Видео

Thanks for sharing. Good to see further support on my small sample.

Interestingly, Weird Al didn’t want to risk problems and always received permission.

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.

No comment... 😁

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.

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.

Yes, the music industry should be putting effort and resources into this. It's their money being taken.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

LOL, that's such an awesome way to describe it. And that was a literal LOL. I actually laughed audibly.

Uh oh. Where are you seeing that? I'll correct it if I can.

Got talent

Fil is awesome. Thank you for agreeing to be sent.

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.

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?

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.

I agree!

Thank you. I'm trying to help.

Yeah, not my strength.

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 😊

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.

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.

Great, thank you!

LOL, you are right.

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.

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!

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.

Thank you for the support! I try to add some humor but not be too distracting.

You are correct. Fil's theory is that the originals are actually live recordings (such as on TV) by the original musicians.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 🦘

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.

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.

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.