A new approach to copyright infringement?

[LazyHippy]

Just got this from YouTube:

Dear YouTube Member:
Sony/BMG has claimed some or all visual content in your video Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up (RockRoll Remix). This claim was made as part of the YouTube Content Identification programme.
Your video is still live because Sony/BMG has authorised the use of this content on YouTube. As long as Sony/BMG has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video's page.
Claim Details:
Copyright owner: Sony/BMG Content claimed: Some or all of the visual content Policy: Allow this content to remain on YouTube.

• Place advertisements on this video's watch page.

Applies to these locations:
United States Sony/BMG claimed this content as a part of the YouTube Content Identification programme. YouTube allows partners to review YouTube videos for content to which they own the rights. Partners may use our automated video/audio matching system to identify their content, or they may manually review videos.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

Surprised that it's only US, not too happy about the ads, but still better than being forced to remove it I guess.

How long before Google start doing the same with Adsense?

 

[John]

wouldn't that be considered a parody of their work, I call bullshit on their copyright claim.

 

[Deliguy]

its an automated message. sony/bmg gets their videos ripped so much youtube has then on automated active watch. So any video with the word rick astley, rick roll or roll rick becomes youtube ownership of sony.

Want to own everyone elses videos? Sue the crap out of youtube over and over till they give them to you.

 

[Lord B]

Sue the crap out of youtube over and over till they give them to you.

But I heard Larry Page and Seregy Brin singing "Never Gonna Give You Up".

 

[$5 Submissions]

wouldn't that be considered a parody of their work, I call bullshit on their copyright claim.

Good call. Non-commercial parodies are normally protected under the "fair use" exemption to US copyright laws.

 

[ArtDeco]

Copyright on the 'Net is even more broken then search. We need a new model for artists to get paid, not Sony, BMG, Random House, and the rest of the leftovers of a bygone age.

 

[smaxor]

Copyright on the 'Net is even more broken then search. We need a new model for artists to get paid, not Sony, BMG, Random House, and the rest of the leftovers of a bygone age.

Yeah it's called concerts. That's how most artists made the majority of their money any way. Even in yesteryear. The truth is it hits the record companies in their pocket books but doesn't have that massive of an effect on the artists themselves being as they got like 50 cents an album sold, or something like that. I was watching an interview with prince and he said he'd make more money in one concert then all the money he made on the "Purple Rain" album when he was with the record companies and before he went off on his own.

 

[ArtDeco]

Concerts

True Dat, but that leaves writers working for free unless they write sitcoms, commercials, TV and/or movie scripts. No one is going to a concert to hear someone read from their book.

 

[LazyHippy]

wouldn't that be considered a parody of their work, I call bullshit on their copyright claim.

Doubt I could blag that one.. the vid is just the original speeded up, hardly a parody by anyone's standards and these claims seem to be based on copyright of the video content rather than the audio.

Although I'm all in favour of copyright reform, as the laws stand it is surprising that the big guys let Google get away with so much 'theft' and use things like this rather than the DMCA shit.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Google start sending notices like this to Adsense publishers, then switch ads to the copyright holder's as it would fit with being seen to abide by copyright laws without harming their business which is based on bending and breaking said laws.