Nothing in the notice means that BMF made a claim against this video in particular (in fact, it sounds like it's a private video, so there's no way BMF could review it). It's not a DMCA issue at all -- this is a system that YouTube chose to put in place completely unconnected to any DMCA claim system.
Sounds like this automated scanner result is wrong. I believe there is an appeal process, where a human will look at the video. Also note that the video is not being blocked in the meantime; it's still available.
The bigger problem that comes up is how can YouTube deal with the flood of video copycats (ever notice how every popular video leads to 20 copies of the same thing?) without stifling independent artists whose work gets a false positive in the scan system? It's an interesting challenge to get the right mix of false positives and negatives.
Please post what happens after you try the appeals process -- this could be a simple fix and I'd be curious to know.
Edit: Here's an overview of the automated "Content ID" system: http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
How long will it take YouTube to review the video? What possible actions are there? I understand that YouTube provides video hosting free of charge (and makes money from advertisements) and that this stuff can happen, but it seems entirely unfair... how can I get my content added to their content ID system so that people don't re-upload my stuff?
There's a signup form here: http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
Second, what exactly was the value in posting that? As a means of making a point, it's obnoxious at best, and useless at worst. Surely there's a better way to contribute to the conversation.
I will try in the orignal posters place.
1) Copyright law. It is indefinitely extended. Is this right? It is certainly true that the term "content creator" extends past the point where the actual content creator lived. Ok, so the law says that corporations are people. They own the content! But since they do not die, is copyright truly indefinite?
2) Lobbying in the US. Corporations can "donate" to politicians and essentially buy their positions on copyright and enforcement matters. This is a problem. The government should not be able to be bought.
3) Extortion. A combination of copyright and patent laws, that are perhaps overly broad, allow those with established positions and a lot of money to force innovative newcomers into the systems the incumbents put in place which exists only to funnel money into the incumbents pockets. Small companies do not have the funds to be able to adequately defend copyright or patent infringement cases, regardless of the merit of the claims.
None of these are easy problems, but they are none the less problems.
I often hear people in the US complain about this, and sometimes make reference to US Supreme Court rulings that allowed companies to donate as much as they want, and these activists want this laws repealed.
You note that political corruption is not unique to the USA right? You know bribery and donations can take many forms even if you remove 'corporate personhood'? Lots of countries have a problem with corrupt politicians.
The UK has a few problems, but we're remarkably free of corruption. Most of ours is stupid people offering "access" to a government official in return for a donation to a party, or not declaring expenses correctly. Certainly nothing like the transparent buying of influence available in other countries.
Looking at the results of leveson we see a lot of sleazy illegal behaviour from journalists, and we see too-close relationships between politicians and press, but we do not see people paying bundles of cash to influence policy.
And if a newspaper says "Promote this policy and our newspapers will help you win the election" ("it's the sun wot won it"), then that's hardly any different from a big pile of cash.
What's different though, is that the US law will often serve as a sort of template or "social proof" when it comes to something like extending copyright. The next step is enshrining it into treaties or law in other nations.
There's actually a fixed statutory period on corporately owned works, given that the life + X years scheme wouldn't work very well there. But yes, they have extended it and can be expected to lobby for further extensions, most likely by trying to convince different countries to leapfrog each other in the terms they offer.
Free Culture is itself freely available online, highly recommended reading: http://manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html
He's commenting on federal law, which indeed applies to the United States as a whole, or do you claim otherwise?
"America usually refers to either:
"The Americas, a landmass comprising North America and South America
"The United States of America, a country in North America"
This case was an automatic audio match. Somebody from BMF has looked at it, and the claim has been released. Note that this happened around 5 hours after the dispute, and less than 8 hours after the automatic claim was created, which I believe is a pretty great turnaround time on a weekend.
In addition to these media covered cases, I have noticed cases of very old public domain works being seized by corporations with no involvement in their original creation.
If they owed $100k every time they made a false takedown, they'd probably be a lot more careful in the future.
As for judgment on the actual issue, I think ContentID bends over backward to big content to forestall more heavy handed moves, at the expense of bad mistakes like this one.
It looks like it's profitable for BFM to claim or create lots of media clips so they get paid for these ads, in the interim period before the creator appeals. To fix it the incentives would have to change.
Here's a prior example where BFM erroneously claimed a license to a classical performance, which messed with ContentID.
Youtube should punish BFM's mistake.
I also want to know what happens to the ad revenue - do Youtube just keep it; or do they still pay it to the original company; or do they attempt to claw it back at some point; or do they pay it to the real creator of the work?
Regular law abiding people are accused of being terrorists and resources are used to chase shadows.
It's the same thing in this situation everyone is guilty unless you can prove you're not, meanwhile the real crooks are nowhere to be found.
Could this possibly be a case of YouTube mistaking something in the video as similar to something registered to BMF?
Thanks for all the tips! I'm reading through these comments now.
As such, BFM giving such a sample to Youtube's automated infringement detector strikes me as copyright trolling -- it's inevitably gonna get lots of false positives, and they get to make a bit of money off each before the YT appeals process works itself out.
It seems that the fault rests squarely on YouTube for not getting this right.
There are some forms of art which can survive on minimal economic returns. There are other forms of art which will not.
The game rules are in place, some abide by them and some don't.
I just have no idea how such an economy might operate and still remunerate creators for their work.
If it really is your "baby", then keep it to yourself, keep it safe. I wouldn't let any baby of mine out in to any marketplace alone.
Tortious interference with a contract, perhaps. Copyright violations, perhaps. But not slander.
This is a regrettable situation, that the OP got caught up in a detection system, but YouTube must do this kind of stuff, otherwise, the courts will mandate it.
It's never a bad thing to vote with your feet and no product or service provider should ever take its market prominence for granted.
Edit: The comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4122258 was posted while I was typing this post and is a lot more informative. :)
If the titles on HN now have to match the article title, you should just change the posting guidelines. Coming along 12 hours later and changing a post title is just power tripping.
Yes, piracy and copyright infringement is rampant, but by both individuals and corporations. A great example is the Amen Break. If you've got 20 minutes, I can't suggest this video enough for everyone:
It's in everything from old hip hop, to Oasis' "D'You Know What I Mean?" to the original Futurama theme song!
And all used with, according to the creators, absolutely zero royalties. (And they're fine with it, having been told. They get it.)