[chimi]

You and the GP should have both stopped before saying "It's theft." It's not theft, not even close.

You gave them the video and they said they do not want the video -- for whatever reason. You don't have a right to upload content to YouTube. You do have a right to your property, your video and music you've created. They didn't take it from you. They aren't making money on it and not paying you. You don't have a right to force YouTube to display and distribute that content on their website.

Imagine if Columbia records was forced to distribute any and all music sent to it on a demo tape. Columbia saying, "No, we won't distribute this" is not theft.

Columbia would be within their rights to say, "Your music sounds too much like Taylor Swift to us. Sorry. It's too big of a risk for us to distribute it."

That's exactly what YouTube is doing. They are saying, your music is too much of a risk for us to distribute based on our algorithms.

You can still go to Vimeo or soundcloud or build your own website to distribute your music, just like the aforementioned artist that sounds too much like Taylor Swift could go to Arista or upload it to youtube or or soundcloud.

[ubercow13]

Seems a bit more like you sending your tape to Colombia and them deciding to distribute it but give all proceeds to some other guy with no relation to your music.

ed: You’ve edited your comment but I was referring more to the GP case where they say

> And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it.

That is exactly Youtube making money on the video and not paying the owner

[chimi]

That's not what I understood when I read it the GP saying:

>And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it.

By "they," I think he meant: ASCAP, ICE_CS, not YouTube. The problem is that ASCAP, ICE_CS has claimed copyright to something, which they are right to do and that is their performance of the public domain work. Since it sounds like the same work that the GP uploaded, the GP's music was locked.

I am no fan of YouTube's profiting off copyrighted material, I think it's unethical, and in this instance I do not believe that is what they are doing. I believe they have written algorithms to prevent copyright infringement and it is over-fitting on the GP's works.

The GP said they are "claiming copyright on my music" but I don't see any evidence for that. I do see evidence that ASCAP, ICE_CS claim copyright on their performance of the same music as the GP.

Yes, the solution is to have a person in there to be smarter than the AI, but YouTube has said it's not worth it to them to do that and so I believe that is their right.

In this case, the GP's claim is that ASCAP, ICE_CS is doing something wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I think everyone here is doing something right and a bad thing has come from that.

Theft is wrong. There is no wrongdoing here.

[ubercow13]

My understanding is that Youtube will allow the supposed content owner to monetise your video. They can choose to let you keep it up as long as they get the advertising revenue from it.

[chimi]

I did edit to elaborate where I thought there was ambiguity.

Yes, I agree, if ASCAP, ICE_CS laid claim to the GP's work, then that needs to be fixed. I would suggest any money paid to ASCAP, ICE_CS for that video be returned to the GP, with interest paid by ASCAP, ICE_CS and perhaps some punitive damages so they don't make the same "mistake" again.

To be fair, or give the benefit of the doubt, this could be a Hanlon's Razor scenario where ASCAP, ICE_CS just doesn't understand how to do it right. Or they could be too heavy handed in which case the punitive damages should soften their hand.