Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the estate-of-john-cage-winces-with-envy dept.

Google 730

New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."

cancel ×

730 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lies (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166687)

"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

Complete bold-faced lie.

Re:Lies (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166715)

Oh not at all, you see, unless you're a big corporation with a lot of lawyers, you can't own any content. So they look "oh it's the little guy again" and "yeah this content would be nice to own" and with that, it's theirs.

Profit & Lies (5, Insightful)

Mateorabi (108522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166793)

Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.

Re:Profit & Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167185)

Just have a lawyer mail them a strongly worded letter.

Re:Profit & Lies (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167229)

And coordinate all your LOiC instances... :-)

Re:Profit & Lies (5, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167217)

Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

I kind of doubt that's it. I mean sure, they get a cut of the ads, but YouTube actually has to care about what YouTube users think. There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.

It seems to me more likely that the entertainment industry is behind it. Recall that YouTube has been trying to get Hollywood to let it compete with Hulu. Of course, Hollywood is run by tyrannical despots who claim to own everything anyone has ever created, so this sort of behavior is right up their alley. And, Hollywood has never cared one lick what the users think about it.

I mean think about it: Who is more likely to demand something user hostile? A company that makes its living based on users liking its service better than those of competitors, or a cartel that makes its money by filing lawsuits and screwing artists out of contractually agreed royalties?

Re:Lies (5, Funny)

pruss (246395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166843)

It depends how you take the quantifiers. :-) In first-order logic, "all As are Bs" is automatically true if there are no As. In the case at hand, there are no content owners, because nobody owns the bird songs (not even the birds). So, all content owners have reviewed the video and confirmed their claims. Likewise, all content owners have seven legs.

Re:Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166971)

Perfect!

Re:Lies (5, Funny)

eriklou (1027240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167079)

Chewbacca's lawyers called, they want his defense back.

Re:Lies (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166861)

"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

Complete bold-faced lie.

Lyrebird in violation of copyright law, Film at 11. No wait, our legal dept. forbids it.

Re:Lies (1)

ben_kelley (234423) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166905)

content owners

You think? I'm torn between wondering if perhaps they have ... friends in high places, or whether it is worth checking for the BRIAA logo on the letterhead anywhere.

Re:Lies (-1)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166925)

"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

Complete bold-faced lie.

I just want to thank you for not saying "bald-faced lie" like most people often do. You, sir, are awesome.

Re:Lies (2, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167089)

It is "bald-faced", not "bold-faced". You're just as wrong as he is.

Re:Lies (2, Informative)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166957)

The idiom is "bald-faced"

Re:Lies (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166981)

It doesn't matter what they reply, the choice is yours. If you refute their claim (counternotice), then the dispute must go to court [chillingeffects.org] or you get your stuff put back, according to the DMCA.

Re:Lies (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167027)

well, they did confirm.

too bad no 3rd party assesment of the claims was done though!

basically they could claim anything and everything under their copyright. and then they'd have to review it themself...

Re:Lies (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167029)

Clearly you've never heard Bjork sing.

Re:Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167061)

I'd actually try to take them to small claims court and try my luck there. They seriously shouldn't be allowed to make false copyrights claims on original user content.

ridiculous (3, Interesting)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166691)

When will this copyright madness end?

Re:ridiculous (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166721)

Absolutely. The internet is more akin to the Wild West of yesteryear. Every company is out to commit highway robbery.

Darn those varmints.

Re:ridiculous (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167119)

Absolutely. The internet is more akin to the Wild West of yesteryear. Every company is out to commit highway robbery.

Darn those varmints.

Except in the Wild West, the townsfolk could form up a posse and ride after those highway robbers and lynch them when they caught them.. Can't really do that so much now, unfortunately.

Re:ridiculous (4, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166791)

When will this copyright madness end?

In less than 200 million years, since by then Earth will have been rendered virtually uninhabitable from the point of view of intelligent animal life by the constantly rising power output of the Sun. So, nothing to worry about.

Re:ridiculous (2)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166815)

I think you mean in more than 5000 million years but yeah...

Re:ridiculous (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167121)

No, he's right. Assuming that humans and their descendants don't adjust things, Earth has less than a billion years left as a habitable planet. Less than that for being habitable to life as it exists today.

Re:ridiculous (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167013)

rising power output of the Sun

The sun won't go into a red giant phase for approximately five billion years not 200 million, but even before that, our galaxy will collide with Andromeda which will be interesting to say the least, though likely not too much of a worry for our little solar system - unless we our orbit changed drastically to the inner parts of the galaxy which isn't all that likely.

Re:ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167167)

Well, the sun is getting hotter as time progresses. In 500 million years or so (I'm pretty sure it's closer to 500 million rather than 200 million) the sun will get hot enough to start boiling off all the Earth's water. This is of course amplified by the fact that water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas.

This is long before the red giant phase begins.

Re:ridiculous (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166799)

After the fucking psychopaths are removed from power and the Constitution is restored. And for all those people that said I jumped the gun taking down my own TV show of 6+ years, I NOW GET TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO.

Re:ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166885)

That would involve all politicians ever being removed from power, but let me guess, this an anti-Obama rant instead?

Re:ridiculous (4, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167207)

Sue the birds for using copyrighted content all the time.
Damn pirates.

Prior Art (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166719)

Dear Rumblefish,
      I see that you are using my music without proper authorization.
-- God
p.s. I could use ad's, hmmmm... Naa, Smite works just as well...

Small Claims DDOS (5, Funny)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166731)

1. Go to the woods, record birdsong.
2. Make a bunch of videos and post to YouTube
3. Wait for takedown
4. Sue Rumblefish in small claims court for the ad revenue they got from Google.
5. Profit!!!!

Re:Small Claims DDOS (5, Interesting)

heptapod (243146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166765)

Use birdsong as a soundtrack for a slideshow of self-shots taken by a monkey [slashdot.org] .

Re:Small Claims DDOS (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167203)

You can't use self-shots taken by a monkey. They all have monkey butts and penises in them. Or slow mo shots of another monkey throwing poo.

It would never pass YouTube's decency standards.

Re:Small Claims DDOS (5, Interesting)

Joe U (443617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166779)

I'm not a lawyer, but....

While that might work, it's best to put a step

3a. Send a cease and desist notice to Rumblefish.

They'll ignore it and the courts will like you for doing it. It's only the cost of a certified letter, and you can add that to your lawsuit.

Also, if you want to be really annoying, claim copyright on the birdsong video and sue them for infringement, but that costs more and is out of the scope of small claims.

Re:Small Claims DDOS (5, Insightful)

Arch_Android (1989386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166919)

In all honesty though, I really with it was more feasible for people to actually fight back against these large corporations. It's really a shame when all you need is money to hire lawyers and you can do anything.

Re:Small Claims DDOS (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167171)

The problem is that it's not a proper DMCA takedown as Youtube cooperates voluntarily, and I'm pretty sure they have written the ToS in a way that you can't sue them for anything.

Copyright means nothing (5, Insightful)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166741)

Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)

Re:Copyright means nothing (5, Interesting)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167053)

Actually, music itself would likely benefit greatly, just not the labels. As piracy has already demonstrated, free access to studio recordings has made the consumer perception of the value of live concerts greater. That is why ticket prices keep outpacing inflation.

Anecdotally, I've personally noted a pretty good number of once free venues switching to cover charges for better known (locally) acts which are remain unsigned by major labels. At least on my personal scale, this demonstrates positive force towards greater valuation of live music.

Lower prices and increased distribution of copyright material increases the overall quality of published works. A great example is the textbook versus subject oriented paperback categories. Textbooks exist in an overpriced, price fixed copyright vacuum. Their quality continues to remain virtually unchanged for 30+ years, making occasional incremental improvements and frequent vast drops in quality. On the other hand, books written for the layman about various sciences and arts continue to improve, drop in inflation adjusted price, and increase in availability. The very pressure of reduced prices and increased availability forces authors to review their peer / competition work and produce something better.

There is no solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166745)

Before, companies were getting ripped off left right and center. Now it is the USERS getting shafted. Youtube won't find a solution as there is no solution. There is no middle ground. You cannot have an algorithm which perfectly matches only copyrighted content with no false positives or negatives and accomodates fair use as well.

Re:There is no solution (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167147)

Sure there's a solution. Abolish copyright. It no longer serves its purpose and should be discarded. That's what you do with things that are used up: discard them.

You know... (5, Funny)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166753)

I've always said copyright is for the birds... (Well, someone had to say it!)

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167085)

I laughed. A serious guffaw at that.

Easy... (1, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166759)

1) Strip the audio track,
2) Host the video with the audio track somewhere else,
3) Add a link to the audio enabled version into the description.

Re:Easy... (2)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166961)

Or make yet another ContentID fuckup by Google known to the public in order to put additional pressure on Google to shape up.

Re:Easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166999)

Because people bother to follow link to other sites. Sure, some silly people does, but if you have any skepticism in your body you just click the back button and feel cheated...

Sue? (3, Insightful)

rebot777 (765163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166773)

Could we find any lawyers to take this case on? Surely if this is happening often enough some type of class action suit might be able to come out of it?

Re:Sue? (3, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167197)

The EFF might be able to help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation [wikipedia.org]

The DMCA provides remedies against bad faith takedown notices:

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-remedies-against-a-false-DMCA-complaint [quora.com]

Whether it is worth going to court over.. different story.
But HOPEFULLY the damages are enough to at least pay a lawyer to take the case.
Assuming that Congress wasn't bribed to make the damages so small as to be effectively worthless...

Prior art ... (0)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166789)

Birdsong Radio [birdsongradio.com] - A peaceful Dawn Chorus broadcast live over the internet.

Domain was registered on 21st April 2008.

Re:Prior art ... (3, Informative)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166841)

I think you're confusing copyright with patents. There's no prior art on copyright.

Re:Prior art ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167001)

There's no prior art on copyright.

Close enough. [wikipedia.org]

Couldn't have been (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166795)

A mockingbird, could it?

We all knew... (0)

stox (131684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166801)

Rumblefish was for the birds!

Yeesh (5, Funny)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166813)

YouTube: Blurring the line between the RIAA and Monsanto.

Re:Yeesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167005)

YouTube: Blurring the line between the RIAA and Monsanto.

Don't know if this comment should make me laugh or make me cry.

Re:Yeesh (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167031)

In a contest of douchbaggery between the RIAA and Monsanto... I'd have to say the RIAA wins. Monsanto loses points because they do actually produce something truely useful, while the RIAA member's only purpose is to sit in between artists and listeners and take a cut. A position that made perfect sense pre-internet when getting music distributed required a substantial investment in disc manufacture and trucking, but is increasingly obsolete now.

Re:Yeesh (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167165)

On the other hand, the RIAA takes their cut of something we could survive without, whereas Monsanto wants to demand a cut of every pound of food sold in the world.

Re:Yeesh (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167193)

Monsanto were apparently among the first to mass-produce LEDs [wikipedia.org] , for which I am forever grateful.

For their seed asshattery, less so.

Ineteresting... (4, Insightful)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166817)

Huh... I have reviewed, say, The Hurt Locker, and I confirm that it's in the public domain.

Good luck fighting this battle (3, Interesting)

Powercntrl (458442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166819)

You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.

Or, just audio-swap your video to Dreamscape by 009 sound system, like everyone else on YouTube who gets the copyrighted audio notice. Warning: May infuriate your viewers.

Re:Good luck fighting this battle (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166943)

You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.

Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected based on your work.

First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization, then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.

Re:Good luck fighting this battle (2, Interesting)

GabriellaKat (748072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167077)

If you are going that direction you might want to see if the entire internet can get behind you and have a view-fest and THEN sue and collect. Hope the response isn't "Not your personal Army" etc etc....

Re:Good luck fighting this battle (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167073)

Then the new one gets flagged too, for the audio will still be similar... plus Youtube may consider this a deliberate effort to circumvent their contentID system, and block the account. I've been in the same situation myself, when contentID flagged the audio which couldn't possibly be copyrighted even in the US. I tried to protest, but after youtube completly ignored my appeal for a few months (Never even replied to my repeated attempts) I simply left the site in protest. I've got the videos hosted on my own personal website now (HTML5 makes this much easier!), but youtube is more than a video host. It's also a search engine and recormendation system, and I know that without the promotion that youtube provides very few people will ever see my video.

I dabble in restorations. If I may shamelessly plug myself, http://birds-are-nice.me/video/restorations.shtml [birds-are-nice.me]

It's a good thing nobody farted in the background. (4, Funny)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166835)

Rumblefish owns that as well.

And you know you're going to have to pay through the nose on that one!

myke

AYuo Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166847)

Betwee8 each BSD [goat.cx]

As absurd as patenting a gene (2)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166853)

Maybe it's just me, but when I thought about this I thought about companies that are trying to patent genes. Shouldn't you have to have created something to be able to declare it as your IP? IMO that applies to this and to naturally-occurring genes.

Birds have been known to copy their songs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166857)

It is possible the bird in the video actually copied its song from Rumblefish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXE6aUGb4zw

Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordings (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166863)

You can use them if you choose to fight this in court to establish both "prior art" or "not the unique property of Rumblefish".

Re:Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordi (3, Insightful)

truedfx (802492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166941)

I wouldn't take copyright advice from someone who doesn't understand the difference between that and patents.

Re:Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordi (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166979)

IANAL - but the core point is "this existed before Rumblefish existed, so Rumblefish has no claim to this as an unique piece of work."

Re:Cornell Lab of Ornithology has birdsong recordi (3, Informative)

truedfx (802492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167069)

The core point doesn't work. If bird songs are copyrightable, then different people can hold copyright on different bird songs. If someone patented the idea of recording a bird song, you could claim prior art by pointing to anyone who recorded a bird song before the patent.

Use your political rights (5, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166869)

Contact your US senator and House members. It won't do any good, but it is very easy to do. If enough voters do this it can have an influence. It's like voting; if you don't bother to vote you have abandoned your right to have an opinion. Posting on Slashdot will get you exposure, but I don't see how it will help much.

Re:Use your political rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167101)

if you don't bother to vote you have abandoned your right to have an opinion

I must disagree with you in the extreme. This is a too-often repeated fallacy. There are many ways to express your opinion and attempt to influence society. Not using one of those ways (and arguably one of the less effective ways) does not, and should not, invalidate ANY rights what so ever.

If anything, there is a very strong argument that once you have voted on a decision, you have a agreed to abide by the outcome of that vote and no longer have a right to dispute the decision. I don't agree with that argument, either.

Re:Use your political rights (2)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167109)

It's like voting; if you don't bother to vote you have abandoned your right to have an opinion.

Problem is, my opinion is that we don't need any more rich old white guys in power, but that's all we get to vote for.

Re:Use your political rights (5, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167189)

Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.

Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.

Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.

More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.

It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.

Now all we need... (4, Funny)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166875)

is a Metallica song with birds in the background.

Lars, meet Rumblefish. Rumblefish, Lars.

Who's got the popcorn for this show?

MOD THIS UP (0)

dwye (1127395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167127)

Excellent idea, sir. Funny, Interesting, or Informative, though?

More information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166887)

Apparently the bird, now going by the name Burr Dee, is signed to an exclusive deal with Rumblefish, and this is in fact a violation of their copyright.

Slander of title (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166923)

You own the copyright to the original recording you made of bird songs from nature.

They own the copyright to their recording of bird songs from nature, but not to yours.

For them to claim copyright to your recording, there must be an original artistic element they created that you have actually reproduced.

Re:Slander of title (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167057)

Indeed. And slander of title is a civil tort, and grounds for a civil court suit. If the situation is as the submitter describes, it sounds like a pretty open and shut case; he mat be able find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. IANAL, etc.

Re:Slander of title (5, Funny)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167201)

Yet bird songs might copy each other's tunes. So his bird song might sound the same as one they recorded. This is because birds have no copyright and reproduce other bird's songs as their own. They then use this to attract a mate and pass the other bird's intellectual property to their kids. Not only do they steal other birds song, but they show that if copying songs is legal, it makes all the birds lazy and not want to come up with new songs. This is why pirates always carried parrots on their ships. The parrot is the most efficient bird at stealing songs back when we didn't have computers and the Internet.

Sue.. ask for summary judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166937)

They really can't argue the facts... they SAID they reviewed the clip and that its theirs. A would also add youtube as a co-defendant as they said the same thing.

Spend a few grand to get a lawdog to file, then settle for costs x 10 (still less than an infringement judgement).

Name people (like C-level guys) and the corp.. that way you inconvenience them, and embarrass them.. all good things when extorting... err.. settling a suit.

Easy solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166945)

The best solution to this problem is to not deal with Rumblefish in any manner, not to upload anything to Youtube, and to not view anything on Youtube. There are lots of companies that provide similar services - you will not miss Rumblefish or Youtube at all.

If you only whine and whinge about a problem but don't do anything else, then you will get the results that you deserve.

Send this story to your elected representatives .. (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166953)

... as a clear example of why SOPA and PIPA would have been a disaster for the Internet.

The Answer May Lie in the Details (3, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166985)

What's not explicitly mentioned is whether the bird sounds were recorded at the same time as the video, or whether they were dubbed in after the fact.

If the latter, it's entirely possible that he's using a recording that was made, and consequently copyrighted by someone else.

Movie and TV producers have been dubbing in bird sounds for decades, including one infamous time [nwsource.com] when CBS backed a golf match with the sounds of birds that have never lived anywhere near the game's location.

Anyhow, the point is that while you can't (yet!) copyright a bird song, you can copyright a specific recording of a sound.

(none of this should be taken to mean that Google does not have it's head up its ass.)

Where did the original recording come from? (0, Redundant)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166991)

Okay, sorry... But someone has to ask this...

Where did the clip of the birdsong come from? Is this something the OP recorded himself? Or did he use an audio clip from some other source? If it's not his recording, it's entirely possible he did commit copyright infringement. And although I don't appreciate the way copyright is being handled here, I don't think it's appropriate to crucify Rumblefish without ensuring that the OP wasn't in fact, using one of their recordings.

Re:Where did the original recording come from? (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167009)

Nevermind. I didn't RTFA. Looks like the birdsong is ambient noise from the original recording.

..and is the bird song public domain? (5, Funny)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167043)

Okay, sorry... But someone has to ask this...

Where did the clip of the birdsong come from? Is this something the OP recorded himself? Or did he use an audio clip from some other source?

And if the OP recorded himself, did he make sure the birds were indeed singing a song that is in the public domain?

While birds aren't people and can't own a copyright, a flock of birds is more like a corporation and therefor a person.

MOD PARENT UP! FUNNY! (0)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167125)

Best comment in this thread - including my own.

Sounds like a case for a lawsuit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167041)

IANAL, but it seems like this could apply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

you are not alone (3, Interesting)

chentiangemalc (1710624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167051)

I've had the same with public domain Christmas carols I.e. Silent Night from some wacky company. It seems like a new business model, first patent trolling...but lawyers get expensive, falsely report copyright infringements on YouTube automatic money, and almost no risk.

Talking (4, Funny)

QuasiRob (134012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167055)

I'll be scared to talk on a video now, I might find I'm copyrighted by someone else.

Dinosaurs became extinct because of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167063)

See, back in the Cretaceous Period, the dinosaur lawyers started claiming copyright over traditional mating songs. Never mind that these songs were in use for millions of years before. The first dinosaur to claim a song got the copyright in perpetuity. One thing led to another, and soon nobody could afford to woo a nice dinosaur mate because of all the prohibitive licensing costs. They stopped mating, stopped laying eggs, and eventually died out. The birds only survived because they started making their own songs under a free license.

I'm not sure what Rumblefish has against birds, but I guess they'll try to sue them anyway if they think it will make them money.

Use crowdfunding to pay for a lawsuit (4, Informative)

gumpish (682245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167071)

Sue them and use crowd funding.

https://www.crowdtilt.com/ [crowdtilt.com]

Make it clear in your project description that you will not settle.

false reports, eh? (1)

a_fuzzyduck (979684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167081)

wonder what volume of these reports youtube can actually handle without developing a serious lag problem...

Solutions. (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167091)

You can spend lots of money suing. Even of you win you'll probably see little compensation for your efforts. Such is our judicial system.

Or spend $10 on gasoline. Sadly, they've just about pushed it to this point.

reasonable (1)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167113)

Rumblefish is really cutting the bird a break by not coming after him.

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167131)

Just put a copyright notice on your videos and send them a cease and desist. Also insist on a cheque rounded to the nearest minor currency unit that covers any revenue generated by their "theft of your copyright". When they have to start sending out thousands of valueless cheques, they'll stop doing this.

Slander of title (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167135)

Assuming that your video was recorded in the wilderness, you can sue for "slander of title", like in SCO vs. Novell. All conditions are met: A false statement was made to a third party, claiming that you are not the copyright holder. The claim is malicious since they cannot reasonably believe they are the copyright holder. And finally there are special damages, since ads are added to your video and the revenue is sent to them.

It is low hanging fruit (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167159)

All your base are belong to us [allyourbas...ngtous.com]

-- Rumblefish

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?