I got my second copyright strike ...

Damn, man, this is so much crap for the suck bucket. I'll go back to what I told Sebi, though: YouGet what YouPay for. Pardon my French (and my ignorance), but what the hell is this "partner process" BS?

I think it was on the Colbert Report the other night, he said something like, "Ten years ago today YouTube was launched. Fifteen minutes later their first copyright infringement case was filed..."
 
Last edited:
I hadn't seen your response before I made my last post.

I couldn't bring myself to take down the Captain Google tribute video. If they want to claim copyright on that one, I'll fight it.
You go, boy!

youtube shows "about 44,400" results for a searh on "Over the Rainbow". Hopefully, it's safe to say the copyright holders of that particular song aren't being aggressive about enforcement.
 
It's worth noting that "Hotel California" is published by Warner Music Group. What was the first strike you got?

The first strike was from a background song in a montage video, pre-uke. It was "Natural Woman," by Aretha Franklin,
 
Last edited:
Oh, Seeso -- sorry to hear about this. I can't add anything new to this, but do enough to be able to stay on You Tube. You gotta keep Captain Google. Good move.
 
Ridiculous. It's things like that which make me question using Youtube at all. Plenty of other alternatives out there.
 
I millionth everything said here...such bull. Shouldn't a band be happy that their music is getting spread and that their legacy is building? If anything, someone might hear Seeso's cover, love it, learn to play it themselves, then decide they want to hear the real version and go buy it. I seriously seriously SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone has ever listened to cover on a different instrument with youtube quality instead of purchasing the actual copy. If someone is willing to replace a purchase of a CD with that, then they were never going to buy it in the first place.

These companies are so short sighted. They don't know how to harness this force in their favor. Very stupid.
 
Ridiculous. It's things like that which make me question using Youtube at all. Plenty of other alternatives out there.

Yeah, but youtube is just covering their own asses. There are agressive compaines that sue for this s**, and they don't want it to happen, because ultimately it's their asses for letting illegal stuff up.
 
Practical Matters

As the lawyers say, "as a practical matter" they had you by the short hairs. You did the only thing you could do, as a "practical matter." Because I think it's important that you have a forum for your original work, and youtube provides a monster forum.

And I really think we should all focus on that. Let's cut loose the non PD covers, and concentrate on original work.

Sorry this happened.
 
This is scary. I'm sorry, Seeso. :( I hope this doesn't happen to me next. I've had a couple of copyright claims, but only from people who put ads on those videos and banned them in Germany or something.
 
YouTube should pay for copyrights since they are making all the money on the advertisements.
 
Not even a YouTube Live performance with Julia Nunes stopped them. >_<
 
To heck with these people. I'm taking down my covers. I can live without them, and don't want to worry about the dozens of originals I've got up. If YT can't figure out a solution to this issue, fine. I think I'll also make it a point not to play the music of anyone who lets their bee-lips loose on people who cover their music for the joy of it, rather than for profit. Wake up, bald eagles. And Seeso, fwiw, I've always enjoyed your original stuff the most, anyway.
 
Aw sh*t, Seeso. :(

Do what you need to protect your back, brother.

If you did pursue the suggestion to start another account to host your covers, don't use the same email address to sign up. I did that and the copyright strike from The Ploughmen's cover of 'YMCA' on my panphobe account was applied to my new buddhUU account too!

[...] The funny thing here is that Warner Bros. is shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not making any money off of covering their song, nor am I leeching any potential customers, let's face it. In fact, it actually benefits Warner if someone discovers the song through my cover and then seeks it out and purchases the real thing [...]
Absolutely right. I've been labouring the same point in all these YT/copyright discussions. These people are not only litigious, soulless bastards, they are also stupid.

How to lose friends and piss people off...

I suppose it goes without saying, but GRRRRRR!!!! :mad:
 
Too bad, Seeso...
For me removing the covers is no option, after that there would just be 5 or 6 videos left, and not much chance for any new ones in the near future.
I just wonder if I should remove my version of Hotel California. I wonder if mine so far did not get touched because I don't sing on most of them?
 
I have to wonder how the doctrine of "Fair Use" comes into play here.

In reality, if anybody's making a profit from this it would be YT, so it should really be their headache in that regard, since it's pretty apparent that money is all that really motivates these notices.

I'm not completely sure that they'd ultimately prevail in a court of law, unless they could demonstrate some sort of harm being caused to their copyright by some guy playing the song on an ukulele in a homemade video. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I find it a bit hard to believe that Seeso playing "Hotel California" on a YT vid is really cutting into the Eagles' profit margins or devaluing the song.

It may take an ACLU suit or something to finally drag these bastard kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
 
Top Bottom