Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

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

#11

Post by dragonwriter »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

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…

> 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.)

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

#12

Post by [deleted] »

Someone1234 wrote: post #6
pjc50 wrote: post #2

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.

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 legitimat…

[deleted]

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

#14

Post by spiritplumber »

spiritplumber wrote: post #7

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

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.

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

#15

Post by spiritplumber »

trothamel wrote: post #13

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.

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.

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

#16

Post by pjc50 »

spiritplumber wrote: post #14
spiritplumber wrote: post #7

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

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…

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.

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

#17

Post by pjc50 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

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…

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.

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

#18

Post by spiritplumber »

pjc50 wrote: post #16
spiritplumber wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

It's not a joke, and it works. A boxing match, or even a street fight in which there are no serious injuries, is a good way to bond, whoever wins.

You walk away thinking "This other person is willing to get into a fight with me, and fight fair". And the physicality of it does cause some amount of bonding.

Plus, the adrenaline in your system that builds up when you prepare to get into a negotiation and would otherwise have nowhere to go gets used up the way nature intended, which makes it easier to see things with equanimity afterwards.

That's an excellent starting point for any negotiation (assuming the fight was indeed fair).

We have evolved with physical fights as one of the cornerstones of our interactions with others -- you can repress it, be in denial about it, work against it, or work with it. What should a hacker do?

TLDR:

The point is not "who wins the fight wins the argument".

The point is "let's you and me fight, then afterwards, we can discuss the argument with more equanimity"

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

#19

Post by pkehah »

[deleted] wrote: post #12
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 legitimat…

[deleted]

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo.

MegaUpload was explicitly meant to host pirated content, and Kim Dotcom (a convicted felon) explicitly arranged for it to be seeded with pirated content. It was possible to use it for other things, but that's not why it existed.

I get that the popular narrative is that he's supposed to be a victim, but let's be honest about it: he didn't "fail to be restrictive enough", he actively aided, abetted, and encouraged copyright violations.

Using Mega as an example of a victim only makes you look like a kook, a liar, or a moron to the people who actually need to be influenced.

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

#20

Post by higherpurpose »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

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…

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.
Post reply on HN