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!
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?
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 !
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'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.
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.
@@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.
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...
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@slappy8941 literal sport. I'm actually surprised, weirdly Delighted, shocked, disgusted, and jealous that I'll never reach that level of shamelessness.
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.
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.
I don't understand how UA-cam 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...
@@PieMan061 They don't have a choice. If they don't comply with a takedown/claim, they can be then sued. Why would they take any risk of being sued when there is nothing in it for them even if they end up winning? They'd at best break even, and that's pretty much an impossibility in American legal system, you don't get reimbursed for your time and effort, only costs if that. And that's not to consider the damages they would suffer if they lost, however minute that might be in a particular case. Now, had it been YT's bot misidentifying stuff, you might sort of a have a point. While YT is sort of required to monitor content on their own, there is no specific legal requirement for them to be as zealous about it as they are.. I think, I'm not 100% sure. But when it comes to a manual claim/takedown, YT only stands to lose at rejecting them. So it is perfectly normal for them to not intervene and let the two sides fight it out among themselves. DMCA is a piece of *beep* created by people who doesn't understand how the internet works and lobbied by the "companies". In an ideal world, the claimed party or the platform should be able to sue for cost and additional damages on a frivolous claim, then the platform would have an incentive to actually step in and regulate claims, as they could make some money off of it (on average).
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.
Timesink I’ve looked into your account and nowhere can I find evidence that you actually work for UA-cam let alone have the authority to represent an opinion held by the entire company. Preeeeetty sure you’re just a big phony!
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?
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!
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.. .
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.
@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.
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.
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 UA-camrs have so little recourse.
@@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. 😐
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 UA-cam system further dilutes the law.
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.
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.
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?
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 😒.
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
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 UA-camrs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 UA-cam content creators. Making only one side accountable (as it currently is) is a recipe for abuse.
@@DingDingTheUA-camBuddy 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 UA-cam 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: ua-cam.com/video/ieErnZAN5Eo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Mz14Ul-r63w/v-deo.html
Wouldn't work, UA-cam 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.
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."
@@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
They are actionable, but the legal maneuver is expensive for a lot of people. A quick-counter-claims court to deal with these things, now with so many low-resource artists and creators, should be available to contest frivolous copyright claims.
@@gedalyahreback2133 Then these corp fuks will push the lawsuit all the way to supreme court, the whole time both sides pay to be there and the loser pays everyone back
This kinda reminds me of the time my dad pulled over to help someone who was just hit by a car and when the victim was asked to identify the car that hit him, he pointed to my dad’s car
Hopefully your dad's car didn't coincidentally have damage on it that matched the other car's damage, so it should have been clear to the legal folks that it couldn't have been your dad.
This is the same company that claimed every single one of Mumbo Jumbo's videos for like a 1 second clip of a non copyrighted song because the creator of the non copyrighted song used a fraction of a second long noise thats from another copyrighted song even know it's literally unnoticeable to the ear
"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
@@TheGalacticWest stop using any of there shit im getting sick of people that use stuff thats too simular or what not get original and drop it into content id and prob solved 1100 vids and no claims or strikes have a nice day
lose his job for doing his job ? it is stupid, but that is what his business tells him to do, when a fake claim is all it takes and there is zero repercutions why even care ?
Thank you. This $h*t-for-brainz employee needs to be assigned to the company mail route. Perhaps that would suit their skill set better. Zero competence.
This is absolute total incompetence. A call to the PR department should fix this fast. (Note - the company dropped their claim, probably after someone there was told about the terrible publicity)
@@crnkmnky 🤣🤣🤣 honestly.. that's probably the truth the way that business is running. Fivver law students running the case, and fivver $.50 hourly workers copyright claiming everyone. Gotta keep that coin!😂
LMAO,...fucking stop. Have you actually LISTENED to todays 'entertainers'? Pimps, drug dealers and pedophiles. ALL of them. "No one seems to know why?" They're criminals/whores and addicts first and foremost, not 'entertainers' but as a secondary source of income.
@@walterhicks5520 That's because most of the newer talent has figured out that they can make a living at this on their own and aren't using big labels. What I don't understand is why the industry insists on trying to keep people from appreciating and being exposed to the older stuff when guys like Adam Neely and Rick Beato are using it for teaching purposes and in the process basically doing the best kind of promotion imaginable for the very product they're supposedly trying to sell. They've lost their minds. they deserve to go down but it's a shame that younger people aren't being exposed to some quality music because of these dinosaurs.
@@benjaminshields9421 LOL! My "social bubble"?It's got nothing to do with me. Do you realize how much the industry has diminished in sales since it's height in the late 90s? It's widely known. The information is out there. People working IN THE INDUSTRY acknowledge this and lament it, frequently.
I have patented and claimed every "A" note. You can't play an "A" even in a chord without paying me, also that is my frequency. I have a patent pending for the timing too :P
"I’m fed up with the idiots… the ever-widening gap between people who know how to make movies and the people who green-light the movies" - Sean Connery Now just apply this to the music industry. They don't know the difference between one note and another. They just know the difference between a 20$ bill and a 100$ bill.
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 ...
DEAR UA-cam: Why a youtuber lost 100% of royalties IF the “copyright claim” is ONLY for 15 seconds of a 9 minute video ??? Here is an idea for you. EXAMPLE: IF 15 Seconds in a 9 minute video represent a 2.7% Then you should split the royalties of the video the same way. UA-camr retains 97.2% of royalties of his video and the “ company “ gets the 2.7% THAT IS FAIR RIGHT?
You're absolutely right. But you would have to use your brain and in corporations they have none :D ;). For them simple percentages are on the level of quantum physics equations, lol...
@@lastanetaarion that's way too oversimplified and you know that. It is not constructive for the discussion. I guess it may be that google was just forced by the licensors. They probably just said "either you give us 100% or we dont allow you do use any of our stuff"
UA-cam holds the revenue for claimed videos and only gives the money the creator or claimant once the claim has been resolved one way or another. So Warner didn't make any money off this. It's another story if they claim it and disable adds, but that apparently didn't happen here.
Never 'take on' Big Companies.The proces could take years and years to resolve, and your pockets would be well empty. They would most likely have about 20 Lawyers handling their case .
@@Lefers94 they actually do make money in the period that it's claimed since it's often 'resolved' before the creator can do anything. UA-cam favors the big companies and publishers so the creator only gets revenue from the point after which the video has been 'reclaimed'. To get the revenue from the claimed period back you would have to start legal actions and that's too expensive to be fruitful. That's how they make money. That's why there are whole companies that just claim thousands of videos every day on behalf of big publishers. Never underestimate the greed of big companies. Given the opportunity they will screw you over for a few bucks.
The whole copyright system in UA-cam is a complete disaster. The problem is, through fear of being responsible for even a single copyright violation through inaction, their policies and procedures guarantee this kind of nonsense.
And companies actually hire ppl whose duty is to abuse THIS system on UA-cam,c laim all the videos and fuck up ppl who are using those materials for fair use
The system has two purposes, and two purposes only: make google not have to waste money or time fighting rich people on court (i.e. people who can actually afford a proper legal battle with google), and assure google will never be even accused of being liable for anything should such a large player actually take them to court. Ensuring fairness or that all parties abide by the actual law isn't even on the list.
They probably pay someone minimum wage or a 3rd world country to file these claims,, then they make money off of it. They can't afford not to at least try and get that free money that others have worked so hard on : [
I think that chinese story about the farmer saving a snake life and it biting him fits more... Unless that's exactly the story that you are talking about
remember when mumbo jumbo got 400+ videos claimed for a 4 second clip at the start of each video he used with permission because it used a drum sample from warner?
Shit. This is getting out of hand. Imagine playing some notes that sounds like David guetta's music. And still get claimed. Even if you play it accidentally
Tom Scott briefly went over this in his copyright video. Basically, Warner was correct and they had the rights to the music, because the producer that Mumbo had asked permission for was actually sampling a song from Warner, so the permission that Mumbo had didn't have any validity and Warner has the copyright.
Actually, the person who produced the music had payed WC to use the sample in his song, then Mumbo payed the producer to use the song. So Mumbo had a legal right to use that sample in the context of the song and WC's claim was invalid. But UA-cam's copyright system is so f**ked that WC doesn't need to do 5 minutes of research to make sure they didn't sell that sample before claiming all the ad revenue from 400+ videos they have no right to...
Well, considering the time frame flagged depicts Joyful Noise's melody and not Dark Horse. I think really what they're claiming is that Joyful Noise copied Dark Horse 6 years before Dark Horse was published. lol
This "copyright strike" is clear evidence that Warner did infringe: they claim directly that the extremely short section you used to show the observation from the earlier work is part of their work; in other words they are admitting it was copied in to their work and reinforcing their defeat in the copyright lawsuit. I hope you pointed this out to UA-cam. You may not be worried about the loss of ad revenue, but corporations only look at one thing: money. Corporations need to learn the meaning of "don't bit the hand that feed you." Unfortunately, it is more than just copyright infringement now. They have gained pecuniary advantage through false representation - they have gained your ad revenue (the pecuniary advantage) by claiming the section of your video which is from an earlier work as theirs (false representation with the copyright lawsuit loss showing it and this adding extra proof of that lawsuit loss and evidence against any appeal) - ie they have committed *FRAUD.* I'm sure that is something the SEC would be interested in.
@FinalEvilElpis How is that not infringing? They literally just claimed that a part of a song they do not hold copyright to was theirs. It doesn't matter at all that they did so out of sheer incompetence, they still did it.
@FinalEvilElpis no matter what he says, the courts said that there was infringement, and the portion of the video cited for their claim was taken from joyful noise, which they DEFINITELY don't hold the rights to.
@FinalEvilElpis the court has decided that they did infringe the copyright so blatantly claiming that part of the video is already infringing the copyright
The youtube copyright engine is designed apparently with the intent of promoting frivolous claims. I have had claims against classical music recordings for violating pop songs that stole from the classical work. I have had a copyright claim for a year 17xx single flute oeuvre with an arrangers claim. Just frivolous. I have also had claims against a horse show video that just had environtal noise where music happened to be reproduced good enough for a robot to recognize it. The principle I have learned is that if it is environmental and via microophone then it constitutes environmental noise and not music in copyrightable form. I have given up. If there is a claim, I remove the video to prevent them from posting ads in my uploaded videos.
Twoset Violin did a video about Star Wars music which sounded like Korngold and other composers... and possibly should've been still under copyright. they laughed about it, that if they played the original piece, Disney might sue them for playing the copied music. ... for playing it.. themselves.... There's something strange when musicians have to fear playing music because of a corporation...
@@alansmithee419 I guess the claim didn't come from the person playing, but from the copyright holder to the song... which makes it really weird - can't record a video now my neighbor is practicing the piano...
@@dominikmuller5021 Yes, obviously it would come from the people who wrote the music the person was playing. The point is it doesn't matter whether you put someone else's work in yours on purpose or by accident - it's still there either way and the same laws do and should apply.
Oh my. Let me get this straight musician plays a piece of classical music , the company holding the rights to the work of a pop artist who stole bits and pieces of that classical piece gets to file a copyright claim ; AND IT GETS APPROVED?! Wtf is that? Honestly we should set up an independent musician's foundation and start copyrighting every single note. Oh you are a new rapper and your single has a G flat in it? How dare you steal other people's work... It also has an A? Outrageous... I hope there's no B in it.
This is going on every day, every second of the day. I got one copyright during my audio broadcast from Fox Sports of all people. They claimed the track of the Spin doctors - Two Princes. I filed an appeal against it and they dropped it a week later but even then, this makes very clear that every company is trying to get every cent for every part of a second. It's not about the music anymore, it's all about claiming the #%$% out of everything.
I uploaded a 30 second video which had footage from Ant Man, and Disney claimed it. Fair enough, Disney owns Marvel & I used their footage. Except I always upload my videos as Private to begin with, and the claim was immediate - before I’d even made it viewable. How did they find my video to claim it?!
Disgusting. They are counting on their army of bottom-feeding lawyers to intimidate you into submission, knowing full well that there's no basis for their claim. And it is never about the music for these people.
@@joshuagrahambrown Most likely the automated Content Id system which is way overaggressive. Half the time it tries to claim my Pokemon Go videos because of background music at the mall where I play. After I beat their asses in the appeal, most companies have left me alone when I upload videos with background music now.
Worse, it shows them that it is very easy for them to waste small creator's time, which I consider to be an abuse of the system in itself. They can create a chilling effect for small content creators to participate in a platform that clearly spells the end of their business model.
You should have posted this on the main channel. I know it’s not your “usual” content, but people need to know about this. Just as much as they need to know about the frivolous nature of these lawsuits.
This is hilarious. Warner can't tell the difference between Joyful Noise and Dark Horse, the difference between fair use and infringement, the difference between an ally and a rival.
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: 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?
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!
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
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
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*
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.
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.
@@tannerteddo 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
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
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
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 🙄
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
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 the biggest bruh moment I've ever seen
Literally lol
They just want the money
This comment deserves more upvotes
@@gheorghegeorgescu7846 facts my guy
“Life is a cruel teacher. She loves to give you the test first and the lesson later.” - Daymond John
‘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
"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
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.
"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"
“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.
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 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"
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 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.
This is the best example why UA-cam 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 UA-cam 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...
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
@@PieMan061 They don't have a choice. If they don't comply with a takedown/claim, they can be then sued. Why would they take any risk of being sued when there is nothing in it for them even if they end up winning? They'd at best break even, and that's pretty much an impossibility in American legal system, you don't get reimbursed for your time and effort, only costs if that. And that's not to consider the damages they would suffer if they lost, however minute that might be in a particular case.
Now, had it been YT's bot misidentifying stuff, you might sort of a have a point. While YT is sort of required to monitor content on their own, there is no specific legal requirement for them to be as zealous about it as they are.. I think, I'm not 100% sure. But when it comes to a manual claim/takedown, YT only stands to lose at rejecting them. So it is perfectly normal for them to not intervene and let the two sides fight it out among themselves.
DMCA is a piece of *beep* created by people who doesn't understand how the internet works and lobbied by the "companies". In an ideal world, the claimed party or the platform should be able to sue for cost and additional damages on a frivolous claim, then the platform would have an incentive to actually step in and regulate claims, as they could make some money off of it (on average).
The system for copyright claims is totally broken and they need to be held accountable.
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...
This is fine, everything is fine, copyright law is fine as it is, nothing to see here.
Signed,
UA-cam
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 UA-cam 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.
UA-camr: **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
To Warner: why on this goddamn universe would you ever backstab THE PERSON WHO WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU???
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.
"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
UA-camr: *defends Warner*
Warner: “So you have chosen... death”
Based
@@preperforated Based?
@@Bran_Flakesx7 yeah based?
@@Bran_Flakesx7 cool
@@preperforated What "Based"?
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.
*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.
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
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.
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.
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 UA-camrs 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. 😐
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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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?
the phrase "it really do be a bruh moment" works so well in this situation
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
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
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
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.
This is the most biggest and the weirdest betrayal of all time
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 UA-camrs 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
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.
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
Warner: "Someone help me! It's so hard to walk with this bullet hole in my foot"
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 UA-cam content creators.
Making only one side accountable (as it currently is) is a recipe for abuse.
@@DingDingTheUA-camBuddy
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 UA-cam 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:
ua-cam.com/video/ieErnZAN5Eo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Mz14Ul-r63w/v-deo.html
Wouldn't work, UA-cam 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?
This is insane, this sounds like a joke with how many layers of ridiculous this has in it
Sean Demers I first read this comment as “many lawyers of ridiculousness” and that seemed perfectly appropriate.
how many layers of irony are you on
like, maybe 5 or 6 right now, my dude
you are like a baby, watch this
SUCC
I feel like corporations do stupid things to their own detriment every other day these days, it's hard for me to be surprised...
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
Warner Music was like "Hey, thanks for having our backs on the whole Dark Horse thing. Now give me your lunch money"
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
I think these frivolous claims, like frivolous lawsuits, should be actionable. They caused actual harm by forcing you to deal with a fraudulent claim.
They are actionable, but the legal maneuver is expensive for a lot of people. A quick-counter-claims court to deal with these things, now with so many low-resource artists and creators, should be available to contest frivolous copyright claims.
@@gedalyahreback2133 Then these corp fuks will push the lawsuit all the way to supreme court, the whole time both sides pay to be there and the loser pays everyone back
@@JumboCod91 oh, sweet sweet summer child.
@@JumboCod91 yes, but will he be able to convince a lawyer to go against warner?
Lindsay Ellis has a video with Devin from LegalEagle on counter-claims.
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.
The music industry: "make profit not friends"
Former friends of the music industry: "well ok then"
This kinda reminds me of the time my dad pulled over to help someone who was just hit by a car and when the victim was asked to identify the car that hit him, he pointed to my dad’s car
Did another car hit him again?
@@zylve2520 Agreed
Hopefully your dad's car didn't coincidentally have damage on it that matched the other car's damage, so it should have been clear to the legal folks that it couldn't have been your dad.
Exactly
What a piece of dog shit , that "victim" is horrible
This is the same company that claimed every single one of Mumbo Jumbo's videos for like a 1 second clip of a non copyrighted song because the creator of the non copyrighted song used a fraction of a second long noise thats from another copyrighted song even know it's literally unnoticeable to the ear
which mumbo jumbo the Minecraft youtuber?
@@NekuroMC yes
Doesn't matter how long the sample was, a sample is still a sample.
@@BuzzaB77 actually it does matter
@@BuzzaB77 Actually the FTC begs to differ
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.
I have never forgotten about that video and 2 years later UA-cam recommends me a sequel.
"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
“Warner stole Joyful Noise”
“No I didn’t”
“Yes you did”
“Fine, but now I’m going to steal Joyful Noise again from someone else”
no joy FOR YOU
@@chronosschiron Sad noise.
@@TheGalacticWest
stop using any of there shit im getting sick of people that use stuff thats too simular or what not get original and drop it into content id and prob solved
1100 vids and no claims or strikes
have a nice day
@@chronosschiron what are you on about
@@TheGalacticWest
what are you on ?
The individual responsible for that claim should lose their job.
Jesus Christ what an embarrassment.
lose his job for doing his job ? it is stupid, but that is what his business tells him to do, when a fake claim is all it takes and there is zero repercutions why even care ?
Thank you. This $h*t-for-brainz employee needs to be assigned to the company mail route. Perhaps that would suit their skill set better. Zero competence.
This is absolute total incompetence. A call to the PR department should fix this fast. (Note - the company dropped their claim, probably after someone there was told about the terrible publicity)
@@toby-jeanne_almy You assume they actually work directly for the publisher. This crap is probably outsourced, like some Fiver gig.
@@crnkmnky 🤣🤣🤣 honestly.. that's probably the truth the way that business is running. Fivver law students running the case, and fivver $.50 hourly workers copyright claiming everyone. Gotta keep that coin!😂
Warner: This riff isn’t copyrighted material!
Also Warner: This riff is copyrighted material!
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
The music industry is bound and determined to kill itself. No one seems to know why.
LMAO,...fucking stop. Have you actually LISTENED to todays 'entertainers'? Pimps, drug dealers and pedophiles. ALL of them. "No one seems to know why?" They're criminals/whores and addicts first and foremost, not 'entertainers' but as a secondary source of income.
Because idiots keep pumping life into it. LET. IT. DIE.
@@walterhicks5520 That's because most of the newer talent has figured out that they can make a living at this on their own and aren't using big labels. What I don't understand is why the industry insists on trying to keep people from appreciating and being exposed to the older stuff when guys like Adam Neely and Rick Beato are using it for teaching purposes and in the process basically doing the best kind of promotion imaginable for the very product they're supposedly trying to sell. They've lost their minds. they deserve to go down but it's a shame that younger people aren't being exposed to some quality music because of these dinosaurs.
No way in hell itll kill itself. Maybe in your social bubble, but almost everyone else listens to new music and artists.
@@benjaminshields9421 LOL! My "social bubble"?It's got nothing to do with me. Do you realize how much the industry has diminished in sales since it's height in the late 90s? It's widely known. The information is out there. People working IN THE INDUSTRY acknowledge this and lament it, frequently.
I have patented and claimed every "A" note. You can't play an "A" even in a chord without paying me, also that is my frequency. I have a patent pending for the timing too :P
440 Hz or 432 Hz?
@@AussieCleetus 20hz - 20,000hz can be A
@@candle_eatist I hereby redefine all frequencies to the note A for purposes of this thread
And for money..... Yea that too
I have slightly detuned all of my guitar strings.
Warner: Hippity Hoppity
Every sound in the Universe is now my property.
"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!
DEAR UA-cam: Why a youtuber lost 100% of royalties IF the “copyright claim” is ONLY for 15 seconds of a 9 minute video ??? Here is an idea for you. EXAMPLE: IF 15 Seconds in a 9 minute video represent a 2.7% Then you should split the royalties of the video the same way. UA-camr retains 97.2% of royalties of his video and the “ company “ gets the 2.7% THAT IS FAIR RIGHT?
How does this comment only have 4 likes?!
@@LegoEddy Because 97.2 + 2.7 amount to 99.9, not 100. You're welcome ;-p
@@LornWandrr 0,1% goes to YT :P.
You're absolutely right. But you would have to use your brain and in corporations they have none :D ;). For them simple percentages are on the level of quantum physics equations, lol...
@@lastanetaarion that's way too oversimplified and you know that. It is not constructive for the discussion. I guess it may be that google was just forced by the licensors. They probably just said "either you give us 100% or we dont allow you do use any of our stuff"
So Warner is getting ad revenue for Joyful Noises's "melody?" He should sue them.
UA-cam holds the revenue for claimed videos and only gives the money the creator or claimant once the claim has been resolved one way or another. So Warner didn't make any money off this. It's another story if they claim it and disable adds, but that apparently didn't happen here.
there's an update in the comments
He doesn't hold the copyright for Joyful Noises -melody so that's not gonna happen.
Never 'take on' Big Companies.The proces could take years and years to resolve, and your pockets would be well empty.
They would most likely have about 20 Lawyers handling their case .
@@Lefers94 they actually do make money in the period that it's claimed since it's often 'resolved' before the creator can do anything. UA-cam favors the big companies and publishers so the creator only gets revenue from the point after which the video has been 'reclaimed'. To get the revenue from the claimed period back you would have to start legal actions and that's too expensive to be fruitful. That's how they make money. That's why there are whole companies that just claim thousands of videos every day on behalf of big publishers. Never underestimate the greed of big companies. Given the opportunity they will screw you over for a few bucks.
This has to be some intern trolling while the boss is having lunch
Anyone: *breaths*
Warner Chappell: “is that copyright infringement I hear?”
Brian mcdermott *i smell copyright*
Katy Perry breathed in our music video so we own the copyright!
Brian mcdermott you have a loicence for that oxygen?
Content used : Breathing
Content found during : 0:00 - 0:00
Copyright owners : Fucking Warner
Sounds a lot like you just sampled 4′33″ !
Writers dream of coming up with this amount of irony in a story.
As an aspiring author, that is 100% correct
You can't make this shit up XD
That's exactly why the music industry is completely dead. Honestly, this system is completely broken
rotten... indeed
Copyright law is such a scam. I've dealt with tons of phony claims like this before. It's absurd.
The whole copyright system in UA-cam is a complete disaster. The problem is, through fear of being responsible for even a single copyright violation through inaction, their policies and procedures guarantee this kind of nonsense.
And companies actually hire ppl whose duty is to abuse THIS system on UA-cam,c laim all the videos and fuck up ppl who are using those materials for fair use
The system has two purposes, and two purposes only: make google not have to waste money or time fighting rich people on court (i.e. people who can actually afford a proper legal battle with google), and assure google will never be even accused of being liable for anything should such a large player actually take them to court. Ensuring fairness or that all parties abide by the actual law isn't even on the list.
They probably pay someone minimum wage or a 3rd world country to file these claims,, then they make money off of it. They can't afford not to at least try and get that free money that others have worked so hard on : [
Google has a special relationship with Sony, Warner-Chappel et al.
You get carte blanche and we all get rich.
I'm waiting for the sequel to this when Warner Bros claims this video because you played "their melody" at 3:06 lmao
wrong warner but it makes this comment funnier
lmao warner bros
Doctor House It ain’t Warner Bros man, they don’t make music
"If you let the snake free, it will come back to bite you the next day." - Chinese Proverb
I think that chinese story about the farmer saving a snake life and it biting him fits more... Unless that's exactly the story that you are talking about
@@acccident3349 Fuckin' A
"Better to set the snake free, then wait for it to come back the next day, so you can bite it" +1 on snake mofo! - crazy UA-cam man
Another layer of irony: their confusion sort of buries your original defense (of them).
remember when mumbo jumbo got 400+ videos claimed for a 4 second clip at the start of each video he used with permission because it used a drum sample from warner?
Shit. This is getting out of hand.
Imagine playing some notes that sounds like David guetta's music.
And still get claimed. Even if you play it accidentally
technically warner was legally in the right, which in my opinion, highlights just how dumb the laws surrounding this are
Tom Scott briefly went over this in his copyright video. Basically, Warner was correct and they had the rights to the music, because the producer that Mumbo had asked permission for was actually sampling a song from Warner, so the permission that Mumbo had didn't have any validity and Warner has the copyright.
Actually, the person who produced the music had payed WC to use the sample in his song, then Mumbo payed the producer to use the song. So Mumbo had a legal right to use that sample in the context of the song and WC's claim was invalid.
But UA-cam's copyright system is so f**ked that WC doesn't need to do 5 minutes of research to make sure they didn't sell that sample before claiming all the ad revenue from 400+ videos they have no right to...
THE WANT THE MUMBOOO MONEEEEYYYYYYYY
Simple summary: Adam tried helped Warner. Instead of thanks he got stabbed in his back.
There is a spy among us
Et tu Brute
The movie "Natural Born Killers"
"look bitch, you knew I was a snake"
rioaji pangestu y
Hey boy it’s a spy
rioaji pangestu Hecking General Hux
so.. Katy Perry team is saying that in fact, they did infringe in Flame's copyright?
Holy
Yup, and they put it in writing.
legally they did maybe it was just an ironic thing to do also choosing the wrong "melody"
Well, considering the time frame flagged depicts Joyful Noise's melody and not Dark Horse. I think really what they're claiming is that Joyful Noise copied Dark Horse 6 years before Dark Horse was published. lol
@@enricosantini3154 don't use the word "ironic" because the Alanis Moriset's people will come and claim your comment too :D
"I never thought the company of face eating leopards would eat MY face!"
This "copyright strike" is clear evidence that Warner did infringe: they claim directly that the extremely short section you used to show the observation from the earlier work is part of their work; in other words they are admitting it was copied in to their work and reinforcing their defeat in the copyright lawsuit.
I hope you pointed this out to UA-cam.
You may not be worried about the loss of ad revenue, but corporations only look at one thing: money.
Corporations need to learn the meaning of "don't bit the hand that feed you."
Unfortunately, it is more than just copyright infringement now.
They have gained pecuniary advantage through false representation - they have gained your ad revenue (the pecuniary advantage) by claiming the section of your video which is from an earlier work as theirs (false representation with the copyright lawsuit loss showing it and this adding extra proof of that lawsuit loss and evidence against any appeal) - ie they have committed *FRAUD.*
I'm sure that is something the SEC would be interested in.
Oh, the SEC would probably LOVE to hear about this one
@FinalEvilElpis How is that not infringing? They literally just claimed that a part of a song they do not hold copyright to was theirs. It doesn't matter at all that they did so out of sheer incompetence, they still did it.
@FinalEvilElpis no matter what he says, the courts said that there was infringement, and the portion of the video cited for their claim was taken from joyful noise, which they DEFINITELY don't hold the rights to.
@FinalEvilElpis the court has decided that they did infringe the copyright so blatantly claiming that part of the video is already infringing the copyright
@FinalEvilElpis They infringed according to their own knowledge. If a person did what Warner Music Group did, it would be called perjury
Judge: attack Warner. Joyful Noise: attack Warner. Adam: Defends Warner. Warner: attacks Adam. Warner: attacks Warner.
Warner is confused! It hurt itself in its confusion!
@@Keznen
judge used perish song! everyone will now get sued in 3 turns!
this is easily the most sympathetically frustrated i’ve ever felt
x2
WOO I randomly found another Neely...
Edit: thanks for the vid, I liked it, keep up the good work. LOVE for the Music
The youtube copyright engine is designed apparently with the intent of promoting frivolous claims. I have had claims against classical music recordings for violating pop songs that stole from the classical work. I have had a copyright claim for a year 17xx single flute oeuvre with an arrangers claim. Just frivolous. I have also had claims against a horse show video that just had environtal noise where music happened to be reproduced good enough for a robot to recognize it. The principle I have learned is that if it is environmental and via microophone then it constitutes environmental noise and not music in copyrightable form. I have given up. If there is a claim, I remove the video to prevent them from posting ads in my uploaded videos.
Yep. I've been claimed for music somebody was playing in their apartment…100 feet away.
Twoset Violin did a video about Star Wars music which sounded like Korngold and other composers... and possibly should've been still under copyright. they laughed about it, that if they played the original piece, Disney might sue them for playing the copied music. ... for playing it.. themselves....
There's something strange when musicians have to fear playing music because of a corporation...
@@alansmithee419 I guess the claim didn't come from the person playing, but from the copyright holder to the song... which makes it really weird - can't record a video now my neighbor is practicing the piano...
@@dominikmuller5021 Yes, obviously it would come from the people who wrote the music the person was playing.
The point is it doesn't matter whether you put someone else's work in yours on purpose or by accident - it's still there either way and the same laws do and should apply.
Oh my. Let me get this straight musician plays a piece of classical music , the company holding the rights to the work of a pop artist who stole bits and pieces of that classical piece gets to file a copyright claim ; AND IT GETS APPROVED?! Wtf is that?
Honestly we should set up an independent musician's foundation and start copyrighting every single note. Oh you are a new rapper and your single has a G flat in it? How dare you steal other people's work... It also has an A? Outrageous... I hope there's no B in it.
This is going on every day, every second of the day. I got one copyright during my audio broadcast from Fox Sports of all people. They claimed the track of the Spin doctors - Two Princes. I filed an appeal against it and they dropped it a week later but even then, this makes very clear that every company is trying to get every cent for every part of a second. It's not about the music anymore, it's all about claiming the #%$% out of everything.
Record companies have always been about the money.
I uploaded a 30 second video which had footage from Ant Man, and Disney claimed it. Fair enough, Disney owns Marvel & I used their footage.
Except I always upload my videos as Private to begin with, and the claim was immediate - before I’d even made it viewable. How did they find my video to claim it?!
Disgusting. They are counting on their army of bottom-feeding lawyers to intimidate you into submission, knowing full well that there's no basis for their claim. And it is never about the music for these people.
@@joshuagrahambrown Most likely the automated Content Id system which is way overaggressive. Half the time it tries to claim my Pokemon Go videos because of background music at the mall where I play. After I beat their asses in the appeal, most companies have left me alone when I upload videos with background music now.
Worse, it shows them that it is very easy for them to waste small creator's time, which I consider to be an abuse of the system in itself. They can create a chilling effect for small content creators to participate in a platform that clearly spells the end of their business model.
This took the definition of "irony" to a whole new level.
Im glad you made the video. You should have, and you have our support. Keep up the great work, and keep us updated!
You should have posted this on the main channel. I know it’s not your “usual” content, but people need to know about this. Just as much as they need to know about the frivolous nature of these lawsuits.
I didn’t even realize this wasn’t the main channel until I read this comment lol
He doesnt want another copyright claim or possible strike on the main channel. It is probably smart to post it via this one instead.
@The Tired Horizon why would they?
exploshi Three (copyright) strikes and you’re out, on UA-cam. That’s why they call them strikes.
This is hilarious. Warner can't tell the difference between Joyful Noise and Dark Horse, the difference between fair use and infringement, the difference between an ally and a rival.
They can't tell their asshole from a broomstick. They're a bunch of corporate robots.
Yop, summa summarum:
Warner is Warner.
Snakes are snakes.
Don\t spread naive foolishness. Wake up.