INDMUSIC Responds to False ContentID Claims with YouTube, TuneCore

roseofbattle

News Room Contributor
Apr 18, 2011
2,306
0
0
INDMUSIC Responds to False ContentID Claims with YouTube, TuneCore

INDMUSIC and TuneCore state they had given artists notification of the mandatory policy change that prompted many copyright claims to be made on artists' behalf.

Copyright law was intended to encourage the creation of art to grant artists exclusive rights to their work. As seen with YouTube's recent policy change to claiming of videos, copyright law as it is now can also stifle creativity.

The Escapist's his YouTube channel with his own content stricken with third party claims from INDMUSIC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound], a large music network on YouTube. Dunne was one of several artists affected by automated content monitoring and claims sent by INDMUSIC with whom distributor TuneCore recently partnered.

In a TuneCore blog post [http://blog.tunecore.com/2013/12/your-youtube-questions-answered.html?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=yt_qs_answered] published yesterday, TuneCore stated INDMUSIC is claiming videos on behalf of TuneCore, which TuneCore is doing as a service on behalf of artists signed up with the company for a publishing deal. "When it comes to YouTube monetization, a synchronization license and a license for the sound recording are both needed to generate revenue, and per our terms and conditions, we can license both if the composition was distributed by TuneCore," the post states.

Because ContentID is an automated process, TuneCore does not plan to rework the current system, INDMUSIC CEO Brandon Martinez told The Escapist. Artists, however, can whitelist their YouTube channel, and doing so ensures they "will see absolutely no claims placed on their own content and, therefore, no revenue deducted from their earnings."

Dunne reported yesterday he was losing 20% on ad revenue from his videos due to the copyright claims. A representative from INDMUSIC has clarified to The Escapist that money for disputed videos are accrued and frozen by YouTube until the matter is resolved. The representative also insisted TuneCore provided information to all of its artists before the policy changed and Dunne "didn't care to read them."

"I have searched my email inbox and have not found one single email that states there would be a mandatory change to the terms and conditions," Dunne replied. Emails he's received from TuneCore detailed growing revenue on YouTube, but Dunne said he has not been able to find any information about the policy change in these emails. "I may have indeed missed it and would be happy to have it re-sent, but it seems odd that so many others did too... it seems like a massive communication breakdown."

In the past, TuneCore did not have plans to monetize YouTube videos, and if it ever did, artists would be given the option to opt in or out of the service, composer Steven Cravis detailed in emails between himself and TuneCore he posted online [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/12/18/tunecorepredatory ]. Cravis also notes TuneCore had not sent him any warning of the mandatory policy change.

It took Dunne over a day to clear the claims on his videos, but others are still emailing INDMUSIC and waiting for a response. The INDMUSIC representative told The Escapist, "INDMUSIC was very active in responding to Gavin and anyone else who had issues."

"Sadly I have heard reports from many YouTubers who claim the direct opposite of this," Gavin said, "including one or two who got claims for using my music and had to plead with me to email INDMUSIC for them as they were coming up against a brick wall or just not getting any response." Dunne supposes this lack of responsiveness is due to a massive flood of emails to the company.

"Both INDMUSIC and TuneCore have been tirelessly responding to tweets and e-mails from TuneCore artists, as well as YouTube content creators," Martinez said. "The night of the biggest disruption, I personally stayed in the office until midnight to make sure that every person who emailed us via our contact form or our outreach email received a response."

Dunne and other independent composers have given permission to others to use their music in videos. To remove any false copyright claims made on videos where the video creator had permission from the artist, Martinez said, "If a creator has permission to use a song and monetize their video, they need to state as much when disputing a video. They should provide as much detail as possible, including an email address so either INDMUSIC or TuneCore can reach out if necessary. We want to work with everyone to resolve these issues.

Dunne notes his experience with TuneCore before this incident has been fruitful for both parties and asks everyone to avoid abusing or insulting employees of INDMUSIC and TuneCore. "I very much hope this situation is resolved amicably for all musicians and that TuneCore can continue to provide us the great service it has done for the last few years," he said.

Permalink
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
The weirdest part of this meltdown is how it all happened at once. They're going to lose way more content creators this way than they would have if they had gradually introduced changes.

Hell, if TBFP or Birgirpall bail to a different website, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Compatriot Block said:
The weirdest part of this meltdown is how it all happened at once.
And that reason alone is why I dismiss those who defend youtube with "But this is the system they've had in place since ."

The scale of youtube is so great that full policing is just not feasible.
With automation, the number of false positives is overwhelming.
Without automation, it's more "wild west".
 

Alcaste

New member
Mar 2, 2011
186
0
0
What's shit is that INDMUSIC is starting to take ad revenue from videos that aren't even being monetized to begin with. I think the VVVVVV trailer is one such video - So a company that isn't Terry Cavanagh or Souleye is now taking money for an advertisement of a product they have no hand in. Love it!
 

roseofbattle

News Room Contributor
Apr 18, 2011
2,306
0
0
It's just another example as to why the society as we know it today is in pretty bad shape. We've corrupted it to a point beyond repair whilst it has also corrupted us back. This copyright debacle is because we're dealing with a law that is in no way suited for the modern world. Yet, if these laws were to updated, it'd be by lawmakers who are either outdated or corrupted themselves, making sure the new law will be just as destructive as the last one.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,530
974
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
"Sir! Some people are making money by using the works of others in derivative fashion!"
"This is intolerable! Get a system in place at once to combat this!"
-
"Sir! Some people are using our new system to claim ad revenue from the original works of others!"
"...well, what can you do?" *shrugs*
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
Dear 4chan, we have little use for YouTube anymore. Not that I'm condoning illegal activities, but if you're going to, there is little we can do to stop you, we just think that you should choose wisely what you want go after next.

Sincerely, Internet.
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
I don't care how ammicable the dealings were before this... INDMUSIC and TuneCore are acting like corporate pirates. "Yar har har, let's just claim everything as infringing copywrite because we get all that ad revenue without having to show any drop of proof." What makes it worse is that they then wait and wait and wait and don't respond and go AS LONG AS THEY CAN before they "correct" their "mistake". And just because some thief let you know in advanced that they're going to take your money doesn't mean they're being any less of a thief.

I know everyone is trying to give them the benefit of the doubt but it doesn't change the fact that they are making off like bandits.
 

Shuu

New member
Apr 23, 2013
177
0
0
At the end of the day, you can't leave it up to automated systems, no matter how lazy you are. There are videos that cannot be lumped into blanket 'allowed' and 'not allowed' destinctions. There are videos that somebody, a thinking, breathing human being is going to have to sit down and watch and decide whether or not they will let slide.
It doesn't seem like a lot of a work and money for these huge companies to employ a person, or a very small team whos job it is to simply be in touch with the online community, and go around checking out all the possible infringments, and decide based on etablished policy (policy that never needs to leave the companies' ears, so as not to make them legally vulnerable for choosing not to act on possible infringments) needs to be removed and what is ultimately harmless or even advantagous to them.
But you can't leave it up to automated systems. Not the ones we have now anyway.
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
Shuu said:
At the end of the day, you can't leave it up to automated systems, no matter how lazy you are. There are videos that cannot be lumped into blanket 'allowed' and 'not allowed' destinctions. There are videos that somebody, a thinking, breathing human being is going to have to sit down and watch and decide whether or not they will let slide.
It doesn't seem like a lot of a work and money for these huge companies to employ a person, or a very small team whos job it is to simply be in touch with the online community, and go around checking out all the possible infringments, and decide based on etablished policy (policy that never needs to leave the companies' ears, so as not to make them legally vulnerable for choosing not to act on possible infringments) needs to be removed and what is ultimately harmless or even advantagous to them.
But you can't leave it up to automated systems. Not the ones we have now anyway.
I think I read somewhere that around 6000 hours of footage are uploaded to YouTube every day, so it would be nearly impossible to have real people check everything.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
Shuu said:
It doesn't seem like a lot of a work and money for these huge companies to employ a person, or a very small team whos job it is to simply be in touch with the online community
According to youtube "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute" how the fuck can one man or small team monitor that? Millions of videos of all categories uploaded constantly that have to be watched and judged for infringements ... that is just youtube, not that I know them but there must be other sites like youtube that would have to have the same set up. That is just the freshly uploaded content, what about all the stuff that has been uploaded, where would you even start?

Your small team would have to be a continent of people to process all that content. That is no life for any person, watching millions and millions of cat, fail, make up, game play, prank and music video ... insanity would set in after a month! It's just cruel and unusual punishment!
 

Shuu

New member
Apr 23, 2013
177
0
0
Compatriot Block said:
Shuu said:
At the end of the day, you can't leave it up to automated systems, no matter how lazy you are. There are videos that cannot be lumped into blanket 'allowed' and 'not allowed' destinctions. There are videos that somebody, a thinking, breathing human being is going to have to sit down and watch and decide whether or not they will let slide.
It doesn't seem like a lot of a work and money for these huge companies to employ a person, or a very small team whos job it is to simply be in touch with the online community, and go around checking out all the possible infringments, and decide based on etablished policy (policy that never needs to leave the companies' ears, so as not to make them legally vulnerable for choosing not to act on possible infringments) needs to be removed and what is ultimately harmless or even advantagous to them.
But you can't leave it up to automated systems. Not the ones we have now anyway.
I think I read somewhere that around 6000 hours of footage are uploaded to YouTube every day, so it would be nearly impossible to have real people check everything.
omega 616 said:
According to youtube "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute" how the fuck can one man or small team monitor that? Millions of videos of all categories uploaded constantly that have to be watched and judged for infringements ... that is just youtube, not that I know them but there must be other sites like youtube that would have to have the same set up. That is just the freshly uploaded content, what about all the stuff that has been uploaded, where would you even start?

Your small team would have to be a continent of people to process all that content. That is no life for any person, watching millions and millions of cat, fail, make up, game play, prank and music video ... insanity would set in after a month! It's just cruel and unusual punishment!
I was thinking more like somebody to simply react to what the automated system finds, but they are the ones who must choose whether or not to act on it. Doesn't matter how many bajillions of hours of footage are uploaded every second, unless their systems are so bad that every second of that footage is flagged, I think it would be managable.
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
Actually there is only 2 real problems. MCNs got to greedy and took up to many channels. MCNs need to release their non-managed affiliates out of the contracts. The Game Industry has to come together recognize that Youtube and Twitch are not a threat and license deals with the current and new MCNs.

Second problem is the waiting period for content-ID appeals should be reduced from 1 month to 1 week.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Compatriot Block said:
The weirdest part of this meltdown is how it all happened at once.
And that reason alone is why I dismiss those who defend youtube with "But this is the system they've had in place since ."

The scale of youtube is so great that full policing is just not feasible.
With automation, the number of false positives is overwhelming.
Without automation, it's more "wild west".
YouTube warned the Multi Channel Networks months ago. That's why the details of this have been running around since October. The only thing that's changed is the McN's are targeted by the bots that had been ignoring them. The McN bot free networks were rejected because Fullscreen and others refused to pay any royalties or work out a deal with copyright holders.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Baldr said:
Actually there is only 2 real problems. MCNs got to greedy and took up to many channels. MCNs need to release their non-managed affiliates out of the contracts. The Game Industry has to come together recognize that Youtube and Twitch are not a threat and license deals with the current and new MCNs.

Second problem is the waiting period for content-ID appeals should be reduced from 1 month to 1 week.
Actually their is a third problem, and that is that the current auto-detect system is completely broken and needs to be fixed. You can flag a video on YouTube and you don't have to provide any paperwork or proof that you or the company you are representing actually own the rights to whatever is in the video you are flagging.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
klaynexas3 said:
Dear 4chan, we have little use for YouTube anymore. Not that I'm condoning illegal activities, but if you're going to, there is little we can do to stop you, we just think that you should choose wisely what you want go after next.

Sincerely, Internet.
Please don't ever post such ridiculous and malevolent silliness again, kthx.

OT: Glad to see they're working on it. If every other company responds like this, we might be able to see the whole issue put straight.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Oh look. It was all the actions of a greedy and generally stupidly-mismanaged corporation. What a tremendous shocker as to the identity of who could make life hell for so many people with so ridiculous a system. I can hardly contain my abject surprise.

Or...you know...it could be Thursday. Seriously, can we get these people bagged, tagged, and released back into the wild so we can predict their asinine movements and STOP THEM?
 

stabnex

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,039
0
0
In typical corporate fashion they copped out, spewed lines from contracts and refused to change to better their own cause for the sake of profits.
 

SirPigglesworth

New member
Aug 14, 2012
68
0
0
Appalling. @TuneCore [https://twitter.com/TuneCore] are refusing to release claims on remixes by other people. This is theft, plain and simple.

— Much Weebl (@TheWeebl) December 20, 2013 [https://twitter.com/TheWeebl/statuses/413844358257864704]

That's from Weebl (the guy that did the badger song) even though he doesn't want fan remixes to be claimed tunecore is doing it anyway. When I watch the videos he makes I want him to have all the money he can get because frankly I find him brilliant. Not give 20% of it to some greedy business cock-heads with no input into his animations.
 

HanFyren

New member
Dec 19, 2011
39
0
0
Artists need to leave Tunecore inn droves. And sue the hell out of them.
A previous amicable relationship affords them exactly 30 minutes from the time they reviret a mail from an artist like Gav.
After that it's willful copyright infringement.
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
lacktheknack said:
klaynexas3 said:
Dear 4chan, we have little use for YouTube anymore. Not that I'm condoning illegal activities, but if you're going to, there is little we can do to stop you, we just think that you should choose wisely what you want go after next.

Sincerely, Internet.
Please don't ever post such ridiculous and malevolent silliness again, kthx.

OT: Glad to see they're working on it. If every other company responds like this, we might be able to see the whole issue put straight.
I regret nothing of which I said and make no promises that I won't ever say something of the like again.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
klaynexas3 said:
lacktheknack said:
klaynexas3 said:
Dear 4chan, we have little use for YouTube anymore. Not that I'm condoning illegal activities, but if you're going to, there is little we can do to stop you, we just think that you should choose wisely what you want go after next.

Sincerely, Internet.
Please don't ever post such ridiculous and malevolent silliness again, kthx.

OT: Glad to see they're working on it. If every other company responds like this, we might be able to see the whole issue put straight.
I regret nothing of which I said and make no promises that I won't ever say something of the like again.
In that case, I would encourage you to actually weigh the consequences of your proposals before you SAY them.

"Little use for YouTube", indeed. And screw everyone who has a job there, while we're at it.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
INDMusic said:
"If a creator has permission to use a song and monetize their video, they need to state as much when disputing a video.
No. If the creator has a permission to use a song there should not even be a dispute to begin with unless you (and yes it is up to YOU) to prove otherwise. The creator should not have to prove anything to you, it is your responsibility to prove that he has no permission.

Atmos Duality said:
And that reason alone is why I dismiss those who defend youtube with "But this is the system they've had in place since ."

The scale of youtube is so great that full policing is just not feasible.
With automation, the number of false positives is overwhelming.
Without automation, it's more "wild west".
Its not a defense of youtube. Its like "we were telling you this for 3 years and only now you started caring".

Compatriot Block said:
I think I read somewhere that around 6000 hours of footage are uploaded to YouTube every day, so it would be nearly impossible to have real people check everything.
The way the system should work is the robot would flag the videos internally and real people would only watch those videos, or only parts of the videos that are flagged. this would lower that 6000 hours closer to 30 hours a day, meaning you could have 5 employees doing it easily.

Capcha: Fool's paradise
no, it is not.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Strazdas said:
Its not a defense of youtube. Its like "we were telling you this for 3 years and only now you started caring".
Except they weren't employing shotgun style "Guilty until proven innocent/Scorched Earth" policies for those previous 3 years before folks started "caring". Certainly not to this magnitude.

The parameters of the problem have changed drastically, not to the point where it's noticeable, but where it's impossible NOT to notice.

Youtube is the Sheriff of Nottingham, laying down the law of King John.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Strazdas said:
Its not a defense of youtube. Its like "we were telling you this for 3 years and only now you started caring".
Except they weren't employing shotgun style "Guilty until proven innocent/Scorched Earth" policies for those previous 3 years before folks started "caring". Certainly not to this magnitude.

The parameters of the problem have changed drastically, not to the point where it's noticeable, but where it's impossible NOT to notice.

Youtube is the Sheriff of Nottingham, laying down the law of King John.
Yes, they were. You would get flagged by a, say, MGM bot. automatically video gets locked and taken down from ppublic acess and you are guilty untill you prove Youtube you arent. The only thing that changed is that now they apply same logic to channels with monetization too, so once the people who make money on it started hurting everyone started screaming, but everyone else was already hurting, for years.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Strazdas said:
Yes, they were. You would get flagged by a, say, MGM bot. automatically video gets locked and taken down from ppublic acess and you are guilty untill you prove Youtube you arent. The only thing that changed is that now they apply same logic to channels with monetization too, so once the people who make money on it started hurting everyone started screaming, but everyone else was already hurting, for years.
You seem to have missed the part where I said "to this magnitude".
Before, their efforts were piecemeal and somewhat erratic; now they're rampant and widespread.

I knew about bots crawling for footage for years now, but not to this degree.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Strazdas said:
Yes, they were. You would get flagged by a, say, MGM bot. automatically video gets locked and taken down from ppublic acess and you are guilty untill you prove Youtube you arent. The only thing that changed is that now they apply same logic to channels with monetization too, so once the people who make money on it started hurting everyone started screaming, but everyone else was already hurting, for years.
You seem to have missed the part where I said "to this magnitude".
Before, their efforts were piecemeal and somewhat erratic; now they're rampant and widespread.

I knew about bots crawling for footage for years now, but not to this degree.
and i argue that it was the same magnitude, just excluding the monetized channels. They were rampand and widespread for years, but as long as they didnt touch peoples wallets noone cared that regular users were being banned (3 videos marked as copyright can easily get you a ban) just because somone angry with "atheist view" decided to flag all your videos or such. And yes, that was and still is happening.