![Law & Music](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- Видео 18
- Просмотров 77 175
Law & Music
США
Добавлен 18 май 2023
Welcome. I am Scott Lesowitz. I am a professional attorney and extremely amateur musician. I graduated from Harvard Law School in 2007. On this channel, I upload videos where I discuss issues involving music, Copyright, and super fun awesomeness. I try to provide concise, understandable legal commentary with some laughs mixed in. If you like this channel and are also interested in sports-related videos, check out my first channel: Law & Laughs, @lawlaughs
Fil's Lawyer Friend Update: Legal Analysis re Parody, Money
A lawyer reacts to "Music Fraud UPDATE! Now the LAWYER is involved!" The video provides legal analysis on parody and provides clarity regarding song writing and publishing rights regarding alleged scammers who upload covers of famous songs onto the content ID system and then make videos pretending to sing that recording on a Got Talent show or X-Factor. This is part 2 following up on "Lawyer's Own Investigation & Thoughts on Content ID Scammers," which in turn is a reaction on Wings of Pegasus' video "THIS is the BIGGEST musical fraud I've EVER seen."
Creative commons attribution for Simon Cowell photo used in the video: Alison Martin of SimonCowellOnline.com - XF58, CC BY-SA 2.0, creative...
Creative commons attribution for Simon Cowell photo used in the video: Alison Martin of SimonCowellOnline.com - XF58, CC BY-SA 2.0, creative...
Просмотров: 3 177
Видео
Lawyer's Own Investigation & Thoughts on Content ID Scammers
Просмотров 13 тыс.14 часов назад
A lawyer reacts and gives his thoughts on Fil from Wings of Pegasus's video "THIS is the BIGGEST musical fraud I've EVER seen." @wingsofpegasus He also discusses Paul David's video on the same topic regarding purported scammers uploading cover songs onto the content ID system and claiming that they own the song, not just their particular recording. @PaulDavids Fil's video on the topic: rucl...
I Sort of Won Fair Use Fight v Sony/YouTube Support [Lawyer on @wingsofpegasus video fight]
Просмотров 52714 дней назад
Lawyer provides an update on his previous video, Fil’s Video Blocked, so Lawyer Uploads Same Clips [Fight Me! It's fair use]. In that video, the lawyer uploaded clips of Whitney Houston's performance of the national anthem at the Super Bowl to stand up for Fil from @wingsofpegasus, because his video had to be edited to cutout copyrighted content even though it was fair use. Disclaimer: This vid...
Fil’s Video Blocked, so Lawyer Uploads Same Clips [Fight Me! It's fair use]
Просмотров 35 тыс.Месяц назад
A real lawyer reacts to Fil from Wings of Pegasus' video They've BLOCKED this video THREE times, but the TRUTH is more important and talks about his experiment to upload the same clips himself and how this is all fair use. @wingsofpegasus Disclaimer: This video is not legal advice. I do not warrant its accuracy. Do not rely on it. No attorney-client relationship is created or implied.
Lawyer: Udio & Suno Likely Lose AI Music Copyright Lawsuits [And Rick Beato Is Right]
Просмотров 595Месяц назад
An attorney discusses and analyzes the copyright infringement lawsuits the big 3 record companies (Sony Music, Warner Music, and Universal Music) brough against the companies behind AI music generating programs Udio AI and Suno AI. Rick Beato's discussion is also highlighted. @RickBeato Disclaimer: This video is not legal advice. I do not warrant its accuracy. Do not rely on this video. No atto...
Lawyer Reacts: Fil Blocked for Playing Guitar [Not OK!]
Просмотров 11 тыс.Месяц назад
A lawyer reacts to and analyzes Fil from Wings of Pegasus's video youtube is asking me to trim me out of my video. @wingsofpegasus The video discusses issues of copyright law and fair use in music education videos on RUclips. Here is a link to the original video: ruclips.net/video/G9zQOndbp-A/видео.html 0:00 - Introduction 0:32 - Part 1 Fair Use 2:58 - Part 2 Thoughts Disclaimer: This video is ...
Lawyer Reacts: Wings of Pegasus on Copyright & YouTube
Просмотров 12 тыс.2 месяца назад
A real lawyer analyzes and reacts to Fil from Wings of Pegasus’s video on Copyright law and RUclips, Dear Trolls I’m NOT Breaking the law on RUclips. @wingsofpegasus Disclaimer: This video is not legal advice. I do not warrant its accuracy. Do not rely upon it. No attorney-client relationship is created or implied.
Lawyer reacts: Mary Spender on YouTube Cover Songs
Просмотров 1683 месяца назад
A real lawyer discusses and adds additional points and analysis to Mary Spender's video about cover songs on RUclips, How Much RUclips Paid Me for 3,800,000 Views and why... @MarySpender Her video is here: ruclips.net/video/EfSHZw5jZ8w/видео.html
Lawyer on Awful May 2024 Copyright Suit vs Beyoncé [Beyonce Break My Soul Lawsuit]
Просмотров 573 месяца назад
A lawyer analyzes the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Da Showtoppaz against Beyonce Knowles Carter, JZ, Big Freedia, and others over the songs Break My Soul, Release a Wiggle, and Explode. Tessie Avie, et al. v. Beyoncé Knowles Carter, et al., Case Number 2:24-cv-01334, Eastern District of Louisiana. Creative Commons attribution to thumbnail image (also used in video): "Beyoncé - Tott...
Why Ridiculous Copyright Length Hurts Music Most
Просмотров 493 месяца назад
A lawyer discusses how the extremely long length of copyright terms in the United States and worldwide is especially problematic for music. The attorney discusses how musicians and others in the music industry are especially stifled, and forced to pay licenses, due to various factors discussed in the video. These include the common use of samples and other techniques like sampling in music, and...
Worst Music Lawsuit Ever: Slick Expert & Awful Testimony
Просмотров 794 месяца назад
A lawyer analyzes the music copyright infringement case involving the Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams song Blurred Lines and the Marvin Gaye song Got to Give It Up. Specifically, the attorney discusses how expert testimony led to the jury's verdict in favor of Marvin Gaye's family, the finding of copyright infringement, and ultimately a roughly $5 million damages award. The lawyer argues tha...
Lawyer: Fair Use is Free Use
Просмотров 675 месяцев назад
A lawyer discusses why he believes that it is stealing (though likely not criminal) when record companies and other Copyright holders use Copyright claims on the content ID system to demonetize videos that they believe constitute fair use for using a short segment of a song or a short clip of a sound recording of a song. This greatly impacts music education and commentary RUclipsrs like Rick Be...
Lawyer: Fair Use Wins! YouTuber Beats Schaub Copyright Suit [and why it matters for music channels]
Просмотров 9556 месяцев назад
An attorney analyzes the Court's granting of summary judgment and dismissal of Thiccc Boy Productions' copyright infringement lawsuit against Kyle Swindelles on fair use grounds. Thiccc Boy Productions is behind the Fighter and the Kid podcast, which Brendan Schaub co-hosts. @TheFighterAndTheKid Swindelles goes by Yew Neek Ness. @YewNeekEnt The video also discusses how the order is relevant for...
Lawyer: How & Why Taylor Swift is Re-Recording Albums
Просмотров 737 месяцев назад
An attorney discusses and analyzes the copyright law and business reasons for Taylor Swift re-recording her first six albums, making Taylor's Versions of them. This is part of the saga of the sale of Big Machine Records, along with the ownership of the sound recordings (master recordings) of Taylor Swift's version six albums (twice). Creative commons attribution for Taylor Swift photo in the th...
Lawyer: Not Fair Use; Rick Beato’s Rock’s Greatest Debut Albums
Просмотров 792Год назад
Lawyer: Not Fair Use; Rick Beato’s Rock’s Greatest Debut Albums
Lawyer: Why Rick Beato Videos Are Fair Use (What Makes This Song Great Specifically), Likely
Просмотров 237Год назад
Lawyer: Why Rick Beato Videos Are Fair Use (What Makes This Song Great Specifically), Likely
Lawyer Reacts: Paul Davids' The Exploitation of YouTube's Copyright Policy
Просмотров 231Год назад
Lawyer Reacts: Paul Davids' The Exploitation of RUclips's Copyright Policy
Anither thing thats always bothered me with copyright law. You had the bee gees how deep is your love. And this is where i see your point about vague laws being unfair unjust to creators. The bee gees were in their domain writing a song. And another artist wrote one in his domain where neither artist had access to the other and by coincidence there was some overlap. How much overlap is allowed. Sunday morning coming down i wont mention it again ray price early morning rain all have overlap. A real notorious one lady antebellum i need you now and alan parsons eye in the sky has a real conspicuous similarity. The bee gees got ripped at the lower court because of vague laws my opinion like you said.
Id like to see more case law protecting the first ammendment with copyright law. My problem was posting a karaoke video of donhenleys where we dont make a penny and then getting a copyright strike where you tube may be profiting. Even off of our own creations. But we arent. I ve akways heard that posting art was free from copyright infringement as long as there was no profit. You can mow your lawn and sing a song even if people pass by. Its not clear where that line is.
I have a few cover songs on my Music channel. RUclips only figured out 1 of 6 covers. Granted my cover versions are somewhat to extremely different than the originals. RUclipss A.I. is NOT very good.
Thanks for sharing. Good to see further support on my small sample.
Weird AL is parody
Interestingly, Weird Al didn’t want to risk problems and always received permission.
Commies "share" other people's intellectual property, protected by copyright. May be OK in China, but not in the capitalist system.
Another great video! Thank you for taking a stand on this. Content creators have been getting the short end of the stick for years now and something needs to change.
You are very welcome. I hope, if nothing else, that someone who gets this kind of claim in the future will be less afraid to fight it. As for RUclips and the record labels, you would think large amounts of revenue belonging to large corporations (even if the songwriter still owns the publishing rights, the administrator has a financial stake) would be enough to at least take out the big offenders.
It’s never going to end if you try to address all the stupid people who drop comments on Fils videos
No comment... 😁
Good point that you could kinda, sorta, maybe argue that the dude with the crying baby was parodying talent competitions, if he had made it more clear, but that would have nothing to do with the use of that particular song. I suspect though that RUclips is aware that this kind of thing is going on, and won't do anything about it until they are forced to do so by a much larger and more powerful entity, unfortunately. Like major labels, government agencies, or John Oliver 😁.
Great post. I agree, and I assume that the major labels would put the pressure on RUclips. It's odd to me that the major publishers would be oblivious to this or not care enough to have people manually checking for these things. Maybe they do, and it's just such a widespread problem, big channels fall through the cracks.
How are they cover versions in the scammy videos? They're the original artists singing and a random person lip synching. That's not a cover. A cover would be a random person actually doing the singing.
In several of the videos cited by Fil's original post, these hosers WERE re-performing the songs, then using ProTools, Melodyne, Antares, and other pitch-correction to "fix" the performances ("She hit all of Celene Dion's notes! ZOMG!") and using that as the audio source. Fil, of course, like any studio tech, has the tools to analyze it. It's easily recognizable when he puts the audioscope on screen when a human voice holds a note at precisely 277Hz for nine and a half seconds. (Hint: human voices don't work that way. Not even Celene, Ann Wilson, or Whitney or whomever.) The audio is also isolated from the music so it's easy to just recognize that it's not Bryan Adams (or whomever) that's actually singing it. So it IS a cover being used. It IS a random person actually doing the singing. In one case, that singer was identified, but it's not at all clear if they're in on the RUclips Channel's naughty behaviour (though they would have profited from that performance) or if their performance copyright was used as carelessly as the other copyrighted materials by that channel. (Music is governed by two copyrights: one by the author of the music and one by the performer. It's pretty rare in modern, high-profile art for either of those two owners to be actual individuals. Songs are increasingly "written" by teams of dozens of writers, for example.) TBC: the point isn't that the vocals are "fixed" via technology. (That ship has sailed...) The point is that it's somebody other than the original artist (who holds the copyright on the performance) singing it at all. It's just a bonus that this performance is thing lip-synced onto a green screen, has the studio's copyrighted artwork and scenery used behind it, the (copyrighted) likenesses and performances by the judges, and the scammy nature of claiming all of this as reality, notably responding with a "thanks" instead of a chance to actually say "well, LOL, that wasn't actually me". That totally undermines the parody claim, too. As a disclaimer, since it's possible this will be read by an actual lawyer, I'm not one and I might be slightly wrong above. But I HAVE created works governed by copyright for decades and I've spent way more time learning about the process than I really ever set out to do.
Thank you for the post. I assume that everyone involved is connected. Seems too coincidental otherwise.
Correct, I believe I said cover version or obscure live version. I asked Fil about Unchained Melody, as it sounded like Bobby Hatfield, but it didn't sound like the original studio recording. Fil thinks it is a live performance by Bobby Hatfield likely a performance on TV.
@@LawLaughsMusic Agreed. It "could be" a rando, but the copyright being held by an individual is pretty rare.
Fil is doing the music industry a *huge* favor, they just don't know it yet.
Yes, the music industry should be putting effort and resources into this. It's their money being taken.
It's not "a cover version of someone else's song", though. It's taking an actual song, sung by the original artist, and putting manipulated video in front of it. A cover version would be the person in the video performing their version of the actual song. They can't even claim mechanical rights on the video, because it's the original song in the audio, and their only contribution is the miming and editing. I'm concerned that a lawyer can't tell the difference.
Correct, I may have not clarified this in this video. (I know I did in the first video about Fil's video re apparent scams.) I asked Fil about this, and he thinks that the version's that are sung by the famous singers are probably live versions, likely from TV. I can tell the Unchained Melody version appearing on Fil's video sounds different than the Righteous Brothers' original studio recording.
Whats your take on some more famous copyright infringement cases like Radiohead's Creep vs the Hollies The Air That I Breathe? Are those similar enough to justify the lawsuit and awarding The Hollies some royalties? Are some of these cases legitimate, while others are not, in your opinion? I'd love to get your take on a few of these more famous cases. Maybe this could even make a good video or series for this channel?
Very good question. I did an in-depth video about the ridiculous Blurred Lines case. It's too easy to find infringement with pop music where there are limited chord and song structures. I think Radiohead should have won if that got litigated, but they settled.
I really find it strange that youtube have allowed this after complaints maybe its the huge view and likes yet they are quick to go after other things like a comment that may not be political correct.
I think there's big incentive for RUclips to end this if it were easy to do so considering that they need to make sure they are able to re-up their licensing agreements with the big 3 record companies.
I know im in good Company when i spot Lego ❤
Thank you. Fist comment I got about the Lego. I thought it would brighten up the video and fit the frame. I've tried other times to incorporate Lego and it wouldn't come out right. If I ever get to 10,000 subscribers (a big if), I'm going to invest in a proper setup.
It is certainly not a parody. And it is certainly not "fair use." These people are absolutely guilty of breaking the US Copyright Law. But if I were a juror on that case, I'd probably vote to acquit them because the US Copyright Law is so completely out of line that it should not be enforced against ANYONE until Congress rewrites it. The law has been rewritten over and over again to favor "authors" who died decades ago -- particularly Walt Disney. The Constitution says the purpose of the copyright laws is to encourage authors to produce new works. The instant he died, Walt Disney was beyond encouragement. No matter what the law said, Walt was not going to produce any more works. So giving him copyright protection for SEVENTY YEARS after his death did not perform the function set out by the Constitution. And calling "life plus seventy years" a "limited time" is ludicrous. Until Congress dials back the copyright laws to be more reasonable, I hope juries will nullify the application of the copyright law in every case.
I wouldn't go so far as this, but I agree that copyright terms are ludicrous. The problem is that international law requires copyrights to be at least life plus 50 years. That's still too long. But Congress cannot lower the term to less than that without violating a treaty convention that the U.S. is a member of. (Not that Congress would have the inclination, anyway.)
@@LawLaughsMusic If the US can pull out of treaties that are designed to prevent nuclear war, then we can pull out of treaties that screw the American people with insane copyright terms. But, like you said, it’s not going to happen.
2:50 2 Live Crew's did well to get away with that considering they directly used the music from the other song. Not a lawyer but I feel that shouldn't be allowed without permission.
Good post. Here is what the Supreme Court said about it being a parody. "While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naiveté of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works."
If most countries have their own copyright laws what applies to RUclips since it has content from different countries? Does only American law apply since the company is in the USA? In Australia copyright for any artist (music, painter, writer etc) is automatic from the moment it is created and does not have to be registered in any way.
Thank you for the good question. American law would apply. The songs they are singing are copyrighted in the U.S., they are administered by American publishers, and the wrongdoing would occur on an American platform. If someone actually took the time to sue these people in the Philippines, I don't know which law the court in the Philippines would apply. That said, the Philippines is a member of the Berne Copyright Convention, so the law there shouldn't be that much different. Also, FYI, in the U.S. copyright ownership is automatic as well. Copyright registration is just a good idea for various reasons. And if someone wants to sue to enforce their copyright, he or she must register the copyright first.
A parody would be if this guy did exactly what he starts off doing. But when he opens his mouth to sing, he ripped a huge fart. Then show the crowd give a Standing Ovation and the judges slapping the golden button.
LOL, that's such an awesome way to describe it. And that was a literal LOL. I actually laughed audibly.
So basically these people are the same ilk as squatters.
God talent?
Uh oh. Where are you seeing that? I'll correct it if I can.
Got talent
Yes, Fil did send me your way! 😁👋
Fil is awesome. Thank you for agreeing to be sent.
I’d like to hear your take on the Ren/Kujo dispute over “Sick Boi.” Whose responsibility is it to be sure all the samples used to create a beat have been cleared, the buyer or the seller? How far back is reasonable for an artist to retroactively offer a split when the producer of the beat doesn’t disclose that there is a licensing problem for over a year after a track has been released? We lost a great piece of music there, not to mention the TITLE track for Ren’s whole album! ✌🏼
I have received multiple comments on this. I might make a video about it if I have time. In general, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort. That means that Ren would be liable for copyright infringement even if he believed in good faith that he had licensed the beat from the true owner. It sucks for people who get screwed by that like Ren. I guess there is some lesson about caveat emptor for buying music off the internet.
Hi. It's midi...not M.I.D.I. mihdee
I got a bunch of comments about this. I appreciate the correction. I have been dealing with midi files for over 20 years. I didn't know that was the common pronunciation.
@@LawLaughsMusic Thanks. I should have read through the comments before posting. It's an interesting generational thing. In the 80's when I first saw the midi devices EVERYONE called them midi...mihdee...middy. I never heard anyone call it M.I.D.I. Maybe you were coding and doing engineering things and we were doing music? Can that be it?
Huh? Many of WIerd Al's parody's use different lyrics and the original melody's but are *not* commenting on the original work.
So Weird Al always received permission. Therefore, there was never a legal question of whether it was fair use or not.
@@LawLaughsMusic yes but he's still widely referred to as parody music.
Fil is legit. Great guy I've followed for years.
I agree!
Fil is a great young artist and seems to be a genuinely good dude. You helping him??. I’m in subbed and liked.
Thank you. I'm trying to help.
Good job explaining this issue. Please invest in some video editing equipment.
Yeah, not my strength.
Question, songs are copyright protected. Pictures are also protected. What about showing the stage and set? Is that stage design copyrighted or something? Want to know what a real parody is Weird Al!
That's a very good question. Here there's no question using the images from Got Talent/X-Factor is copyright infringement because the copying is of an audio-visual work.
@@LawLaughsMusic I thought so. Thanks 😊
I wouldn't be so sure scammers wouldn't go to court. Once the have enough money for their own lawyers, they're liable to try it. Squatters go to court to steal houses - why wouldn't scammers go to court to steal copyrights? Anyway, isn't it up to the actual author/songwriter/performer to register their works so that YT picks it up as copyrighted material? When I get a copyright claim on some of my videos, it says that the copyright owner allows the music to be used on RUclips. Or, if not, it would say it is blocked. This shows that there had to be some initiative on the part of the copyright holder. And if there are "no issues", that tells me that either the music is old enough to be in the public domain, or the copyright holder hasn't registered it. I always get a warning that they could change their mind at any time and I should always keep an eye on it.
Thank you for commenting. As to the first point, to go to court, they would need copyright registrations (as in real ones with the U.S. Copyright office, not just a content ID registration). They don't have them. And they have money, but not enough to pay an attorney hourly to pursue a loser case. As for your second point, the real songs are in the content ID system. I confirmed that for the videos in Fil's video. The problem is that this isn't preventing very similar cover versions or live versions being entered into the content ID system too.
The main problem being RUclips's completely broken content and copyright fraud detection system. They can strike a channel where a music teacher has played 5 s of "bohemian rhapsody" but failed to detect painfuly obvious lip sync over the original version of a top100 sale record song. This is ludicrous.
Well said about the disparity in action.
I find it particularly frustrating when artists themselves get whacked during their own release livestream. If RUclips doesn't recognize that's a clear indication of stuff being broken, I'm not sure there's much hope.
Thanks for your explanation. New subscriber thanks to Fil. It seems i ll learn things here as well 👍🙂.
Great, thank you!
Thank you for this and for supporting Fil. I am a lawyer, but know little about copyright. That said, if you are going to keep doing these youtube videos, I would respectfully suggest that you find a better backdrop. To be honest, it looks like you are filming in the storage room of a Goodwill store.
LOL, you are right.
What I do not understand is how easily people are fooled...the first time I saw one of these videos, I knew it was phony...especially since the singer never moved his hand holding the mic away from his mouth. You could never see his mouth moving. My guess is that he doesn't even speak English so could not even mouth the words.
I definitely hear you and thought something similar. In some of the videos the guy is wearing pajama pants. And they are pretty clearly lip-synching. But then again, think about things that are more blatantly fake that fool people. Like people who think that obviously fake, AI photos are real.
You mentioned the Big Three Labels,. Would you talk about their massive control? My opinion is that they, three CEOs of Universal Sony and Warner, have ruined music. Thats why no regional hits, no one hit wonders, no instrumentals, no musician cities, ... and now everything new on radio has to be robot, pitch correction, voice.
A video like that wouldn't be a bad idea. I would have to think about how to approach it. Then again, it'll be interesting to see how necessary record companies are in 20 years.
@@LawLaughsMusic Yes the Big Three Labels have painted themselves into a corner, putting resources in a few dinosaur acts, not breaking new talent, sales tanking since streaming began, and most income from lawsuits. YET, as a musician and moderator on Facebook music group The Wheel of 100 plus, and editor of zine Musea since 1992, I also know that the Universal CEO, got a $300,000,000.00 bonus while 90% of us musicians made just a percentage of pennies on Spotify! It's like the entire world of every sport combined was down to 3 teams and 10 players!!! We musicians, including Fil, me, and thousands of others, can't wait much longer!
As noted earlier in the comments, these imposters are located in countries that ignores copyright, so the only way to block their income, is to get Google to review these videos. I'm unsure that this is something Google really wants, as their primary income comes from ads, and since illegal videos generates nearly the same revenue as legal ones do, they dont have any reason to care. It's an illusion that Google wants anything good for the world, they just want money. We are back to the "Do no evil" part of googles mantra, with I think they have proved again and again is dead and buried for good. Sadly, unless some original author complains (with a big recording company behind him), nothing is going to happen.
You have a point. But I think that RUclips probably does care because they have licensing deals with the big 3 record companies and their publishing divisions, and those relationships are very important to RUclips. Theoretically, it could even rise to breach of contract. (The contracts are confidential, and I imagine RUclips protects itself against deficiencies in the content ID system.)
@@LawLaughsMusic Since the contracts are confidential, none of us can check that the contract does not include "imposters". I guess it depends on whether the record company 1. Think they loose money because of the video 2. Think they could earn more money on that video If none of the above is true, they dont care. And I think they really dont care if other parties (like the writers) gets any money or not, unless that part is shared, so they get less money. It's really all about the money. I must admit, if I would get 10 cent every time my song was watched on youtube, regardless who performed it, I would probably not care.
:D Great sense of humour. FIl sent me here.
Thank you for the support! I try to add some humor but not be too distracting.
You keep saying that the scammers are using “ cover versions”. I am hearing the actual ORIGINAL recordings as released by the record company when the song first charted. Wouldn’t a “ cover version” be re -recorded and performed by a different person doing a “ cover” of the original recording? They are basically just stealing the money from both the original song writer, record company’s mechanical rights, and original singer.
You are correct. Fil's theory is that the originals are actually live recordings (such as on TV) by the original musicians.
RUclips is a scam!!!
I wouldn't blame the entirety of the platform. And it could be worse. I deal with other platforms in my legal practice. RUclips/Google is not the worst.
RUclips is really strict sometimes about things it shouldnt and then lets this kind of stuff happen. I made once a cover of Run Baby Run by Sheryl Crow and RUclips did not recognize it as Sheryl's song but as an italian song called Corri e vai (which is a cover of Sheryl's song) and it has happened to me some other times, RUclips claiming a song belonged to someone in Brazil or something like that when it was not the case.... So they pay the wrong people often. Doesn't seem fair.
Thank you for commenting. It definitely is unfair. I hope that you were able to dispute the claim. Obviously if a claim is made on behalf of Sheryl Crow/the legitimate publisher, then that makes sense, and it is fair. However, money should not be going to a scammer under any scenario, and any claim by a scammer is illegitimate and should be rejected.
Most of the scammers were uploading the “original” recording of the hit songs in questions. As in the caseof “ unchained melody”. The exact version released by the record companies. They weren’t really “covers” in the true sense of the word. That makes it even more egregious.
I was very interested in that, too. How were they getting the Righteous Brothers' recording registered on the content ID system? Fil's theory is that they uploaded an obscure live version, probably from television. It does sound different that the famous studio recording. But I am curious if you could get the original past the content ID system and have ideas on how to test it. (One cannot upload a famous song as a test, as there would arguably be an element of fraud involved even if one's intentions are good.)
@@LawLaughsMusic In some cases one can upload the exact recordings from the record labels, and they either get no content match, or are claimed by the record label or the music publisher (or some extraneous third-party as you have been discussing), and allowed to be left up. I'm not talking about not giving the proper credit and trying to deceive anyone, or monetize it. I've noticed in the last couple of years RUclips will claim that the music rights owners are allowing it to be played on RUclips but if the channel was monetized, revenue would have to be shared with RUclips, or something. RUclips has no incentive to stop such behavior outside of enforcing a DMCA take down notice because they make money on everything whether it is legitimate or not. Another issue that doesn't seem fair is that anyone can issue a fraudulent DMCA takedown notice resulting in a strike on a channel, even if they have no claim on the copyright, and RUclips does not check that, it is up to the recipient to file a counterclaim. A problem is that the ones issuing the DMCA takedown notice need only minimal information, which can be completely fabricated, and no proof of copyright ownership, but to file a counterclaim the channel has to provide a lot of personal information which is passed onto the scammers, even if they don't respond and the takedown notice is reversed.
@@LawLaughsMusic I don't THINK I have any non-public information about how ContentID works, but I know a bit about how sound works. You can introduce tiny variations in speed (think putting your thumb on the tape wheel) and then use equal software to pitch correct those variations by the amount it was changed. This about a finely controlled version of the "anti-chipmunking" used when you click the (awesome) RUclips playback speed controller to shift the actually heard frequency back to normal. Over the course of a few bars, you won't notice the song has grown or shrunk by a whopping 794mS, but the digital representation of those bars (especially when the next few bar and a third is sped up a bit and the so on) won't look very similar to software comparing waveforms. I'd wager that Fil (or a producer or an AE...) has a whole toolbox of plugins to simulate wow and flutter, selectively stretch/scrunch "tape", that can pitch up/down selected freqs, and do other horrible, terrible things to a song that wouldn't be noticed by a human casually listening to a TV show. Is that enough to fool it? That's sure where I'd start. You've hit on one obvious way to determine if a song MIGHT be a cover - run it through a variation of the same tech that RUclips uses for captioning. We know Google licenses lyric data from LyricFind and we know that Google has tech that can identify if two bodies of text are similar. Songs get shortened to fit into TV, lyrics get cleaned up, people don't sing clearly (Weird Al has a song on that...), etc. so it's not a true/false match as much as a numeric level of confidence of a match. Factoring in cadence could also be used in that determination. I don't know if Google IS doing any of this. If they are, they're clearly doing a very bad job at it.
Perhaps RUclips needs to be taking a closer look at videos with over <insert-threshold-value-here> views and ensuring that they are not in violation of copyright laws. That would be a pretty easy algorithm to write.
Yes, I would think so. It's hard for me to imagine that there isn't enough incentive to crack down on this that channels with tens of thousands of subscribers and lots of views are able to stay active for over one year.
Hello Scott. I always wonder why some utube musicians that teach you how to play a song on an instrument are allowed on utube, but some instructional musicians are forced to be taken down. I’m curious?
Great question. In terms of blocking, I think the problem is simply bad luck that they run into a songwriter/publisher that has a policy of blocking videos that use their content. In terms of fair use, the question can be nuanced, but most educational videos will be fair use unless they are playing too much of an original song for no good reason. But, as I've made videos on, it is unfortunate that even if a video is fair use, often the RUclipsrs have too many downsides from fighting back against a claim even if they are correct.
Thanks Scott.
What I don't understand is how these scammers can put an entire song on RUclips and get away with it, while legit and important RUclipsrs like Rick Beato or Professor of Rock get copyright-struck if they play more than a few seconds of a song.
Great post and great point. I wish I had an answer for this. Maybe Rick Beato should pretend he's on the set of X-Factor teaching the judges about music.
Just the tempo of a cover song being sufficiently different could prevent recognition by the automated system. It's a bit like all the ripped-off videos & clips on here that are reversed left-right when you see any text; it's different enough to fool the system.
Good point. I have more experimenting to do. I don't want to turn this into like ten videos where I try different tactics in each, but I'm going to do one or two more where I combine a few different experiments I've thought of. One will be seeing how little I can adjust an original song to get it past the content ID system.
👌👍❣
You too! Thank you.
It wouldn't surprise me that YT has their own tactics/agenda as long as they're making $$.
Yes, but it's hard for me to imagine that their incentive here is anything but stopping the scams and making sure the big music publishers are happy. RUclips gets no benefit from the scammers receiving the creator's share instead of the music publishers. And the music publishers should have enough incentive to devote some of their own resources to the problem. Don't the Eagles have people on staff to look for Eagles videos on RUclips? And that's just one band.
just say “Middy” everyone just says “Middy” Although technically its M.I.D.I. although they never print it anywhere with the full stop periods in between the letters.
This is so interesting to me. I have been using midi files since I was in junior high programming very rudimentary video games, and I never knew that people pronounced it as a word.
@@LawLaughsMusic its come along way. i thought it would be a relic by now. but it’s still so essential today.
Middy is a glass of beer 🦘
Parody song: (See Weird Al)
Interestingly, Weird Al was cautious and always received permission. He didn't want to risk litigating.
@@LawLaughsMusic He got permission so he wouldn't have to pay royalties.
Please also note, that the "scammer" seems to be somewhere in a far eastern country where our laws are not likely to affect them. ..
Well, in the short term, RUclips could still at least ban the channels, and in the long run, the problem will have to be dealt with through technology. I understand that banning channels would likely lead to them continually popping up, but a game of whack-of-mole still seems better than allowing channels to accumulate tens of thousands of subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views. Lots of views and subscribers makes it easier to get higher view counts in the future.
@@LawLaughsMusic You know that most of these views and subscribers come from click farms in SEA, right? They are located in Laos, Myanmar and Cambotscha, run by Chinese (mafia). We have to deal with them here in Thailand too, on a different level.
Did you report them?
Good question. I did not. There's a few more things that I would like to do, and then I'll report everything, I think. I doubt it will do much, but at least I can say that I told them.