Jul 13, 2012

Watch out : ©-Troll trying to profit your work

Last year I shared my experience related to how the music industry (intentionally) makes it impossible to purchase music for private usage - and which - in addition to offend consumers - cause loss of income for artists.
Lack of response from the industry agent (which, presumably, should handling the interest of the artist and serve consumers).... made me use free Creative Commons (CC) licensed music from the Free Music Archive
(The full story is here: in English  Children, Creativity and Culture - When CopyRight = CopyWrong
or Norwegian  Barn, kreativitet og kultur; CopyRight = CopyWrong).



Yesterday I got a mail from YouTube, related to this video :

Dear Britt,

Your video "(CC) Copy Catzy", may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team


I checked the link given by YouTube, and found this:


I checked out "..claim is not valid":
and added as comment "I used free CC-licensed music - here is the link..."



The content I linked to:




Few hours after submitting my copyright dispute claim, I got a new mail from YouTube:

Dear Britt,

rumblefish has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, "(CC) Copy Catzy". For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

Checking the status for thevideo, this was confirmed:






Now, who is this "rumblefish"?
Is it just a disoriented, rumbling fish or a fishy ©-Troll who's business idea is to claim ownership of others CC-licensed work?
Or is it a great idea for getting paid for (others) CC-licensed work?
You might make your own thoughts on this: Rumblefish, Inc. ?


More fishy stuff:EU Commission who used to handle ACTA, is now in charge of the CETA negotiations....
You guessed it!
CETA contains a chapter on intellectual property rights where certain provisions have been copied verbatim from ACTA.
It is documented by MEP Christian Engström Introducing CETA, the ACTA Zombie

Dr. Michael Geist, who is belittle by the EU Commission official, is a law professor who's expertise is recognized worldwide. He has written about CETA here:
EC Says ACTA ISP Provisions Dropped from CETA, Yet Most of ACTA Likely Remains Intact

No comments:

Post a Comment