Follow

Just got several dozen content id strikes on years-old videos that use music that was very carefully selected because it was in the public domain or available under a creative commons license

daredo GmbH, Audiam and ONErpm just decided that they own all that music now, complete with fake band and album names, and the assurance that these are the "original mixes"

Fucking thugs

And of course I do all the research and gather the URLs I need to prove that these are fraudulent claims, and youtube gives me a 504 error every time I try to file a dispute 🙃

@matt YouTube completely deleted one of my videos for "inappropriate content" which says to appeal the "community guidelines strike" to get it back, but they never gave me a strike or told me why it was removed, just deleted the only copy of the video i have permanently

and they left the first part, only removed the second

@xenon Wow what the hell, I figured when this happened they'd just make the video un-viewable by the public, I didn't know they completely deleted it. What a bunch of shit-suckers

@matt and since it's YouTube there's no way to contact anyone about it. it's just like this forever

@matt how can they claim your several years old video contains music released this month?

@kiilas Do not question the algorithm; the algorithm is infallible; it must simply be that time is wrong.

@matt I can recall that I had used a "crowd screaming" sound effect on something that I was making. I uploaded it to Youtube and my video was immediately struck with Content ID... because a song in their system just so happened to use that same exact sound effect at some point. Content ID was a mistake.

@matt My guess is that someone sampled those public-domain tracks in their works and then registered them with ContentID. The one on the left in particular looks like it was registered via DistroKid (according to the distributor label); no idea who "Digital Adventures" is though.

and yeah ContentID is fucking broken and YouTube's policies around it are very much RIAA-lapdog in nature.

@fluffy I don't think so. That's happened to me before too - someone sampled some video game music and then put content claims on any video using the original track. This time, the track titles are all exactly the same. These organizations are claiming ownership whole cloth

The original upload was on bandcamp (chezmonplaisir.bandcamp.com/al), I think the artist just used Distrokid as a way to get it onto Spotify, which shouldn't affect their ownership or the copyright status at all

What a fuckin mess

@matt oh yeah but I mean when they signed up for Distrokid they probably opted into Distrokid's ContentID thing which Distrokid sells people on without explaining it particularly well

@matt like any random person can submit anything they want to ContentID and there's not any real oversight over it, and DistroKid has a checkbox that does that for you (for an added fee which is silly because ContentID is literally free to submit to)

@matt oh also I see that the original track was released as CC-BY. Which gives you a basis for copyright dispute - you have a license to the track, as long as you credit the original artist.

ContentID isn't set up to handle Creative Commons at all well and it causes a *lot* of grief. I've been on both ends of this issue, it sucks for the artist *and* sucks for people making correct use of the music.

@fluffy Yep, I've been trying to dispute it since I posted that, but it's still 504ing every time I click the submit button. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@matt ... and now I jsut reread your original post and understand it better, oops. Yeah looks like someone was acting in Very Bad Faith here. And that happens a lot. It's a very common scam in the music industry and there's not a whole lot you can do about it without expensive lawsuits.

@matt I really wonder how much money you could make by copyright claiming a song so similar to a popular one the algorithm just matches them

I used that one eurobeat meme song in a video once and it got matched immediately, except the song it matched with was a completely different song

@noiob @matt Unfortunately it's a cottage industry at this point. People have submitted random birdsong recordings to ContentID and those get a surprising number of matches, I've had ContentID matches against my *completely original* tracks because someone else used a drum sample that was very similar to one of mine, and so on.

ContentID is fucking broken and YouTube doesn't care because it keeps the recording industry off their backs and makes them more money anyway.

@noiob @matt also one time I played Für Elise (badly) on my twitch stream and it was close enough to a recent recording that someone else registered that I got a content match on that too, although I was able to dispute that successfully because at least Twitch isn't as completely broken.

I mean if it were the ghost of Beethoven registering the copyright complaint that's one thing, but no it's just an algorithm that doesn't understand composition vs. recording. And a billion other things.

@matt Hey matt, just received a message about the daredo GmbH claim you had. This is weird, I've contacted them like a week ago so they have suppressed the claim on this album. Can you tell me what are the songs you used from the Komiku album and send me a screenshot of the claims ? Thank you <3
Sorry for that, that shit happens to me all the time those days....

@Monplaisir Sure! Here's the screenshot with your tracks and a few others that were claimed in the video. No worries and sorry for not contacting you directly, I didn't know you were on the fediverse.

Thanks for looking into it and thanks for the music! Sorry you have to go through all this bullshit.

@matt Thanks for the support and the screenshot, I'll contact them soon to talk about that.
Do you know when you received the claim ?

@Monplaisir Yep, the e-mail arrived at 3:00 AM (7:00 AM UTC) on the 29th.

@matt Hey, can you send me the links to your videos with the claims ?
There is a fifth video in your screenshot with the daredo claim.
Thanks !

@matt Thanks, Daredo will solve it today, can you check and tell me if it's good tomorrow ?

@Monplaisir Unfortunately not :( Meant to reply sooner, sorry, but nothing's changed on my end.

@matt Hey, I received a new message telling me they have solved the problem, can you confirm that ? =)

@Monplaisir I wanted to give it a day to see if it was just taking time for the change to propagate on my end, but nothing's changed, I'm sorry to report :blobsad:

@Monplaisir @matt Thanks for taking care of this! I really wish ContentID had a way of registering a work as specifically Creative Commons, to prevent predators from doing this sort of thing.

ccMixter.org has made an arrangement with them for "CC-plus" licensing which is *sorta* useful for that (and I've ended up registering a lot of my music that way) but it's still not ideal, and the music still gets monetized in the end.

@fluffy @matt
Hey, no problem, thanks for reaching to me =) Yeah, I know the CCMixter arrangement but, even if CC0 is still blurry, the CC-plus licence isn't really a legal thing. It's an agreement more than a true licence and when facing some big companies, it's better to give them a big link with a huge legal text, haha :p
(also, did you get my response e-mail to yours ? my e-mail client has some problem notifying me if the mail has been sent)

@matt Capitalism sucks TBH and Copyright Law sucks just as badly

@natsumisummer @matt

Copyright Law doesn't even protect the actual Artists. It only protects big corporations, which don't create anything, they just act as a giant middle-man between Artists and Consumers.

These "Author's Death + 75 years" restrictions only help out fat corporations and not the Artists or their families.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Cybrespace

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway

jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal