copyright or copywrong

I told you I’m going through a bristly period just now.

Geez! Just when I thought the previous post took me out of that zone, I came across a blog featuring YouTube videos of Beatles songs. The person who uploaded the videos on YouTube removed instrumentals from copyrighted works, producing an a capella effect. The boys sang like angels! Who knew?

It struck me, however, as an egregious violation of copyright law, even as modified. Google (which owns YouTube) took me to task for much less. It steamed me to see these Beatle videos. I left the following comment on the post. (I don’t think he violated copyright law by posting them from YouTube, but, just in case, I won’t name him and make the Copyright Polizei’s job easier.)

[I’m not paying fines or going to jail for this video! The soundtrack is new, attached from YouTube audio files! The video is reloaded in legally correct form!]

Wow! I accidentally recorded a little vintage Louis Armstrong on three short videos of my cat, Andy, when I made videos at the same time I was listening to a favorite CD. It looked and sounded cute, so I made the mistake of posting them on YouTube, thinking I “quoted” too short a section of each song to be in violation of copyright law. In retrospect, I didn’t adequately identify the music of copyright holder or meet the standards of the Creative Commons business.

Google sent me a severe notice about killing my children, confiscating all my wealth, and tossing me in front of a truck for my terrible violation of law and google (by way of YouTube) standards.

[This video, re-edited with new music downloaded from google audio files – i.e. “legal” music – also is a trifle not worth jail time with Bubba or a huge fine.]

I barely joke here. I was genuinely shocked and worried about my legal woes-to-be. I mean, remember when they sued schoolchildren who downloaded music off the Internet?

It’s videos like these that made me think it wasn’t wrong, however. I mean, I had snippets of music; these are complete copyrighted works, even as modified. Complete movies uploaded by individuals, not the known copyright holders, also confused the issue for me. Google applies the rule and laws selectively, apparently.

I was threatened with legal action even if I removed the three videos, banishment forever from YouTube, removal from their advertising scam-cum-moneymaking program (I don’t get enough views to ever trigger payouts), and deletion of all my account.

Frankly, it pisses me to see these videos on YouTube considering what I experienced. No, it makes me want to see a lawyer!

I re-edited the offending videos, and used Kevin MacLeod music I paid for that I profusely acknowledged both at the end of the videos and in the text under the video.

[This is the third video I re-edited with new music to show my desire to comply with copyright law. Thanks for the audio file, YouTube. It isn’t Louie Armstrong but it’s, well, music!]

I didn’t have to buy the music or do much more than acknowledge [its] source, using an acknowledgement shown on MacLeod’s website, but I decided google/YouTube needed to know I absolutely had authorization to the music, which I identified by name and the catalog number MacLeod uses.

This is from the file where I set up my video and YouTube "about" text. The box appears in both, but the lightning bolt is to remind why I'm doing this.

This is from the file where I set up my video and YouTube “about” text. The box I copy on the video and the “about” text box below the video, but the lightning bolt is to remind why I’m doing this.

The irony is that my CD collection is somewhere between 5000-6000 discs, bought and paid for by me except for exactly one CD I received as a gift. I think my support of artists and the companies that produce CDs is easily established. If the average paid per CD was even $10 (it was more, of course), I have a small fortune in CDs.

Of course, since this over-kill by google, I doubt I’ll ever pay another penny for a CD produced by the copyright holder. (It isn’t the Armstrong estate, as far as I know, but Sony.)

You might want to review your liability, if any, for re-posting these videos.

Google says I am evil. Maybe I am. I definitely have an attitude - now!

Google says I am evil. Maybe I am. I definitely have an attitude – now!

I seem to have settled the problem of my videos to google’s satisfaction because advertisements now appear on my videos again, though, as noted, there is no, NO benefit to me. Even when I use google’s audio files [now], I make sure the name of the music and artist appear below the video since (for reasons obscure to me) sometimes YouTube adds these acknowledgements…, but many times it does not.


Whew! Sometimes protection of copyrights results in something more like copywrongs. Just saying. LOL! (Just joking, google/YouTube. No, really. I wuv you! >smack~smack<)

Did I ever tell you what the late Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes said about lawyers in a trenchant saying that translates well into English? No? Well, the saying is a curse: "May you be surrounded by a hundred lawyers!" Gets my attention.