warner music claimed my video for defending their copyright in a lawsuit they lost the copyright for
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 02. 2020
- The dumbest, most ironic claim ever. (the claim has been released, but keeping this video up)
The original video that was claimed
• Why the Katy Perry/Fla...
Adam - Hudba
Warner: Hey your lawsuit is trash!
Adam Neely: Yeah I agree!
Warner: Well I disagree!
Big Bulk
>a taste of his own medicine
Oh, you mean informing the masses about a dangerous precedent that is being put into play? oh heavens no! clearly he's at fault for informing the masses that people are trying to make it so nobody can ever make music again! oh the inhumanity!
I'll show you medicine
lmao this comment is underrated XD
Big Bulk You seem like the type who listens to underground artists for the simple purpose of being different. It was the small artist who went after the big company and won for a stupid reason. If he gets shamed, he brought it upon himself. Little artists who aren't scummy about the way they create music aren't affected by this guy's video. Only the assholes who try to capitalize on a big companys success and earn easy money are the ones that are affected. and they deserve it.
Big Bulk
Why is a total non-musician like you arguing about music in Adam’s channel? You probably didn’t even understand a droplet of his arguments in the original video lmao. If you were actually educated enough to understand his points, you wouldn’t be saying any of these bullshit. Get out of here and go listen to your redundant pop music. Didn’t anybody ever teach you to not talk about things you have no idea about?
Record companies would sue music teachers in classrooms if they could.
You honor, We will prove through preponderance of evidence, that this "teacher" was teaching "children" in a "classroom" the Major key of C, which we have used extensively through out our vast catalog of music, and therefor infringed upon our intellectual property rights.
They do.....
They can and they have. Disney has sued teachers and school systems for playing their movies for non educational reasons, pretty bs.
Technically because of the lack of fair use laws in Europe, they can sue any teacher that attempts to even play one example...
They'd rather stop new music from being created than lose a single cent they might be able to earn. This proves copyright doesnt protect artistic creation anymore. I see no reason for it to exist at this point, you dont need corporations producing and distributing albums so they shouldn't be protected.
Warner looking at this video, with their finger over the "claim" button 🙈
hello person from 2 days ago
@@silvo5955 hello person from 6 hours ago.
@@stxrenegade Hello person from 3 hours ago.
@@samfrostinjapan Hello person from 6 hours ago
@@slothysoap4589 hello person fom 13 hours ago
The most egregious part is that a human actually watched the video that was defending their company, using the music under fair use provision, decided "fuck him", picked the wrong section for copyright and still claimed it anyway.
The Mens Rea behind that is so staggeringly self harming
Absolutely no chance they watched the video. It's the first appearance of (what they THOUGHT) was the Dark Horse ostinato in the video. They probably watched up to there, went "haha, gottem, easy money", then filed the claim, disregarding the rest of the video's content.
Let me remind you... this is the company that aggressively held the rights for "Happy Birthday."
Seriously?
Better start sending Cease & Desists to every family in the world.
@@doggy7210 Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright.
@@tannerted3920 Warner is out of control! This is worse than that time Micheal Jackson bought out Paul McCartney's songs
Doggy ...yep. They are truly scum
We are reaching levels of greed that shouldn't even be possible.
cekobidonq Trump is the president. What do you expect.
@@Hey_Jamie Shut the fuck up, Trump has nothing to do with music you ass, gtfo.
*EA WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A SEAT*
@@calamari3064 How are they greedy?
@@viccyyboii3308 I can name dozens of examples my dear friend
2 years late but this was highly amusing to watch unfold at the time. Its also a lesson on how dangerous the music industry is with publishing companies wuick to the trigger on filing copyright claims for songs they don't even own.
There really needs to be a revision to the DMCA that allows defendents to receive double the monetary value in damages for every false filing made (and have legal fees covered). At least then content creators can get some compensation for having to deal with a publishing companies shit.
DMCA should be an innocent until proven guilty thing. Nothing happens to the offending content until the claimant can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the infringed material both belongs to them, and falls outside of fair use.
@@FNLNFNLN That would be far too reasonable and time consuming for the vultures to bother with. Far better for them to just prey on the public 🙄
“Life is a cruel teacher. She loves to give you the test first and the lesson later.” - Daymond John
Not only did they bite the hand that was feeding them, they tried ripping the whole arm off.
Perfect metaphor.
Not only that. They ripped off the wrong arm.
They also tried to do that with a kittens jaw
The time has come execute Order 66, *me clicks likes and makes it 666*
@@namedafteracar3645 *sweats in I want to like the comment but I don't want to disrupt the like number*
Update - the claim was released, i briefly made this video unlisted, but now i relisted it.
No
Thank goodness
Nice
what a journey
I'm genuinely happy for you. What a complete clusterfuck, man.
Warner bros: "I have copyright claimed C"
Everyone else: "C what?"
Warner bros: "The chord C, we use it in our songs, so it's ours"
The system for copyright claims is totally broken and they need to be held accountable.
Warner attorneys: Yeah, this is big brain time
Yes
Big brain ,pea brain choices.
Well, now he's a felon for music theft right? So his testimony becomes invalid, proving that they don't actually own the rights to the melody, thus they can't claim the video, which makes him not a felon thereby making his testimony admissible again, which makes it claimable again, and now we're back at the first part of this sentence...
@@Pause4011 yez
They’ll use the ad revenue to pay the attorneys guys
‘Why did you sting me?” the frog asked the scorpion. “You’ve doomed us both!”
“Because it’s my nature,” said the scorpion.
Honestly I never appreciated that fable before. This is a prime example.
The scorpion asked the frog for a ride across the river right?
@@therealcat5794 Yes.
Except that implies Adams video did anything for them. Hes not saving them, he made a youtube video that no one involved is going to see or care about lol.
@@edisonmoreira no
"You shouldn‘t have lost the lawsuit, it‘s not fair"
"Who are you calling a loser?? We will show what’s not fair"
"wait wat"
This is an example of "no good deed goes unpunished".
No one expects to interrupt a burglary in progress and then be accused of robbery by the victim. Yet, there it is.
this act of incompetence explains how they lost such a suit that they should have won
👏😂 Dude, that's exactly what I was about to post. Props !
Maybe the same person worked on both cases.
Ironically, by confounding both "melodies" in this instance, they simply validated their adversaries' case while trying to screw someone who was defending their case.
Now that's incompetence !
Twice !
And they're still being ripped off by their lawyers it appears.
You really think WMG wanted to win this suit ... I mean, instead of creating a precedential case for all their hidious claims to come.
@@sylvainmichaud2262 LET THEM HAVE THE CORONAVIRUS AND SHOVE IT UP THEIR AS*H*LES!
Adam: Warner didn't steal this.
Judge: Warner DID steal this.
Warner: Adam stole this.
Adam: What?!
Lol
@Bum Face Gammon "f*ck it, we all stole it."
Communism
@@michaeledmunds7266 Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh spotilla naveki velikaya rus
@@joseph3062 Это именно то, чего я бы хотел сказать от Иосифа Сталина.
@Bum Face Gammon you must be fun for free economies
This is honestly a good representation of the music industry as a whole. They want money and are willing to fuck over everyone, especially the creators, to get it.
To Warner: why on this goddamn universe would you ever backstab THE PERSON WHO WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU???
You should inform the Joyful Noise people that their song is being claimed by the company they just beat in court
That would be absolute gold.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
He has to cut deal with Joyful noise also.
I would love to see that
@@rajatgupta1850 a small price to pay for sweet, sweet justice
Adam: "Let's defend free artistic creativity"
Warner: *bursts in shirtless* "NOT ON MY WATCH!"
And then Warner shoots himself in the foot.
Is warner gonna rape adam.... Oh right.
You forgot one big detail... those *BIG* and *HAIRY* nipples!
@@PTNLemay
warner: NOT ON MY WATCH
*PULLS GUN*
warner:*shoots it self on the foot*.... shit
I am with you Adam. I too have had a copyright claim on one of my videos for playing a well known melody of a pop song on my guitar in the Australian bush! I don't make any money from my videos at all but once again big business will rake up even more profits from any ad revenue that might be generated. I was actually pleased that what I played was actually recognised!! My guitar playing must be improving!! What a world we now live in eh?
I have never forgotten about that video and 2 years later CZcams recommends me a sequel.
CZcamsr: *defends Warner*
Warner: “So you have chosen... death”
Based
@@preperforated Based?
@@Bran_Flakesx7 yeah based?
@@Bran_Flakesx7 cool
@@preperforated What "Based"?
This is the biggest bruh moment I've ever seen
Literally lol
They just want the money
This comment deserves more upvotes
@@gheorghegeorgescu7846 facts my guy
Warner: Hippity Hoppity
Every sound in the Universe is now my property.
Warner: This riff isn’t copyrighted material!
Also Warner: This riff is copyrighted material!
So to recap:
Adam defends Warner-Chapel’s right to Dark Horse.
Warner-Chapel loses right to Dark Horse.
Warner-Chapel proceeds to stab Adam in the back, trying to claim his video for using the melody of Dark Horse, but instead cites the part where he plays Joyful Noise, the song they claim not to have stolen, even though they no longer have the legal rights to either melody.
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." 🤣🤔🤯
You missed the extra part where in the lawsuit too, where they claimed that it wasnt even their melody, but instead a background sound - then claimed the video because it was the melody.
Lol
lol
No. They are not trying to claim the video.
They just claim it and get away with all the money.
I guess they deserved to lose the suit if they can’t tell their own song
You are me.. but evil!
I actually the opposite would be right. They should have won the case BECAUSE no one can tell the difference.
@@auseryt Joyful noise was first, so, unless somebody has a time machine, i would think that Warner would deserves to loose if they can't even tell.
@@SethbotStar As far as i understood it, the point of the video they sued because of was not when comparing to Joysful, but to a part that was played by the video maker. They didn't failed to distinguish joyful from their song, but the play in the video to their song.
Stefan Ionescu the copyright claim was filed by the defendant WB, representing Katy Perry's Dark Horse.
Flame was suing Katy Perry (WB); Adam defended Katy (WB); WB claimed Adam's video, based on the section of it where Flame's Joyful Noise played.
This might as well have been used as evidence by the plaintiff.
Copyright law is such a scam. I've dealt with tons of phony claims like this before. It's absurd.
If you fart, Warner will claim rights on the sound.
Nobody:
Warner: "Quick, sue our defenders!"
Backstabbing is s sport in the corporate world, especially in the entertainment industry.
@@slappy8941 literal sport. I'm actually surprised, weirdly Delighted, shocked, disgusted, and jealous that I'll never reach that level of shamelessness.
A boring dystopia
When you lose the lawsuit, then the Defenders must have sucked and deserves punishment 😂😂
@@cobaltclaw5136 accurate to a fault. The WORST kind of dystopia, second only to 1984.
So.. to summarize:
1. You defended the company, they gave you a copyright claim
2. They don't even have the copyrights to the song they've claimed
3. You didn't even use their song.. .
4. The part in question was argued by the claimants as not even being the "melody" yet they characterized it that way in the claim anyway 🤣
Seems about right
Oh the irony is so good!😂🤣😂🤣😂
5. they claimed their song was in the wrong part of the video
Hotel trivago
OMFG man returning here after your new copyright video to remember the lawsuits and omg I'm speechless by how stupid/ironic this is xD
'F' those major labels. Biggest dealers on the planet
Warner: It's not copying!
Also Warner: *Stop copying...*
Sounds like a young karen at school during a test
@@rigovalentine lmao
@@rigovalentine some company didnt speak to the manager within
Me: stop listening to the Warner stuff :) if possible ;)
worse: warner : It's not copying!
Also Warner: HOW DO YOU EVEN DARE TO DEFEND US WITHOUT GIVING US MONEY!?!
Adam: Mates, you told me to pay you for the sounds they made,not the ones you made. if you can't notice, maybe they are right...
Warner: Your honor! Dark Horse is nothing like Joyful Noise!
Also Warner: Your honor! Adams reproduction of Joyful Noise infringes on our Dark Horse copyright!
Exactly. Warner is admitting that Dark Horse is so similar to Joyful Noise that their own employee can't tell the difference. Which means either they are knowingly infringing, or they believe the similarity to be trivial.
Judge: but we agreed that your Dark Horse was infringing the rights of Joyful Noise so your claim is 300% invalid
Saved me 5 mins thanks
Reminds me of Legal Eagle's outro of "... and I'll see you in court." That and Ace Attorney
have you ever heard of lawyers? That's a summary of their daily activities lmao
Warner Music was like "Hey, thanks for having our backs on the whole Dark Horse thing. Now give me your lunch money"
Back in April, I posted a video where I set up my drumset left-handed and played it for the very first time. I got a copyright claim; I initially assumed it was for the drumless track I used (because sometimes copyright free actually isn't). But when I clicked on the copyright claim, it was actually from (surprise, surprise) Warner Music Group, claiming that I'd used their copyrighted content - which they said was "The Jam" by Graham Central Station, which also appears **nowhere** in the video. I looked more carefully; they claimed that the portion in dispute runs at a point in the video where the only audio is me (and ONLY me) taking my fumbling first steps at playing left-handed. It's just a drum beat. Played by me. Left-handed. And not well. And not at all similar to the beat played in "The Jam". What an absolute load of [BASS]. And shame on CZcams for playing along 100%.
This is fine, everything is fine, copyright law is fine as it is, nothing to see here.
Signed,
CZcams
Copyright law might be, but the fact that you need deep pockets to defend yourself against others, even if you're in the right, is completely ass backwards.
@@Mtaalas Wooosh!
@@maverickdoe6984 there's a difference between the law and what you need for the law to be realized in practice.
Timesink I’ve looked into your account and nowhere can I find evidence that you actually work for CZcams let alone have the authority to represent an opinion held by the entire company. Preeeeetty sure you’re just a big phony!
Dominic Airola He may be phony, but at least he’s not phony bologna. That’d be despicable.
Since they manually claimed it, it shows that you were specifically targeted and that they ignored the rules and laws in order to steal your money. Easy win lawsuit.
On behalf of everyone who can't afford to defend themselves, I hope Adam pursues this
@Ceyhun ay If there is proof that warner knowingly and illegally claimed copyright on a legal video, which there does appear to be, they are in deep shit. Doesn't matter how much money they have for lawyers.
@@gabriels1163 You'd be surprised
You will never win in a lawsuit against that
@@Andy-xd5dj Correct, because they would settle long before it got to a court.
Ladies and gentlemen...we have reached peak irony and absurdity.
This has to be some intern trolling while the boss is having lunch
"It hurts itself in its confusion."
pretty much
Careful, Nintendo may copyright claim you for this. They are huge asses with this.
I want to up vote, but it's at 420 xD
😂😂
Brilliant XD XD
Contact Joyful's legal team and let them know Warner is trying to claim THEIR melody so they can sue them and win AGAIN!! Mayne then they'll learn their lesson. I know it goes against the whole spirit of the video in the first place but fuck them for that!
Hulk Slayer this is actually the best way forward.
Xplora213 legally no. That’s double jeopardy. unless the legal team files it as a separate claim under different circumstances. Besides, it would look more like Joyful’s team would rather file a complaint on Warner so that they would receive the revenue rather than going through the arduous process of filing another lawsuit, much less a lawsuit with similar circumstances. But that’s just my two cents. I could be wrong tho, so if anyone could correct me on this, much appreciated.
Casual's Breakfast an injunction against acting as if they maintained full copyright... if you steal something you can’t claim warranty on it.
Casual's Breakfast it’s not double jeopardy. This is at a different time and in different circumstances.
@@epsilomtrent932: The principle of double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and only in some circumstances (after mistrials, criminal defendants get retried all the time, and furthermore double jeopardy does not apply to distinct federal vs. state prosecutions for the same underlying actions).
This is a civil lawsuit, a.k.a. a "tort". A.k.a. "equity" as opposed to "law". There are analogues of "double jeopardy" in torts; as I understand it, they usually go under the label of various forms of "estoppel" (collateral, promissory, etc.). IANAL, TINLA, ad libitum ad nauseam.
Those big corporations do no good for anybody.
Another layer of irony: their confusion sort of buries your original defense (of them).
Lesson to take away from this: never trust a corporation.
Why would you ever trust a machine designed to maximize profit? It’s literally designed to run you over and turn your remains into money.
Corporate lawyers.
*Never trust a service you're not paying for and is closed source
@@beaconofwierd1883 no
Deoxal so you trust the light industry to not rig their lamps to break early? Or your phone company not to change charger just to force you to pay more? Or your pharmasutical company not to get you hooked on their drug? Or your aircraft manifacturer not to skip tests? All of these are services you pay for, all of these are examples of how coorporations screw you over to make an extra dollar, in some of the cases even literally kill people to get that cash.
Fortunatley the government steps in sometimes, but this is not a bug in the coorporation, it is the desired feature: profit above all else.
"they used 5 notes that are not even ours..... claim that melody"
"sir that's protected by copyright la-"
"this is youtube who gives a shit"
... and now we know how they lost the lawsuit.
Best tldr ever xD
@@gorkyd7912 Another artist said the same thing and started the lawsuit. He got a musicologist to lie on stand and say the line was truly unique in music (it isn't, similar lines are littered through music over the centuries). In reality, the line in question is such a basic musical figure that no one should be able to claim copyright over it.
Karl Rovey it’s fraudulent all the way down
Seemes pretty accurate, yes
This is the most biggest and the weirdest betrayal of all time
The music industry: "make profit not friends"
Former friends of the music industry: "well ok then"
This is the best example why CZcams shouldn't just blindly accept all copyright claims by big companies.
But thats how they make money
You don't even have to be a big company. You can be a random guy
I don't understand how CZcams thinks the default should be "guilty until proven innocent". But I mean, they were bought out by Google and Google did remove their "Don't be evil" slogan...
The worst part is the claimant doesn't need to give YT any information, BUT if YOU want to appeal it, you have to give ALL your details to the claimant. It's messed up.
what else can youtube do? if they are issues a DMCA takedown they have to comply and it is up to you to fight the takedown in the courts
They should be a penalty for false strikes. Also that employee who did the manual strike should be penalized
EDIT: While I have everyone's Attention: I think CZcamsrs should have a collective moment of silence with a shared hashtag to bring attention to this gross abuse of the system. A few seconds each video.
People make mistakes. If you want to single out the employee as the culprit, you're opening the door to their (proven antisocial) company to fire them and try to get credit for having dealt with the issue so promptly and drastically. Therefore, this should be entirely on the company as a whole and its policies being all kinds of wrong, regardless which of their representatives filed the claim.
@@CocoWantsACracker I would agree with you except it is very clear they did not watch the entire video for the context. If they did a proper investigation they wouldn't have the same faulty outcome
@@CocoWantsACracker people make mistakes but this looks like carelessness/lack of training. I'm not a professional and i could instantly tell that it wasn't dark horse. if it's their job they shouldn't make mistakes like this especially on this video where its relevant to a court case, it should've been handled with more care i believe x
@@CocoWantsACracker Well, the legal penalty (which should definitely exist !!!) should be for the corporation no doubt and shouldn't be concerned with the employee... but the corporation should probably penalize the employee (I'm not used to defending corporations... this feels weird) since given the history exposed by Adam, the legal team was aware and supportive of the video, so the decision to *manually* claim on this video (for Joyful Noise 9 s part of the background...) had to be a stupid mistake. Now if the guy was new he may not deserve to be fired, but he should definitely be told never to make such a frivolous claim again.
and the company too
Warner: "Someone help me! It's so hard to walk with this bullet hole in my foot"
Imagine demanding your lawyer to pay you after defending you in court.
“You defended us you, so you’re on our side. So you wouldn’t mind if we take your money too”
sounds like a Rule of Acquisition
@@thelyric2751 Rule of Acquisition 111: "Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them."
@@michaeledmunds7266 Men of culture I see
@Michael Edmunds Rule of Acquisition 211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
Rule 10 is the most appropriate here. Greed is eternal.
Just take them to court, they dont have a track record of winning
Jlsajfj They... They actually do. They won a lot of lawsuits, for example Katy Perry’s song and Mumbo Jumbo’s intro. But who cares they already removed the copyright claim
@@neonLegend3003 Those were not lawsuits
neon The legend those aren’t lawsuits my dude.
track record of winning? Im sure they have claimed ownership of one.
Nekogami-Crystal wins, this is my favourite
you know the guy was holding back from absolutely f'ing exploding and just swearing his head off
They have ability to do this. They do it. Once you put all power in hands of corporations, you can't just take it back.
CZcamsr: **defends warner's rights on their own music**
Warner: *YOU DARE SPEAK ILL ABOUT ME??*
you just made my day
Yep. They're that brain-dead.
Warner Bros also copyrighted Meatcanyon’s “Wabbit Season”, sooo..... yeahZz
They lost the lawsuit. The point is, even after loosing, they now claim, that the competitors melody is inreality theirs. Shouldnt there be an extra massive retribut... fine for having lost a lawsuit and then not exactly repeating but commiting an even worse crime?
WHOMST HAVE AWAKEN THE ANCIENT ONE
*Warner:* _"All your musics are belong to us!"_
appropriate username
You have no chance to survive take your time
It is just like other nations muscling into China's ancestral fishing waters. The nerve of the other nations! Do they not know that China's ancestral waters extend from their shores up to 24,000 miles?
Yup.
Nothing screams Frivolous law suits more than U.S multi billion dollar companies.
When they waste money the government let's them write it off on the taxes they pay instead.
Ah yes, a fine example of corporate greed.
"I never thought the company of face eating leopards would eat MY face!"
There's so much irony in all of this that you'd think Adam is a steel manufacturer
Dad, is that you?
2/10
He'd be such a great alloy to their cause too, but instead, they've sunk their case.
i'm steeling all of these
Steele Adam and their smash hit album The Royal Scam...
Physical manifestation of "It hurt it self in it's confusion".
Hahahahahah perfect comment
BRUH
Come on charmillion I know your not that stupid. Use fire punch. Chamillionaire hurt itself in it's confusion. Charmillion has fainted. O come on throws Gameboy 😒.
they hurt themselves into stealing thousands of dollars?
Im effin dead bruh LOL
WOO I randomly found another Neely...
Edit: thanks for the vid, I liked it, keep up the good work. LOVE for the Music
I like that the recommended video was on music IQ
Warner is basically modern day Mr. Krabs
except he has no common sense
That's because common cents is now my cents 🤑
Who has no common sense? MrKrabs or the Warner?
@@reymarckessaguirre5082 Warner Krabs
This behavior of the industry makes me want to pirate music, just for the he'll of it.
He'll
I do "pirate" everything that's for my personal use and I don't give a damn about it really, the big "production" companies can sux my ass for being what they are. The only times I kind of try to pay back is when there's a unique idea by some honest individuals and that mostly happens in the form of an open source app/service; not anything off of netflix or spotify may I say.
Oh and I block ads(&anti adblockers) and trackers wherever and whenever I can and it works really well.
@@ccelik97 dare I say it, based?
@@JohnnyHotovson I don't understand your question.
@@ccelik97 it's just a dumb meme, basically I called you a cool guy :D I have the same mindset as you about this
the copyright system is so bad it give me a headache
I uploaded my Hawaiian vacation video onto CZcams a couple years ago. It was flagged for copyright infringement. It was all my own footage and editing, so how could I infringe? It was a 20 minute video, but a 16 second clip of our favourite bar had some song playing in the background on the bars loudspeaker system, while my sister was talking about our day. It happened to be a Beach Boys song, and the youtube algorithm sniffed it out. I appealed, because it doesn't make sense that some corporation can now monetize and cash in on views of my vacation video! The corporation didn't back down, and neither did I, so it ended up that they TOOK MY VIDEO DOWN COMPLETELY as if they "owned it" and I got a strike on my channel.
The irony is too much to handle. Lol 😂 “that’s our melody!!.. uh no, that’s joyful noise... Oh yeah, we meant that our melody is totally different.” Sucks that CZcamsrs have so little recourse.
I just ask myself are they really that dumb or do they think they can get away with it.
@@monamuller8969 if they can make money, they'd sell happy ending socks to a sock factory.
this is not irony...it's contradiction...they're just stupid
@@monamuller8969 they know they can get away with it. warner chapel and other music copyright holders pump big money into yt to defend their copyrights, which in turn rigs the scales toward the copyright claimers rather than the content creators, who has hard time even getting someone from yt to review the claim. and even if a claim is found to be baseless the ad money for that time when it was claimed is already in the claimers pocket.
@@simplig1272 They don´t have to return the money they falsely claimed? So in other words they make money in claiming copyrights. Doesn´t matter if the song was really in the video. 😐
Ironic. He could save others from copyright claims, but not himself.
Is it possible to learn this power
"i can guide others to a treasure I cannot posses"
tbf he couldn't, since Joyful still won the lawsuit but he tried lmao
@@phigibo literally watching infinity war rn 👌👌
@@Mistersheeaun
Not from a Jedi.
Stupidity is a rapidly growing problem for humanity.
Behavior like that of Warner Chappell, makes me wish I could get back all the time I have spent in my life shaking my head.
I don't think companies face any consequences for a wrongful claim of "copyright". They can just attack anybody and get away with it. Best case - they get some money, worst case - nothing changes.
There used to be US laws about "copyright misuse" and penalties for false millenium copyright strikes. But enforcement is severely lacking, with the deviant CZcams system further dilutes the law.
@@johncrowerdoe5527
Gotta pay a lawyer if you want to sue.
@@waterandafter Petty cash is not a real punishment.
John Crower Doe Not to mention these massive corporations have massive legal teams on payroll already. They're literally losing money if they're not actively suing people.
You CAN take a copyright claim up to the courts and sue the company, but the majority of people don't have money to throw around on lawsuits let alone the time and patience to deal with the hassle of setting up a lawsuit. That's the only reason companies can just false claim YTers and not get in trouble for it. Even if the drop the claim later, it doesn't matter since they still get your ad money up until that point. YT or the courts definitely need to set up a system to make the claimants not get any of the revenue while the claim is being challenged and to make the companies pay back said revenue if they drop the claim.
Someone get this over to Legal Eagle, I'd like to see what he has to say about it
Damn a Adam Neely and Legal eagle collab would be awesome!
yes !!
Adam plz
BEST IDEA EVER
SECONDED
If someone tried to invent libraries for the first time in the present day, the idea would be immediately shot down.
That's like the Wright brothers suing a bird for copying their idea!
remember kids: corporations are not your friends
I see noone here pointing out that corporations are just acting out ip laws.
We should probably blame the enabler too right?
@@peterlauch6172 yes, we should blame everyone
capitalism is the answer to all our problems, let us pray for the free market and its omniscient benevolence. For it is almighty and good and powerful, it shall save us all. Brothers, let us pray
@@YM-zf8mt whats wrong wth you
@@YM-zf8mt but most "capitalist" countries operate on a mixed market system, not a free one.
This here is some level 7 spicy copyright nonsense
They dont deserve actual musicians support for their musical productions in song writing
Warner Bros coming through with that Freeform Avant-garde Copyright Claiming 🔥🔥🔥
Or Karma? 🤣 Defend the devil.
You owe me a new irony meter. I had it set to situational and it exploded.
(2 years later)
CZcams: Here, watch this video.
Dude, what really pisses me off about this is the fact that you don't need to have musical knowledge to comprehend that part isn't Dark Horse, you just have to pay attention to the video.
The video reminded me of the time my family was so insistent that Katy Perry was wrong upon finding out what was happening
They probably outsource people to do this manually, they wouldn't be paying attention and probably try to find the first part it happens
no way someone can be this stupid... right?
I was hoping that maybe youtube's shitty algorithm picked it up and told warner about it and they just listened to the clip without actually watching the video and said "yeah thats dark horse alright!".
@@0Clewi0 but that doesn't justify it. The moment you mention that you are playing someone's else a music, fair use allows you to play it for a few seconds. No justification needed. So the fact that they are mentioned in the title and the extract is only a couple seconds long, is enough not to claim it.
@@tonymouannes but the person is just doing the job requested to them to do, of course the company is acting like an industrial fishing boat that uses double nets to catch fish smaller than it's allowed, I'm not depending them. It's like blaming the barista for coffee being hugely unethical.
the phrase "it really do be a bruh moment" works so well in this situation
Some of these music copyright claims are plain disgusting, like the one in this video. You're also absolutely right in suggesting that the CZcams ways of settling claims (being either relying on the claimant to drop the claim themselves, with no possible further course of CZcams recourse beyond that, or hiring lawyers and dealing with it through the courts system) is absolutely inadequate and unfair on video creators. I've had other issues with this system, albeit in relation to music identification bots automatically misidentifying performance used in a video or falsely attributing the intellectual music copyright of a public domain work to a CZcams account/claimant who naturally doesn't own the copyright that they are claiming.
While I don't make (or intend to make) any money from CZcams videos I've had 3 erroneous music copyright claims ('strikes') that were completely unsubstantiated (2 claims of which were removed and 1 which is still in place) but who still nonetheless made copyright claims where they could not only make advertising revenue off ads displaying for those videos of mine but also were able to activate ads for those videos of mine where they otherwise wouldn't run (as both my chanel and all of its videos haven't reached anywhere near high enough numbers to automatically have ads run on them by CZcams).
The first (and very troubling) one of these that I had was for the overture from the opera The Wreckers by English composer Ethel Smyth (who wrote the song "March of the Women", that became the lead song in the English suffragettes movement in the early 20th century), a work which is 100% in the public domain word wide but yet there's some unknown account that is automatically making copyright strikes/claims on CZcams videos who rightly freely use music from that opera because it IS I'm the public domain.
The 2nd was quite amusing, as while it wasn't claiming the intellectual copyright behind the use of a composition it was a strike based on the claim that in my video was the performance recording of a professional European Orchestra (even though the music being performed was composed in the 19th century and is well and truly in the Public Domain). The performance of the music in my video was actually a live performance recording of a local Australian community group, and what was amusing for me is that when I compared the 40 odd seconds of music from my original recording (that the bot had identified as being taken from the European orchestra's recording) with the European orchestra's recording not only were the tempos obviously different for that entire section but there were 2 obvious performance errors in the original recording (and 1 different less obvious error I heard in the European recording) that weren't in the other recording during that "indentified" section 😆
There is also a 3rd erroneous (and absolutely incorrect) copyright claim that I have 'challenged', but as the system is such that I have to rely on the copyright claimant agreeing with my challenge in order for that video of mine being 'released' from their supposed copyright 'claim' I am currently unable to publicly say any more about that particular 'claim'.
I LOVE the intent behind the CZcams algorithms/bots in trying to have some ad revenue passed on to the copyright holders of music copyright however the system of claims and counter claims is in dire need of significant improvement. Namely the process of 'recourse' against claims (including fraudulent ones), as currently all the power is with the copyright claimant with no further ability to challenge/change claims by the vast majority of CZcams creators within the CZcams system (unless you are already a large CZcams Channel who has been categorised as 'trusted' by CZcams itself).
There are also downright incorrect claims such as the one featured and discussed in this video.
My sympathies about it, and while I've only just discovered your channel your content seems great and I but thank you for it!! 🙏
Wishes from Melbourne, Australia
You better call Saul
Here is an idea: add strike system for people claiming videos - if their claim gets proven to be wrong, and the video being fair use, after 3 strikes certain entity (person or company) can not do copyright claims anymore, assuming that they abuse the copyright system or do inaccurate analysis in purpose to steal as much money as they can from CZcams content creators.
Making only one side accountable (as it currently is) is a recipe for abuse.
@@DingDingTheCZcamsBuddy
Why would you have to prove malicious intent? It`s like asking someone who stole your wallet, was it in purpose to make you feel bad, or just to get some extra money. Intent is a subjective thing.
The thing is it doesn't even matter whether someone intends on copyrighting anything he can to get more money or not - because even if someone doesn't and simply made mistake, this means it was inaccurate analysis... other words, that person didn't even put enough effort to make sure it's correct, which results in harming content creators and their work.
You have to understand that it's a job for many of those people, so it's a serious thing... it's not just some random forum reporting system, where you can make a new account and nickname or just leave it, and it wouldn't affect your livelihood.
That wouldn't work three mistakes doesn't mean they should loose the ability to defend their copyright should an actual infringement occur.
Also to understand people don't usually make copyright claims it's usally bots
@@thepinkestpigglet7529
It would obviously apply only to manual copyright claims, like the one shown in the video above. It shows very well, that these companies don't really care and just try to get as much money as they can. Even if it's not all of them, this video (and many more i've seen in the past about this topic) show there is a problem which needs solution. As for "automatic copyright claims" i'm not sure how it works exactly, but if it doesn't require a person to confirm it, it should be required to confirm by the entity which would claim rights to it, and then automatically turn into "manual claim" - since they were given the chance to judge the content in the video.
Consider this... you put a lot of work into creating content, and someone claims rights to its monetization based on few seconds in your clip which basically contains a lot more of your actual content - which essentially means they steal your copyrighted content.
So how otherwise would you protect your copyright? This is a publishing website, not a court, and if CZcams content creators need only 3 strikes to be taken down, why should it not apply to the other side the same way? If someone is abusing certain feature, he shouldn't have access to it.
I recommend you watching these videos, to show you how broken this system is:
czcams.com/video/ieErnZAN5Eo/video.html
czcams.com/video/Mz14Ul-r63w/video.html
Wouldn't work, CZcams would lose a ton of money when the first lawsuit sprang. Your intent is good, but you would need to put a lot more thought into this.
@@shaunmark1 What lawsuit?
"I’m fed up with the idiots… the ever-widening gap between people who know how to make movies and the people who green-light the movies" - Sean Connery
Now just apply this to the music industry. They don't know the difference between one note and another. They just know the difference between a 20$ bill and a 100$ bill.
One's trash and the other is toilet paper?
one can only buy two bananas
Yeah, pencil pushers that only try to optimize $ flushing back. And mind you, not only bringing back as much $ to cover the initial costs plus bonus ... the bonus has to be as as high as the original costs ... so doubling(or better tripling) the money ...
80$
@@Momoka7 Exactly!
"It's totally insane" - a sign of the times.
Never defend greedy corporations. They'll betray humanity if it profits them.
Imagine the same set of principles applied to woodworking.
Patent Office: "I'm sorry sir, you cannot saw notches into a board, apply glue, then clamps on two pieces of wood to form a 90 degree angle. This technique is patented."
Well that is actually how patents work lmao, the only difference is that patents aren't held forever but copyright is
@@domninin Actually - that's NOT how patents work. I have five patents, I understand the process. If there is "prior art" in the area you cannot patent the prior art. You have to prove how what you're doing is different than the prior art, or how what you're doing changes or improves the prior art and then you can patent the "new" (novel) technology improvements - you just can't claim the prior art portion. In the case of gluing boards together to make a 90-degree joint, there is demonstrated prior art in that field going back thousands of years - patent application denied.
@@domninin I understand, but they don't apply to any hand-made items that I can think of. Yes, you can patent a particular look design of a chair, but you cannot patent the joinery of a chair. Dovetails are not patentable. I put forward that certain parts of music should also not be patentable.
Dominik T copyright does expire some 100 years+- after it’s created/author died. See free distribution of every Shakespeare play. Basically anything published before 1924 is public domain now.
@@buckhorncortez well the same applies to copyright too. You can't copyright an instrument or a specific sound or a Melody that existed before, but you can copyright new melodies
Watch, this video will be claimed as copyright for 3:06-3:09 for the use of dark horses melody
Well if they were serious about the first one they kind of have to. .. Stupid as hell of course....
claimception
By the company that LOST the lawsuit and now claims money for other people's music.
Ever heard MOMENTS IN LOVE by Artful Noise? Song from 80's
When it gets to greedy corporate America, there is no such as gratitude
Best revenge: countersue and settle for tens of thousands.
Fr
"Some scientists claim that Hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more Stupidity than Hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
LOL, don't use the Einstein quote! He never said it, so it's an example of Stupidity. (Misinformation spread since the '90s at least)
@@arthurfranklin9315 Frederick S. Perls wrote a book called "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" published in 1969 saying Einstein said that quote to him.
I just claimed the copyright to hydrogen, so you owe me.
Actually Zappa fighted warner bros as well
Imagine if they claimed this video too for the same 10seconds...
The trap has been B8'ed...
Would be hilarious
Just give em time :D
I wouldn’t put it past Warner Chappell.
What we need to do is stop buying anything from Warner.
The danger of ignorant lawyers.