Copyright claims of Thyagaraja songs by recording labels

[parivadini]

(mod note: Thread split of from http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22547 and merged with this thread)

We have faced issues with youtube on our Own Concerts!
Many of the songs have been copyrighted by many Record Labels and the IPRS is enforcing them
For example the Pacharamiah Varnam is copyrighted to Lahiri Music,so anyone singing it the bot triggers and says copyright material(the screen shots of this has been posted on our FB page).
We are not monetizing any content as of now,but if we did say run advertisements etc we are liable to be paying the entire money (ies) to the copyright owner. Parivadini intends to follow a flipped model on royalties (instead of we collecting and paying to the artists we will make the artist monetize his content and take a % fee) since we are on creative commons,all copyright of whatever we broadcast BELONGS to the respective artist(s) and it is their prerogative, if they wish to monetize it or not,if they want to we at Parivadini will help them in monetizing the content on various digital platforms (istores,amazon,youtube,nokia etc etc) and probably take a % of what the artists gets as a service fee so that our bandwidth bills and mortgages can be paid. We believe that this is the right long term model so that IPR is respected, artists get their rightful dues and probably a pension perpetuity for life!

Cheers

[rajeshnat]

Parivadini intends to follow a flipped model on royalties (instead of we collecting and paying to the artists we will make the artist monetize his content and take a % fee) since we are on creative commons,all copyright of whatever we broadcast BELONGS to the respective artist(s) and it is their prerogative, if they wish to monetize it or not,if they want to we at Parivadini will help them in monetizing the content on various digital platforms (istores,amazon,youtube,nokia etc etc) and probably take a % of what the artists gets as a service fee so that our bandwidth bills and mortgages can be paid. We believe that this is the right long term model so that IPR is respected and artists get their rightful dues and probably a pension perpetuity for life!

Cheers

Parivadini,
I like what you are saying , after all we cannot allow technology to triumph over raw music in the name of service . Just curious we have had lot of posts on this . I am assuming the ultimate owner of the content is the sabha and not the artist as the sabha only conducts and own the concert . I remember this discussion where harimau said this . So how are you going to determine to share the commercials only with the artists and not with the sabha.

[VijayR]

I like what you are saying , after all we cannot allow technology to triumph over raw music in the name of service . Just curious we have had lot of posts on this . I am assuming the ultimate owner of the content is the sabha and not the artist as the sabha only conducts and own the concert . I remember this discussion where harimau said this . So how are you going to determine to share the commercials only with the artists and not with the sabha.

Rajesh, in that thread, I had clarified this point… Unless there is an explicit written contract saying that the performance is made for hire, the sabha does not own any rights… It is the composers who have copyright and the performers who have performers rights.

[parivadini]

So how are you going to determine to share the commercials only with the artists and not with the sabha.

The IPR can belong to the sabha/organizer only if there is an explicit release document signed by the composer and/or the artist.This is how it is in most cases barring sporting events.

Cheers

[vasanthakokilam]

>For example the Pacharamiah Varnam is copyrighted to Lahiri Music

You mean the Bhairavi Viriboni varnam by Pacchimiriyam Adiyappa? If so, we have to do something about that.

[rshankar]

>For example the Pacharamiah Varnam is copyrighted to Lahiri Music

wonder which idiot awarded them the copyright, or perhaps Lahiri has a palm leaf which records the transfer of copyright from Adiappiah to them?

[parivadini]

Some claims where we threatened to sue there were releases,for a start up like ours it can be an expensive thing to take up the fight, have a very senior lawyer who works at Delhi and lives in Chennai,has been helping me out on gratis for a few of the notices,but unlikely that we can continue to do it. In most cases we acknowledge ownership so that atleast video is not pulled down. Sad,but true they have (or claim to have) LEGAL documents on the same.
I dont know how to post images here posting the FB Link

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =960%2C429
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =960%2C418

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =960%2C415
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =960%2C418

[parivadini]

And yes the Pacharamiah Varnam which we contested and our claim was refuted saying Lahiri Music had documentary evidence to effect that they OWNED (yes OWNED) the Varnam
Our Appel
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... permPage=1

The Claim Rejection
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... permPage=1

Cheers
Venkat

[rajeshnat]

Parivadini
By any chance is some body using a lahiri music as a cover shield and making all claims of copyright camouflaging their real identity.

[parivadini]

Parivadini
By any chance is some body using a lahiri music as a cover shield and making all claims of copyright camouflaging their real identity.

Claims are made by all record labels (As you can see in those FB images),the folks pretty aggressive on that front are Sa Re Ga Ma,Lahiri and the IPRS( Indian Performers Royalty Society http://www.iprs.org/cms/) is the enforcing agency,they have a team of executives whose yearly bonus is directly proportional to the amount they collect as royalties. Non Film music is their new opportunity sphere i guess.

The biggest irony was we were doing the launch function of our Documentary Nadhamum Nadhanum at the Chidambaram Temple,our broadcast was "TERMINATED" since there was a Namagiri pettai Nadaswaram at the Background being played in the evening,and our id was suspended for one month in October (Probably the reason for our delay and a lot of initial hiccups at start of the season!), the irony NAmagiri Pettai is the asthana vidwan of Chidambaram Temple and the song was Thillai Ambalam.
Cheers

[vichu1947]

Claims are made by all record labels

That is why I referred to them as vultures. I should upgrade my observation and call them "mafia"

Who knows, soon they will claim copyright over the saptha swaras

I think the only language they understand is piracy to counter their unethical claims - CD rip their commercial albums and upload to sites such as geetham.net and www.entelokam.com that are notorious for hosting commercial albums

[rshankar]

Parivadini (Venkat/Gamakam) - to echo Vasantakokilam's question - can we (the rasikas group) do anything to educate the legal system which grants patents and the Performers Royalty Society (http://www.iprs.org/cms/) which as I understand is the patent-enforcing authority about these 'bogus' claims? The claim that Lahiri 'OWNS' the bhairavi aTa tALa varNam (the very idea that something of such antiquity could be owned by anybody, let alone a recording company) should be egregious enough to get people riled up. At the very least, we should be able to understand how this 'OWNERSHIP' was established.

[Nick H]

Ravi, it is copyrights and performing rights that are the issues. Patents are an entirely different area of intelectual property.

[vasanthakokilam]

True that it is not patents but copyrights. Having said that, let us brainstorm what we can do about this. These claims sound ridiculous and not credible. May be there is some language in the legal system that they are exploiting as a loophole.

Venkat, I assume that this is youtube who is sending you these notices.

The interesting thing about all this is the one who is helping them with all this is an organization of performers. So says the name. Why is it ok to perform these varnams? Do all the performers get permission from Lahiri music?

May be Vijay can throw some light on this.

[rshankar]

Nick, as you can tell, my idea about legalese could fit on a pin-point (not even the head)! But jargon, and specific terms aside, can we do something?

[Nick H]

It seems to be an area in which it is thought worthwhile to just try it on, with bully tactics.

Excuse me for bringing in the P word, but one company of American lawyers has even been accused of uploading p++n, so that they could catch people downloading it, and sue them. It's a long story, but it seems that American courts are loosing patience with these trolls.

What is the period for which, in India, copyright exists in a song? It will be so many years after the death of the author. When I was doing this stuff with pictures, in UK, it was fifty years after the death of the artist.

As I have mentioned before, the fact that a song may be out of copyright does not mean that a performance of it is free of all rights but Parivadini are right in there with the performers and even the sabha authorities, and have permission to do what they do.

If a song is really out of copyright, and claims are made by someone that they own copyright in that song, I don't know what to do, except stand up to them. But the trolls rely on this being potentially scary and expensive.

What can be done? Get people informed as to the actual laws and their real scope. This can reduce the effect of vague and improper claims and threats.

[parivadini]

Today''s Pancharathna Kirthana - Baby Sriram & Sriram & RAF song has been tagged for violation.
It is OWNED by Saregama


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

And poor chap,was a uthavrithy brahamanan who died in penury!

Cheers

[parivadini]

60 years for author.
25 years for television broadcasts.
As a start up,trying to build an honest business model in which there can be a win-win for all stakeholders,really dont have the bandwidth to fight trolls.
Will sincerely appreciate any support on this.

Thanks
Venkat

[vasanthakokilam]

oh my, this is getting from bad to worse.

Here is the web site for Indian performing rights society.
http://www.iprs.org/cms/

They seem to be around from 1969 and is the sole agency through which licenses are issued, royalties collected and distributed.

May be performers and composers who have dealt with this organization can share their viewpoints on the current situation.

[vasanthakokilam]

http://www.iprs.org/cms/FAQs.aspx

The last FAQ refers to the 60 years rule. (though it is about translation or setting lyrics to music). So what these labels are doing seems to be not consistent with the iprs recognized limitations on copyright.

It is worth going through the materials at the iprs site. Look at the board of directors, there are some well known names. On the face of it, this looks like the labels are just using the iprs name to bully people. I am wondering if an appeal to iprs itself will put an end to this.

[parivadini]

This is a bit embarassing from my side,but if you think about it and what dictates consumerism makes sense!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1m3eL_f ... k/viewform

Thanks yet again! But I am glad at-least there is an escalation process in place!

Cheers
Venkat

[vasanthakokilam]

I have submitted my nomination for parivadini.

I also put in this statement

"It will even be better if channels of this type are not hassled by copy right owners to falsely bring about copyright notices through youtube for works that are from the 17th and 18th century. Something has to be done about this otherwise this budding channel will die since the carnatic classical music concert mainly consists of singing the works of composers of that era ( 1750-1850 )"

[Nick H]

I may be completely naive. Probably am. But what happens if you simply quote back to YouTube, Composer, Thiagaraja, died 1847, Copyright in both lyrics and melody public domain?

I suspect that, if this happens enough, someone at YoutTube starts to get the idea that claims from certain persons are garbage, and those people loose credibility?

[Nick H]

I have submitted my nomination for parivadini.

I also put in this statement

"It will even be better if channels of this type are not hassled by copy right owners to falsely bring about copyright notices through youtube for works that are from the 17th and 18th century. Something has to be done about this otherwise this budding channel will die since the carnatic classical music concert mainly consists of singing the works of composers of that era ( 1750-1850 )"

Me too. I also made the point that the channel is working with full co-operation of artists and venue management.

[parivadini]

I may be completely naive. Probably am. But what happens if you simply quote back to YouTube, Composer, Thiagaraja, died 1847, Copyright in both lyrics and melody public domain?
I suspect that, if this happens enough, someone at YoutTube starts to get the idea that claims from certain persons are garbage, and those people loose credibility?

The Precise argument we follow.
The real problem is the system here which lets you get away with even murder.(I dont want to get into politics now!!!)
Post 1991,as a country we have become richer in the wallet,poorer in the mind.
Hopefully things change!

Cheers

PS: Nidhi Chala Sukhama!!

[parivadini]

Me too. I also made the point that the channel is working with full co-operation of artists and venue management.

You can be sure about that. We give a mandatory declaration that reads as follows. Encourage that music collectors follow this as a best practice so that musicians don't crib about piracy.
---------------------
A document created by Team Parivadini and distributed to artists/organisers who are featured in the LIVE webcast of Parivadini.

1. All content on Parivadini is shown for the End user for FREE on platforms like youtube, ustream, livestream, facebook etc. This will remain for EVER FREE. The events covered in Dec 2013 on Parivadini are purely noncommercial in nature. All expenses towards the multicast are borne by Parivadini.
2. Parivadini follows the CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE FORMAThttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/,as artists who are being featured in these LIVE broadcasts it means that all the content which are published on Parivadini belong to the respective owner or creators or composers and Parivadini only does the job of distributing them at no cost to either the creator or the consumer.

3. Parivadini uses the following Internet Properties to distribute the artist’s content.

a. http://www.parivadini.tv
b. http://www.parivadini.in
c. http://www.Youtube.com/Parivadini
d. http://www.facebook.com
e. Livestream
f. Ustream


4. If you have any further clarification or doubt to be cleared on the same feel free to mail to [email protected] or to [email protected]




Concert Venue : Organizer :
Name of Artist/(s): Date:

-------------

We are trying to put a process in place for this, you can be sure that this will be put up on our blogs.

Cheers

[Nick H]

It really does seem that you guys are not only doing excellent work, but have attended, professionally, to all the odds and ends that many would not even have considered until those odds and ends started raining on their heads. Congratulations on this, and long may it last.

I hope that a handful of guys with video cameras and a small number of technicians do not end up having to be backed by a big legal department.

One more thing that I can think of that may be helpful is publicity. You could get some publicity for what you are doing in the cultural sections of our newspaper, and you could also get coverage of the threat to it.

Just a last thing... what do you do if a concert happens to contain works of living or recently-deceased composers? Do you spend every program with your fingers crossed that there will not be a thillana by BMK or LGJ?

[parivadini]

what do you do if a concert happens to contain works of living or recently-deceased composers? Do you spend every program with your fingers crossed that there will not be a thillana by BMK or LGJ?

Our Live Coverage of the Lalgudi Remembrance concert was flagged,the Lalgudi Thilana "belongs to" 2 entities apparently one called BMG and other is saregama. We did not do the last day of the sannidhi festival.
If we are not served a cease and desist, in future any concert that carries copyrighted material would be muted during the duration of copyrighted songs(we started it already where we know in advance -for eg in the Jayanthi Kumaresh demo we had to mute the part that had chitti babu's Rhythm Indiana being played from a CD)


Regards
Venkat

[askn]

This is an unfortunate consequence of Google/YouTube Content ID system a proprietary algorithm based system
If you are a content creator / owner , you can submit content to YouTube to have it under the content ID program. The files are scanned and a fingerprint reference file is created

Any new content that is uploaded to YouTube is also scanned and matched against the new file. The content owner would have defined policy on how to treat the new content as in monetize , block or track
If there is a pattern match , depending on the policy, certain actions are taken ( ref link ) If the policy is block is when and you get the notification

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual ... e-removals

The system might work for normal songs etc which are typically unique . but will fail for classical compositions where the underlying composition is the same and therefore the fingerprints would be identical.

What has probably happened that the fingerprint of an album released by the label has triggered a match with a rendition in the concert

Hope this helps in understanding the issue and helping you deal with it

[rshankar]

Askn, I do not think that is the case with the Bhairavi varNam - I'm still wondering what it takes an unconnected 3rd party to pee around such antique masterpieces to mark them as their own....

[Nick H]

...probably because they may be marking an issued CD, etc, as their own.

Please note, that even if copyright in a song has long since expired, there are still rights in a modern performance or recording.

So it may be that one of the videos is triggering a match to the same song on a CD. If this is the case, then the algorithm must be very weak to match different artist, different accompaniment, etc etc. I would have thought Google engineering could have done better than that.

Either that or (or perhaps as well) companies are blatantly claiming rights they do not own

[askn]

If wish to explore this

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/0 ... r-use.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_stewa ... right.html
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131 ... arol.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201208 ... cian.shtml

Content ID was built by Google to avoid getting sued by the music companies in the US and Hollywood and by design tilts the scale in that direction

[rshankar]

Nick - I understand that a particular rendition may be copyrighted, and along those lines, Lahiri may own the version that they have on their record, but not the varNam itself. If that is so, then everytime any artist performs it, at the very least they need Lahiri's permission.

[parivadini]

There are 3 steps
1. First there is trigger warning when the pattern matches and the broadcaster is warned
User is then sent a notice.
2. The user can then dispute (which i did) in which case the reasoning has to be explained - for eg this time it was a varnam in public domain since it is more than 60 years since death of composer,30 days time is given for the respondent
3. In our case some of them accepted the dispute and released their claim(small labels,chennai based folks etc).It is these big labels which claim they OWN and submit documents to the effect to youtube that THEY OWN and youtube then turns down the dispute and reinstates the claim.

We were initially naive enough to believe that it was a bot triggered mistake,its only later when I started research i realised that the whole music business has been essentially driven by a mafia (as it was said earlier),there have been cases like T-Series where the guy was actually bumped since he disrupted the existing order!

Lets face it SaReGaMa made Rs. 14,976.08Lakhs ($300 mln) in 2012 Rs. 8100 lakhs was from Internet and aprox 15 crores (4mln) was from youtube adrevenues!
You cant do much if they own it other than muting the song during the kutcheris I guess!
What SaReGaMa is doing is what I WAS TAUGHT at my European MBA in my business school to do as a Manager - Creating Entry barriers to prevent disruptive start up's! They cant be blamed!

Cheers
Venkat


PS: If the question we are going to address is HOW THE HELL can they own it ? then its completely a different thing!

[parivadini]

If that is so, then everytime any artist performs it, at the very least they need Lahiri's permission.

Yes,that is their claim.If they own the song,Performers(or organizers or broadcasters or customer or whoever) have to "PAY" to the "owner",apparently and this is enforced by the IPRS - The rates chargable are different for different segment as put up on their website http://www.iprs.org/cms/Tariffs.aspx
The sad part is how do these people claim ownership or have managed to get a document to that effect and youtube accepting it.
I am not even discussing the horror stories with other digital platforms, barring iTunes which is pretty straight forward as long as you have a US Tax -ID everything else is a bit scary. IF I was a top 10 singer and i viewed the digital content as a probable source of income/perpetuity, I will ring an alarm bell for sure. Of course at Parivadini we are just about 2 months old operationally and 6 months into planning and realise that this is a marathon and not just a single season sprint.

Cheers

PS: Even if you are Singing it on a Pavement with a mic - there is a tarrif applicable - I am not making up this it is here http://www.iprs.org/cms/Tariffs/TariffD ... am_page=32

[Nick H]

Where the song is genuinely in copyright it is really not unreasonable that there should be a fee for its performance. It's just that the carnatic music world has ignored this, and, it seems, the contemporary composers have been content with that.

Your posts and askn's links, especially to the EFF page, have explained a great deal about how this works and what people are up against. askn, I haven't got to your second batch of links yet.

Can the EFF be an ally to parivadini?

[rshankar]

PS: If the question we are going to address is HOW THE HELL can they own it ? then its completely a different thing!

Yes, exactly...and a corollary - HOW THE HELL CAN WE MAKE THEM UN-OWN IT?

[rshankar]

Yes,that is their claim.If they own the song,Performers(or organizers or broadcasters or customer or whoever) have to "PAY" to the "owner",apparently and this is enforced by the IPRS - The rates chargable are different for different segment as put up on their website

If people have to pay to sing viribONi, my prediction is that it will become 'extinct'...especially, if they have to pay a record label that had next to nothing to do with it.

[vasanthakokilam]

I am quite tempted to do this. I can scratch my way through Viriboni and post the recording to youtube and see if I get a notice. That will be something and I will wear that badge with pride!! I can't think of a better endorsement of my music making skills ..

[vasanthakokilam]

Nick, since you are taking the initiative to read all those links, please read through them and educate us as to how they got to 'own' this varnam and the pancha ratna krithis and as Ravi aptly asked 'how to make them un-own it'.

One such method I can think of is to create a crisis which leads to an outcry. And one such occasion would be to upload to youtube the group rendition of pancharatna krithis in Tiruvayyaru this year. Oh, how I wish these recording companies want to own it and take that down! We can make a lot of hay out of it which is what is needed to socialize this nonsense in a wider scale.

[Nick H]

Venkat has told us that he has a friendly lawyer: I think friendly lawyers are worth far more than us all scratching our heads over the links.

But we should see those links, and I recommend them to everybody. Perhaps we don't need to know about Google's algorithms, but we do need to know, at least broadly, about the copyright issues.

My personal thoughts so far are 1. to get the press interested (press, classical music, I suppose that means The Hindu) and 2.... resolution of the legal issues will mean a test case.

Aren't there a whole load of advocates, and even judges, who are rasikas? Where are they now? Keeping their heads down because this is too much like work? I sympathise, but perhaps this is the hour of need....

Oh, wait... going back to post 1, I see this all started at the Music Academy. Perhaps some personal appeals to those named and pictured might bear fruit.

[parivadini]

Venkat has told us that he has a friendly lawyer:

Was more like help to make replies,disclosure etc,not sure if he can take it up as a case. But that asides we are looking around.

Perhaps we don't need to know about Google's algorithms, but we do need to know, at least broadly, about the copyright issues

It is actually very interesting,built on machine learning and such that it becomes smarter on a day to day basis(the issues we are facing might be early days and thats why folks exploiting them) - There are a couple of model's there is one of NYU/Courant which is the most popular one. (Google Mohri Music Match)

Have been receiving a lot of suggestions on other forums,the most often one is go on media and social media

Cheers

[vasanthakokilam]

I know Jaya TV asked rasikas to take down the youtube uploads of their programs through youtube, but these labels would have had to deal with Jaya TV since Jaya TV's upload of Margazhi mahotsavam would have contained songs of thyagaraja as well. ( makes me sick to the stomach to even think about this utter nonsense of labels owning Trinity's compositions, yikes! But we have to do what we have to do to clear out the stench, holding our nose ).

Venkat, as a fellow broadcaster or otherwise, do you have a contact with Jaya TV, especially Subashree? If so, can you check with her if they are dealing with it also. She used to post here but not recently. I know she is active on social media, so that may an avenue to ask her about it.

[SrinathK]

It's really disturbing to hear about labels claiming varnams and krithis (long since in public domain no less ) as their intellectual property. me it smells as though the big labels are bent on getting rid of all these free recordings altogether, knowing how difficult it will be to contest these claims of owning compositions -- even if blatantly wrong. Their aim would be to target youtube, webcasts and probably even sangeethapriya sangeethamshare in the long run. If this trend is allowed to continue it will leave us with no other choice but to listen to their albums. They might even start forcing artistes to pay them every time that Bhairavi varnam is performed.

In trying to curb music piracy, they are going to the other extreme altogether claiming composer's works as theirs -- illegal and unethical. Contemporary composers might have to copyright their works before bringing them out or else they may lose the rights to their own work. Gives me the creeps as to what other forms this bullying may take. I hope that this issue can be clearly brought out in the media and we rasikas will take it to the social networks.

[askn]

probably even sangeethapriya sangeethamshare in the long run.

90% of what is on sangeethapriya sangeethamshare is unauthorised anyway ) ) )

[parivadini]

Venkat, as a fellow broadcaster or otherwise, do you have a contact with Jaya TV, especially Subashree? If so, can you check with her if they are dealing with it also. She used to post here but not recently. I know she is active on social media, so that may an avenue to ask her about it.

Jaya TV (shubashree maximum media), owns the content,and when they dispute they can claim the same.

Regards

[eesha]

I have submitted my nomination for parivadini.

I too have submitted my nomination for parivadini and have written similar to what vasanthakokilam has written

[samarasaa]

Hello all,

Are forum members aware of a this development on You Tube where recording companies "OWN" carnatic songs? While every recording company has every right to claim copyrights on a specific artist's rendering of a song that is produced by that company, how can they stake claim to Thyagaraja's Pancharatna Krithis or that of Purandara Dasa etc etc?

Narrating some incidents that are causing me great concern. A friend began a mammoth project to upload rare concert recordings (note - not belonging to any company) of MDR on You Tube. MDR's son could be the only person to object possibly but I understand he will not. You Tube claimed that EMI Corp held copyrights for some of the krithis - it was confirmed that none of the uploads were from copyrighted concerts produced by EMI.

Within a few days, another friend posted that an upload of a season concert video to You Tube (recorded with artist and sabha permissions) received the following message : "Your video may include a song owned by a third party.... Kanakanaruchira (Varali) a musical composition administered by Saregama Indian Performing Rights Society"

I also heard that instead of requesting several folks who had posted Jaya TV MMU videos to remove them, these folks lost their Your Tube channels and thousands of other content which may not even be copyrighted.

I found the thought that any recording company can claim ownership to compositions of the Trinity preposterous!!

How can this be addressed? Is it possibly You Tube or Sound Cloud (similar messages sent here as well) not understanding the context of Carnatic Music? I returned to rasikas.org recently and apologize if this discussion already exists somewhere - a quick search did not throw up results so I went ahead and started this thread - admins please merge if already discussed.

[Rsachi]

Samarasaa,
Let me tell you what I think/know.
Channels or services like YouTube and Soundcloud have copyright protection clauses to prevent piracy.
They also employ technologies to map tags of any track someone uploads with the copyrighted tracks with tags provided by major recording labels like EMI/Saregama. In case your upload tag matches some or all of their database tags, they send you a warning on the lines you quoted. They can also compare actual music content using software like Shazam. They will remove tracks which are matches to their DB.

The situation with JayaTV is an actual case of piracy as reported by JayaTV. That is the reason they have removed some accounts accused by JayaTV of piracy.
I think if you take up with YouTube that MDR tracks are your own private recordings and not commercial labels, I think they will restore your uploads.
Others may educate us on these and any more issues.
Bottom line: YouTube may no longer be an easy medium to share your music unless you tag the tracks uniquely. I have also heard You Tube will start charging for uploads.

[parivadini]

Hello all,


Narrating some incidents that are causing me great concern. A friend began a mammoth project to upload rare concert recordings (note - not belonging to any company) of MDR on You Tube. MDR's son could be the only person to object possibly but I understand he will not.

Balaji Ramnathan is my classmate from P.S and based now out of Tennese,we have long got his permission for many concerts on parivadini and have shared them,as long as there is no commercial element in it I am sure he will not object. You can ping him here https://www.facebook.com/mdrbalaji?fref=ts

Venkat