Copyright shocker by SaReGaMa on my renditions

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 13 Oct 2014, 19:57

That is a good idea. I will do that saralavarisai.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 13 Oct 2014, 20:31

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Oct 2014, 05:12

VKR, I have merged all the different copyright shocker threads into one. Please post anything on this topic to this thread and not a new thread, so we keep them all in one place.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Oct 2014, 05:29

VK RAMAN wrote:the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "chEtaha Sri Ramam"
the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "Ranga baro panduranga baro l - sindhu bairavi - purandaradasa"
the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "entamuddO enta sogasO evarivalla varNimpa. rAgA: bindumAlini. tALA: Adi"

We cannot succumb to these record labels.

VKR, this is good to see. This again adds more weight to my hypothesis.

We have blamed the labels and the copyright granting organization and the like. But from what I have researched so far, this type of flagging of videos done by the Google algorithm are all false positives. It is lot more work for Sarigama to go through all these videos that are flagged by the Google algorithm and release the ones that are false positives. They pretty much said that in their reply to Venkat.

We are not the only one. The internet is full of stories of such things caused by Google and the fraudsters who exploit the limitations of the Google procedures to make money illegally. These are not even the main record labels. In short it is a big mess and Google's attempt to protect themselves using technology is not quite working out well. Given that this is causing wasteful effort for the labels, the labels should work with label to eliminate these false positives.

So until this is rectified by Google, do not freak out and follow the appeals process set up by Google. The one major issue with their process that can have dire consequences for those whose business depends on google is the 'three strikes you are out' rule. I can see that happening with all these nonsense flagging by Google which floods the labels who can take the easy way out and not review and release them. You can fight with them on it but Google will get out of the middle of that fight by deactivating the youtube account.

This is how I see it based on what I read about the experiences of hundreds of people who have gone through this nightmare. Please feel free to shoot holes in my hypothesis but please provide some data while you do that. The objective is to understand clearly what is going on.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 14 Oct 2014, 16:51

Google/Yahoo could drop the whole thing. and probably would, but the record labels would not allow it.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 14 Oct 2014, 18:42

Video title: kaiththala niRaikani appamodu avalpori kappiya karimugan - arunagirinadhar - VK RAMAN
Copyrighted song: Kaithala Nirai Kani
Claimed by: saregama

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Oct 2014, 21:39

Nick H wrote:Google/Yahoo could drop the whole thing. and probably would, but the record labels would not allow it.

While that is definitely true, I can't see why the labels would not want an improvement in the Google algorithm so they do not have to do all this extra work of releasing all these false positive claims. This is a case where it does not serve the purposes of any of the three parties involved. But I do see the point that given a choice between not having any enforcement vs this mess, they will choose this mess.

balakk · Post by **balakk** » 15 Oct 2014, 09:02

Couple of interesting articles on this:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/who-owns-thyagaraja/

Legal angle:
http://blogs.swarajyamag.com/2014/10/13 ... gal-angle/

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 15 Oct 2014, 15:16

balakk wrote:Couple of interesting articles on this:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/who-owns-thyagaraja/

The author has the common misunderstandings and makes the regular mistakes.

Legal angle:
http://blogs.swarajyamag.com/2014/10/13 ... gal-angle/

Ahhh... that's better! :-BD

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 15 Oct 2014, 18:52

A few more of stupidity in claiming copyright to my rendition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WhqRTDLH1c
rama nannu brovara – tyaagaraja kriti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uEwIWJwQDQ
bantu reeti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmVc_Phxa44
tava daasoham

Thank you Nick for the link.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 15 Oct 2014, 19:18

Thanks are due to balakk: I was quoting his previous post

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 16 Oct 2014, 18:37

Rama Nannu brovara, Bantu Reeti and Tava daasoham all released by youtube from any restriction or condition. Why make fraudulent claim and then waive SaReGaMa?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 16 Oct 2014, 23:20

>Why make fraudulent claim and then waive SaReGaMa?

VKR, I do not think the labels are making any claim specifically on your recording, fraudulent or otherwise. The google algorithm analyzes your audio and creates an audio signature and matches it against the database of audio signatures it has. And it matched one or more of the signatures of the audio recordings that SaReGaMa had submitted to Google. Google algorithm automatically sends the claim to both you and the label. The labels are supposed to go through all this, sort out the legitimate claims from the false ones and release the false ones.

This is what I understand to be happening. There are still a few holes in the above hypothesis. One of them being, how come the algorithm can match such drastically different recordings but can not tell the two apart? I know there are technical reasons for why that can be. There is always a balance to strike between the true positives and false positives. If they set it up to have too few a false positive, then the probability is higher it will miss some true positives. But it is surprising that the algorithm is set up to have that many false positives (so they do not miss the true positives) in spite of all the internet wide complaint and outrage.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 16 Oct 2014, 23:47

I believe SaReGaMa should also be clear to Youtube that they hold copyright to the audios of MSS...etc....etc. and not to the lyrics or to the tunes; any one duplicating audio or videoof such artists for gainful purpose will be prosecuted. So SaReGaMa will have to take responsibility for that as google is not able to put their algorithm analysis properly.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 17 Oct 2014, 01:35

That is a very good point VKR. I am not really sure what is going on there. From what is known publicly, the various copyright holders ( for the recording, for the lyrics etc. ) can indeed lay a claim on it with Google but the automatic mechanism itself works only with audio recordings submitted by the labels. So it looks like, when a video is flagged thorough audio print match, all the claimants on that piece of work are informed by Google. So for example, if someone makes a cover of a copyrighted item, the algorithm does detect it and the various parties can make a claim on it.

From what Saregama mentioned to Venkat, it did not look like they are claiming any copyrights on the composition itself. I know such claims are what irks us all the most( though during the season last year when this whole issue broke out, there were implications of someone claiming or even holding copyright on a thyagaraja composition or two. We have not heard any such claims of that sort recently. Venkat can confirm ).

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 17 Oct 2014, 07:18

VK RAMAN wrote:I believe SaReGaMa should also be clear to Youtube that they hold copyright to the audios of MSS...etc....etc. and not to the lyrics or to the tunes; any one duplicating audio or videoof such artists for gainful purpose will be prosecuted. So SaReGaMa will have to take responsibility for that as google is not able to put their algorithm analysis properly.

That means, suppose MS is alive now, her another rendition of the same kRti can be flagged? No, it should include the artist also. A recording should be copyrighted only for that particular rendition - kRti, rAga, artist, accompanists are all to be excluded. That means only the venue? Suppose the same venue is used with the same artist and with same acommpaniments? How to define this is the nagging question.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 17 Oct 2014, 07:36

perhaps a program for voice recognition for each song might another idea.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 17 Oct 2014, 10:37

Principles of Cryptography can come to our rescue in regard to copy-righting. For example, every cryptogram - or crypt version of plain language text - has a specific identity called 'key'. These keys can be one-time (really!) or recurring. Such one time keys are further concealed by way of numbering and communicated within a privileged circle to enable high security military and diplomatic communications. On the other hand, recurring keys are, spot generated, and transmitted (or broadcast) to the recipient as part of the cryptogram, to indicate the starting point of the key sequence used for encrypting the text. This principle applies to both public and private key cryptography. Therefore, though, practically, the same crypt-sequence can repeat with different keys; but if the crypt and keys are same, then it is a duplicate.

Applying these principles, every recording which is sought to be copy-righted should have a digital sequence super-imposed. If the digital sequence (of the tested version) results in a match, then, if the key also is same, it should be declared a duplicate; otherwise, not.

I have already posted one instance of Giri Traders copy-righting 'lalitA sahasranAma'. Now, what they can, at best, claim is the authorship for the printed version encompassing the page set-up, font etc., so that the book cannot be Xeroxed. And if Xeroxed, the Xeroxed version can be compared with original and declared duplicate or otherwise.

Music copy-righting could have similar arrangement for disabling duplication only and nothing more.

Who will bell the cat? and who (all) is/are the cat(s)?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 17 Oct 2014, 18:45

Video title: baso mere nainan mein nandlal - VK Raman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... PyySKz_zk8
Copyrighted song: Baso More
Claimed by: saregama
Video title: mErE giridara gOpala
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... sKlMl1Rvmc
Copyrighted song: Mere To Giridhar#.
Claimed by: saregama

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 21 Oct 2014, 19:25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzUqgcB1zNY
tU dayAlu dIn haun-tU dAni haun bhikhArI - Tulsidas - VK Raman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 8rOiAKf3K4
yasoda hari palane julave – surdas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kNMx1E#t=0
beet gaye din bhajan bina re - Sant Kabir

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... RhLLBm3lG0
Na Mein Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi Na Mein Jati Na Kaami Ho - kabirdas - VK

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 21 Oct 2014, 22:11

VKR, as you have done before, please post which ones Sarigama is releasing by themselves with and without any appeals from you. Those will be good data points.

VGV, I think I understand what you are saying. I think there is a lot of merit there. Unfortunately, the problem is one of backward compatibility. If they embed the key with the music, all the existing music players may not be able to play them. But, may be the music industry ( the entertainment industry in general ) need to think through this as a solution in the long run ( say in the next 10 years ) and work out a standard with all the parties concerned, including encoders/decoders (e.g. mp3), the various music players both software and hardware etc. The Digital Rights Management stuff that they tried did not work at least for music. But that is a solution to a different problem. If I understood what you proposing correctly, this is not intended to prevent anyone from copying or playing but embed something that is not removable so it can be detected by anyone if it is a copy or not.

But an equivalent solution already exists. It is the kind of algorithms that companies like Shazam uses. Shazam can now detect what a sample of commercial music is in less than 4 seconds. Their database of songs is now in the 20 million range.

So why can't Google use such an algorithm? The achilles heel is 'Covers'. If someone sings a work that is copyrighted by someone else, then the author/composer needs to get paid. Here is a case it is not a digital replica. Google algorithm is designed to detect those as well. That is why they can not implement an algorithm like Shazam but need to go beyond. But in trying to do that, they run into this silliness of flagging VKR's renditions of Surdas and Kabir.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 22 Oct 2014, 19:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... bJbTn9aYRU
Video title: Shriramachandra kripalu bhaju man haran bhavabhai darunam - VK Raman
Copyrighted song: Shri Ramchandra Kripalu Bhaj
Claimed by: saregama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... WZtCiPlhE0
PREMA MUDITA MANASE KAHO, RAAMA RAAMA RAAM
Copyrighted song: Prem Mudit-Man Se Kaho
Claimed by: saregama

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 26 Oct 2014, 08:25

vasanthakokilam wrote:VKR, as you have done before, please post which ones Sarigama is releasing by themselves with and without any appeals from you. Those will be good data points.

VGV, I think I understand what you are saying. I think there is a lot of merit there. Unfortunately, the problem is one of backward compatibility. If they embed the key with the music, all the existing music players may not be able to play them.
So why can't Google use such an algorithm? The achilles heel is 'Covers'. If someone sings a work that is copyrighted by someone else, then the author/composer needs to get paid. Here is a case it is not a digital replica. Google algorithm is designed to detect those as well. That is why they can not implement an algorithm like Shazam but need to go beyond. But in trying to do that, they run into this silliness of flagging VKR's renditions of Surdas and Kabir.

This is indeed a tough problem.There could be huge technology upside for the person who solves this.
The only hope with google is that they can only become better over time since that is the way positive feedback externalities works.The small but efficent way one could contribute on this is to leave what is called "pug marks".i.e If it is on social media like(or unlike),comment,share since that would help in a social ranking. The way content is heading more than the creator of the content,the people helping to organize it will be winners(so making your playlist etc).

Cheers
Venkat

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 27 Oct 2014, 23:36

One of the members said do not blame Saregama - what do you say now:
After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: Na Mein Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi Na Mein Jati Na Kaami Ho - kabirdas - VK Raman
Copyrighted song: Na Main Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi
Claimed by: saregama
Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: beet gaye din bhajan bina re - Sant Kabir
Copyrighted song: Beet Gaye Din Bhajan Bina Re
Claimed by: saregama

Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: jasoda hari paalane jhulawe - Surdas - vkraman
Copyrighted song: Jasoda Hari Palne Jhulawe
Claimed by: saregama
Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.

Is it the label company doing or youtube doing? Is there anyone who can help. I do not need a strike from youtube.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Oct 2014, 23:43

VKR, you may be referring to me as the member who said not to blame Sarigama. While my thinking was not to absolve Sarigama of the blame but more of an attempt to understand the process involved, I can see how it can be perceived that way.

Be that as it may, it is good you are sharing the further developments on this ongoing saga.

This is ridiculous indeed. Here we have a clear case of a label claiming copyright on Kabir and Surdas. So yes, it is the label company's doing.

Let us look at one more angle. Is the tune that is used by you originally conceived for that recording? In case you know.

What is the work flow now? Can you ask Sarigama for a clarification?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 27 Oct 2014, 23:59

I wrote the following to Saregama through their official website feedback page:

I received the following message from Youtube that I violated your copy rights:

After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: Na Mein Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi Na Mein Jati Na Kaami Ho - kabirdas - VK Raman
Copyrighted song: Na Main Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi
Claimed by: saregama
Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: beet gaye din bhajan bina re - Sant Kabir
Copyrighted song: Beet Gaye Din Bhajan Bina Re
Claimed by: saregama

Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
After reviewing your dispute, saregama has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Video title: jasoda hari paalane jhulawe - Surdas - vkraman
Copyrighted song: Jasoda Hari Palne Jhulawe
Claimed by: saregama
Why this can happen
• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.
• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
I am an independent singer and I use sruthibox and my voice in singing Surdas, Kabirdas, tulsidas, tyagaraja, etc etc and I have up loaded 910 plus videos on youtube. I am 71 years old and why should I be put on hold on my own recording. I have attached any of your videos or audios. All I have done is to use public domain materials and sing in my own way to popularize hindu devotional songs. I request you to waive your right to copyright songs that I have videoed and uploaded on youtube. Thanks for your help.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 30 Oct 2014, 20:36

Hariguna gavat naachungi - meerA bhajan Saregama claiming copy right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC5fPjVEWxk

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 05 Nov 2014, 19:25

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "hariharaputram shAstAram sadA bhajEham - Dikshitar - Vasantham - VK Raman"

copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "enta vEDukondu - tyagaraja - VK Raman"

copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "agrE pasyAmi thEjO - maargazhith thingaL madhi niRaindha nannaaLaal - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "gajavadana karuNA sadana shankara bAlA lambOdara sundara - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "ennEramum un nAmam Raga: pUrvikalyANi / Tala: mishra cApu -- Shyama Sastri"

Saregama is getting there and we see the light

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 10 Nov 2014, 21:04

SaReGaMa has finally released their claim for all disputed renditions:

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "hariguNa gAvat - meera bhajan - hansAnandi - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "PREMA MUDITA MANASE KAHO, RAAMA RAAMA RAAM"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "Shriramachandra kripalu bhaju man haran bhavabhai darunam - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "Chalo man Ganga Jamuna teer - meera bhai - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "baso mere nainan mein nandlal - VK Raman"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "mErE giridara gOpala"

the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "tU dayAlu dIn haun-tU dAni haun bhikhArI - Tulsidas - VK Raman"

copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "kaiththala niRaikani appamodu avalpori kappiya karimugan - arunagirinadhar - VK RAMAN"

copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "KAITHTHALA NIRAI KANI - thirupughazh"

copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by saregama.
Video title: "Kanaka sabhapathikku, namaskaram pannadi penne - VK Raman"

Thanks to everyone for their help and suggestions to tide over this.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 10 Nov 2014, 21:27

Thanks VKRaman for the update. So it looks like our hypothesis about the underlying causes with Google algorithm's false positives being the main one seems to be holding up.

There are still a few questions that are unresolved in my mind but that is for another day.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 10 Nov 2014, 21:52

VK RAMAN wrote:SaReGaMa has finally released their claim for all disputed renditions:

Congratulations, but how much better if they had never caused you all this stress. Suing them for causing "mental anguish" would be nice, but we all know, worldwide, that suits are never to the advantage of the small guy because the big guy has all the lawyers in the world, all the time in the world to drag it out and exhaust the cash of the small guy, and all the patience in the world. It's not fair!

Hmmm... I wonder if Mr Traffic Ramaswamy has any interest in copyright?

Or Subramanian Swamy?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 10 Nov 2014, 23:24

Nick, I was also thinking in that direction. There has to be some law that considers someone claiming your property as theirs as (at least) a misdemeanor. Especially if they do it consistently. Some tactic like that will also make Google take notice since they are co-conspirators in this. I do not think they have looked at the other side of the legal liability seriously enough.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 11 Nov 2014, 01:20

vasanthakokilam wrote:Nick, I was also thinking in that direction. There has to be some law that considers someone claiming your property as theirs as (at least) a misdemeanor. Especially if they do it consistently. Some tactic like that will also make Google take notice since they are co-conspirators in this. I do not think they have looked at the other side of the legal liability seriously enough.

Wishful thinking, fellas... Go read the "Terms of Service" for YouTube carefully, in particular the "Limitation of Liabilities" and "Indemnity" sections. By using the service, you have agreed to those... This is the standard con that most websites resort to. Anything that falls into the grey area gets dumped in the terms of service, which you have to agree to if you want to use the site and service.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 11 Nov 2014, 02:11

VK, about that law, I have no idea. I long-since learnt that the people who say, "I know my rights," usually don't, and the people who make assumptions about what they consider to be right, logical, obvious, etc, in law, are also often wrong. To find out, we have to go to the law itself.

VijarR, I suspect (but see para 1, which means I'm probably wrong!) that no action would be possible against Youtube, but that it might be possible against SaReGaMa/etc. Unless the Youtube TOS protects third parties too. And, if it does, would that be an unfair contract term. And which country's law are we looking at anyway?

From the moral/ethical standpoint, it seems utterly wrong that SaReGaMa is walking over people like VK Raman in this way. It is no fun being an activist, though. I'm sure VK Raman would rather spend time singing.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 11 Nov 2014, 03:01

Nick H wrote: ...
VijarR, I suspect (but see para 1, which means I'm probably wrong!) that no action would be possible against Youtube, but that it might be possible against SaReGaMa/etc. Unless the Youtube TOS protects third parties too. And, if it does, would that be an unfair contract term. And which country's law are we looking at anyway?
...

Spot on... My response was only meant for the part from VK's post that talked about Google taking notice since they are a co-conspirator. YouTube and Google are not the people to go after here... It is, as you correctly put it, SaReGaMa and the music labels who claim copyright. As far as YouTube is concerned, it will be US laws that apply (that is listed in the Terms of Use too).

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 11 Nov 2014, 04:36

Vijay, Nick: Yes, understood. My main goal is to have Google come out and openly discuss what is going on. So it is mostly for discovery

What annoys me is that the whole internet (!) is up and arms about this but Google is silent for the most part.

The labels are the initial target of such law suits. That is in spite of the fact that I am reasonably sure now that at least in the cases like VKR's, they have lost control of the situation. Google flags the videos and the labels have to sort out which ones are true positives and which ones are false positives. But they are the immediate counter-party.

I am sure the labels' initial counter will be 'hey, this is not our doing. It is Google's algorithm. Look we have released the false positives'. But the fact remains that for a period of time they claimed through Google that VKR's property is theirs. I am hoping that as part of the discovery process, Google will be dragged into this. I know this is all wishful thinking but if this somehow gets the class action status, things can get interesting.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 11 Nov 2014, 13:33

That is in spite of the fact that I am reasonably sure now that at least in the cases like VKR's, they have lost control of the situation.

I don't think so, because... it is the music labels that provide the data against which the matches are made.

'hey, this is not our doing. It is Google's algorithm. Look we have released the false positives'

But I suppose they have to protect their legitimate interests in their own recordings. Maybe I just cancelled out my previous statement!

I know this is all wishful thinking but if this somehow gets the class action status, things can get interesting.

I don't think that India has "class" actions? But we have this thing called PIL, and this is certainly of "Public Interest."

So, we await the coming of a Copyright Ramaswamy. I'm not volunteering, and I don't blame anybody else for not volunteering.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 11 Nov 2014, 20:02

My appeal to youtube was originally rejected by Saregama; but I wrote to Saregama directly through their website and as a result:

saregama has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

Video title: "Na Mein Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi Na Mein Jati Na Kaami Ho - kabirdas - VK Raman"

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 11 Nov 2014, 20:07

Is copyright protection internationally enforceable, if the place of occurrence of copy right violation is in another Country. It seems saregama does like what youtube - google is doing in filtering various audio/videos by content, title, etc.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 11 Nov 2014, 21:20

Nick H wrote: - I don't think so, because... it is the music labels that provide the data against which the matches are made.

Nick, as you wrote later, they have to protect their legitimate recordings and they submit the music signature of those recordings to Google. I do not think that is evil or anything. The problem is with the work flow involved in dealing with these false positives.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 11 Nov 2014, 21:46

Yes, I see that. I think you've been saying it for some time... but I only just got the point <Blush>

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 12 Nov 2014, 20:16

Consequent on my writing to Saregama directly the following were released today by Saregama.

"Mangal Murti Maruti Nandan, Sakal Amangal Mool Nikandan"
good news! saregama has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

Video title: "PREMA MUDITA MANASE KAHO, RAAMA RAAMA RAAM"
good news! saregama has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

Good news! saregama has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.
Video title: "jasoda hari paalane jhulawe - Surdas - vkraman"
good news! saregama has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.
Video title: "beet gaye din bhajan bina re - Sant Kabir"

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 13 Nov 2014, 00:49

Good news! ...

Is this what Google/Youtube say? Apologies would be more appropriate.

I loathe this management-spin talk which has nothing to do with reality.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 04 Dec 2014, 02:54

After reviewing your dispute, Saregama Publishing and One or more music publishing rights collecting societies has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video. However, there may be additional copyright claims on this video.

Video title: nArAyaNam bhajE nArAyaNam - Bhadrachala Ramadasu kirtan - VK Raman - saranga