PDA

View Full Version : I got my second copyright strike ...



seeso
02-18-2010, 01:57 PM
http://imgur.com/UT7t7.gif

I'm thinking of taking down all my covers. What do you guys think?

ukeshale
02-18-2010, 02:01 PM
It's a real shame as you've got so many great covers up. I don't think there's really any other option though, you can't risk losing your account. Keep hold of the videos if possible, maybe you'll be able to re-post them if/when some sort of improvement in this whole situation emerges.

russ_buss
02-18-2010, 02:05 PM
that's messed up!

Cass County Music all uptight and S***. shame on them.

SailQwest
02-18-2010, 02:08 PM
What a drag! I think to be safe, you should take down your covers, but make sure you have copies of them.

psesinkclee
02-18-2010, 02:09 PM
Its a shame that this is all happening now.. If you do take them down make sure you still have copies of them incase you want to reupload them on another video streaming site.

MisoHappy
02-18-2010, 02:10 PM
As much as I want to say "Heck no!" that's not how this games works. :(

The sacrifice is worth it though; better some of your videos than none at all. But yeah, save the videos

salukulady
02-18-2010, 02:13 PM
I'd take the covers down just to keep your originals out there where people can enjoy them.

Tigeralum2001
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Add the chords & call them "educational."

SmokeyStubbs
02-18-2010, 02:24 PM
Sorry to hear this dude.

This is all getting out of hand. I'm sure we are all or the same opinion that homebrew covers are harmless fun and can only add to sales of artist's music. There are so many tunes & artists that I have been introduced to by covers on youtube, when will they realise this is a good thing? It's a shame that so many people are being effected by the copyright nazis, surely it won't only harm youtube posters, but music industry evolution as a whole. Laws need to be changed as technology and society changes, that's bloody obvious. If I can see this, surely music executives earning 100 times my annual wage can see this. :confused:

I was thinking, if we label all our videos 'parody' rather than 'cover', will this keep the copyright nazis at bay?

btw: excuse my inelequent rant, but I am quite drunk atm.:drool:

kissing
02-18-2010, 02:26 PM
ugh, I'm sure many people have made the same rant countless times... but this is my first time.
I guess I've been holding it in for a long time, but seeing the actual warning message for myself has just pushed me!!#!

LIKE SERIOUSLY, WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS COPYRIGHT BULL!?!
WHAT DO THESE COMPANIES GAIN FROM BEING SO UPTIGHT?!!?!? ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOING TO RECORD MP3'S OFF PEOPLES' COVERS WITH YOUTUBE'S GRAINY QUALITY SOUND IN PLACE OF A CD OF THE REAL EAGLES?!
LIKE OH NO! PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING THE LYRICS AND CHORDS OF THE EAGLES.. FOR FREE!!

AND I READ SOMEWHERE THAT COPYRIGHTS WERE NEVER MEANT TO LAST AS LONG AS THEY DO NOWADAYS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO JUST LAST A SHORT TIME FOR THE CREATOR TO PROFIT FROM IT, AND THEN GO TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. BUT THE RECORD COMPANIES GOT GREEDY AND MADE COPYRIGHTS LAST FOR AGESSS SO THEY CAN MAKE THE LIVES OF AMATEUR COVER ARTISTS MISERABLE >_<

AND GUESS WHAT?
IT'S AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT TO COVER THE SONG "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" WITHOUT PAYING ROYALTIES >_<@!#!#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_issues_and_public_ performances

THIS IS MADNESS!
NO!
THIS IS COPYRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



/end rant.

Mim
02-18-2010, 02:27 PM
What a shame! Seriously!!!

ukecantdothat
02-18-2010, 02:31 PM
Wow, Seeso, this is truly disturbing. You could take them off, of course, or move them to a different account so your original material is left unscathed. I know these corporate "people" have their reasons, but c'mon! I don't get it. I'm new to the covers-on-YouTube scene, so it'll my turn at some point and I'll be left with the same dilemma you face. I don't put any stock in covers, though, so my original material would be the thing I'd worry most about losing (you do have the original files, I assume...?). Maybe you should caption all the covers with chords and call them instructional, or is that dodge a myth too?

Good luck, Mr. 2strikes... :(

lukuleles
02-18-2010, 02:35 PM
maybe you could take all the covers off your channel and put them on a new "seeso covers" channel. that way if they delete the covers channel it won't be as big a blow.

good luck seeso! sorry to hear about the madness hitting you too.

seeso
02-18-2010, 02:35 PM
Alright, all my covers are gone. I left a few up.

"I Want You Back" already had a claim on it, and the owners chose to put an ad on it, so that one's fine.

"Wind and Rain" is a public domain song. No copyright owner there.

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.

Wow. I feel kind of sh**ty, but strangely liberated too. All those comments. All those views. I had racked up 3.8 million total video views.

Zoe brought up a good point. I wonder if this would happen to me if I was a partner. I've been resisting it all this time. Maybe it's time to start the partner process.

Bleh.

UKISOCIETY
02-18-2010, 02:40 PM
You made a wise decision, Seeso. Less of Seeso is still much better than no Seeso at all.

FEA.

Tigeralum2001
02-18-2010, 02:57 PM
u
AND I READ SOMEWHERE THAT COPYRIGHTS WERE NEVER MEANT TO LAST AS LONG AS THEY DO NOWADAYS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO JUST LAST A SHORT TIME FOR THE CREATOR TO PROFIT FROM IT, AND THEN GO TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I agree it is a farce. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

If these terms were extended to the beginning of time (I supposed they are in Europe?), then NOTHING would be in the public domain. Ironically, Disney was a great benefactor of public domain as their first few movies were taken from public domain. Average copyright when Disney started in 1928... 30 years. Currently- life of the author plus 70 years! Likely to be extended each time that period is close to expiring. I love capitalism, but this is BS! The whole point of a copyright is to give you rights to your creation for a short time, then let everyone have it. Part of its purpose was to inspire creativity. That way you don't write 1 or 2 songs/movies/books whatever & rest on your laurels. However, when that interferes with money making, I guess our great politicians decided new creation concept is a luxury. I think Hollywood agrees with as many sequels as are currently being produced.

Ukulele JJ
02-18-2010, 03:04 PM
It's worth noting that "Hotel California" is published by Warner Music Group. What was the first strike you got?

I've been careful to not mention the names of songs I cover if I know they're Warner songs. For example, my cover of a certain song from a certain Norwegian pop group is merely titled "Taking on another 80's song". So far (knocking on wood) I've gotten no take-down notices.

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. But Warner's litigiousness encourages me to omit the name of the song and artist from the video, removing the one benefit they're getting!

Insert exasperated face palm here.

JJ

Monkeyswithladders
02-18-2010, 03:44 PM
I've already decided that if I end up getting targeted and some videos taken down, I'm going to put everything back up under similar fake names. The videos would be less accessible, as people searching for "The Rolling Stones" wouldn't find my cover of "The Tumbling Rocks", but at least it would still be up there for my primary purposes which are the love of making music and sharing my efforts with like-minded people. I think you should consider that option.

StereoJoker
02-18-2010, 03:50 PM
I was thinking, if we label all our videos 'parody' rather than 'cover', will this keep the copyright nazis at bay?

Apparently, even song parodies are suspect to being considered "copyright infringement" if the original tune is used without permission (I forget the technicalities, but I know a few prominent YouTubers who have been targeted because of that).

This whole thing is heating my blood up more and more. I wonder if everyone still did cover songs, but not ones owned by WMG, the accounts would be all right. I mean, it seems like WMG is going full-force all of a sudden on everyone.

itsme
02-18-2010, 03:51 PM
seeso, you're not the only one.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=17e0364d26a0016d&hl=en


Add the chords & call them "educational."

Looks like that's not good enough. Someone posted in that link:


I have made a video explaining how to play this song 'hotel california" for education with annotations.
YT has blocked it and asked me to delete it last week.

Found an interesting site devoted to info on youtube takedowns.

youtomb (http://youtomb.mit.edu/)

seeso, see their blog entry for 2-4-09. It's an intriguing idea. What if you voluntarily replace your covers with a vid about the copyright issue? Spread awareness, and also you'd be able to preserve your visitor comments, inbound links would still get to a page by you instead of a "removed" notice, etc.

In the info box you could just add that the original material was removed. I would think if the video itself is removed, it would be okay to leave the original verbage, keyword tags and such, and it would still be found by someone searching on a specific artist or piece. And if you find an alternative host, you could always put a link to it.

Reluctantly, I say you should take down all your covers. This is your last warning from them. Even if youtube isn't going to proactively police all the vids on your channel, you've been hit twice and will likely be again. Honestly, you have too much good stuff to offer to risk having your account terminated without notice for a third strike.

ukecantdothat
02-18-2010, 03:53 PM
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..."

itsme
02-18-2010, 04:01 PM
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.

seeso
02-18-2010, 04:05 PM
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,

sukie
02-18-2010, 04:08 PM
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.

nkorb21
02-18-2010, 04:16 PM
This is all just so frustrating! I think you made a good move though to take down all the covers. Maybe you should become a partner. You definitely have enough subs and views to qualify. :D

Nichod
02-18-2010, 04:44 PM
Ridiculous. It's things like that which make me question using Youtube at all. Plenty of other alternatives out there.

afeistyfiesta
02-18-2010, 04:50 PM
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.

afeistyfiesta
02-18-2010, 04:51 PM
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 shit, and they don't want it to happen, because ultimately it's their asses for letting illegal stuff up.

pdxuke
02-18-2010, 05:07 PM
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.

devilishlypure
02-18-2010, 05:19 PM
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.

Ahnko Honu
02-18-2010, 06:08 PM
YouTube should pay for copyrights since they are making all the money on the advertisements.

SuperSecretBETA
02-18-2010, 07:14 PM
Not even a YouTube Live performance with Julia Nunes stopped them. >_<

Skrik
02-18-2010, 07:42 PM
There may be light at the end of this tunnel: http://www.examiner.com/x-14721-Boston-Music-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Famed-Abbey-Road-studio-may-be-up-for-sale

uke5417
02-18-2010, 07:44 PM
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.

buddhuu
02-18-2010, 10:37 PM
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:

WS64
02-18-2010, 11:24 PM
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?

Lanark
02-19-2010, 12:58 AM
I have to wonder how the doctrine of "Fair Use" (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) 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.

deach
02-19-2010, 01:06 AM
damn, this is making me very paranoid.

Floyd Blue
02-19-2010, 03:50 AM
When will they ever learn?

It's a shame and it makes me very angry!

hoosierhiver
02-19-2010, 04:17 AM
Reina DelCid just had the same thing happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzpfDXPUU8&feature=sub

snowy_zoe
02-19-2010, 04:40 AM
I hope elephant town is safe, that song makes me so happy

austin1
02-19-2010, 04:42 AM
hang in there seeso, UU's behind you, sebi, and everyone else the system is picking on

hoosierhiver
02-19-2010, 05:00 AM
Everyone concerned should tell Warner about it. http://www.wmg.com/contact

Swampy Steve
02-19-2010, 05:04 AM
I am not up on this,,, but if they are after you because you did a vid of somebodys song ,, thats freakin crazy!!
If you are not recording the songs on a album, and selling it, what business is it of theres??

they make no sense

Ukulele JJ
02-19-2010, 05:10 AM
YouTube should pay for copyrights since they are making all the money on the advertisements.

My understanding is that that's actually what happens in most cases.

YouTube has contracts with most of the major publishing houses. A portion of the money YT makes from ads is given to the music folks. It's an arrangement that seems to make both sides pretty happy.

Warners, for a time, did not agree with this arrangement, being the enormous asshats that they are. But I thought that they eventually came to some sort of agreement with YT. Check out this article (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/warner-music-group-signs-youtube-deal/), for example. So it's puzzling as to why this is still an issue. Maybe the new contract hasn't gone in effect yet?

Anyway, I would caution everyone to not be so quick to blame the artist and/or writer of the songs in question. I doubt that Don Henley, Don Felder, and Glenn Frey are browsing YouTube and then personally firing off angry e-mail to YouTube for every instance of "Hotel California" they find. Well, I wouldn't exactly put it past them... But it's more likely, some database intern is just taking a list of song titles and bumping it up against the titles and descriptions. There's probably some automated song recognition software they're using to, to find cases where the original track is being used. This is probably at the behest of lawyers, not the actual creators of the works.

JJ

CountryMouse
02-19-2010, 05:24 AM
I am so sorry to hear this, Seeso! But yes, better to leave your originals up and (at least for now?) take down the covers. And like Deach said, this is making me paranoid too. I don't even have that many videos up or subscribers, but it still scares me.

So do whatever you need to do to stay out there, where people can see your talent and awesomeness!

CountryMouse

Citrus
02-19-2010, 06:08 AM
Ugh, I haven't posted for a bit, but I wanted to step up the paranoia, because you're all very right to be paranoid, and here's why:

Those copyright s***heads stop at nothing

I personally know people who have already been affected with it.

How it's affected my friends:

One friend just got a warning from his ISP, another girl got fined $5,000 (a lot of money for a college student) for pirating one Cher song, which I don't need to remind anybody can be found for free by going to youtube, seeing a music video on TV, turning on the radio, borrowing a CD from a friend, or even just singing it to yourself.

How it's affected me:

Personally, I was on a project for a long time where I went out and contacted a variety of the more famous ukulele players (Victoria Vox, the ukulady, jacob borshard to name a few) and I got them to write tabs for their music. I was going to put this all together on to a website, but then found out I couldn't because I would need to get permission from their specific record labels to do so, a.k.a. a snowball's chance in hell.

How it's affected YOU:

Have you noticed how tabs aren't available on ukulele websites, but that you always have to go to the forum? That's because the website isn't responsible for what forum posters post. It's also why it's hard to find accurate tabs for anything anymore because as soon as a tab is too close to the original, the hammer comes down. That's why there's mostly just instructional videos, because if a tab pops up it's a red flag. Beyond that, there's plenty of tab sites that you've probably never heard of that have had to close down because of legal threats.

We've reached a point as humanity where all information, sound, and video of quality can be free to anyone with a library card or a computer (which is one of the most beautiful notions in the history of humanity), and record labels know this means the end for their now mostly obsolete industry. It's very rare that I've heard of any artists object to the use of their tabs (I've actually gotten upwards of 8 different artists to write tabs for me), and as a musician I wish all my music could be free for anyone to listen to, because while record labels see music as an industry, musicians see it as a an expression of emotions or even your very soul to anyone who wants to hear it. Moreover the vast majority of artists' incomes come from live concerts, and people will buy tickets because there's something great about seeing someone perform their work live and being in that kind of environment. In contrast, the vast majority of MP3/CD sales goes straight into recording company pockets solely because they've cornered the market and can set arbitrary prices. Here's an example that illustrates this well:

Cassettes cost more to make than CD's do, yet CD's cost more. A blank CD costs less than a dollar, it's case, cover art, and imprint cost less than that. Tack on shipping for an item that weighs a bit over 100 grams, and royalties for the artist/cover art artist. That translates to at most $3 but through collusion the standard price has always been $15. Don't you think it's odd that despite advances in technology and fluctuations in the dollar and competition that the price has been $15 since CD's became mainstream?

There was a point before the internet where record labels made sense, because they could promote CD's and only once an artist became popular were their CD's available in stores for people to go out and buy, and artists needed that promotion just to get their foot in the door of the mass market. Right now the record labels are surviving off of the fact that none of the free content is marketed as well as itunes is marketed. Very rarely now do you see people who buy CD's because we now have a medium that is as fluid and fast as the internet has become. The record labels have caught on to at least this much, so they're trying to adapt to a market in which they can't survive anymore by enabling Apple products which will make you corner yourself into paying for what is free everywhere else, and scaring everyone with lawsuits. Here's some examples:

Replacements for itunes (because itunes music isn't free, and has a restrictive format):

A) dizzler.com + firefox's add-on "download helper" You can get Mp3's for free from lots and lots of artists

B) youtube + http://www.listentoyoutube.com/ will turn any youtube video into an MP3 (you can do the same with download helper + VLC media player file conversion, but it's a lengthier process)

note: You can convert your current songs from itunes by using the convert function in the advanced tab in iTunes.

Replacements for Apple's MP3 players and the iphone (because they don't allow open-source [aka the good apps for free] and they try to force itunes on you):

I'm not huge into this specific tech market, but I can tell you that the Droid (http://phones.verizonwireless.com/motorola/droid/#/home) has tons of free apps, blackberrys might also be a good way to go.

Replacements for Mac Computers:

The appeal for Mac's is that they have built in recording and editing programs that make a joke out of what comes with a PC (why do they even include "Sound Recorder" anymore?), but that doesn't mean a little bit of work can't get you better results for free with a PC, UU even has a thread for it

http://www.ukuleleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?20361-FREE-Downloads-and-Resources-for-Uke-Players-Students

Here's what you shouldn't do:

Don't use P2P programs to download music.

If you want to get REALLY paranoid, download a program called Peerblock. It blocks people from tracing your IP to your individual computer and usually gets most of them. If you keep it on, you'll notice that even just surfing websites shoots up lots of people on the list that you probably didn't think were spying on you and in places you weren't expecting. A good illustration is biblegateway. It's the most popular online bible around and you'll see that movie production companies are actually tracking which passages of the bible specific demographics are looking at to see what the next biblical movie should be about. (Don't turn this into a religion issue, I'm just illustrating a point)

Why is this important? Because as soon as you start using P2P networks, whether it's vuze, limewire, bit torrent, the piratebay or anything like that, the thing will go absolutely bats*** crazy with people tracking your IP (Disney, Fox, and a million others). Despite being an obvious breach of your 4th and 5th amendment rights, these companies have enough money to buy legislation that lets them use ip tracking as "marketing research" so when they see you upload something, and they just happen to find it while doing their "innocent" marketing, they've caught you in the act without having to get a warrant, and even peerblock won't block all of them.
Moreover the reason it's called copyright infringement rather than stealing is because you really only get caught when you upload things (which is required for P2P programs). That being said, your chances of getting involved with fines, or legal disputes from using P2P is about .5% but I still don't want anyone to have to deal with that and even though I'm not going to say piracy is immoral, it's still outside of the system, and with a system like this, you want to change it from the inside out.

If you're using youtube + download helper, you'll notice that google owns both those products. That means that Google is uploading waaaaay more than anyone else is uploading. They might not be getting prosecuted because they have more lawyers on retainer than a 12 year old girl (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/09/11/943568.htm)


Apart from all of that, here's the real consequences of what the RIAA is doing:

1. Most people who download music wouldn't have went out and bought that music in the first place. By taking that away they're devaluing people's lives by reducing the amount of music that enriches their lives
2. They keep artists from getting popular by merit by pushing forward artists on to itunes and CD's, and with those two options, someone who might not be able to cut/market their own CD and people who can't devote their lives to music like record companies would require of their artists, don't get the same chance to be heard as anyone else.
3. By prosecuting people for tabs, they're stifling the education of millions of artists who are trying to become better players.
4. They're making a mockery of the legal system by installing laws that would literally put every single person on the planet at legal risk. One such law prohibits ripping CD's on to a computer because it "transfers the content to a medium not intended by the artist" but you can apply that to even singing a copyrighted song. So every time you've sung someone "Happy Birthday" you've committed a crime, because Time-Warner owns the rights to that song.

All that being said, record labels still benefit society by marketing the more likable musicians, and refining their sound and getting them recording time, and helping them book venues. But that doesn't mean they should be able to get away with all this nonsense.

Citrus
02-19-2010, 06:08 AM
What you can do:

- Vote with your money, don't buy things off itunes, don't buy from people who enable the RIAA, use the free stuff.

- Spread the info on where to get the free stuff around, and let people know about the evils committed by the RIAA

- financially support artists without supporting the RIAA if you can help it. Going to concerts is a better way to help the artists than buying their CD's

- If you want to host tabs or video, the best way to do it is through a foreign website. Notice where the two most widely used "Weeps" tabs come from. Edmund Whitehead, and the link from Ukucafe, which are respectively English and French (the link from ukucafe goes to a Japanese Blog). Country is everything when it comes to dodging copyright law. Nobody is going to try to bring you to a court in China This still isn't legal so I'm not going to advise you to do it (especially if you have 2 strikes on you) but I would like to point out how this isn't about what's right nearly as much as it is about the money it would take the RIAA to prosecute.

As I said in the beginning, the RIAA is chock full of s***heads. If you want to get rid of them, don't pay for them, don't let your friends pay for them, and don't let yourself be lulled into submission by flashy adds with trendy indie music (even if a lot of it has ukulele in it *tear*) This organization is coming at us with the brutality of a "1984" government and the ability to make you think you're getting what's best as per "Brave New World" and if we don't stop them, we won't be the last generation of ukulele players or music lovers to be the victims of their tyranny.

/end of rant

PS: I'm so sorry seeso, you're the last person this should ever happen to. You're just shy of a god to most of us here on the forums, and you might have the biggest heart of anyone on I know.

itsme
02-19-2010, 08:14 AM
Everyone concerned should tell Warner about it. http://www.wmg.com/contact
Why? The complaint in this particular instance was made by Cass County Music, the publishers of "Hotel California," not WMG.

bunny
02-19-2010, 08:29 AM
Alright, all my covers are gone. I left a few up.

Zoe brought up a good point. I wonder if this would happen to me if I was a partner. I've been resisting it all this time. Maybe it's time to start the partner process.

Bleh.


I'm a YouTube partner (for tech reviews, not ukulele!) and every video that I upload I have to fill in a form to say that it is all my own work - there are separate tick boxes which ask you if the music is yours, also any images or any video clips - so i'm not sure being a partner would help - it would actually make it worse as if you are found to lie they take your parnership away!

I think once you are a partner who earns lots of money for YouTube by getting lots of views then they don't seem to be as bothered!

Can you approach the music company and ask for permission and that they can link the songs to youtube?

rogue_wave
02-19-2010, 08:41 AM
Seeso-

So sorry to see your covers go. Thank you for creating them, I enjoyed your work and was reminded of some songs I had forgotten, and discovered some I never knew about.

I look forward to hearing more of your originals now.

hoosierhiver
02-19-2010, 08:42 AM
Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo&feature=related

portlandjosh
02-19-2010, 08:49 AM
I've noticed that some videos have a popup that sneaks into view and gives links to buy the track on itunes or amazon. Is wonder if there is a way to enable users to provide something like that to make the use more palatable to copyright owners.

rogue_wave
02-19-2010, 08:55 AM
I've got a call into ASCAP to speak with our rep regarding their online performance license. There is a possibility that we could create a unique channel, maybe even on YT, that would qualify as a performance venue as opposed to a distribution model.

The difference as I understand it is that in distribution, you MUST get clearance on the publishing rights. As a performance "venue", you do not need to get clearance, but rather pay a percentage of monies gained. (In brick and morter terms- a piece of the gate.)

Normally, to set this up as a business, it would only make sense as a money making opportunity, but if there was a channel set up geared towards no economic gain, there shouldn't be any fees, or at the most, a minimal annual fee.

Ill post back when I have more information. If I can get any traction on this, and the numbers are small enough, maybe there is enough interest to raise a few bucks to cover startup.

MoreUke
02-19-2010, 09:00 AM
Seeso et al this seems so oppressive. It seems like this is one of those cases where the train is just running away down the track and the only way to stop it is to remove or blow up the track.

I'm a strong believer in taking action. Hoosierhiver has the start. Start writing these companies that are pursuing these copyright infringement claims and complain. Naturally let you dollar also vote by boycotting any label that pursues these claims. In addition take the time to write you congressmen and senators to complain and urge changes in the existing law.

Method for contacting Congressmen can be found at: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Email addresses for Senators can be found at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Both of the above are showing as governmental websites.

Remembering complaining without action only produces hot air. Of which there is already to much (excuse the ecological pun).

Have a Great Day,
Jim

ukecantdothat
02-19-2010, 09:25 AM
Yeah, but youtube is just covering their own asses. There are agressive compaines that sue for this s**t, and they don't want it to happen, because ultimately it's their asses for letting illegal stuff up.Good points, but we must remember to watch the language here (I'm guilty of this, too!), as kids are welcome in the underground, too. I'm not a mod (or a prude), but I thought I might mention it for what it's worth!

Partnering on YT seems to be the only way to legally post covers, but you still must have permission to use another artist's material. Sorry, but that's the law. It looks like a feesible way to "sell out" and make some coin with original material, as well, Seeso. Nothing wrong with that in my book. It's probably a matter of time before I get a notice from YT, but I have like 300 hits or something on a couple cover vids, and a couple originals on there I use to promote my group if anyone asks to see something. I would dump any covers in a heartbeat if asked to do so because I really could care less about them (unless they're part of a contest or something, which I've only entered one here, and it's over now, so again who cares?). I said in another post that I would be honored to be warned by YT. It means someone noticed my scary talent enough to be threatened! Yes, this all sucks because it seems so harmless, like busking (which, technically, is also a violation).

Monkeyswithladders
02-19-2010, 09:42 AM
I've noticed that some videos have a popup that sneaks into view and gives links to buy the track on itunes or amazon. Is wonder if there is a way to enable users to provide something like that to make the use more palatable to copyright owners.

It all has to do with who is making the copyright claim and how they want to handle it. I think there's three ways this can pan out, and I've experienced two of them so far.

I had a college montage video of goofiness with a Rage Against the Machine song used as the background. I got a copyright claim, but it said that I didn't have to do anything about it. The owner of the rights just put up one of those little ads and let me keep the video untouched.

I also have a video up from World of Warcraft and I used a Blue Oyster Cult song for background music. A copyright claim was sent to me that said the video was left intact, but that the audio had been pulled. I was given a choice to leave the video without any sound, or add an audio track from a list of pre-approved mp3s in a youtube application that was linked to me. (Incidentally, I chose the latter option and ended up finding a band through the list that I absolutely love now. I wound up buying their album and I consider it one of the best albums of the decade).

It seems the third way it can happen is that they pull your video altogether. Regardless of which way it goes, the user doesn't really experience any choice in the matter.

Oh, and since those first two ways are accepted by the copyright holder, they don't count against your three strikes. Again though, I'd like to offer up the idea I presented earlier. If i'm targeted, I'm going to reupload my covers under false names and false tags. Less to no people will find my videos (real viewers or record label mosquito interns), but at least they'll still be up there for subscribers and my own amusement.

MoreUke
02-19-2010, 09:47 AM
Hadn't thought about busking actually being an infringement of the copyright act. Wow, what about school musicals and plays? Church socials playing contemporary Christian Music? Music Festivals? Oh my gosh what about ... dare I say it ... THE UKULELE WORLD CONGRESS!!! Egads.... I can see it now. 'OK all of you with Ukuleles up against the wall. You have undoubetly played at least a measure of some music that has been copyrighted. Give us your name, address, and bank account numbers.'

casetone2514
02-19-2010, 09:57 AM
Seeso, my condolences. I have only one warning about copyright and that was a Van Morrison song. I contacted them and offered to put a link to the Van Morrison site where the original song could be downloaded for a fee and put a disclaimer worded by their legal team in the additional info section. I think I got off lightly, to be honest as Van's people are notoriously litigous.

I do feel the suggestions about writing to these companies to explain the benefits of amatuer, not-for-profit videos that point the uninitiated to the original artists' material. Alternatively get thousands of people to do a cover of Hotel California and everyone upload them at the same time and see what they do then!

raecarter
02-19-2010, 10:33 AM
I have some seeso covers on my phone if anyone wants. seeso you were the first uke player I heard on YouTube your come together cover I am gutted that these short sighted big wigs have potentially taken the opportunity of hearing something amazing away and inadvertently caused someone to not find new music and not buy that album! I have a little A level in business and I didn't catch the alienate your Target market lesson. Stupid c*#k lollypops!

krabbers
02-19-2010, 10:36 AM
man this sucks , i have lost count of the amount of bands i have found thru you tube covers

the avett brothers for instance . i have the whole back catalogue because adelle the great covered one of the songs
magnetic field, never heard of them untill mary-anne did a cover
postal service
the felice brothers again i got all the cds.

the list goes on

the only good thing from all of this is that we have had a kick up the behind to bang out some originals
there are some superb songwriters in the uke world
grumps
seeso
adelle
deach
don
bruce
alan

tonys last one was superb

there probably are some outstanding songwriters that i have missed but i pay attention to my friends first . so sorry if i failed to mention someone i ant heard of

i say learn the songs for improving your technique. then tweak the chords , change the words change the title and you have an original song

most songs sound like something else anyway

ukeyermind
02-19-2010, 10:44 AM
It's really not a copyright issue, is it? It's a "whose sandbox are we playing in?" issue disguised as a copyright issue. If WMG wants to come after me, I feel like I could make a convincing argument for Fair Use. But I ain't gots no money, so WMG doesn't want to come after me. They want to go after YT because they gots the deep pockets.

YT could make the same argument about Fair Use, but they don't want to. That would cost money. Maybe they win the argument, maybe they lose, but it costs money either way. YT doesn't care about Fair Use or any o' that jazz - they just want a policy to keep lawsuits away. There is no incentive for YT to make individual users happy if the consequence is pissing off major corporations. I know that at my job, I sometimes feel 50% of what I do or the way I do it is designed for the purpose of keeping lawsuits away.

That's their sandbox, and if we don't like it, we can go find another sandbox to play in.

I'll say this much - if I hadn't seen Jake playing Gently Weeps, or Seeso doing Come Together (or probably something earlier - I can't go check his channel to remind myself of the first Seeso vid I saw - grrr!), then I very likely wouldn't own a uke today.

And I'll say another thing - which is that I plan to keep on doing covers and posting them. And if YT wants to hassle me, maybe I'll just upload it to my FB account. Or some other where. Blessings and props to those with the skill and ability to write their own stuff, but this entry level uker just ain't there yet. Learning other people's songs is how I learn new and more chords.

Mad love, seeso - yer a big part of why I'm here.

Floyd Blue
02-19-2010, 10:49 AM
man this sucks , i have lost count of the amount of bands i have found thru you tube covers

the avett brothers for instance . i have the whole back catalogue because adelle the great covered one of the songs
magnetic field, never heard of them untill mary-anne did a cover
postal service
the felice brothers again i got all the cds.

the list goes on

the only good thing from all of this is that we have had a kick up the behind to bang out some originals
there are some superb songwriters in the uke world
grumps
seeso
adelle
deach
don
bruce
alan

tonys last one was superb

there probably are some outstanding songwriters that i have missed but i pay attention to my friends first . so sorry if i failed to mention someone i ant heard of

i say learn the songs for improving your technique. then tweak the chords , change the words change the title and you have an original song

most songs sound like something else anyway

I absolutely second that!

raecarter
02-19-2010, 10:52 AM
I can write guitar songs! not uke yet well one I have www.myspace.com/averagemanmusic

ProfChris
02-19-2010, 11:31 AM
It's really not a copyright issue, is it? <snip>
YT could make the same argument about Fair Use, but they don't want to. That would cost money. Maybe they win the argument, maybe they lose, but it costs money either way. YT doesn't care about Fair Use or any o' that jazz - they just want a policy to keep lawsuits away. There is no incentive for YT to make individual users happy if the consequence is pissing off major corporations. I know that at my job, I sometimes feel 50% of what I do or the way I do it is designed for the purpose of keeping lawsuits away.

It is a copyright issue actually. YouTube can't argue fair use because YouTube is not the person copying the song. Fair use depends in large part on the motives of the copiier, and YouTube can't know that.

Under the relevant US law (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), once YouTube receives a notice from the copyright owner it becomes liable unless (a) it takes the video down, or (b) you (the copier) dispute that your video infringes copyright. That's how the US Congress designed the system.

There is no easy answer to this, because it's the result of the disruptive nature of the internet, which means the law no longer works properly, and the death throes of the music industry in it current form.

If you want to understand the difficulties in changing the law (my current estimate is 10-20 years) see my and other post on this thread:

http://www.ukuleleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?25142-Ukulele-covers-on-Youtube-being-removed-by-Warner-Music-Group

seeso
02-22-2010, 08:39 AM
I started a separate channel for all my covers. You can find it here:

http://tinyurl.com/seesocovers

CountryMouse
02-22-2010, 08:46 AM
I started a separate channel for all my covers. You can find it here:

http://tinyurl.com/seesocovers

Woohoo! I'm there! :)

CountryMouse

rpeters
02-22-2010, 10:22 AM
Have you ever thought about the idea of switching to another video service? If all Ukulele Underground members made an account on vimeo or something like that? Warner brothers may not be as picky on those movie hosting sites as they are with Youtube.

kalmario
02-22-2010, 10:44 AM
"I know that at my job, I sometimes feel 50% of what I do or the way I do it is designed for the purpose of keeping lawsuits away."

second that!! try being inthe health (protect your butt) field.

Cliff

rvabdn
02-22-2010, 11:01 AM
Fight the power!

Aunt Betty
02-22-2010, 03:49 PM
Sorry to hear this. How upsetting for you and all who have come to appreciate your work. I use these covers to help me learn how to play the songs I know.

If I have already downloaded them...are they safe?

I am glad you still have a site for your covers. I am off to go download.

sebi
02-22-2010, 11:27 PM
I started a separate channel for all my covers. You can find it here:

http://tinyurl.com/seesocovers

Good to see your covers up again!

buddhuu
02-22-2010, 11:35 PM
I started a separate channel for all my covers. You can find it here:

http://tinyurl.com/seesocovers

Excellent! :)

Hiladih
02-23-2010, 12:46 AM
Oh man. I can't describe my anger about this situation. English isn't my mother tongue, so I'm not able to describe my displeasure as I would like to. But I agree with all others who wrote a comment before me! It's not fair! So, one day, everybody of us will be having problems with YT. *argh*

But it's good to hear that you got a new channel. I subscribed directly :)

freackykit
02-23-2010, 09:08 AM
It's really not a copyright issue, is it? It's a "whose sandbox are we playing in?" issue disguised as a copyright issue. If WMG wants to come after me, I feel like I could make a convincing argument for Fair Use. But I ain't gots no money, so WMG doesn't want to come after me. They want to go after YT because they gots the deep pockets.

I'll say this much - if I hadn't seen Jake playing Gently Weeps, or Seeso doing Come Together (or probably something earlier - I can't go check his channel to remind myself of the first Seeso vid I saw - grrr!), then I very likely wouldn't own a uke today.

And I'll say another thing - which is that I plan to keep on doing covers and posting them. And if YT wants to hassle me, maybe I'll just upload it to my FB account. Or some other where. Blessings and props to those with the skill and ability to write their own stuff, but this entry level uker just ain't there yet. Learning other people's songs is how I learn new and more chords.



I must agree with all of the above. It was ukers doing covers that started the uke thing for me and at the moment am learning myself and gaining inspiration from all the good ukers out there. This thing is really out of hand and could kill a large part of the community I have just found.

boundless
07-20-2010, 02:46 AM
I started a separate channel for all my covers. You can find it here:

http://tinyurl.com/seesocovers



I also just got slapped with my second copyright infringment for my "Happy Together" cover.

This "covers only" channel is a great idea (unless you know better since the time you've created it!)

It's going to sting to hit the delete button on all those covers, but I guess I can just upload them all again and start from scratch to salvage what I can of my existing channel since not all of it is uke.

Wish I had originals to post, but I'm still in "cover mode" until a different level of creativity kicks in!

Bob

Pueo
07-20-2010, 08:00 AM
I would like to share two stories. First, I used to do IT work for Leiber & Stoller Music Publishing. This was a small office on Sunset staffed by people whose sole jobs were billing people who used music they owned the rights to fot their cut. Leiber & Stoller wrote many Motown and Elvis songs, so it was a lot of work. There are many legitimate claims, using music in films, commercials, radio, other artists wanting to do covers, etc. which I understand completely. There is another side though, like sending people to a bar and listening to what music they play, determining if that music is considered "entertainment," and then demanding their cut. That seemed kind of shady to me.

I do understand protecting the work of a songwriter. The tricky part is where do you draw the line? Clearly someone going around performing other peoples music and generating profit without compensating the original authors of the material is wrong. Is Seeso profiting from using the Eagles' music? That is really hard to prove. Is he gaining popularity? If he were to start his own band would he be more popular and sell more tickets because he's the guy who covered Hotel California on YT that millions of people viewed? Unlikely, but hard to prove. It's not that Seeso is taking money out of Don Henley's hand, it's that he is potentially profiting from material that the Eagles created.

My brother made a film in the early 80's about a punk rock club in Orange County. He produced, wrote, directed, edited the film himself. He gave the owner of the club a producer credit and a print of the film to thank him for the access to his club. 20 years later that guy (the club owner) sold some of the footage to MTV, and my brother did not get any of the credit or money. When he tried to cry foul, everyone said you can't win, MTV has too much money and too many lawyers. It would cost you more in legal fees than you would get from MTV even if you won. Well now this guy is at it again and sold the film to a production company who chopped up my brother's film and made a new movie out of it, giving no compensation to my brother. Again, he does not have the money these other people have to fight it. So I can understand it, but there has to be some way, some type of distinction to allow everyone to be happy.

I like the performance venue idea. If I start a band and play live at a bar, and I cover a song, I do not have to pay any royalties on it, right? It's only if I record the song that I have to pay. YouTube is clearly a recording, even if it is not for sale, and therefore constitutes a copyright violation. If it were only possible to stream, or be live performances, then we would be OK.

It all comes down to the Fair Use stuff, and the spirit of the law. It's just too tough to prove the difference between someone covering songs to gain popularity and generate interest in themselves and someone who is just having fun and generously sharing their talent with the world.

Covers are great fun though. I would be happy to pay $1 or whatever directly to the holder of the rights if I really wanted to put a cover up on YouTube, that seems fair to me.

OK phew I got that off my chest, sorry for the long post and thanks for reading.

buddhuu
07-20-2010, 08:40 AM
Thanks for an interesting and reasonable post. :)

aspieman456
07-20-2010, 08:44 AM
This is so WRONG on many levels! This really angers me to even think about what's happening on Youtube. You're a super-talented musician and I hope your new YT page doesn't get shut down. You have my deepest sympathies, Seeso.

BobN
07-20-2010, 09:57 AM
If I start a band and play live at a bar, and I cover a song, I do not have to pay any royalties on it, right? I

The venue has to pay for "protection money" to ASCAP, BMI, and others:
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=navbar
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/
I helped run a small coffeehouse a many years ago, and we received notices from BMI and ASCAP about buying licenses. I can't remember exactly how much the fees were, but it was more than we could afford over $1,000 total. Colleges and universities also pay fees to ASCAP and BMI to cover music performances on their campuses.

UkuleleHill
07-20-2010, 09:59 AM
Also good information to know! Thanks BobN!

thomdawg
07-20-2010, 10:53 AM
My dealings with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC is they have a fee that they charge no matter what you call it. Will YT pick up this tab? It would be hard to administer and the extra paper work for YT would make them not want to bother. In the little not-for-profit hall I do volunteer work for it takes careful bookkeeping to met their requirements. It would be up to YT as they would be the venue we would use and I would hate to see them start charging for the covers we like to post. It would be great if a large group of concerned musicians would take on this issue but it would be staggering in legal fees and since the law are already in place there is little else we can do. Can we start a movement to tag this on to the Keep the internet free movement? Would I be blamed for the same tactics the government uses with their pork add ons on bills?

jongm
07-20-2010, 01:27 PM
here's a ted talk on laws that choke creativity... (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity .html)

allanr
07-20-2010, 04:51 PM
Capitalism thrives on the law of supply and demand. We have the power to affect and reduce demand. If we want WMG and WB to change then we need to make it in their interests to change. Stop buying their tunes on iTunes, don't support their artists, don't buy their CDs, don't watch their movies, write "fan letters" to their actors and artists telling them how much you like their work, but that you regret that you will not be seeing or buying it any more because of their association with Warner.

The RIAA eventually stopped taking 12 year olds to court. It is possible to create change.

Howlin Hobbit
07-21-2010, 06:02 AM
I just received my first strike, they took down my cover of "What A Wonderful World" and threatened me with a complete removal of my account.

I don't have a bazillion subscribers, I'm just now approaching 500. I value each and every one. I didn't want to lose them. So I took down all my covers (and a few vids, like my contest drawings, that were pretty boring). This reduced me from 27 videos to 9.

I've got more in the pipeline, but it's pretty lame nonetheless.

What I did do beforehand, is download all of them as mp4 files. This was a huge hassle as YT only allows you to do 2/hour. But now I have them and am cogitating on just how to make them available to anyone who might be interested.

I've decided not to get all pissed off at YT, or even the cheeseball company that registered the complaint. Instead, I'm going to concentrate on putting up more of my original tunes.

(It's too bad I'm an ugly old man instead of a cute young girl. Then I'd be invited to play at the YouTube awards instead of being threatened with legal action. But that's the way of the world, hm?)

Nonetheless... if you don't have all of your original files (as I didn't, due to an unfortunate computer crash), go in right now and download all of your vids and burn them to a CD or otherwise back them up. There's no copy of my cover of Wonderful World anymore (unless someone used one of the "download a YouTube vid" programs on it).

And Seeso, I'd be careful about a "seesocovers" channel if I were you. Once the stinking RIAA thugs have your name in their database as a "bad boy" I'm sure it'll be easier to find you. No doubt YT will be happy to take down any channel they feel belongs to you if they get a complaint.

Keep on rockin'!

Pueo
07-21-2010, 06:49 AM
FYI I was looking at buying a new Sirius radio this morning and they are now charging $1.98 a month as a U.S. Music Royalty fee in addition to subscription costs. So they are passing those costs on to the consumer. I fear that paying for covers may not have been such a loony concept after all.

CountryMouse
07-31-2010, 06:57 AM
I actually started a different thread for my YouTube problem. I guess I should have posted here instead. Here is the thread (http://www.ukuleleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?33796-I-got-a-little-warning-on-YouTube). Any ideas or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!

CountryMouse