
UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue - slipstream-
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152750149271868&id=41670261867
======
ChuckMcM
Pretty egregious, and something which one would hope you could sue Google for.
In this case aiding in the infringement of Copyright because it is the Content
ID system, with a borked refusal policy, that are allowing UMG to pirate the
artist's music and to make a profit from it. Not only from the artist but
anyone who was paying license fees to the artist are now having their video
revenue get hijacked by UMG.

Seems like class action status might be possible.

~~~
Glyptodon
I agree. This comes up frequently enough that it seems like there could be a
legitimate class action of some kind.

~~~
windlep
I'd assume that Google/Youtube's TOS include a clause such that any issue you
might ever have, can only be resolved by arbitration. Lots of companies are
busy making sure that merely using their service means you can't press a class
action lawsuit.

~~~
pas
Have those ToS-es been tested in court? (Or more relevantly, ask a lawyer who
is familiar with the subject. It may be that not everything falls under their
forced mandatory arbitration.)

------
pjc50
This comes up every few months. ContentID is a system for ensuring that the
major labels get paid, and people who don't have enough money for legal
representation lose out either way.

~~~
Someone1234
Yeah, and fair use doesn't exist on YT for all intents and purposes.
Effectively ContentID is actually much more restrictive than real copyright
law by far, and there's nothing anyone can do about it because YT is a private
company and you don't HAVE to use them (although the lack of competition is
disheartening).

It is an unfortunate situation all around, one that I don't see changing any
time soon... Only legitimate competition could fix this.

------
m_coder
It looks like this issue was resolved because the OP was willing to use the
"appeal" process at Youtube. This is good to hear.

[https://www.facebook.com/41670261867/photos/a.10150273836606...](https://www.facebook.com/41670261867/photos/a.10150273836606868.332777.41670261867/10152750149141868/?type=1&comment_id=10152756679376868&offset=0&total_comments=72)

------
SyneRyder
For HN folks who don't recognize the name - Bjorn Lynne used to be part of the
demoscene and wrote MOD song files under the name Dr Awesome. He worked for
Team17 Software and wrote the soundtrack to Worms and many other games.

------
ebbv
Unless you're another multibillion dollar company, you are a resource to
Google, not a customer or a peer.

Also, this is a good lesson in why people should be careful about how they
license out their music in the first place.

------
serve_yay
But god forbid you put a 30-second clip of you and your friends messing
around, with a Beyonce song in the background or whatever.

------
etingel
I am not a lawyer, but this appears to be in direct violation of the license
agreement that UMG made with AudioSparx:

PROHIBITED USES 3\. Licensee may not claim ownership or authorship of the
Tracks licensed herein.

REMEDIES Parties' rights and remedies in the event of a breach or an alleged
breach of this agreement by defaulting party shall be limited to affected
party's right, if any, to recover damages in an action at law. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, no failure by either party to perform any of its obligations
herein shall be deemed to be a breach hereof, unless the other party has given
written notice of the alleged breach and allowed 30 days for the breaching
party to cure said breach following such notice. In no event shall Licensor be
entitled by reason of any breach or alleged breach to enjoin, restrain, or
seek to enjoin or restrain the production, distribution, exploitation,
advertising, promotion, or publicity of Licensee's project or projects, or
elements thereof, which integrate the audio content licensed herein.

[http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/legal/terms_of_service.cfm](http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/legal/terms_of_service.cfm)

On the plus side, this means that you don't have to go after Google which
probably has the right to put ads on any video and pay anybody they want for
those ads. On the downside, you can't file a DMCA takedown on UMG's content
and will need a lawyer to get compensated for the breach of contract. If you
just want to get the issue resolved going forward, you could probably send a
cease and desist telling them to stop claiming ownership over the music and
they will stop.

------
trothamel
Perhaps there needs to be a version of the Creative Commons with a group kill-
switch, where if a licensee violates the terms of the license, they lose the
rights to use all CC-KS works until the violations have been remedied.

~~~
spiritplumber
That's a great idea, isn't there a common "defensive patents chest" for this?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatentFreedom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatentFreedom)
Looks like they got bought out by an Intellectual Ventures clone. One of my
regrets in life is that I have lived within trebuchet range of the main IV
office, and never did anything with it.

~~~
jamii
[http://defensivepatentlicense.org/](http://defensivepatentlicense.org/) \- if
you license all of your patents under the DPL you then get free licenses to
all other DPL patents. Your membership and licenses are revoked if you sue any
other member for patent infringement.

------
vitd
I know that here in California, there is a non-profit named California Lawyers
for the Arts[1] that will help artists get connected with lawyers who know
copyright. It might be worth contacting them or a similar organization near
the author for more info.

[1][http://www.calawyersforthearts.org](http://www.calawyersforthearts.org)

(Disclosure: I have known a few people who worked for CLA.)

------
spiritplumber
(from the FB thread, just now)

Bjorn Lynne Hi all. As an update to this situation, I am happy to say that the
Universal Music Group claim on my video has now been released.

I have not had any communication with/from UMG, but what seems to have done
the trick is that I used the "appeal" process at YouTube after I was told that
my original dispute had been rejected by UMG. Going through the "appeal" at
YouTube is a pretty scary process, because YouTube uses some very strong
language to warn you that you may face legal action and/or your YouTube
account may be shut down. I did it nevertheless, I was that hell bent on
getting UMG to stop monetizing my music and claiming ownership of it.

After a couple of days, I received notification from YouTube that the UMG
claim against my video had been released. I think that the "appeal" process is
the only thing that UMG takes seriously, because the way it works is that, if
they still want to uphold their claim on the music, they have to issue a legal
DMCA takedown notice and provide legal argumentation as to why they own the
rights to that video/music. Obviously they could not do that, because the
music was composed by me, and it was very easy for me to prove that. So it
appears that, when they saw the appeal, they released their claim.

I'm still angry with UMG over their handling of this. First of all, they used
non-exclusive stock music (which in this case happened to be composed by me)
in a product and then entered that product into Content-ID at YouTube. This is
explicitly against YouTube's Content-ID policy, which clearly states that in
order to use Content-ID, you must fully own the content exclusively. Which
they didn't. Admittedly, anybody can make a mistake like that, and I wouldn't
have made a noise about it, if they had then released their claim when I
disputed it and explained the situation. But they didn't. They waited the FULL
30 days that they are allowed in which to respond, and then they upheld their
claim. That's when I got angry.

I don't know if UMG ever even looked at the dispute. Quite possibly, it is
their policy to always allow the full 30 days to pass, and then uphold their
claim, no matter what, knowing full well that the "appeal" process is so
scary. In my opinion, this is speculative and legally questionable. Right now,
they are probably monetizing hundreds of thousands of videos that contain
audio that doesn't belong to them at all, deliberately and knowingly. It's the
second time they've done this exact thing with my music (first, with my track
"Mystical Pyramids" and then with "Kingdom of the Persians"). And, as one guy
commented on this thread, these are the same guys crying so loudly about
people copying their music.

Thanks for all your comments, shares and support in this matter! Much
appreciated!

All the best, \- Bjorn Lynne Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 min

------
jwatte
In the US, once you pay an initial retainer, a layer will sometimes work on a
contingency basis - meaning they get one third of the final settlement. Given
that UMG is a rich target, and the claim seems very strong, you might find
someone like that to drive it. Even if you do, it will be slow, agonizing, and
ultimately less than it should be when you win.

------
spiritplumber
Offer to face your counterpart at UMG in single unarmed combat as a way to
settle the matter honorably.

~~~
spiritplumber
Why is it that when I say stuff like this it always gets downvoted?

It's a lot cheaper than involving lawyers, and it has the benefit of letting
all participants work through their testosterone and adrenaline, so that after
the match they can sit down and discuss the matter more amicably.

A proper refereed and organized fight is a pretty deep bonding experience, for
guys anyway.

You're more likely to get, and give, a fair deal to someone that you've done
something physical with - it's just how the human animal works.

~~~
pjc50
It gets downvoted because if it's a joke it's not very funny and HN doesn't
really like jokes anyway, and if it's not a joke it's a 19th-century kind of
bonkers.

~~~
spiritplumber
It's not a joke, and it works. A boxing match, or even a street fight in which
there are no serious injuries, is a good way to bond, whoever wins.

You walk away thinking "This other person is willing to get into a fight with
me, and fight fair". And the physicality of it does cause some amount of
bonding.

Plus, the adrenaline in your system that builds up when you prepare to get
into a negotiation and would otherwise have nowhere to go gets used up the way
nature intended, which makes it easier to see things with equanimity
afterwards.

That's an excellent starting point for any negotiation (assuming the fight was
indeed fair).

We have evolved with physical fights as one of the cornerstones of our
interactions with others -- you can repress it, be in denial about it, work
against it, or work with it. What should a hacker do?

TLDR:

The point is not "who wins the fight wins the argument".

The point is "let's you and me fight, then afterwards, we can discuss the
argument with more equanimity"

~~~
pjc50
We (as a culture) have spent centuries stamping out trial by violence and
duelling because as a dispute resolution mechanism it overwhelmingly favors
young men with training.

We have in recent years marginalized boxing as it gets people killed or
seriously injured, causes lasting brain damage even under controlled
circumstances, and normalizes violent behavior.

Edit in reply to sibling: HN seems to have some anti-deep-thread mechanism
which hides reply links. Maybe you should find someone to punch about that.

