Copyright shocker by SaReGaMa on my renditions

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 26 Sep 2014, 23:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df36CM3N1uY - Cienu may like to look into this. I have not sung this like MSS.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 26 Sep 2014, 23:57

Sri VKR - you are facing the same issue that Parivadini is facing and we had discussed it at great length here..nothing new - and par for the course. The fault is not with saregama or any other greedy record label, but that of the court that has granted them the copyright (it is solely, and exclusively the stupidity of the granting authority)

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 27 Sep 2014, 00:08

I am not giving up. Narsinh wrote these lyrics some time 1400 AD and no one has copy right for that. I have not copied MSS ragam either. So I am not accepting SaReGaMa objection.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 27 Sep 2014, 00:15

This copyright issue has been thoroughly abused by people. For example, the following is the copyright notice in the Book published by Giri Trading Agency Private Limited. This book contains Lalita Sahasranama stOtra, nAmAvaLi, triSati etc.

"All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher."

I can understand about photocopying, but how other things do apply to Lalita Sahasranma and other religious texts?

We may have to start a campaign in order to get rid of this idiocy which goes in the name of copyright.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 27 Sep 2014, 00:34

This thing is going on and on.....even recently we had a tiff with the guy who handles this.
This was the last communication from the label......

This will go on, IPRS has now started turning the heat on performance halls as well and have started demanding royalty for songs that their members own copyright being played in their auditorium!!
There is no solution for this at all! (rather no inexpensive solution!!)

Regds
Venkat

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 27 Sep 2014, 01:11

In 2 of the public events that we did last year when we were testing our software etc.

1. A Nadaswaram playing at the background of Chidambaram temple of Namagiripetai caused the algorithm to trigger and shut our live webcast.
2. "Very worsht" was Jana Gana Mana being sung at a college function was claimed as copyrighted to bharat bala!!

I think we must just document these and write about it,we will outsell Wodehouse or Art Buchwald

Cheers
Venkat

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Sep 2014, 05:50

What Saregama is saying is interesting. They are willing to release any of the auto claims generated by the Google algorithm. They are saying their hands are tied. Did I understand that right?

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 27 Sep 2014, 06:53

I think it looks like it is much easies for them upload signatures of all their songs (rip, upload) for google/youtube algo to take over rather them having to only upload signatures for those to which they have copyrights for (which one would think makes more sense in a lawful world). To do that, they first would to spend the time (yes, we are crying a violin here - copyright-trolls X( ) to sort out which of their records have renditions that they own copyright and which they dont etc.

So the system makes it easy for them to take the simple route - simply claim for all, and deal with the proverbial ceiling fan soiling. The presumption is most claims are "valid' - which may apply to film songs etc. (of which there may be many uploads) and perhaps even better because many others may be scared and doubt. A few are persistent - and that can be dealt with

Arun

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Sep 2014, 10:52

This link was probably shared before but it is worthwhile to link it one more time
https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual ... e-removals

All this says is
1. The copyright owner submits an audio print or a video print with Google for the assets that have rights on.
2. Google runs the content id tool on the uploaded video and if it matches the print, they take it down. There is a whole process to get that put back on.

The Saregama person is saying they will not block Parivadini videos and will release the claim and youtube will restore the video back.

There are a few things that are a mystery here.
1. What material did these labels use to create the audio and video print? One particular rendering of the song?
2. If so, how come youtube's algorithms match the audio print of a rendition by a different artists.
( I am thinking it is along the same lines as Shazam but I may be totally mistaken )

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 27 Sep 2014, 11:38

Mahatma Gandhiji has shown the way to fight the 'powerful' entrenched through 'satyaagraha'. Stop buying pirated copies. Start the campaign of burning and destroying in public such records and works. Also take the campaign to appeal and prevent 'buying'. Collect the formidable evidence. Atrists and their associations to join this movement and stop the cooperation to such copy right holders. Make the opinion makers and legal experts to lead the campaign. Use the Media-both print and visual and social media to maximum extent. Through PIL in Supreme court and also the law making legislators to effect the necessary corrective action by enacting the amendments to the copy right laws.

munirao2001

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 27 Sep 2014, 15:26

Venkat, goes back to the core of my posting: as I understand it, IPRS is nothing but an enforcing agency that can and will only function at a spinal level. All supratentorial authority (and hence the sole responsibility and culpability) rests with the legal body that in its infinite and unfathomable stupidity granted these guys the copyright in the first place. How is that being addressed? Once there is a legal ruling, there's no point in debating the issue with gormless bodies like the IPRS.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 27 Sep 2014, 18:11

It isn't unique to IPRS - there have been several complaints about the ContentID system of YouTube being flawed and giving undue advantage to bogus claimants, as well as copyright claims of public domain stuff (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cian.shtml), or what would qualify as fair use. Obviously it is structured as it is now to mainly allow YoutTube/Google to avoid the hassle. Many Youtubers are angry and unless somehow that results in forcing a change - it will allow this. So YouTube/Google has been tone deaf is what I read.

I am also surprised that there has been no class action suit attempt so far (since lot of people had to waste time proving their case - so a class action grievance lawsuit - you see those filed many a time in US)

Arun

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 27 Sep 2014, 18:41

Where are our artists and torch bearers like Ravikiran, Shashikiran, Sanjay, Cienu and many more of them who are part of this August group. What do they think?

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 28 Sep 2014, 13:46

VK RAMAN wrote:Where are our artists and torch bearers like Ravikiran, Shashikiran, Sanjay, Cienu and many more of them who are part of this August group. What do they think?

With due respects to VKR,I personally think it is wrong to pull artists into this. They do this for a living.
Class action suits as a concept does not exist in India! The only hope is for labels to release claims like how SaReGaMa has promised,and i must add most labels have been reasonable with us most of the times. However that said we are always at their mercy!

Will be glad for any support/ideas/help on this.

Regds
Venkat

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 28 Sep 2014, 13:54

vasanthakokilam wrote: There are a few things that are a mystery here.
1. What material did these labels use to create the audio and video print? One particular rendering of the song?
2. If so, how come youtube's algorithms match the audio print of a rendition by a different artists.
( I am thinking it is along the same lines as Shazam but I may be totally mistaken )

You are right. The technology is called acoustic finger printing.

Basically An acoustic fingerprint is a condensed digital summary, deterministically generated from an audio signal, that can be used to identify an audio sample or quickly locate similar items in an audio database.Characteristics often used by audio fingerprints include average zero crossing rate, estimated tempo, average spectrum, spectral flatness, prominent tones across a set of bands, and bandwidth.Acoustic fingerprints are not bitwise fingerprints, which must be sensitive to any small changes in the data. Acoustic fingerprints are more analogous to human fingerprints where small variations that are insignificant to the features the fingerprint uses are tolerated.

We at Parivadini do have our own technology as well for this but it is essentially based on open source(MusicBrainz) and is freely available for anyone to use we use the same for albums that Parivadini releases for its ADAMS partners. for eg all our albums would be identifiable by say Shazam).

Regds

Venkat

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Sep 2014, 22:48

Thanks Venkat.

Given that, I wonder why Youtube's algorithm is firing for a song sung by a different artist.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 29 Sep 2014, 05:36

We are all discussing who is to blame and who is to bell the cat.

The only reasonable action I can think of is a good legal exercise marshaling the facts of the hundreds of such strikes that Parivadini and Shaale.com etc are getting and approaching the correct legal body to set right the rules for copyrights on compositions (viz it belongs only to the original composer or his assignees within the time period before 60 years after his passing...)

Asking artistes to do something is totally meaningless that as long as there is music there are artistes. But they have nothing to do here as they wrote off their copyrights to the labels.
Copyrights issues involve the legal system, copyright owners and copyright violators.

I also suggest rasikas,org drafts a standard response for every such composition copyright strike with the correct language that best serves the cause of correcting this Anatoly.
Let us share it here and then advise anyone who gets a strike to use that language. That should get the copyright owners to release their claims as fast as they wish to.

Let the one who got the strike mark a copy of the response with a copy of the original strike notice to someone we may designate - maybe a lawyer or a body who is willing to fight this case legally.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 29 Sep 2014, 06:13

vasanthakokilam wrote:Thanks Venkat.

Given that, I wonder why Youtube's algorithm is firing for a song sung by a different artist.

I think it is something to do with pitch which in turn i guess affects the spectral flatness,again this is wild hypothesis and it is work in progress!

Cheers
Venkat

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 29 Sep 2014, 09:34

Easy one. The tag for the track is Vaishnav janato... narsinh mehta...
First match will be ID tags/meta tags, title of tracks...etc.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 29 Sep 2014, 13:09

I believe that a higher court needs to rap some knuckles, and point out, in no uncertain terms, that copyright claims for public-domain music are not legal, are not allowable, and not only will they not be entertained, but may be punished as a form of harassment. Even in America it seems that the copyright-troll form of action is wearing thin with the courts. Of course I don't have any illusions about the cost and timescale of achieving such a statement from our courts.

There is no point in taking any action against Google: they are like China: they do not care whether or not they infringe the law, and they do not care what people, authorities included, think about it. However, local action against our own Performing Rights Society and the labels that it represents could be effective.

As I say, I have no illusions abut achieving this, but, ultimately, I don't see what else could work.

However, Unless I misunderstand (I have not read every post with a sharp eye) there is now a better understanding between Parivadini/etc and SaRiGaMa/etc.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 29 Sep 2014, 17:02

Teh earlier post had scope for misinterpretations. removing it until we get better clarity.

Parivadini.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 30 Sep 2014, 19:12

enta mudo - Saint Tyagaraja copy right owned by Bombay Jayshree according to SaReGaMa
Chetasriramam - Sadasiva brahmendra copy right owned by Balamuralikrishna
Ranga Baro Panduranga Baro - Purandaradasa copy right owned by Aruna Sairam

here are my renditions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... GUsgfnenEU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... r4Ock9yZAg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... ewfDFiUKEE

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 30 Sep 2014, 19:36

One good thing about this constant research on Patent Troll, ever since Nick first taught me that word is I keep hitting upon interesting stuff on that ,this was the latest
http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... rolls.html

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 30 Sep 2014, 19:59

This is getting increasingly ridiculous. First we can't webcast concerts, now we can't upload our own renditions sung at home? Maybe it's time to publish another article in The Hindu about this.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 30 Sep 2014, 21:42

Guys,
There was this high brow panel discussion at BLF attended by Arun Shourie, Shubha Mudgal, Girish Karnad, etc. There were 600+ in the audience. The panel was discussing freedom of expression in India. I wanted to mention this copyright issue. But they started bickering and the discussion was terminated before I got a chance.

I advised Parivadini to file a legal appeal on this about 8 months ago.
My petition to change.org got good attention including newspaper articles. What we need is legal appeal, signed by lots of musicians and rasikas. (You Tube and) IPRS will NOT change their functioning otherwise. Remember
1.all record companies are losing money
2. Artistes are at their mercy
3. Managers in these companies are fed up of piracy.
4. They will win no medals telling anybody that their copyright claims on compositions are wrong.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Oct 2014, 02:04

There is something here that we do not understand. If we go by what Saregama sent to parivadini, the subsequent discussion with Venkat in the other thread and what our member VKRaman was informed, this seems to be a misfiring by the Google algorithm. Here is my reasoning.

1. When you submit an audio print, it is obvious that you need to provide a recording. That is probably what Saregama did for a recording of Bombay Jayasree, Balamurali Krishna and Aruna Sairam. So what Saregama is claiming are the rights on those recordings which is fine.

2. when VK Raman uploaded his video, did the google algorithm find enough similarity in audio print of VK Raman's voice and Balamuralikrishna's voice for Chetasriramam? While that is a huge compliment to our member VK Raman, it does not make sense and we have to find fault with the Google algorithm ( btw, VKraman, excellent rendition of that song, the mohana gamakam for rAmam is right on. Sounds very good)

3. My confidence in this conclusion is strengthened a bit by Saregama's response to Parivadini. It looks like these false flaggings are a nuisance for them also since they have to manually release those things. And they say they can not do anything about this. That only makes sense if they legitimately submitted the rights for the rendering only and they want protection for it ( they do not people to be uploading that very rendition ) but Google keeps flagging a lot of renditions of that song by others.

4. My confidence in this is conclusion is reduced by the fact that the same misfiring algorithm somehow makes correct matches on the song itself. While it is definitely possible that their algorithm can match a song in general successfully but not distinguish the various renditions of it, what is really odd is, it could match Balamuralikrishna's version with mridangam and violin with a rendition by VK Raman without any such accompaniments. That sounds a bit suspicious to make me doubt there is something else going on in addition to audioprinting.

5. That leads to me suspect something along the lines Sachi said in the other thread, that it is matching the title VKRaman gave to the song with the ID tags submitted by Saregama. (Sachi, hope I understood you correctly).
Or some variations of it, where it first goes by matching such meta data and then within those renditions it tries a match on the audio finger printing. I do not know, I am speculating.

In any cases, all this points to a problem with Google audioprinting and matching algorithm, doesn't it? If not, what data exists to disprove this hypothesis.

We can do a little experiment to see if it is using a match on the title. Let someone else take VKRaman's rendition and post it with a different title 'An Excellent Rendition by VKRaman' . This should not match any song name or anything and let us see if Google algorithm throws a fit.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 01 Oct 2014, 06:01

VKM ,
Saregama etc. have copyrighted musical recordings as well as compositions=songs. The recording industry does not want anyone to even re-sing or perform a song copyrighted by them with even a new tune or new musicians without paying them royalty,
IPRS is the legal body which has received and passed on the data base on copyrights to You Tube and other AV publishing services on the internet.

The algorithm used by YT compares basic identifiers, actual musical tracks, lyrics=songs words etc. for catching violation of copyright on compositions. It works well so far as we can see!

The reason YT have a notice system in which Saregama etc. can vacate the claim is because YT know that this whole catching system may not be one hundred percent efficient. By providing a remedy they are escaping public wrath.

Saregama folks are simply clerically responding to claims and strikes and vacating claims by a go/no go approach (they click links and listen to their recording and the flagged recording.) this is arbitrary and condescending at best.

The entire problem is created by the copyright on compositions.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 01 Oct 2014, 06:14

Rsachi wrote:VKM ,
Saregama etc have copyrighted musical recordings as well as compositions=songs. The recording industry does not want anyone to even re-sing or perform a song copyrighted by them with even a new tune or new musicians without paying them royalty

So, if I understand this correctly, dancers will not be able to choreograph pieces that these dirt bags claim copyright for without paying them royalty. I can understand if the idea is to pay royalty to the estate of the composers, many of whom wrote the lyrics and set the piece to music. Where is the record lablel's IP here? Why should one pay royalty to them? Has anyone challenged the rationale for the IPRS' granting IP rights to the whole composition to the recording companies? Maybe it is time someone mobilized the families of the composers to sue the recording labels. I mean this nonsense could extend to music teachers for teaching copyrighted material without paying royalty.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 01 Oct 2014, 06:16

By the way, I find it hard to believe that not one of our members has a connection with these crazy record labels...I am sure there must be someone here who works for them, has a son, son-in-law, sammandi, next-door neighbor or what have you - it's time we heard from them....

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 01 Oct 2014, 08:30

Venkat has had meetings with them. No solution except a promise to be reasonable on every flag.

Yes, regarding dance songs, you cannot dance to their tune - you have to dance to their tune

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Oct 2014, 08:53

The algorithm used by YT compares basic identifiers, actual musical tracks, lyrics=songs words etc. for catching violation of copyright on compositions. It works well so far as we can see!

Sachi, I will take your word for it and go back to reading up on this. I am trying to locate material to educate myself about this. How sure are you that what you wrote are the characteristics that YT is actually using ( especially the lyrics, songs, words part )?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Oct 2014, 09:49

Here is my research so far.

YT's description of how Google ContentID works. Watch the short video embedded here : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

Not too technical and they skirt the 'how' of it but at least one thing is confirmed that it is not based on anything except the audio and video material. The copy righted owner submits a recording and that gets audioprinted and matched against the uploaded videos.

About the performance of YT algorithm, it looks like YT is losing control of the issue. There are all sorts of cases of false positives. Here are some ridiculous examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPBlfeuZuWg A video on picking a wild sald.
This video was tagged by ContentID as a violation of Rumblefish's copyright. The fact of the matter is there is no background music in this video, but some birds chirping. Read the full story in the description of the YT video. Interestingly, Rumblefish first reviewed the claim and confirmed that indeed it is a violation

( when this issue got hot on reddit, Rumblefish CEO got on there and admitted that it was a mistake, they get a whole lot of claims like this everyday with many such false positives and it is getting to be tough to manage this. And such things are increasing everyday)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVB5eDE7EFg ( possible adult language since it is a protest song and video )
This is a video of a song written, set to music and sung by Eva Moon. ContentId flagged this as a violation of a copyright held by Rumblefish. Rumblefish later released the claim. Read the comments of the video for more info.

To be sure, we can not conclude from these examples that this is what is going on with the incidents of parivadini and VKRaman. But treat it as just some background on the possibilities of false positives of the Google algorithm

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 01 Oct 2014, 11:07

VKM,
I have seen flags from YouTube
based on identifying tags and descriptions, artiste names, song names, and the comparison of audio content of the song when the same tune like Bhavayami Gopalabalam sung by MSS was sung by another person. I have seen flags when background music in a video matched a copyrighted recording. My conclusions are based on these examples.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 01 Oct 2014, 12:47

YouTube/Google would probably be delighted to be doing none of this. They are interested in one thing and one thing only: attracting people to their pages and advertising revenue. I think it is true that they only instituted this system under pressure from the multi-national media companies, to whom YouTube, the internet, filesharing etc etc really can be big threats. I imagine that content recognition must require some of the best brains in the computer world to implement. (xkcd: Tasks. Be sure to read the text you see when the mouse pointer is over the cartoon). Even so, perhaps they could be doing a better job.

It's a funny world: There is heaps of music by contemporary artists on YouTube that never gets taken down, despite the fact that it belongs to much more commercial genres of music than our carnatic corner.

There is still too much misunderstanding here.

Copyright law in a line: You create a work of art/music/literature/etc, you (or sometimes your employer) own the copyright in it. You go on owning that copyright until you assign (eg sell) it to someone else or it expires. Copyright is not "granted" by any third party or organisation, statutory or otherwise (although some countries require it to be registered).

Owning the copyright in something and Claiming the copyright in something are two different things. The latter, if you do not own it, is not legal.

IPRS and other copyright administration societies do not grant copyright. They administer it on behalf of their members.

Courts or other statutory bodies cannot create copyright, although they may often be called on to decide who owns it. The music world is full of such disagreements.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Oct 2014, 20:00

Nick, that is all understood and well known. But that is worth repeating. And YT clearly says they do not want to get in the middle of any copy right disputes between parties. True YT would rather not do it but it is forced on them, as you write. But that does not take away the issues caused by their algorithm and the work flow and procedures around it.

What I am after is a clear understanding of the process involved in this You Tube work flow. So that, we can separate the issues created by the false positives of the algorithm and the resulting difficulties to the up loaders, from other issues created by the so called 'content creators', legitimate and not so legitimate.

Those are two separate processes as per YT work flow for managing this

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 06 Oct 2014, 18:53

ennEramum un nAmam Raga: pUrvikalyANi / Tala: mishra cApu -- Shyama Sastri
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... QpPu9ZpR0c
John B Higgins administered by SaReGaMa.

• "
gajavadana karuNA sadana shankara bAlA lambOdara sundara - VK Raman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... cmy2ep0Gf8
S.Gayathri-Gajavadana S Gayathri", sound recording administered by:
saregama

Shame on SaReGaMA. Of course I am disputing with youtube

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 06 Oct 2014, 20:20

we disputed the same purvikalyani song today

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 06 Oct 2014, 22:22

Many of you are discussing this, and I am aware of the injustice of the problem, I signed Sachi's petition a few months ago, but forgive me, I'm a little lost- I viewed a few of the videos you have put up (thank you for singing and sharing)' and they did not seem to have been taken down. Please explain what happens to your videos.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 07 Oct 2014, 00:36

It is still playable on YouTube, but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it.

Video title: ennEramum un nAmam Raga: pUrvikalyANi / Tala: mishra cApu -- Shyama Sastri
Copyrighted song: Enneramum
Claimed by: saregama

Youtube may cancel my partnership and membership.

CRama · Post by **CRama** » 07 Oct 2014, 09:45

I don't think JOHN HIGGINS has ever sung ENERAMUM UN NAMAM IN POORVIKALYANI. He had sung only ENNERAMUM UNTHAN SANNIDHI IN DEVAGANDHARI. Pl check up.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 07 Oct 2014, 10:37

CRama, Interesting. If that is the case, it will give me an additional data point to strengthen or abandon aspects of our notions on how the google algorithm works.

There is already an interesting phrase in what Google told VKR. "sound recording administered by saregama"
That is OK for saregama to make a claim on that specific sound recording. Obviously that does not apply to VKR's recording. Why is google algorithm flagging his recording? I am in fact more curious about how it manages to do that.

VKR, it is good you are not letting this go. Keep us posted on any interesting development.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 08 Oct 2014, 19:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... IzvwN0qJqQ
Copyright details:
• "Chembai-Agre Pasyami Chembai", sound recording administered by:
saregama
Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri
1560-1666

Tyagarajaa born (4 May 1767 – 6 January 1847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... CIEl-4Y-4c
"Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar-Enthavetuko Chembai", sound recording administered by:
saregama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... cQEeFTyAUU
Video title: hariharaputram shAstAram sadA bhajEham - Dikshitar - Vasantham - VK Raman
"M.S. Subbulakshmi-Hariharaputram", sound recording administered by:
Muthuswami Dikshitar (March 24, 1775 – October 21, 1835)
saregama

Keep going SaReGaMa. You cannot win this.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 09 Oct 2014, 08:13

VKR, On your first one, I guess they missed AnDAL as the co-copyright owner

They are getting more and more ridiculous when we think they have hit bottom.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 09 Oct 2014, 09:28

Mods - can we please combine all such related threads into one?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 09 Oct 2014, 18:41

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.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 09 Oct 2014, 18:58

SaReGaMa will give copyright to AnDAL if AnDAL signs a contract with them. Gets more and more interesting.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 09 Oct 2014, 19:05

vasanthakokilam wrote:Nick, that is all understood and well known...

Sadly, it isn't.

Possibly not even by the record companies. :-Q

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 09 Oct 2014, 20:55

Let us rejoice this occasion with the song they put on hold: enta muddo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... ewfDFiUKEE

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 13 Oct 2014, 18:48

Video title: Kanaka sabhapathikku, namaskaram pannadi penne - VK Raman
Copyrighted song: Sabhapathikku
Claimed by: saregama

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 13 Oct 2014, 19:05

Just to lighten your mood, VKR, I suggest you record SaReGaMa and label it as such and see how they will block it with great vehemence. They have copyrighted SaReGaMa too!