Youtube police

Subject: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 12:14 PM

Got a nasty note from youtube telling me that some company owns the rights to Prines "Hello in there" I don't have it posted one of my dear mudcat friends put it on. Anyway, never once sold anything that wasn't mine or wasn't traditional ... 99% of youtube is covers .. go figure. Just thought I would mention it as others may get the same message. Removed everything that wasn't my original or trad.

Just a heads up

Dan

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 12:49 PM

When you aren't profitting from an artist's work, and when you note the authorship, it seems to me you are doing nothing but advertising for the songwriter, for the original version of the song, and even for the people who own the rights.

This is short-sighted behavior probably stemming from the recording industry's chagrin over the erosion of value of product value due to illegal downloading of the original work, but is way misapplied in an instance like yours Dan. I have a number of videos featuring covers of stuff from Randy Newman to Neil Young to the Left Banke and have so far heard nothing on them.

I'm waiting for the Hendrix license people to clamp down on my version of Little Wing but so far so good, at least until they read this comment :>). I did get a copyright notice on, of all songs, God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen which I completely ignored.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 01:07 PM

You bet Ernie, And John posted with it a Great song written by John Prine .. go figure. Never ever dream of selling a song I don't own or is not in the public domain as traditional. If they really do that to everyone there won't be a youtube as the bulk of it is covers

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 01:10 PM

"Fair use" needs attention both sides of the Atlantic.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 01:37 PM

I guess it is going to get to the point that if you are walking your dog and whistling a song you heard on the radio, someone is going to take issue with you ... nuts ..

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM

It may well not be a "YouTube Police" that detected it, but someone connected with the current holders of Prine's copyright. I don't think YouTube can afford to have an army of (knowledgeable) people scanning material. So they must have received a complaint or an injunction or something, and in the current climate they felt obliged to act accordingly for fear of litigation.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: gnu
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 03:10 PM

They were "nasty", Dan?

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Artful Codger
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 04:31 PM

You may consider it "advertisement", but isn't it courtesy (as well as legal protection) to request permission before posting someone else's work?? After all, they have a right to control the scope and manner of the dissemination of their works. When you post their works on YouTube, you're essentially giving everyone a free copy; you may say this benefits them, but you have no real proof, and if it were true, they'd arrange to have their works posted themselves--if they desired it. It's not your call. And it's a far cry from performing someone's song to a small audience, as at a folk club, coffee house or street corner, something that might be argued should be allowed under a rational "fair use" policy. Posting on YouTube is clearly not "fair use", it's blatant copyright infringement.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 05:10 PM

Then they should just shut down youtube cause other than a few people doing their own works, it is all covers is it not?

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 05:21 PM

So after you got the note, what happened? Did they delete the video? Did they shut down your channel? I am betting that what they did is put an advertisement on the video page.

This is how they are responding to the issue of all the covers, etc. you speak of. Rather than shutting it all down, they let you keep it posted, but the party with the copyright claim gets ad revenue. I can see how that would be unacceptable for many -- in which case you have two options: 1) Prove that you have the right, i.e. fight them; 2) Take the video down.

Otherwise you accept it.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 05:22 PM

then we better not post any of us doing Woody Guthrie because I suspect some company owns all the songs also ... and in fact pretty much all traditional music has been recorded by someone before us and some company will say they own that. Now I can understand recording for profit. I would not want anyone to do that with any of mine (not that they would) but a youtube amateur video with 300 hits ... gimme a break

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 06:48 PM

I asked to have it taken down. On my site I took down everything that wasn't mine or pure trad.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 07:10 PM

Well if they want it down they will have to talk to John cause I didn't put it on .. now why they would write me and ask me to remove it go figure that also. All I can figure is my one song is up to 60,000 plays and Hello in there comes up on the side so I suspect maybe that has something to do with it ... anyway it is still there till I can get in touch with John. Just a home recording and not that good either ...geeze

hello in there

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 08:10 PM

Before Christmas I had a daydream of making a youtube of "Little Drummer Boy." I tried to see how one gets the license and how much it would cost, but I couldn't do it.

In my view, the recording industry want to protects its income while making it difficult for anybody to pay them. It's just another form of sales prevention, I guess.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 08:24 PM

I think if someone sees a post and has an interest, they may put up a copyright notice. I post either trad or Susan original songs, or songs that friends of ours have written. They are all posted by me, with the permission of the writers. I have also put some covers on my channel, usually asking if that was all right. Though not always. I did get a message on our version of Poor Ditching Boy, and took it down. Like posted above, I think youtube waits till someone complains and then does something.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 08:42 PM

I agree my friends, someone complained I am sure

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 08:46 PM

Well, I have videos which have matched third party content and all that has happened is that adverts have been posted on/next to them and when I uploaded the videos there was a note explaining it and saying I didn't need to do anything. Yours isn't the only cover of that song on YouTube, Dan.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Artful Codger
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 09:55 PM

Yes, the laws cater to the megacorporations (what else is new). If you were working in the (mass) recording industry, you'd have all the processes in place for tracking down current copyright holders, obtaining permissions, negotiating licenses, etc., in a cost-effective manner. But the hardships placed upon independent artists who need to do this--or to defend themselves against spurious copyright infringement claims by corporations--are below the concern of our governments.

As for "making it difficult for anybody to pay them", why should a corporation bother with the hassle of granting you permission and collecting your piddly royalties when it can have its own artists record those songs, with a much larger piece of the pie ending up in its own coffers? They aren't making it difficult for people to pay them, they're just rechanneling where the dollars come from, and keeping more of it.

And yes, olddude, YouTube should pull down all the covers where permission was not obtained, even if it means that 90% or more of the current videos would need to be taken down. If YouTube had to do that, perhaps enough people would get boiling over the crippling way copyrights get applied and extended to DEMAND reforms from their governments instead of passively rolling over. Petty acts of civil disobedience will only leave people open to potential prosecution; we need concerted grass-roots efforts if any meaninful change in our favor is to occur. So while I'd greatly miss not being able to view all the bootlegged videos on YouTube, a massive clamp-down there may be what's needed to get a critical mass going toward serious copyright reforms.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Brad Sondahl
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 09:55 PM

I've gotten some of those notices on some 1800's Christmas carols, nearly as soon as I posted them. I'd guess the big publishing companies are scanning new videos with software set loosely to identify their copyrighted material. In the case of the carols, there's no question of their being public domain, but there are probably a lot of arrangements copyrighted, which is why they would flag them. Again, it's only a guess, but it's happening pretty regularly on Youtube these days.
There's a lot of original material including mine on the Tube, but the covers get the most hits, like my cover of Greensleeves. The copyright laws were written to protect against any public performance, so they have the law on their side, but what's right feels like: no profit, no foul...

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 11:08 PM

This is nothing that I have not said here before. Greed rules and the big publishing companies are running at the top of the food chain. Tell them to "fuck off"! The biggest sin of all is those who put a (c) mark on traditional materiel be it for arrangement or whatever. Greedy bastards are controlling the industry!

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 11:10 PM

Everything on my account is stuff I wrote or traditional. I pulled off the 3 songs that were covers except my buddie JT's song and I have permission since it is his. Heck youtube and the music corps don't want us to perform them, then we don't have to give them free advertising either by promoting their songs. In the long run I think you guys are right, If more of us did that then youtube wouldn't be worth surfing for a song we like and it would just be laughing babies and cat and dog tricks ... maybe then something would change

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 07:32 AM

You made a great job of "Across the Borderline", Dan. You may feel more comfortable now having removed it but there probably was no need. It is such a well known song that I am sure if there had been a problem it would have been recognised immediately and they would have just stuck an advert on it. There are lots of covers of that on youTube and not everyone (if anyone) will have asked permission. The adverts actually bring more income to the copyright holders so I am sure that some of them like people doing covers of their songs, permission or no permission :).

You and I do not make any money from our YouTube channels; we just do it for fun so maybe when YouTube wishes to point something out to us they could do it politely.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Brad Sondahl
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 10:26 AM

A couple other related things. If you read the copyright guidelines on Youtube, it basically says don't post covers. When you are adding the notes to the video one of the tags that pops up frequently is "cover".   The Grateful Dead Facebook page recently encouraged fans to post covers of Dead Songs (and even just songs covered by the Dead) on Youtube as part of the DeadCoversProject. I took that as permission and posted some of my favorite Dead covers also. It's pretty crazy making.My youtube channel

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: John P
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:58 PM

In a live music situation, it is up to the venue to pay the royalty fees. Musicians don't usually have to worry about whether or not they are playing covers. Should YouTube be considered a venue? Should they be paying royalty fees? Or is each individual poster their own venue?

I agree that our copyright laws don't take a lot of things into account and need serious updating for the current world. On the other hand, I get kind of ticked off when people post my songs (or my arrangements of traditional material) without bothering to talk to me about it first. I did the work and I'd like to have the most say over how it gets used. If money is being made, I want it.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM

Brad, thanks for the link ~ I have subscribed ♫ ♬

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM

I agree John, however one will never get a response back from a major recording artist or even know who one must talk to and get permission to record a simple cover for non profit posting. I doubt that Paul Mccartney is going to write everyone and say sure you can post your non profit version of yesterday on youtube or even the company that holds the copyright. Fair use should be fair use for non profit posting but that is just my opinion

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: zozimus
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:41 PM

Paul McCartney is a bad example to use. He is just the kind of guy that would!

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 06:10 PM

"In the case of the carols, there's no question of their being public domain, but there are probably a lot of arrangements copyrighted, which is why they would flag them."

Hello, Brad. I have often heard people make comments such as yours, which refer to copyrighting the arrangement of a public-domain tune. However, when I was president of a group which sponsored concerts, I read books and encyclopedia articles and haven't seen anything then or since which says that anybody can copy an arrangement. I believe that if you downloaded American copyright law and searched for 'arrangement' you wouldn't even find the word in the law.

If anybody knows different, let me know.

I am even more convinced that you cannot copyright the chord symbols for a piece.

There are penalties for violating a legal copyright, but there are no penalties for claiming a copyright to which one is not entitled, and I think a lot of people bully others with those false claims. (Hal Leonard Co comes to mind.)

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:51 PM

The "entity" (sounds like something from Ghost Hunters) that claimed copyright content on God Rest Ye is called Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society. A little digging reveals that these people routinely file this veiled threat on thousands of videos including one self-described by a kid named Tony as "me playing ping pong". Often, Youtube/Google's immediate reaction is to place an ad on the video and,I suppose, immediately begin monetizing "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society". This smells like a scam to me, and I'm ignoring them.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 09:09 PM

'You get the pleasure of posting videos We get the pleasure of making money from your videos It's a win-win situation :)" This is the mission statement on their facebook site. See them at
Facebook

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Brad Sondahl
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 11:26 PM

Re copyrighting arrangements-- a quick Google turns up this at PDINFO.com which is a site dedicated to public domain:
The arrangement of a song can also be protected by copyright. A chord progression does not constitute an arrangement, and a chord progression alone cannot be protected by copyright. But the chord progression, harmonies, accompaniment rhythm, and musical fill phrases are together a creative work which define the style and feel of a song. Anyone can create and copyright an arrangement of any music in the public domain. So even though music and lyrics may be in the public domain, there frequently are numerous arrangements of any public domain work under copyright protection.
Derivative Work
When a musical work is first written down in a tangible form, the original is created. Changes to the original create a new work which is called a derivative work. The author of a work has exclusive rights not only to his original work, but also exclusive rights to make derivative works from the original. But anyone can create and copyright a derivative work from anything in the public domain.   Therefore, a composition may have numerous derivative works protected by copyright even if the is original is the the public domain.   We will leave it to the attorneys to differentiate between "arrangement" and "derivative work". What you must know is that both are protected by copyright law.

Hopefully PDINFO.com will view my copying as fair use :-)

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 12:05 AM

Considering my brother is a composer, I am really interested in these kinds of discussions. All of you have much more experience and knowledge about the issues, esp. in the digital age. Thanks.

Brad, listening, now, and love it! Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 12:47 AM

While we are on the subject, watch out for this threatening email purporting to be from the RIAA...

copyright infringement malware

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 10:20 AM

Thanks for the link to pdinfo.com. I didn't know about that, and it will be useful.

Unfortunately, though, and typically with copyright issues, the very first thing I read there raised as many questions as it answered. They state flatly, "The proof that a musical work is in the Public Domain in the USA is any sheet music publication with a copyright date of 1922 or earlier." OK, then what about a musical score issued in 1903 in a book by a publisher based in, according to the title page, "London, New York, and Sydney," with an all-rights-reserved copyright notice that doesn't mention which country, and for which a examination of the on line US Library of Congress copyright catalog indicates that the copyright was renewed in 1937? Is this score in the public domain in the US? This example is based on a real case I know, and is not at all an atypical situation.

Public domain rules regarding recorded music are even more complicated and obscure. For instance, foreign (i. e. non-US) recordings made after 1972 receive the same copyright protection as recordings made in the United States, but no foreign recordings made during 1923-1972 are in the public domain in the United States, even if they're in the public domain in their countries of origin (see "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman [Nolo Press 2010], chapter on Music Rights, esp. p. 121 ).

My main complaint about copyright is not that things should or should not be free to use, but that it's most often impossible to determine whether you are free to use them, even in cases that might seem on the surface straightforward. Rights for creative work in written or recorded form seem to be determined by a very complicated and uncoordinated set of US Federal and state legislation, case law, and
international treaty law. It's hard to argue that everyone should obey laws which no one can understand.

Jon Corelis
Pagan songs

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM

I suspect that many of the big organisations have crawler software that looks for keywords and when they find them, they simply inform You Tube who have a set of standardised actions.

I put up a video of a fifteenth century carol which I had rewritten in modern English and set to a tune I wrote myself. The next thing I knew EMI were claiming copyright. There is no way they can reasonably claim copyright in such a situation.

If a song is public domain, I challenge their claim as a matter of principle. I send in the challenge via You Tube's standard form, informing them that the song is traditional and the arrangement is mine and, of course, get no reply, but I have made my point.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Mike Mandaville
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 02:22 PM

Jon, there is nothing complicated about it. The book was published in 1903, so the song is in the public domain, period. Furthermore, England and Australia have both signed on to the U.S. Copyright Law. And that the copyright was renewed in 1937 has no bearing on the matter. And if it is a legal "case" that you are referring to, then let's hear about it. I am no copyright lawyer, but a folk singer who intends to perform in public cannot afford to be ignorant about such things.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:10 PM

Guest of 21 Feb 12 - 12:48pm was me. I hadn't realised my cookie wasn't set.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM

Thanks (to Mike M.) for the reply. When I said "case," I didn't mean to imply a legal case, just an example.

I'm still confused though. If "that the copyright was renewed in 1937 has no bearing on the matter," then why did someone renew the copyright in 1937? If renewing copyright doesn't extend copyright protection, then what DOES it do?

I've read through three Nolo Press books on rights issues, and it seems the more I read about it, the more confused I get.

Even George Harrison, a lifelong successful big-league professional who one might think had the best legal advisors money can buy, came to grief over copyright issues.

Jon Corelis
Sappho: Ode to Aphrodite: a musical setting

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Mike Mandaville
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:54 PM

Jon, thank you for responding. The reason why the copyright was renewed in 1937 is because if it had not been renewed in 1937, the copyright would have run out in 1937. However, that this event took place fully three quarters of a century ago is certainly not irrelevant.

Regarding George Harrison, the first time that I heard the song "My Sweet Lord" on the radio, I immedately recognized the melody as being that of "He's So Fine", and I knew that the original composer was either already paid, or else that he would probanly bring a legal case to bear on the matter.

Somewhere on the internet is a full explanation which is written by a copyright lawyer showing just why it is that 1922/1923 is the cutoff date for copyrights, depending upon from which side of the line we are approaching. I used to have that page bookmarked, but I will look for it again.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Mike Mandaville
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 06:44 PM

Okay, I found it again. The following article is written by Dennis S. Karjala, who is a Professor of Law at Arizona State University:

Here is the article

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 10:35 PM

Thanks, I will look at that.

Jon Corelis
Abergenny: A welsh Song

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 09:54 AM

Meanwhile, I've found some more information which answers one of my questions, and which others may be interested in.

I think I've mentioned here before Nolo Press">Jon Corelis, a US publisher of books on law for the lay person which has a longstanding excellent reputation. Their web site has some good articles as well as a forum for questions, and I found a very useful summary page on public domain. According to that page, it is indeed true that "copyrights of all works published in the United States before 1923 have expired; the works are in the public domain." Copyright renewal only applies to works published between 1923 and 1963: for more details, see the page.

In the case I gave above, I suspect the reason copyright was renewed was that the score originally published as part of a book was republished as sheet music with its own copyright. But according to the Nolo page, since the score in the book was published well before 1923, it should be public domain.

Jon Corelis
The sweet nightingale: A Cornish song

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 10:16 AM

Sorry, I messed up the link to Nolo:

http://www.nolo.com/

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Mike Mandaville
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 11:38 AM

Jon, I like your link better than mine. The two links share much of the same information, though your link puts the matter in language which I think is easier to understand.

Here is Jon's link again

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 07:29 PM

I'm glad the link is useful. For fuller information, Nolo has at least three books addressing US copyright and public domain issues:

* The Public Domain by Stephen Fishman (with a chapter on music rights)
* The Copyright Handbook by Stephen Fishman
* Getting Persmission by Richard Sim (has a long chapter on music.)   

You can get them from Nolo.com or on line retailers, and they are often found in public libraries. There may be other relevant Nolo books I don't know about. These books seem to be updated every few years, so anyone who wants to consult them should be sure to get the latest edition. I think they are the best advice you can get on these subjects without actually hiring a lawyer.

Jon Corelis
Celtic suite in G major

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Brad Sondahl
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 11:15 AM

I got a new wrinkle from Youtube. I posted a version of "Hamburg" a tune for "When I survey the wondrous cross" which was written in the 1700's. Knowing it was my own arrangement of a public domain tune, I enabled "revenue sharing" (not that they've shared any yet with me).
After two views, I got an email notice from Youtube saying "We have disabled monetization on the following videos because we were not able to verify that you have the appropriate commercial use rights for all included content." They did provide a link to respond, which I did, and 3 days later the tune remains "disabled for revenue sharing." It's not that I care about the revenue sharing, but I do care about the frontier style claim jumping that's going on with public domain materials...

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 12:36 AM

I don't know if this has been reported on this forum yet, but I just got an email with the subject "YouTube sent you a message: Your video has been removed due to terms of use violation," which is amusing, since I've never put a video on youtube. My gmail account identified it as possibly bogus, and an examination of the headers indicates pretty clearly that it's a forgery.   A search on the internet indicates that a lot of people recently have been receiving these, with various forms of bogus messages -- it's a particularly nasty form of phishing, since apparently there is no alternative way of reaching youtube other than clicking on links in email that youtube sends you. Since I don't have anything on youtube, I can safely just ignore any email saying I have, but this could be a real problem for people who do have videos there -- do you ignore the email or not? The only thing I can suggest is to use gmail and trust it when it flags a message as bogus, and/or learn how to examine full email headers for evidence of forgery.

Jon Corelis
Kaleidoscope: Great Poems Set to Music

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 01:12 AM

Jon, you have set music to some of my very favorite poems with quite wonderful results. Thanks for the link!

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 06:36 AM

Jon, I have received a lot of these emails recently. They appear to be from YouTube Service but there are subtle differences in the email address. Some say I have a message from someone, some say my video has been approved ... and the list goes on. It is not necessary to click on any link in any YouTube email whether it is genuine or not. If an email from YouTube says I have a message I don't click on the link in the email I just go straight to YouTube and get the message ..... if it exists.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Richie
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 06:56 AM

I tried to put mostly PD songs on my YouTube Channel, now I'm not sure if that matters.

I've only had oen song pulled pretty Little Widder- by a copyright holder who didn't like what I said about a similar but different song- Sugarfoot Rag.

I'm still trying to put only PD songs assuming, at some point, there will be some form of enforcement.

It seems that unless there's a complaint by the copyright holder of someone associated with the copyright- everything goes.

Richie

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Jon Corelis
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 09:32 AM

Thanks for the comment on the poems site.

I don't use youtube myself, but I infer from some of the above comments that if you do, you have a message box there. So it looks like the best advice is not to click on any links or reply to email supposedly from youtube, but just go to youtube and check your messages there.

Jon Corelis
Kaleidoscope: Great Poems Set to Music

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,Brad Sondahl
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:39 PM

I posted a week ago about getting a copyright dispute from Youtube. I got another message from Youtube now that they accepted my assertion that the 18th Century hymn Hamburg is public domain, and it was even signed by an apparent human...   Justice... I'm posting this to encourage others to stand up for their use of public domain material... Remember 1923 is the critical date for most stuff...

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 06:58 AM

Well done Brad. Good outcome.

I have noticed that where I have challenged them over copyright claims on traditional material, the copyright "marker" on my videos has gone, though I have never had a reply. That's possibly because I haven't gone for monetising my videos as there are insufficient views on any.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,mattmilton
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 08:38 AM

"And yes, olddude, YouTube should pull down all the covers where permission was not obtained, even if it means that 90% or more of the current videos would need to be taken down. If YouTube had to do that, perhaps enough people would get boiling over the crippling way copyrights get applied and extended to DEMAND reforms from their governments instead of passively rolling over. Petty acts of civil disobedience will only leave people open to potential prosecution; we need concerted grass-roots efforts if any meaninful change in our favor is to occur. So while I'd greatly miss not being able to view all the bootlegged videos on YouTube, a massive clamp-down there may be what's needed to get a critical mass going toward serious copyright reforms."

I disagree, and can't see that this is desirable for either musicians or listeners.

It's one thing for a musician's recording to be posted without their permission, for all to hear. For which they will receive no performance royalties whatsoever. In those instances, a musician has a legitimate gripe: it's letting people listen to their songs (albums) whenever they want to, and arguably removes the incentive for a listener to pay them.

But covers of their songs by other people? Come on, it is in practice no different from busking, no different to playing a cover-version at an open mic. Any musician or record company that asks people to take it down is just being a killjoy: it's not doing them any favours whatsoever.

If the system worked, of course, people like John Prine and the Hendrix Estate would receive PRS royalties on those covers, taken from the advertising revenues youTube receive.

Subject: RE: Youtube police
From: GUEST,mattmilton
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 08:41 AM

what's alarming, though, about the original post, is that they asked OldDude to take down a video he hadn't actually posted up!

I don't know quite what they expected him to do...

I mean, say it hadn't been a friend of his?!

Must admit, I would have been tempted to have been more adversarial. I'd have told them that it had nothing to do with me: it wasn't my video, I had no power to take it down, and they should go and contact the person who put it up there!