F*ck you-tube

[weirddave]

My account's been deleted because I've received three strikes. The third being for uploading a video of a cover of 'Hotel California' performed by MYSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE AT SCHOOL!!!

Anyone else heard of Cass County Music? Those b*stards made the copyright claim even though the video itself consists of the camera facing the wall and just the audio.

I'm guessing I'll be arrested for singing along to it in the street next!!

Anyone else had their Youtube account punished for petty copyright claims?

[Ekad]

Yeah, it happens quite frequently. In your case, you are obviously in the right but they will never admit that. The only thing you can really do is make another account or just stop using youtube.

[yid4eva]

My account's been deleted because I've received three strikes. The third being for uploading a video of a cover of 'Hotel California' performed by MYSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE AT SCHOOL!!!

Anyone else heard of Cass County Music? Those b*stards made the copyright claim even though the video itself consists of the camera facing the wall and just the audio.

I'm guessing I'll be arrested for singing along to it in the street next!!

Anyone else had their Youtube account punished for petty copyright claims?

Well that sucks big time....Upload your vids to photobucket.. but check their terms and conditions first.

Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket

[Park Lane Yido]

Anyone else had their Youtube account punished for petty copyright claims?

“Hotel California”
Written by Don Felder, Glenn Frey, Don Henley
Published by Cass Country Music (BMI)

Unfortunately Dave, CCM effectivly own it, so it's not really a petty claim. They have the rights to say how and where the music can be used. If they catch you using it without asking their permission....then you pay the price!! In this case you were publically broadcasting around the world...a little different to singing in the street! They are only acting in the best interests of their client. Hence why they raked in $7billion in royalties for their clients LAST YEAR ALONE!!!!

The other question.....how on earth did you get three strikes? Didn't you learn the first time LOL

[Javi]

Best thing to do is just use your own music and make up your own crap.

[P UNIT 1980]

Youtube and some other huge media company are in a legal battle about coppyright infringment right now.

They are claiming damages for tube not policing their site and removing coppyrighted material and youtube are making a counter claim about the company in question uploading the stuff them selves and then making false claims against youtube.

****ing sewer rat companies all of them.

[yid4eva]

Youtube accuse Viacom of 'secret uploads'

YouTube has accused media conglomerate Viacom of secretly uploading content to the video-sharing site whilst publicly complaining about its presence.

YouTube said it deliberately "roughed up" any uploaded videos to make them look stolen or leaked.

The accusation was made as a court prepares to rule in a $1bn suit brought by Viacom against Youtube for "massive intentional copyright infringement".

Viacom said it had identified 150,000 such infringements on the site.

"YouTube was intentionally built on infringement and there are countless internal YouTube communications demonstrating that YouTube's founders and its employees intended to profit from that infringement," Viacom said in a statement.

"By their own admission, the site contained 'truckloads' of infringing content."

But Zahavah Levine, YouTube's chief counsel, accused Viacom of covert operations to add copyright infringing content.

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there," she wrote in a blog post.

"It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately 'roughed up' the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.

"It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom."

'Evil'

Viacom's 2007 lawsuit centres around a claim that YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular TV shows and movies to be posted to its website and viewed tens of thousands of times.

The company said it had identified more thousands of abuses including clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged.

YouTube has always argued that it is covered by law through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which states that publishers are not responsible for material posted by users.

Companies are required by law to remove unauthorised clips from sites when they have been notified by the owner.

YouTube has insisted it has followed that rule and a month before the lawsuit, it took down more than 100,000 clips at Viacom's request.

But Viacom claims that YouTube founders flouted copyright and deliberately encouraged it in favour of increasing traffic to the site.

Documents revealed in court quoted a message sent on 19 June 2005 from YouTube co-founder Steve Chen to fellow co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim.

"Jawed (Karim), please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it," said the e-mail.

Another e-mail from Mr Chen to staff in the early days of the start-up's life said the company "should concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil".

The documents also reveal that Viacom considered buying YouTube just months before it launched the suit. Executives from Viacom thought it would be a "transformative acquisition".

They were eventually beaten by Google, which bought the site for $1.65bn.

'Prize fight'

Journalists and bloggers covering the story have said the whole affair smacks of a something you would see on TV.

"This looks like a reality show but the audience doesn't get a vote," Peter Kafka, senior editor of the news and technology blog AllThingsD.com told BBC News.

"The only person both sides have to win over is the judge. This is court filing of a three year-old case and the industry has moved on and realised this stuff is hard to monetise."

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Institute of Santa Clara University, told the San Jose Mercury News, that there will be no real winners in this legal battle.

"It's like a prize fight - they are both scoring points; they are both beating each other up. But instead of making money from the fight, they are paying to be in it. That's really dumb"

US District Judge Louis Stanton has given both parties until 30 April to file opposing arguments to each other's motions. All the arguments are expected to be completed by June.

[weirddave]

“Hotel California”
Written by Don Felder, Glenn Frey, Don Henley
Published by Cass Country Music (BMI)

Unfortunately Dave, CCM effectivly own it, so it's not really a petty claim. They have the rights to say how and where the music can be used. If they catch you using it without asking their permission....then you pay the price!! In this case you were publically broadcasting around the world...a little different to singing in the street! They are only acting in the best interests of their client. Hence why they raked in $7billion in royalties for their clients LAST YEAR ALONE!!!!

The other question.....how on earth did you get three strikes? Didn't you learn the first time LOL

IT'S NOT EVEN THE ORIGINAL TRACK! It's a cover which was not even performed at a paid gig. It was a prize-giving ceremony at my school.
$7billion in royalties is hardly going to be infringed by something so innocent as an unpaid, non-profit rendition of a song that all musicians in my video really like.

When are record companies going to stop scrapping for every last penny through suing and realise that it can be promotional for their artists and is just a tribute to the artists themselves!?

To answer your other question, first 'infringement' was re-uploading a video I was sent. It had some guy with loads of instrumental horns on him and he was playing them all. Second infringement (although it shouldn't have been) was for uploading Lordi's 'Hard Rock Hallelujah' video in celebration of their Eurovision victory 2006. HOWEVER, Sony BMG were a little bit nicer; they let me keep the video up there as long as I credited them on the description...

Final infringement was the Hotel California cover where I made no profit from it whatsoever. If that's the case, then they should've taken down all the covers I've done with 2 other guys I know in a 'kind-of' band in a pub and the drummer's living room. BUT THEY HAVEN'T! So where's the consistency???

All record labels are ar$eholes, especially Warner Music for blocking all the music videos in the UK. Anybody remember that stunt?

[thfcire]

Youtube accuse Viacom of 'secret uploads'

YouTube has accused media conglomerate Viacom of secretly uploading content to the video-sharing site whilst publicly complaining about its presence.

YouTube said it deliberately "roughed up" any uploaded videos to make them look stolen or leaked.

The accusation was made as a court prepares to rule in a $1bn suit brought by Viacom against Youtube for "massive intentional copyright infringement".

Viacom said it had identified 150,000 such infringements on the site.

"YouTube was intentionally built on infringement and there are countless internal YouTube communications demonstrating that YouTube's founders and its employees intended to profit from that infringement," Viacom said in a statement.

"By their own admission, the site contained 'truckloads' of infringing content."

But Zahavah Levine, YouTube's chief counsel, accused Viacom of covert operations to add copyright infringing content.

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there," she wrote in a blog post.

"It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately 'roughed up' the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.

"It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom."

'Evil'

Viacom's 2007 lawsuit centres around a claim that YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular TV shows and movies to be posted to its website and viewed tens of thousands of times.

The company said it had identified more thousands of abuses including clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged.

YouTube has always argued that it is covered by law through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which states that publishers are not responsible for material posted by users.

Companies are required by law to remove unauthorised clips from sites when they have been notified by the owner.

YouTube has insisted it has followed that rule and a month before the lawsuit, it took down more than 100,000 clips at Viacom's request.

But Viacom claims that YouTube founders flouted copyright and deliberately encouraged it in favour of increasing traffic to the site.

Documents revealed in court quoted a message sent on 19 June 2005 from YouTube co-founder Steve Chen to fellow co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim.

"Jawed (Karim), please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it," said the e-mail.

Another e-mail from Mr Chen to staff in the early days of the start-up's life said the company "should concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil".

The documents also reveal that Viacom considered buying YouTube just months before it launched the suit. Executives from Viacom thought it would be a "transformative acquisition".

They were eventually beaten by Google, which bought the site for $1.65bn.

'Prize fight'

Journalists and bloggers covering the story have said the whole affair smacks of a something you would see on TV.

"This looks like a reality show but the audience doesn't get a vote," Peter Kafka, senior editor of the news and technology blog AllThingsD.com told BBC News.

"The only person both sides have to win over is the judge. This is court filing of a three year-old case and the industry has moved on and realised this stuff is hard to monetise."

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Institute of Santa Clara University, told the San Jose Mercury News, that there will be no real winners in this legal battle.

"It's like a prize fight - they are both scoring points; they are both beating each other up. But instead of making money from the fight, they are paying to be in it. That's really dumb"

US District Judge Louis Stanton has given both parties until 30 April to file opposing arguments to each other's motions. All the arguments are expected to be completed by June.

is that the same viacom that used to come up atthe end of bravestar???? bravestar and 30 30 legends

[MAcHinA]

Im on my 3rd strike aswell, the first vid that got flagged was of me and my friends drunkenly bursting in2 the bathroom while my friend was taking a shower and proceeding to kick his ass, the 2nd was of a lesbian from Cork headbutting some scumbag, damn youtube no sense of humour.

[thfcire]

Im on my 3rd strike aswell, the first vid that got flagged was of me and my friends drunkenly bursting in2 the bathroom while my friend was taking a shower and proceeding to kick his ass, the 2nd was of a lesbian from Cork headbutting some scumbag, damn youtube no sense of humour.

id ban you too for showing videos of people from cork in fairness

[MAcHinA]

id ban you too for showing videos of people from cork in fairness

Ahem did you not post a vid of a lovely couple from Knocknaheeny?

[thfcire]

Ahem did you not post a vid of a lovely couple from Knocknaheeny?

touche old chap

[T.K. Massive]

There all a bunch of fookin sellouts; All of them these days;

You can't help but respect people who don't give a fook about the money these days.

like aerosmith; never asked for a penny on royalties when there music was sampled in other songs (with Eminem's Sing for the Moment the obvious header) because they all (Steven Tyler the most apparently) considered it as new music.

[BigDub]

only need youtube to watch stuff....thats all its really good for