I just had a video taken down due to copyright infringement, ordered
by EMI, however the video did not even have 700,000 views, and yet
many other videos of this music group are free to posted with millions
of views with no protest or take down order. I'm just wondering why
don't the companies take down these bigger videos if what they
disapprove of are people posting songs they do not own. Why dont they
post the songs themselves or videos themselves, why was i singled out
and hundreds of other videos are just left to be seen.
It's money that what matters. Videos that were taken down are usually
not partners. The reason youtube doesn't take down any of these other
higher viewed videos because they have a business deal with the owner
of the videos. The question is that why would youtube defend the
partners when EMI is a larger, more powerful business then a partner?
Youtube and google get a profit from commercializing those higher
viewed videos with ad revenue. That profit outweighs EMI's Copyright
claim and possible lawsuit to youtube. But Youtuble buys the license
to use the music for the video owner to use. But the reason why they
don't bailout the small videos because its not profitable. Youtube
only cares about the money. Not the user. All of this is in theory
though and I don't really know what Youtube's true intentions are, but
all of this does seem logicial for Youtube to do in my opinion. I hope
this doesn't become another WMG lawsuit to Youtube again. But it
probably will.
> It's money that what matters. Videos that were taken down are usually
> not partners.
The reason for that is that you cannot be a partner if you infringe
copyright law. Partner videos are vetted before they even go public,
so if you do see partner videos with third-party material in them,
they have permission to use it (or if they don't, they risk losing
their partner status, which I have see happen in a couple of cases).
The procedure works like this: Any infringing video that isn't
detected by the automatic content ID system is taken down if and when
the copyright owner orders it taken down: it's as simple as that. If
the copyright owner does not submit a complaint, the video is not
taken down. YouTube cannot know whether the copyright owner doesn't
mind the video being up, or simply doesn't know of its existence.
Copyright owners who find their content on YouTube have the right to
decide what happens to it. They can:
- ignore it
- ask YouTube to monetize it to pay for the licence the uploader
didn't purchase
- order YouTube to mute or disable the video.
Copyright owners have the perfect right to allow certain videos and
disallow others. YouTube must comply with the owners' wishes,
regardless of how many views the video has or how much money it's
generating for whom. If YouTube were to ignore any such orders and
allow a monetized video to stay online, the copyright owner could take
both YouTube AND the person who uploaded the video (whose contact
details YouTube has, if they are a partner) to court and sue them not
just for the unpaid licencing fee, but also for all the ad revenue
that video generated.
Obviously, YouTube does care about money, since (contrary to popular
belief) it doesn't have access to Google's billions and is very
expensive to run. But what YouTube cares about more is simply staying
in business. Currently, there is a lawsuit hanging over YouTube's
head, which still hasn't been resolved: Viacom is hoping to sue
YouTube for encouraging copyright infringement, to the tune of one
billion dollars.
I had the exact same complaint but in the area of Feedback and
Suggestions. I had 4 videos I posted with different songs that were
all removed so I ended up uploading some that have no ownership with
WMG and used some of youtubes. yet those very songs I originally used
are on literally hundreds of videos which I am sure that those snot
nosed kids did not receive permission from the copyright owner to use
their song in their video. it really makes me angry of the inequality
of this all. Fine I can dig the fact mine was taken off for lack of
permission but what about all the other videos who are are using it
and they go unpunished. It isn't fair. i dont give a sh$t if it is
money driven, bottom line is it is inequality. i say we should fight
this.
> I just had a video taken down due to copyright infringement, ordered
> by EMI, however the video did not even have 700,000 views, and yet
> many other videos of this music group are free to posted with millions
> of views with no protest or take down order. I'm just wondering why
> don't the companies take down these bigger videos if what they
> disapprove of are people posting songs they do not own. Why dont they
> post the songs themselves or videos themselves, why was i singled out
> and hundreds of other videos are just left to be seen.
