
Warner music claimed my video for defending their copyright [video] - rahuldottech
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8
======
kjakm
There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think
it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on
YouTube but these larger publishers in particular are so aggressive because
there is no reason for them not to be. They face no consequences for getting
it wrong. I think YouTube has a '3 strikes' rule for creators who infringe -
maybe they need something similar for false claims. If you are found to have
made 3 false claims within a 12 month period you are not allowed to manually
claim for the next 12 months.

Alternatively a rule similar to the 'challenge' rule in the NFL - you get
three claim ' credits'. If you use a credit correctly you get it back. Use it
incorrectly and you lose it for the next 12 months.

~~~
tssva
What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and
the claimant does own the copyright.

Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is
fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a
court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false
about the claim.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song
Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit
referred to in the original video was about.

And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because
they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.

~~~
jandrese
On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most
lawyers.

------
sirwitti
Adam Neely's youtube channel is incredible. The musicologist (yeah, you can
study that) in me loves it because the information he provides is accurate and
easy to digest.

The musician in me loves his videos because he documents many of his (to me)
relevant experiences and thoughts.

Apart from the claim being obviously fraudulent, he is one of coolest
youtubers I know and deserves better than that.

~~~
tasty_freeze
Two or three years ago he was having a live stream and I asked: if you hadn't
studied music in college, what would you have studied. He answered Philosophy.
Makes complete sense.

------
DanCarvajal
Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and
there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in
actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.

~~~
anonsivalley652
After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a
counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to
push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the
DMCA.

    
    
        15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
            (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
            (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification
        shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
    

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)

Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble
costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of
criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.

~~~
kevingadd
YouTube content ID is not the DMCA, so you have no recourse.

See
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en)

This is why bad actors are able to liberally steal ad revenue for millions of
videos without being punished, often claiming content they don't even own.

~~~
coleca
From the video this case wasn't Content ID, it was manually flagged.

~~~
kevingadd
That still means it went through the content ID system. The UI flow if they
manually file a DMCA is different.

DMCA also does not reassign revenue, content ID does that.

------
jccc
Minutes ago:

"Update - the claim was released, so I'm making this video unlisted. Thanks
guys for watching!"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-
hougwB4AaABAg)

------
hyperpallium
> I couldn't help it. It's in my nature.
> [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog)

------
bloudermilk
Has anyone written extensively about these types of corporate contradictions?
On the surface what happened in this situation is obviously absurd, yet I
don't find it surprising at all. I can't begin to imagine how far removed the
person who manually flagged that content is from anyone at Warner familiar
with that lawsuit. Companies that big are simply incapable of managing this
kind of minutia properly.

I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how you avoid it.

~~~
mirimir
Well, someone with more money than ways to spend it could start funding suits
against YouTube, Google, the fraudulent claimants, etc. Maybe even a bunch of
class actions, each against a suitable set of defendants.

------
Vysero
It really sounds to me like the owner of the video has an open and shut case
against Warner music should he decide to file a lawsuit.

------
6510
some info on the worm can factory

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY)

imho the goal should be to get money to the people who created something and
proportion it with the effort. Shit posts should be excluded for starters. Oh
so you've pointed a camera at something! Lets sink tax money into defending
your huger for lazy ass exploitation! A journalist traveling to some place to
do some cheap crap news report on something should be modestly monetizable for
a few weeks. A studio sinking millions into a production should enjoy a few
years of ownership but if they fail to break even in say 2 years we should
free up the system for actual efforts.

------
wuz
For more on how absolutely absurd Youtube's copyright system is, this video
really highlights it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w)

------
anonsivalley652
IANAL so we need an actual copyright lawyer to break this down. _Paging
Leonard French._

~~~
Cthulhu_
Actually, we don't need a lawyer; there was a lawsuit, the copyright claimants
in this case lost the case, therefore they don't own the copyright on the
segment that they claimed infringed on their copyright. The case was closed
already.

------
jb775
He just commented on the video saying the copyright claim was removed.

------
jsilence
Please use other platforms like lbry.tv. thanks.

