Warner music claimed my video for defending their copyright [video]

Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.

But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.

> What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright.

My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.

That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.

Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about.

And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.

Note that this issue was not flagged by content ID, but manually.

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of "Content owners" who have lost their Content ID access due to "erroneous claims", but I get the feeling that this list simple does not exist. Hell, I would be surprised if the "guidelines" for Content ID use even exist.

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

Of course the users are to take all this on good faith.. you know because YouTube is such a reputably moral and ethical company.

>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time.

Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income.

Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.

No, the root cause is the DMCA. Copyright is good in most cases and while there is room for improvement, and room for discussion for how it might need to evolve in a different information industry, it is copyright that helps protect even FOSS copyleft for example.

When DMCA was passed I remember the arguments being about this very sort of thing, and most of the hacktivist-types I knew at the time railed against it... but they obviously lost and weren't listened to. I think those who opposed DMCA are being vindicated...

This is the problem when you have a "representative" government that actually doesn't represent you at all.

> It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time

So Disney, The Beatles, The Stones (etc) could all afford to stay copyrighted indefinitely, but all my content would enter into public domain (and exploitable by megacorps) after 10 years?

I don't disagree that there are existing issues, but I think you'd just be introducing more.

"knowingly"

I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.

YouTube content ID is not the DMCA, so you have no recourse.

See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en

This is why bad actors are able to liberally steal ad revenue for millions of videos without being punished, often claiming content they don't even own.

This isn't under the DMCA but still interesting: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions...

Tl;dr Amazon seller filed a false counterfeiting allegation against another seller. A jury found "$4,460 in compensatory damages" and awarded 150k on top of that in punitive, reduced by appeals court to 75k.

Biggest award for false claim of IP infringement I'm aware of. Unfortunately it was in state court and not precedential. And with all the appeals it likely cost them more than 100k to litigate.

I currently have a similar case ongoing, and I know of a few dozen other cases. See e.g:

Argo Holdings, Inc. v. Youngblood Skin Care Products, LLC (0:19-cv-60487)

ABG Prime Group v. Innovative Salon Products (2:17-cv-12280) (settled)

Verbena Products LLC v. Sesderma USA LLC (1:19-cv-23778)

Verbena Products LLC v. Suavecito, Inc. (1:19-cv-24001)

Verbena Products LLC v. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc. (1:19-cv-23616)

SZS Solutions, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (0:17-cv-61942) (settled)

Look into the case where a Christian film company fraudulently claimed a tons of videos on The Bible Reloaded YouTube channel. They went to court. They 'won'. Kinda. They ended up settling, but their case was as iron-clad and perfect as anyone could dream. They didn't include a single frame of the movie they were talking about in their video, didn't include a single nanosecond of audio from the film, but the company still filed a claim. But when they went into court, the company blamed the actual employee who filed the claims and for some reason the court just decided that the company can't be held responsible for the actions their employee took while doing the job they were hired to do. I would expect the same thing to happen in any similar case. They just throw the one person under the bus and move on.