YouTube Copyright System Gone Mad, EFF Prepares to Sue
YouTube and Warner Brothers have broken a little girl's heart by deleting a video of her singing the copyrighted song "Winter Wonderland," and the Electronic Frontier Foundation isn't going to take it anymore.
The populist legal organization made a post to its blog today arguing that copyright holders became overzealous with their use of YouTube's ContentID tool in January and flagged for deletion many videos that the EFF believes constitute Fair Use. The post puts out a call for people who've lost their content and want to take legal action.
Using YouTube's new automated copright detection technology, Warner Brothers detected last month that 15 year old Juliet Weybret had posted a video of herself playing the piano and singing the 1934 song Winter Wonderland. This unrepentant little criminal might have thought that such a widely covered tune had entered the public domain, 75 years after it was recorded, but Juliet was clearly unfamiliar with legislation like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to 95 years or more after publication date.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the situation. About YouTube's Copyright ID technology, the EFF wrote today:
These systems are still primitive and unable to distinguish a transformative remix from copyright infringement. So unless they leave lots of breathing room for remixed content, these filters end up sideswiping lots of fair uses. And that's exactly what has happened these past few weeks. And while today it's Warner Music, as more copyright owners start using the Content ID tool, it'll only get worse. Soon it may be off limits to remix anything with snippets of our shared mass media culture -- music, TV, movies, jingles, commercials. That would be a sad irony -- copyright being used to stifle an exciting new wellspring of creativity, rather than encourage it.It's clear from the Warner Music experience that YouTube's Content ID tool fails to separate the infringements from the arguable fair uses. And while YouTube offers users the option to dispute a removal (if it's an automated Content ID removal) or send a formal DMCA counter-notice (if it's an official DMCA takedown), many YouTube users, lacking legal help, are afraid to wave a red flag in front of Warner Music's lawyers. That's a toxic combination for amateur video creators on YouTube.
What does the EFF intend to do about it? The organization has put out a call to people who have had videos taken off of YouTube at the behest of Warner and whose videos were both noncommercial and substantially original. The EFF says it will help serve a counter notice and offer legal protection to as many people as it can. "We can't promise to take every case," they say, "but neither will we stand by and watch semi-automated takedowns trample fair use."
Can the EFF change the game on YouTube? Given the organization's healthy list of previous legal victories, we think it will be a good fight at the very least.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
This is a great post and I truly appreciate the coverage of this. I get pretty frustrated with not only the actions of the Big Industries and their abuse of Fair Use, but the failure for mainstream journalism to report this so proper outrage can take place. I don't think enough people understand how much corruption of an honest system has occurred.
BTW, your link to the Sony Bono article on wikipedia is slightly borked.
I applaud EFF for the move. There is a need for the balance and having one side have a final say without any possibility of any reaction by common people is not good.
bye
Andraz Tori
It's still striking to know that the record execs don't realize that this sort of action is hurting their business. True, they will never make the kind of money on record sales that they used to. But they can either fight that losing battle, or come to terms with the truth and move toward new business models. They will come around at some point because ultimately the public won't stand for it any longer (see DRM), but I still feel for the artists that are caught in the storm.
In the past, no one came round your house and stopped you privately performing songs without permission, or videoing them for your family - the problem comes with this whole idea that YouTube is some lovely platform for amateur creativity. That 'fair use' means the right to a global audience.
BTW even without the Sony Bono extension, there's a good chance a 1934 song could still have been in copyright - presuming the songwriter wrote the song at the age of 25, and died at the age of 75, it would be in copyright until 2034.
Something we should consider is that Google provide funding and scholarships for the EFF, and have also funded academic studies into 'Fair Use'. There's nothing wrong with them doing so, but it does mean there is more going on here than meets the eye. Not a conspiracy, just that Google fund lobbyist groups who pursue their interests. (The media companies do exactly the same).
At least some of the reason Warners are pulling their songs from YouTube comes down to a breakdown in negotiations between the two parties as to how income from YouTube should be shared - prior to this, Warners were largely using the ability to tag songs as rights holders and receive income. The EFF post actually makes this much clear.
What it doesn't, is how responsible Google are for the content being pulled. It's always presented as a matter of it being a two-party debate (evil media companies vs innocent users) - as if YouTube was a neutral platform rather than something Google expects to deliver profits.
Sounds like time to launch a YouTube "Winter Wonderland" competition. 50 or 60 thousand submissions should do the trick! I understand Google/YouTube's nervousness over copyright infringement, but action like this is getting sillier than 'health and safety' and 'political correctness'. Rebel - go record a cover version and upload it now!!!
This behaviour is in the typical Warner Brother's tradition. Here's Groucho's response...
http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?ResourceID=31
Another good example is the song Happy Birthday, which is copyrighted and may not be sung in public without a licence: http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
In New Zealand copyright law is going mad too, and my wife and I started up http://CreativeFreedom.org.nz to talk about it. We now have nearly 5000 members including thousands of artists against these new Guilt Upon Accusation laws.
Just as a reality check against some of these analogies, no one is stopping this girl form videoing herself singing this song, or distributing it in other ways. Google has voluntarily complied with a Warner request and removed a file from their (Google's) own servers.
This girl or her parents or the EFF for that matter can host the file for all the world to see. It seems like maybe the EFF could gain some notoriety and donations by putting their server where their mouth is and hosting a 'YouTube Refugees' type of thing.
Nope, instead a bunch of self-righteous wind and a law suit. Genius. Maybe they can force Google to host the file in perpetuity. Frighteningly enough, I think a lot of people would think that was great.
@Morgan
Juliet can host it elsewhere but that's not the issue. It wasn't removed due to YouTube not wanting to host it, it was removed because of a claim of copyright infringement based on primitive software that doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal uses.
The claim is that primitive software will always cast a wide net and catch innocents.
The EFF apparently think that this is legal under Fair Use. I hope they win.
This is recommended reading too: http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
This argument is stupid. I don't support any company that is still pushing DRM and copyright crap. Warner, Sony, and any other company that does needs to remove their collective heads from their rectums. The pittance they pay artists for their own work is embarrassing or should be. The Meatloaf album "Bat out of Hell" still hasn't made any money, according to the record crooks... Whatever.
Real artists don't care how their work is shared. They do it because they love it.
What a stupid thing to do.
So what's next, you can't perform songs in talent shows, etc.
I think it is time Warners' embraced their key stakeholders - artists and fans and worked out how to make a living in this transformed world rather than try to stifle innovation.
On the other hand they could keep it up and kill the golden goose.
If they keep up doing the copyright and keep on taking off the videos/songs off youtube and other videos sites, then it will kill all their business and it will be no more forever and how would that make you feel? Youtube will crumble and so others will crumble because of those bunch of idiots trying to make money themselves by suing them!!!
Why would they ban us from singing happy birthday in restaurant/public?
Why would they ban us from singing and videos?
Why would they ban us singing in cars?
Why would they ban us from singing Xmas songs in public and other places?
Why would they ban us from singing in concert?
What more....because I think it so stupid with copyright laws!
Grow up People!!!
I think it's great to fight for the 'fair use' right and I admire EFF.
But as for myself, I have decided to do something else. You don't want me to use your music... even when it's fair use? OK, I will not... never ever again! I will just ignore your music... all of it. And you are the one who will be sorry for that. The one who wants everything ends up with nothing.
I am sick and tired of guys who want to turn the whole world back just because they are not able to adapt to it. I want them to starve to death. Where can I get some free music? I mean free as not related to to those guys backed up by RIAA etc... I does not necessarily have to be free as a free beer.
They don't want us to sing their songs without paying? Let's just find ourselves some other songs. Hey, are there any real artists who just want people to love and sing their songs? I'll be happy to buy the tickets to your concert instead of spending money for that RIAA's stuff.
I was shocked to find that Youtube had removed the music from several salsa dance instructional and demo videos. How on earth am I going to enjoy - or learn from - a silent video of dancing people? Are they dancing on 1 or on 2, do they turn on 5 or 6?
Next thing they will delete will be the dancefloor because the carpenter has not agreed to publish the rights to look at his craftmanship? And what about the curtains? And the designer clothes?
Come on, hearing which song is used to practice salsa dances more likely gets people to buy the original, than to enjoy the often less than HiFi sound quality, but is essential nonetheless for understanding the real subject of the video.
Youtube, get serious or get forgotten.
If everything is so copyrighted, we would be living in a very conservative cage. Just like a prison. We can't do this, coz it's copyrighted. We can't do that coz it's copyrighted. Then what's the use of the word, "Fair Use"?
I tend to have to disagree with the EFF on this one. This is really a flaw with companies that try to make money with user generated content and bypass copyrights, etc. The real culprit is Google for not compensating those with the copyright. Google(YouTube) is not a non-profit business. Don't blame the copyright holders for protecting what is theirs.
The problem is that You Tube makes lots of money on these videos, if they would pay artists royalties then there wouldn't be a problem.
My thought:
Rather than decry the automated DMCA takedown provisions, someone should create a tool that will enable everyone to file DMCA takedown notices with YouTube.
We then flood YouTube with millions of takedown notices on every video on the site.
What a load of c*ap. So many bogus copyrights out there and what... seriously, Happy Birthday!?!
Also ban the Star Spangled Banner at all major sporting events - or is that out of copyright yet??
thanks.
The irony is that Warner etc will probably lose more money as a result. Why? Because if the majors delete their material from Youtube, it will provide more exposure to independent music and less to them.
People who are surfing Youtube mostly weren't shopping.
None of these corps give a crap anyway; even the ones who make out they're the good guys. Remember Apple's old slogan "Rip Mix Burn" and then a little while later, "We're going to save the music business"? I wonder if anyone here thinks they cut its windpipe... and then sold it oxygen.
The whole thing about artists doing it because they love it, may well become the main thing again - but many of the best artists never did get the financial support they need to do their best work, anyway. Making money from recordings is a sinking ship. A CD is pretty much a business card nowadays. I used to make a living as a recording artist, it's much more difficult nowadays.
Recorded content has become devalued. You can barely even give it away. I'm pretty sure they are going to have to rewrite copyright laws. What about this: Anyone who hosts copyright content has to pay a royalty for every time it is viewed. Radio stations have to pay royalties to broadcast music. Why shouldn't web sites? Sounds fair to me. It could be a reasonable amount that can easily be recouped from advertising on the page.
Same goes for DJs - they make mix tapes and give them away but really, they ought to pay.
Also, instead of developing sophisticated systems that detect copyright infringement, why don't Warner work on a system that can distinguish real art from garbage, and delete the garbage? ;)
I can somehow understand that bands want to protect the work they did. I got no problem with that especially with all those programs out there ripping the music of videos.
But looking at people around me (and this is the only thing I could do to compare) :
I see a fanmade video about a movie or a TV-show I like. It features music from a band I never heard of before. I go out and buy a CD. Or even several if I really liked it.
And I am not the only one doing something like this.
I don't like listening to radio-stations or musictv any longer because, in my opinion, they focus too much on the stuff that is 'in'. They repeat it again and again until it bleeds out of your ears.
So I prefer to listen to music I 'stumble upon'. With that kind of business policy those companies only make sure, their music isn't the one I will discover.
Big companies gone mad in my opinion!
if the video makes no profit or benefit others with free contents, then this copyright thing shouldn't apply, simple as that.
otherwise.... ban anyone who's driving with loud copyrighted music going?