UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152750149271868&id=41670261867

by slipstream- • 11 years ago

137 34 11 years ago

pjc504• 11 years ago

This comes up every few months. ContentID is a system for ensuring that the major labels get paid, and people who don't have enough money for legal representation lose out either way.

Someone1234• 11 years ago

Yeah, and fair use doesn't exist on YT for all intents and purposes. Effectively ContentID is actually much more restrictive than real copyright law by far, and there's nothing anyone can do about it because YT is a private company and you don't HAVE to use them (although the lack of competition is disheartening).

It is an unfortunate situation all around, one that I don't see changing any time soon... Only legitimate competition could fix this.

sp332• 11 years ago

ContentID is a system for keeping Viacom et al. from launching more billion-dollar lawsuits against Google.

ebbv• 11 years ago

Unless you're another multibillion dollar company, you are a resource to Google, not a customer or a peer.

Also, this is a good lesson in why people should be careful about how they license out their music in the first place.

ChuckMcM2• 11 years ago

Pretty egregious, and something which one would hope you could sue Google for. In this case aiding in the infringement of Copyright because it is the Content ID system, with a borked refusal policy, that are allowing UMG to pirate the artist's music and to make a profit from it. Not only from the artist but anyone who was paying license fees to the artist are now having their video revenue get hijacked by UMG.

Seems like class action status might be possible.

Glyptodon• 11 years ago

I agree. This comes up frequently enough that it seems like there could be a legitimate class action of some kind.

spiritplumber7• 11 years ago

Even in the FB post, there's a lot of "me too"'s.

At the very least offer to sit everyone down at a table and talk it out (I'm still partial to the unarmed combat solution, but that's me).

windlep• 11 years ago

I'd assume that Google/Youtube's TOS include a clause such that any issue you might ever have, can only be resolved by arbitration. Lots of companies are busy making sure that merely using their service means you can't press a class action lawsuit.

dragonwriter• 11 years ago

Pretty egregious, and something which one would hope you could sue Google for.

From the facts described, UMG is fraudulently interfering with Google's relationship with a legitimate business partner in order to commit criminal copyright infringement.

Certainly, someone should be prosecuted -- by the DOJ, not just the victim -- but I don't see why Google should be the primary target (if anything, Google should be among the plaintiffs in the civil action.)

ChuckMcM2• 11 years ago

That would be an interesting construction. From an engagement perspective it is probably easier to get a lawyer on spec based on class action status but if the DoJ could be brought in it would certainly give us something that the courts might be able to use to clarify automated takedown as it relates to the DMCA.

pjc504• 11 years ago

sue Google

Sure, if you've got a few hundred thousand dollars, five years, and are OK with being blacklisted from Google during that time.

higherpurpose• 11 years ago

This really is copyright theft - not what MPAA keeps claiming that pirating a movie is. That's just copryright infringement. Here, UMG is actually stealing the copyright rights of the artists and makes them its own.

serve_yay• 11 years ago

But god forbid you put a 30-second clip of you and your friends messing around, with a Beyonce song in the background or whatever.

spiritplumber7• 11 years ago

Offer to face your counterpart at UMG in single unarmed combat as a way to settle the matter honorably.

spiritplumber7• 11 years ago

Why is it that when I say stuff like this it always gets downvoted?

It's a lot cheaper than involving lawyers, and it has the benefit of letting all participants work through their testosterone and adrenaline, so that after the match they can sit down and discuss the matter more amicably.

A proper refereed and organized fight is a pretty deep bonding experience, for guys anyway.

You're more likely to get, and give, a fair deal to someone that you've done something physical with - it's just how the human animal works.

pjc504• 11 years ago

It gets downvoted because if it's a joke it's not very funny and HN doesn't really like jokes anyway, and if it's not a joke it's a 19th-century kind of bonkers.

stefs• 11 years ago

the problem is, UMG do have their own people for this. every little mom&pop shop has an army of lawyers, but some companies are so despised they need additional resources for challenges like those.

a lot of musicians and movie stars challenge their opponents to fist fights on a regular basis; and sometimes you get a mickey rourke or an uwe boll, brawlers who know what they're doing, or muscled rappers with a shady past and diamond rings on their fingers that aren't for show.

so UMG hires the biggest, meanest colombian war criminals, send them to fist fight college and employ those guys as "sekundanten" (sorry, no idea about the english term here - stand ins for duels).

poor bjorn lynne wouldn't stand a chance.

TeMPOraL• 11 years ago

Didn't Notch tried that with Bethesda over the right to the word "scrolls"? I mean, he tried to try, because AFAIR Bethesda refused the Quake 3 match he proposed to resolve the issue.

And I somewhat agree with your sentiment. Today's process in the US is a huge resource wasting machine that serves only one group - lawyers.

http://www.themarysue.com/mojang-bethesda-settle-scrolls/

trothamel• 11 years ago

Perhaps there needs to be a version of the Creative Commons with a group kill-switch, where if a licensee violates the terms of the license, they lose the rights to use all CC-KS works until the violations have been remedied.

spiritplumber7• 11 years ago

That's a great idea, isn't there a common "defensive patents chest" for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatentFreedom Looks like they got bought out by an Intellectual Ventures clone. One of my regrets in life is that I have lived within trebuchet range of the main IV office, and never did anything with it.

jamii• 11 years ago

http://defensivepatentlicense.org/ - if you license all of your patents under the DPL you then get free licenses to all other DPL patents. Your membership and licenses are revoked if you sue any other member for patent infringement.

TillE• 11 years ago

Not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly an argument for CC-BY over CC0. With CC-BY they must credit you, and you can then either trivially prove your ownership of the work, or demonstrate copyright infringement (if they have violated the license).

SyneRyder• 11 years ago

For HN folks who don't recognize the name - Bjorn Lynne used to be part of the demoscene and wrote MOD song files under the name Dr Awesome. He worked for Team17 Software and wrote the soundtrack to Worms and many other games.

etingel• 11 years ago

I am not a lawyer, but this appears to be in direct violation of the license agreement that UMG made with AudioSparx:

PROHIBITED USES 3. Licensee may not claim ownership or authorship of the Tracks licensed herein.

REMEDIES Parties' rights and remedies in the event of a breach or an alleged breach of this agreement by defaulting party shall be limited to affected party's right, if any, to recover damages in an action at law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no failure by either party to perform any of its obligations herein shall be deemed to be a breach hereof, unless the other party has given written notice of the alleged breach and allowed 30 days for the breaching party to cure said breach following such notice. In no event shall Licensor be entitled by reason of any breach or alleged breach to enjoin, restrain, or seek to enjoin or restrain the production, distribution, exploitation, advertising, promotion, or publicity of Licensee's project or projects, or elements thereof, which integrate the audio content licensed herein.

http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/legal/terms_of_service.cfm

On the plus side, this means that you don't have to go after Google which probably has the right to put ads on any video and pay anybody they want for those ads. On the downside, you can't file a DMCA takedown on UMG's content and will need a lawyer to get compensated for the breach of contract. If you just want to get the issue resolved going forward, you could probably send a cease and desist telling them to stop claiming ownership over the music and they will stop.

spiritplumber7• 11 years ago

(from the FB thread, just now)

Bjorn Lynne Hi all. As an update to this situation, I am happy to say that the Universal Music Group claim on my video has now been released.

I have not had any communication with/from UMG, but what seems to have done the trick is that I used the "appeal" process at YouTube after I was told that my original dispute had been rejected by UMG. Going through the "appeal" at YouTube is a pretty scary process, because YouTube uses some very strong language to warn you that you may face legal action and/or your YouTube account may be shut down. I did it nevertheless, I was that hell bent on getting UMG to stop monetizing my music and claiming ownership of it.

After a couple of days, I received notification from YouTube that the UMG claim against my video had been released. I think that the "appeal" process is the only thing that UMG takes seriously, because the way it works is that, if they still want to uphold their claim on the music, they have to issue a legal DMCA takedown notice and provide legal argumentation as to why they own the rights to that video/music. Obviously they could not do that, because the music was composed by me, and it was very easy for me to prove that. So it appears that, when they saw the appeal, they released their claim.

I'm still angry with UMG over their handling of this. First of all, they used non-exclusive stock music (which in this case happened to be composed by me) in a product and then entered that product into Content-ID at YouTube. This is explicitly against YouTube's Content-ID policy, which clearly states that in order to use Content-ID, you must fully own the content exclusively. Which they didn't. Admittedly, anybody can make a mistake like that, and I wouldn't have made a noise about it, if they had then released their claim when I disputed it and explained the situation. But they didn't. They waited the FULL 30 days that they are allowed in which to respond, and then they upheld their claim. That's when I got angry.

I don't know if UMG ever even looked at the dispute. Quite possibly, it is their policy to always allow the full 30 days to pass, and then uphold their claim, no matter what, knowing full well that the "appeal" process is so scary. In my opinion, this is speculative and legally questionable. Right now, they are probably monetizing hundreds of thousands of videos that contain audio that doesn't belong to them at all, deliberately and knowingly. It's the second time they've done this exact thing with my music (first, with my track "Mystical Pyramids" and then with "Kingdom of the Persians"). And, as one guy commented on this thread, these are the same guys crying so loudly about people copying their music.

Thanks for all your comments, shares and support in this matter! Much appreciated!

All the best, - Bjorn Lynne Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 min

jwatte• 11 years ago

In the US, once you pay an initial retainer, a layer will sometimes work on a contingency basis - meaning they get one third of the final settlement. Given that UMG is a rich target, and the claim seems very strong, you might find someone like that to drive it. Even if you do, it will be slow, agonizing, and ultimately less than it should be when you win.

m_coder• 11 years ago

It looks like this issue was resolved because the OP was willing to use the "appeal" process at Youtube. This is good to hear.

https://www.facebook.com/41670261867/photos/a.10150273836606...

vitd• 11 years ago

I know that here in California, there is a non-profit named California Lawyers for the Arts[1] that will help artists get connected with lawyers who know copyright. It might be worth contacting them or a similar organization near the author for more info.

[1]http://www.calawyersforthearts.org

(Disclosure: I have known a few people who worked for CLA.)

UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

Related Stories