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

31–40 of 43 posts

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

#31

Post by jamii »

spiritplumber wrote: post #15
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.

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.

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

#33

Post by etingel »

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.

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

#34

Post by windlep »

Glyptodon wrote: post #8
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…

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

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.

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

#35

Post by spiritplumber »

(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

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

#36

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

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/

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

#37

Post by Crito »

spiritplumber wrote: post #18
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who would fight on UMG's behalf? They have enough money to bring any MMA fighter on as staff. Even if you restricted their pool of fighters to employees that they had before the duel was proposed, they have enough employees that they could probably still find somebody that could kick your ass.

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

#38

Post by jwatte »

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.

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

#40

Post by pas »

windlep wrote: post #34
Glyptodon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Have those ToS-es been tested in court? (Or more relevantly, ask a lawyer who is familiar with the subject. It may be that not everything falls under their forced mandatory arbitration.)
Post reply on HN