Open Source Chief at Redhat Hit With Bogus Copyright Claims
It seems like LA PEG LA, MPAA, RIAA, etc... have soft corner for Youtube & illegal videos fake copyrights holders who never paid a penny towards copyrights. Ala, poor advertisers are CASH-COWS!!!Bogus copyright claims on YouTube are getting more and more prevalent, but they only get exposure when they do damage to high-profile targets. Michael Tiemann is the Chief of Open Source Affairs at Redhat Inc. and apparently he can't use Creative Commons music in his uploads without being bombarded with copyright claims.
After creating a video recently, Tiemann decided to set it to music. Quite appropriately he headed off to ccMixter, a site which originated as a Creative Commons site a decade ago and one which provides samples, remixes and a cappella tracks under Creative Commons licenses.
Tiemann selected Sunray, a track available under a CC-BY-NC 3.0 Creative Commons license, married it to his video and uploaded it to YouTube. Things didn’t go well.
Straight after the upload a user called “RouteNote” claimed copyright ownership over Tiemann’s video. He filed an immediate dispute and RouteNote promptly dropped the claim. But then things started to get silly.
So who are RouteNote? The YouTube user account is linked to a network of 53 channels totaling 21,717,873 views. It links to RouteNote.com, a company offering digital distribution services.
“RouteNote is the leading digital music distributor in the UK” the company claims.
TorrentFreak contacted RouteNote to find out why they’re plaguing Tiemann, but at the time of publication we’ve received no response.
GREED has no limits.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
One important point made in that article to which you linked was this:
While alleged infringers are quick to be punished by the YouTube system, there is no come back on those making the erroneous complaints. This is something that YouTube definitely needs to address.
Yes, false copyright claims at youtube and other sites is now a business model.
Of course, the **AA's stealing other peoples works and profiting from them is nothing new:
Seems like any post you are doing(op) isn't about video or audio encoding or even helping people,more like posting about news and and issues about anything in the world.I think,therefore i am a hamster.
Originally posted by manono
I get hit with, on average, 2 false copyright claims a day for my public domain videos (4 today). I dispute them, wait a month while they time out, and then get back my videos. Then the thieving companies claim them again. And so on. And as it says, while I have to jump through hoops to prove they're public domain and run the risk of having my channels wiped out (again), there are no penalties for the crooks who do this and no way at all for me to get back at them. They can upload material to the CID system without ever having to provide any proof of ownership. They can also claim copyright infringement and steal the ad revenue without having to prove ownership. As the article states, it's a very large and growing problem.
Our major concern is Advertisers and Viewer's Click.
In general, if you do not fight for your rights, you lose.
i have often wondered why people in situation such as yours don't use the same tactics against the ones making bogus copyright claims, i.e. make a bogus claim of your own against something they have uploaded.
Blender. The contents of the video don't have anything to do with any existing movie, TV series, etc. Basically it's just a short demo he made. It was around Christmas so he used a version of Tchaikovsky's "Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairies" as the music. This composition has long been in the public domain. He found a version licensed through Creative Commons, which is free to use. He got an email shortly after uploading his work from some 3rd party partner of YouTube that offered - for a fee - to license the music for his video. I forgot to mention that his video got pulled by YouTube automatically when this company contacted him about licensing. There was no real way to protest the decision - either he paid the company to "license" a song he didn't need to license at all or I guess he could contact YouTube and wait forever for a decision. He just pulled all his videos and he no longer uses YouTube.
Your friend's situation was a bit different than what you're quoting from jagabo. The crooks don't want to have the video removed because then they make no money from you. They want the video to remain available so they can make lots of money from the ads they have placed before and during the video. Your friend was being extorted for money.
It's the disputes you file after someone steals the video for the ad revenue (and still allows it to be viewed) that take so long - up to 30 days.
That's exactly why I bought Ableton Live, so I could generate halfway decent royalty-free audio.
I did a remix of a song that had a niche following from the 80's, and the song is not even available online. Nobody ever bothered me. Look for "Another Lover" on YT. You probably know that song.
Last edited by budwzr; 27th May 2014 at 17:49.