah]. The strike should remove because it was by a channel with 13 subscribers who dosen’t own the rights. I hadn’t come across the channel before until then. This action is illegal.

    I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief the material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

    I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant.

    It is basically ridiculous for youtube or any internet service to assume a typical person can serve a lawsuit against some random person who is likely in another country (this person was in another country too). As if I’m going to pay a lawyer to initiate a legal action against someone in Europe? It’s especially lame because youtube could easily verify that the video was a direct copy of my video. Same length, same title, absolutely no edits or cropping of my video at all, and this is very easy to verify with software to flag the video as stolen. The person had obviously downloaded my video with a downloader and re-uploaded it on their channel.

    Luckily I sent them a very directly worded email and after some really petty responses back, they removed the video. (But only because they thought I would pursue legal action or concluded I was just a normal guy somewhere and not an evil record label or something.. if they had not deleted the video, then youtube would have maybe reinstated it, as if nothing happened.)

    What bums me out the most is that people don’t care about digital theft. They just do it and see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Copying a video in it’s entirety without creative modifications and most ridiculously even copying the video title is very obviously not fair use. Probably 99% of the entire internet was scratching their heads wondering why Prince was freaking out about his song being in their published home video and he gets absolutely no property rights for having his work used. Is it because everyone assumes artists are rich and don’t need the money? As if money even has anything to do with it. Rights should be rights. Theft is not a right.

    The original Prince viral baby video. From way back in.. 2007.. seems so long ago, in internet years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
    Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the 2008 ruling of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, holding that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before issuing a takedown notice for content posted on the Internet.[1]
    Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a home video of her children dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy”.[2] Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claiming that Lenz’s video violated their copyright in the “Let’s Go Crazy” song.
    Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. In a decision rejecting a motion to dismiss the misrepresentation claim, the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a takedown notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder.[3]

    Anyways I still hate youtube.

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

    Attachments:
    1. tunecor.jpg

  • #22174

    MotleyCrue81
    Participant

    Yepp, if there’s one legal area that gets blatantly ignored the most by the government and anybody else, it’s software/digital media. It’s basically this way because it’s not something that’s really tangible or physically existing, and computers and digital things still elude too many people.

    Bring hair metal back!

  • #22178

    Doug Marks
    Keymaster

    I’ve filed hundreds of takedown notices with YouTube and the videos are usually removed the next day.  The only problem that I’ve had is, some musicians publish through companies like TuneCore.  TuneCore searches for music and claims copyright infringement (for their artists) so they can get a share of advertising.

    A friend of Jim Gillette asked me if he could use my song, You’re Out of Time on a Gillette compilation album.  I said, no problem.  He published it through TuneCore.  Now my video of my song gets flagged and I haven’t been able to straighten it out.

    Metal Method Guitar Instructor

  • #22179

    bdickens
    Participant

    Seems that if you register your copyright beforehand with the US copyright office, it would be real hard to argue with that.

    Byron Dickens

  • #22192

    Doug Marks
    Keymaster

    It’s also hard to argue with my Songwriting Course that was created in 1995.  I literally demonstrate the song being written and recorded.  So, there’s no question about who wrote the song.

    Metal Method Guitar Instructor

  • #22195

    bdickens
    Participant

    My comment was directed more to superblonde.

    But Yeah, Tunecore probably has some automatic algorithm at work that it will take loosing several lawsuits to get them to change.

    Byron Dickens

  • #22198

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    Hmm.. I posted youtube’s notification mostly because, the counter-claim process is just not explained well anywhere. Swept under the carpet I suppose.

    Copyright-wise, as far as I can tell, the new millenial-whatever legislation says that copyright is automatically established by uploading a video. Although registering it with a copyright office would be definitive proof. There’s a bit more backstory to my particular case, because my video includes copyrighted material from another source, which I’ve used in a fair use way (presumably.. ‘transformational’ clause). It’s kind of similar to Doug’s story in this way: if there is a 3rd party involved with the property, then youtube and copyright law itself gets really messy and not able to be managed. So my case, the other person claimed, it has 3rd party material, so my ‘copyright’ is not valid (not true; my use is a unique creation under fair use ‘transformation’..), but regardless, downloading my entire video and re-uploading verbatim, is definitely not legit. The re-uploader must have gotten this point and taken the video down when realizing that it crossed the line. In Doug’s case, he gave permission to a 3rd party, but then youtube’s lame system gets confused that his owner’s rights are the invalid rights. 3rd parties just mess the system up.

    Youtube could fix many of these problems with technology but they don’t seem to apply much effort in this area. Social media companies in general just turn a blind eye. Some news articles have found that supposedly, facebook has less than 20 employees policing all of facebook media for hate/abuse type stuff (not even to mention ‘fake news’) and twitter has been said to only use the same small amount of resources. These are billion dollar companies and they’re basically putting 1 person to work policing a system that has millions of new content items per day. In youtube’s case, they could have easily found via software, that my video was re-uploaded in full. But they want to charge $$$ for these types of things so they or their partners (like TuneCore) make even more money. Indie content creators don’t have much protection unless they subscribe to a service or join an artists union. Seems to me that there is no technical obstacle for why small indie creators couldn’t also be automatically protected. Having random people reupload unique content has been a problem thruout facebook’s history, sometimes the reuploaded/stolen video is the one which goes viral (and makes some $$) instead of the original. Google itself is known for pushing the limits in breaching copyright… like attempting to scan every book ever published so they could put it online for “free searching” aka free reading, without compensating authors, meanwhile, google makes money from showing ads alongside the search results and storing the search result data for reselling later.

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

  • #22202

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    By the way, registering officially with the copyright office costs some small change ($35 per item if there is 1 author, otherwise if more than 1 author then $$ fee increases). The whole thing can be done online. A hobbyist video maker or song writer isn’t ever going to recoup $35 through ad/stream revenue per video. I havent heard of any blogger or vlogger registering their content. Poets and book authors/writing clinics used to be very very concerned about the official copyrighting, so registration was always emphasized, these groups would circulate that myth about “just mail a copy to yourself and the post stamp acts as the copyright date” (the myth was not true).. but with the ebook crowd, copyright didn’t seem to be focused on so much, it was more like, “write an ebook as fast as possible then just push it out, the ebook publisher acts as registrar”, no worries about registering a copyright with the government at all.

    I don’t remember the berklee songwriting class even mentioning copyright.. other than to say, “good artists steal but modify so you don’t get caught”.. funny, eh?

    The very early video sites, some of them had physical paperwork that you had to mail in, or fax in, because digital signatures were still a grey area, forms with a lot of fine print, asserting that everything in the video was 100% original, every frame, etc etc, or 100% guaranteed royalty free etc etc which allowed global redistribution, etc etc.. later they allowed a PDF signature on the form but it still had to be signed and with a physical address etc.. (I was on the video share site founded by, strangely enough, Al Gore, remember that one?) As can be guessed, those services didn’t explode with content like youtube which just allowed anyone to upload any copy of anything, theft or legit. In some ways that explosion is great, but in other ways.. I just dunno, it’s not cool.

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

  • #22217

    Igglepud
    Participant

    I really don’t get the Prince thing. Nobody stole his song, nobody tried to claim they wrote it, and nobody was performing it live anywhere without him getting paid. It’s a silly video, and the spirit of it is “hey, look at my kid dancing.” If they had downloaded the track and used it as backing music for something like Bad Lip Reading or a Literal video, that’s different, but there is nothing malicious here.

    MY ROCK IS FIERCE!!!

  • #22222

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    I really don’t get the Prince thing.

    The test to apply is this: Rename the video to something non-Prince, lets say, “Kids running circles in kitchen” and then watch the video without the audio / music. And/or pretend the laughing-kiddie audio is there but there is no music. Does it significantly remove the artistic quality of the video? Would it still be viral or would it just be another typical kid video? To me, without the Prince element, that video is nothing, it’s just a regular or typical cute-kid video. Only because of the Prince music, and the Prince title (kids ‘portraying’ “Lets Go Crazy”), is the video interesting or artistic or funny or have any value at all. It’s why it went viral. The artistic result is, “WOW, these kids are dancing to Prince, it’s amazing that they are dancing to Prince’s music, they are going crazy just like Prince’s song says.” So to me, Prince’s ‘contribution’ to that video is like 80% of the value of the video, and the use of Prince’s work is a typical show of enjoying Prince’s music (it’s not like, an educational documentary or something, there’s no fair educational use type angle). To me, this test that shows “OK, the artist’s contribution to this is like 60% or 80% or 90% of the value here” is why an artist deserves compensation. Maybe Prince himself could have said, “yea it’s OK, they have permission” but he needs the option to do that. The evil thing of course is that Prince isn’t given the option anyway, because his record label owned all of his work, Prince himself had no choice or control, and a bunch of greedy suits aren’t going to let their power slip by giving some people permission meanwhile withholding that permission from other people (they’d probably say, because the laws force them to be greedy and deny everyone permission, because otherwise the copyright itself would be weakened and the whole house of cards falls down). The 2nd evil thing is that the greedy suits will have an army of lawyers to beat someone into the ground, something which a normal individual can never have.

    Replace the music with something totally public, okay like the mom is playing Ode To Joy on an organ while the kids run and dance around, would it go viral because “WOW these kids are totally getting down with Ode To Joy and totally running in circles with Joy” ? Hah, somehow I don’t think so.. that just does _not_ rock..

    Anyway it’s like, you wouldn’t make a pizza from stolen bread dough, sell the pizza, then say “yea, that baker doesn’t get any compensation for the dough, cuz I baked it myself and sold the pizza myself.” The dough is basically “the” foundation of the pizza, it’s 80% of the value of it, if it’s missing, the entire pizza falls apart, it’s not interesting to a consumer at all, no one wants just a bowl of cooked toppings, they want them on the cooked dough.

    That tv show America’s Funniest Home Videos, I’m sure had to be 110% positive that everything in a home video was original and pure with no other 3rd party contributions (like music in the background).. or, maybe sometimes they paid, I don’t know.. because it was broadcast, and broadcast rules are actually very tight, meanwhile the internet is just somehow allowed to run on no rules.. allowing google, etc, to become the biggest cash-making companies in the history of the world.. The mile-long paperwork for that al gore internet video site I mentioned, was really clear and strict about this too, “video must be 100% free of any external media, or otherwise attach all 3rd party agreements stating the external media is royalty-free”, not even a radio playing in the background during a vlog, otherwise the video would get pulled from the site. One of the big reasons for strictness being that the company had a cable tv channel where they wanted to broadcast people’s popular uploaded videos on tv.

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

  • #22224

    MotleyCrue81
    Participant

    The way the company I work for is, is if you play anything that has music, or has logos in it, it needs to be approved. Approved either by a listing of things the company has received for content from other organizations, or from the source itself. Normally the listings are used.

    Bring hair metal back!

  • #22225

    bdickens
    Participant

    I”m not trying to be an ass or start any arguments here. I know that registering copyrights costs money.And I know how much. I’ve done it.

    My point is that in a copyright infringement action, you have to be able to prove you own it and the copyright office is the be-all and end-all when it comes to that.

    Byron Dickens

  • #22226

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    Yes that’s true in order to easily win a lawsuit in front of a judge, but not really the problem I’m pointing at for youtube’s system. You’re totally right in an honest system. But youtube specifically demand proof that a court order has been filed, not proof of copyright registration. Court order / legal action means getting lawyers $$$$. And they give you 10 days to send that legal action documentation to youtube.

    await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you’ve filed an action seeking a court order

    I certainly don’t have paid lawyers in my back pocket, in order to generate a court order within youtube’s 10 day deadline. I don’t even know if a 10 day deadline is possible to meet, if I did have lawyers in my back pocket. I looked briefly into how to file something like this myself and didn’t get very far. Plus including, in this case it is international. Much of it is paperwork, it might be possible to beat the system with a couple hundred bucks in court filing fees, plus a couple hundred bucks to serve the action to the other person internationally (even without registering the copyright). Or maybe the total bill reaches a thousand bucks, who knows. Myself included, 99% of youtube authors don’t know how to do that legal action.

    Probably the first thing a good lawyer would ask is, exactly what you said, was the content registered. Maybe an honest lawyer would refuse to initiate a court order if the content was not registered, and maybe a pay-me-enough-and-I’ll-do-it lawyer would file anyway. One big open question is, under what conditions does youtube allow someone to fill out the counter-notification to a copyright strike. I have no idea. Maybe anyone can fill out the counter-notification. Maybe it’s because in my video there was a 3rd party. Youtube has no documentation on this that I found so far. The EFF has a nice document for what to do in the case of a “false claim against your video” because they are anti-suit greed, but nothing about a “false counter-claim”.

    I would guess that the majority of these situations would resolve out of court. Just filing a court order from a real law firm is enough to scare the other side into negotiating. In many situations the law firm is bluffing and the person with the fanciest $$$ law team wins. Even regardless of whether the claim is valid (and even if the content is not registered with copyright office). I doubt that I would need to register anything in order to win a real lawsuit against this other person if I paid tons of $$$ to pursue, because it is so obvious that my video was downloaded and reuploaded. If I had registered the content with the copyright office, would youtube have prevented this person from initiating a counter-claim? I don’t know. Based on the email that the other person sent me, at first it seemed they wanted to email-fight against the suits trolling with fake lawsuit threats. That’s respectable that they want to fight against the greedy corporations, but a pretty hollow argument if they stole my entire video first and claimed they never saw my channel.

    It points out how companies like TuneCore are a thriving business. The content protection system is so unmanageable by a normal author, that there are service companies to join so that they can deal with all of the legal hassles. For some yearly $$$.

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

  • #22239

    bdickens
    Participant

    YouTube can say whatever they want, but I am absolutely certain that if you provided them with proof that YOU are the copyright holder and threatened THEM with legal action, that the offending video would disappear in a heartbeat.

    Byron Dickens

  • #22242

    Doug Marks
    Keymaster

    We’re offering my Songwriting course on sale tomorrow. Once again, I received a copyright infringement notice. I disputed it. We’ll see what happens. http://metalmethod.com/images/tunecor.jpg

    Metal Method Guitar Instructor

  • #22247

    superblonde
    Keymaster

    proof that YOU are the copyright holder and threatened THEM with legal action, that the offending video would disappear in a heartbeat.

    Hmm, so, send youtube itself a lawsuit? I’d guess that would get forwarded to different departments inside youtube, google, alphabet, where there’s 2 dozen legal consultants on-call.

    Once again, I received a copyright infringement notice. I disputed it. We’ll see what happens.

    Youtube should have more documentation on the many angles of the copyright claim stuff. I really didnt find much online about it anywhere.

    I was just watching a handful of random youtube metallica interviews and reading the viewer comments, it seems alot of fans are still upset about metallica’s anti-napster work. The typical person just does not understand digital theft and how good it was that the bands with the ability to fight the napster theft did fight it. Even the die hard metallica fans today are basically still saying “gimmie my free music, napster was good!” 🙁

    I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
    And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

  • #22249

    bdickens
    Participant

    A cursory Google search suggests that a whole lot of people have complaints about TuneCore & their habits of theft.

    Byron Dickens

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.