Copyright Intimidation

[Idec Sdawkminn]

More than once I've had this happen. I don't remember if the previous ones were also from this company, but I'm thinking they were. In this case it was WMG. I get a claim on a video that prevents me from monetizing it and the claimant gets the ad revenue instead. I dispute it and instead of reinstating the claim like most of them, or releasing it like some of them, they release the claim and immediately put a new claim on it, blocking it worldwide. Each time it has happened exactly like this. It is like they are punishing me for disputing it. I know they can choose whatever penalty they wish for Content-ID matches, but changing the claim type to a block for people who dispute the original claim seems like they are trying to intimidate me into not disputing any of their claims. It is unprofessional at best.

I'm not asking for advice on what to do or anything. I've already disputed their "blocked" claim. I just wanted to complain. Any other examples of copyright intimidation any of you have experienced or heard of?

 

[AlexGotBeats]

Thats fair to me. You are using someone elses copyrighted content and trying to make money off of it? Cmoon. Some ppl are fine giving credit and not monetizing it but if you wanna make money off someone elses work thats just not right. I have signed up with a company to have my audio included in content ID so that i could do the same thing incase anyone wants to steal my stuff without permission or license. I'm glad theres such system made.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

Thats fair to me. You are using someone elses copyrighted content and trying to make money off of it? Cmoon. Some ppl are fine giving credit and not monetizing it but if you wanna make money off someone elses work thats just not right. I have signed up with a company to have my audio included in content ID so that i could do the same thing incase anyone wants to steal my stuff without permission or license. I'm glad theres such system made.

That's not the point. If they wanted to block any videos using their content, they'd block it worldwide from the beginning. If they wanted to make money from it, like by putting ads on it, they'd reinstate the claim. But in this case, they release the original claim and put a harsher one on just as a consequence of someone daring to challenge their claim. It's more of a retaliatory intimidation tactic. I'm not complaining about them claiming the content in my video. I'm complaining about the manner in which they are doing it.

 

[subversiveasset]

That's not the point. If they wanted to block any videos using their content, they'd block it worldwide from the beginning. If they wanted to make money from it, like by putting ads on it, they'd reinstate the claim. But in this case, they release the original claim and put a harsher one on just as a consequence of someone daring to challenge their claim. It's more of a retaliatory intimidation tactic. I'm not complaining about them claiming the content in my video. I'm complaining about the manner in which they are doing it.

but from their perspective, they are OK with doing ads, but when you dispute the claim, you're saying, you're not OK with letting it stay up with ads. Instead of suing, they decide to block instead.

I'd be very interested what happens after you challenge the new claim though...

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

but from their perspective, they are OK with doing ads, but when you dispute the claim, you're saying, you're not OK with letting it stay up with ads. Instead of suing, they decide to block instead.

I'd be very interested what happens after you challenge the new claim though...

I can understand this point and I'd agree, but they have the option of reinstating the claim if I dispute it. If they do, then I'd have to appeal and risk my video getting taken down. Someone is far less likely to appeal than they are to dispute. The way the system works accomodates this situation perfectly. Even if I appealed, they can just do the next step and have it taken down, giving me 7 days to cancel the appeal before the video is taken down, and I can never appeal it again if I do. That is by far the best way to keep ads on it. That method also gives them a lot more chance of making money from ads than the one they chose. And someone is more likely to dispute a "blocked" claim than an "ads" one, since they lose views from it. There's no way they can think that I'd be more okay with having my video blocked than with having them put ads on it, and there is no more risk to someone disputing a "blocked" claim than an "ads" one, so bypassing the normal process of the system by releasing the previous claim and then adding a new harsher claim can only be a punishment or retaliatory type of move.

Interestingly enough, they released the "blocked" claim less than an hour after I disputed it and there is currently no claim on it. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[Anjim]

I hate when that happen and it's under fair use too. I glad you got out of that situation