Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Ablang, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Ablang

    Ablang Guest

    Another reason why YouTube sucks... 11/24/08

    Dear Member:

    This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the
    following material as a result of a third-party notification by ADAMS
    COMMUNICATIONS INC. claiming that this material is infringing:

    z-Ablang - Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman 1/26/07:

    Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in
    the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account.
    In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to
    which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional
    videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information
    about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips

    If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center
    to access the instructions.

    Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person
    who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was
    removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to

    YouTube, Inc.
    © 2008 YouTube, LLC
    Ablang, Dec 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ablang

    Ablang Guest

    My account was basically deleted b/c I had too many Bryan Adams
    karaoke songs on my account where I sang to his music (midi format).
    Ablang, Dec 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ablang

    Ablang Guest

    My account was basically deleted b/c I had too many (at least 2) Bryan
    Adams karaoke songs on my account where I sang to his music (with midi
    format music playing in the background and no singing by him). Be
    careful doing his stupid songs.
    Ablang, Dec 9, 2008
  4. Yup. And a lot of the rest was put up without consent from the people
    pictured, too. HTH.
    John Williamson, Dec 10, 2008
  5. "Mark" wrote ...
    But they take down anything upon request by the copyright owner.
    Apparently that is the new paradigm of "copyright compliance" in
    this internet age.
    Richard Crowley, Dec 10, 2008
  6. It never ceases to amaze me that copyright owners are being so stupid.
    When a clip has a catchy tune, it will start selling. They just want
    to be greedy and get as much money of it as possible. When I hear of
    such a thing, I stear clear from whoever produced the record, because
    I don't want to fill their _greedy_ pockets. But then, that's just my
    opinion, simple, humble, whatever you think of it :)


    Martin Heffels, Dec 10, 2008
  7. Ablang

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    So, it's the copyright owners fault that people steal their work? Sure,
    blame the victim! Something like: "But judge, it's HER fault. If she
    hadn't been wearing those provocative clothes, I wouldn't have raped
    her! She was asking for it!"

    Gary Edstrom, Dec 10, 2008
  8. Putting up a short sample of a tune or a video production that you
    really, really like *might* help sell a few more legal copies, whether
    putting up the sample is legal or not. If that was all that was
    happening, I doubt the copyright owners would get too upset. It is,
    after all, virtually free advertising.

    Unfortunately, what's *actually* happening is that large numbers of
    people are putting their entire music/ video collection up on various
    websites as complete albums/ series/ movies, sometimes with a link to a
    torrent for those that want the high quality version without paying.

    That loses the copyright owner sales, so, of course, they're clamping
    down. As`lawyers are involved, there can be no grey areas allowed.

    The original poster had his site closed down because he gained either
    financially or in terms of enjoyment from the work of Bryan Adams
    without paying a contribution. I daresay he'd be up in arms if I went
    into his workplace and stole his work. Sauce for the goose and so on.....
    John Williamson, Dec 10, 2008
  9. Ablang

    senderj Guest

    No offence to either side. Just thinking of a senario when I bring my combo
    mini hifi set playing Adams's CD seating in the middle of a park and sharing
    the sunshine with 50 other people that I don't know. Am I infringing?
    senderj, Dec 11, 2008
  10. "senderj" wrote ...
    You are if people are paying to hear the music.
    Or if you are using unlicensed music to attract people to
    your vendor kiosk (etc.) At least that is how current US
    law is written.

    If you want to use music for your own private, non-commercial
    use, you are typically licensed for that when you bought the CD.

    But once it becomes a "public performance", or "commercial use",
    then the owner of the music is entitled to share the revenue.

    You cannot copy and/or distribute the music without the permission
    from (and typically also payment to) the owner of the music.

    That means that you cannot distribute (even for free) either audio
    or video copies of music you don't own or have license for.

    So if you want to put some popular music with a video you are editing,
    you can probably get away with it for your own personal amusement,
    (even though technically a violation of the owner's rights). But if you
    give copies to your friends/family, that is a violation. And putting it up
    online (such as YouTube, is also a violation.

    Note that copyright laws, practice, licensing procedures, rates etc. are
    very different in other countries.
    Richard Crowley, Dec 11, 2008
  11. Bit of a contradiction there. It's breaking the law as it stands in
    almost all countries of the world to post copyright material without
    authority, yet you want the copyright owners to ignore such postings...
    John Williamson, Dec 11, 2008
  12. Ablang

    PTravel Guest

    Yes, you are. The right to publicly perform is one of the rights reserved
    to the copyright owner.
    PTravel, Dec 11, 2008
  13. Ablang

    PTravel Guest

    You are if people aren't paying to hear the music, too.

    Sorry, that's incorrect. The right to publicly perform is a reserved right
    under the U.S. Copyright Act -- whether or not it is for a commercial
    purpose is irrelevant. It's infringement, regardless.
    That is incorrect, as well. The AHRA expressly authorizes making copies for
    personal use. However, all other reserved rights remain in effect. You are
    not licensed to do anything with the CD. By law, you and your immediate
    friends and family, may listen to it. Thats all.
    Commercial use is irrelevant to infringement. Public performance, as noted,
    is a reserved right. Playing a CD for 50 strangers in a park is a public
    Payment isn't a requirement of the law, though permission is. You can copy
    the music pursuant to the AHRA, as noted above, as well as pursuant to fair
    Generally, that's correct.
    That is correct as well. I have a number of videos on-line at YouTube (and
    Vimeo), but they all use buy-out music.
    Ummm, not that different. Most countries subscribe to the Berne Convention,
    which harminonizes copyright law between different countries.
    PTravel, Dec 11, 2008
  14. Not to mention that at least in the UK, it is against the law to use
    such things in most public places, even if you own the copyright.
    (Parks, buses, trains......)

    In parts of Europe, you can be even prosecuted for playing your car
    radio loudly enough to be heard from outside the vehicle.
    John Williamson, Dec 11, 2008
  15. "PTravel" wrote ...
    That appears to be debatable. As an officer of the court you are
    compelled to cite the letter of the law. I was trying to convey a
    practical view of actual practice. I will have to remember to add
    my IANAL disclaimer. :)
    Of course. The question is whether playing one's radio loudly
    at the beach or park constitutes "public performance". I have
    to believe that intent would play a significant factor.
    Yes, by "use" I should have said "play".

    You might find amusing the recent discussion of copyright law
    (and some people's thoughts on "progressive" change) over on
    One major point was payment of royalties
    on RE-sale of recordings (or books, DVDs, etc. presumably)
    Then by that method the guy in the car in the next lane at the
    red light with his 500W car system cranked up and the widows
    open is also engaging in "public performance". How many of
    those have been successfully prosecuted? (For copyright violation,
    not for "disturbing the peace", etc. :)

    I've heard of (and even seen) people with loud boom-boxes at
    the park acosted by the police for "public nuisance" sorts of
    violations. But it seems unlikely that anyone is in danger of legal
    action for copyright violation. OTOH, if you have a 40-foot semi-
    truck full of sound equipment and set it up in Central Park for
    a concert, that is a different matter.
    Although companies with high-value IP and lots of lobbiests (read:
    The Mouse) are trying to change that. They tried to repeal many of
    the rights granted in the AHRA with the DMCA.
    But licensing for sync rights for film/video is as simple in some other
    countries as mechanical rights (for audio copies) is in the USA.
    (i.e. simple internet forms and modest statutory fees/royalties).
    But here in the USA, sync rights are so difficult/costly that few people
    can afford to use popular music, giving rise to brisk trade in the
    "production music" business (as you mentioned using yourself).

    I am not a lawyer and nothing I wrote is meant as legal advice.
    They are observations of common practice in the Real World
    as I have seen it. YMMV, etc.

    I wouldn't act on any legal advice that didn't come from a competent
    practicing IP attorney whom I paid (and who is willing to defend
    the recommended actions. :) I believe "PTravel" to be such a
    competent IP attorney and I would hope to find someone as good
    in my neighborhood if I needed such legal advice.
    Richard Crowley, Dec 11, 2008
  16. But those are likely "disturbance of the peace" statutes, not a copy-
    right related law.

    And over here on the left side of the Pond, there are likely similar
    laws on the books. And even laws against spitting on the sidewalk.
    But law-enforcement these days seems to have their own wacky
    notion of priorities, and neither is likely to be prosecuted.
    Richard Crowley, Dec 11, 2008
  17. I didn't say that. What I am trying to say is that the copyright
    owners should be glad for the free promotion which they sometimes get
    in succesfull clips, because otherwise it would have cost them a
    fortune in plugging and advertising.
    I have no problems buying music from honest and hard-working artists
    and I always hope with the little money they get from me buying their
    product (most of it disappears in the coffers of their recordlabel),
    they are able to buy a bread and a carton of milk to feed them for
    another two days. I simply don't like greedy copyrightowners, I
    despise them.


    Martin Heffels, Dec 11, 2008
  18. So that is a good time to start listening into music of the small,
    independent bands. There are a lot of good bands and musicians but
    their work never gets out in the big world, because recordcompanies
    have a "no risk" strategy and only like to plug what is guaranteed to
    sell. Buying the stuff of the unknown musicians, helps them, and not
    some fat bloke smoking huge Cuban cigars sitting behind a desk,
    surrounded by groupies ;-)


    Martin Heffels, Dec 11, 2008
  19. When travellig on the bus, this seems hardly to be maintained ;-)
    Seems London is not part of Europe then :)


    Martin Heffels, Dec 11, 2008
  20. Ablang

    PTravel Guest

    No, it is not debatable. There is no "commercial use" qualifier for
    infringement of the reserved rights.

    As an officer of the court you are
    There have been lawsuits brought against high schools for unauthorized
    public performance of music. The practical view is that the copyright
    owners will sue when it is in their interest to do so.

    Not really -- intent is relevant to the question of whether the infringement
    is intentional. Copyright infringement is strict liability, meaning it
    doesn't matter what you think you are doing as long as your conduct
    constitutes infringement.
    To the extent that "private" playing means "for immediate friends and
    family," you're okay.
    Unfortunately, I'm a little too busy these days to add another NG to my
    reading list. ;)

    First sale doctrine is dispositive: once there has been an arms-length sale
    (or authorized transfer) of an authorized copy, the distribution right is
    extinguished, i.e. you can re-sell the copy (or loan it, rent it, gift it or
    destroy it).

    Hmmmm. Interesting idea. I've always wanted to get those guys. ;)
    The cops won't arrest someone for criminal copyright infringement under
    those circumstances. As for identifying potential defendants in a civil
    suit, I'd think it would be a bit difficult. There have been numerous cases
    in which restaurants, dry cleaners, hotels, etc. have been sued for having
    radios playing.

    OTOH, if you have a 40-foot semi-
    Practically speaking, yes.
    True. It's important to let legislators know how you feel about the changes
    that have and are being made to copyright law, which long ago started
    drifting from its original constitutional purpose.
    Right -- some countries, including the US, there are compulsory licenses
    with little consistency between them.

    Why, thank you! :)
    PTravel, Dec 11, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.