Does You Tube Violate the RICO Laws?

[Bruce Wrenn]

The RICO laws were designed to fight organized crime. The basic idea is if someone profits from a crime, then they just as guilty as the person committing the crime. Much content on You Tuber is copyrighted, and thus illegal to play unless permission is given. Music is the first thing that pops to mind. With You Tube selling ads, and getting a profit from these activities, are they guilty of RICO violations? Please don't degenerate this thread to a current case in Georgia, or thread will be closed by OP, or moderators! Just give your thoughts.

[roger wiegand]

Youtube has a lot of agreements in place with the large content creators to license their property-- I posted a video of my daughter and her friends doing thier version of Lord of the Rings (it was pretty hilarious), they had the movie soundtrack playing in the background of their play. I got a copyright violation notice from YouTube for the music and a notice that the copyright holder would permit my use as long as I didn't try to monetize the video (not much chance of that!). All very civilized, and everyone's interest seemed to be protected in a reasonable way. In another case someone used images taken from my web site of my fairground organ to promote CD sales for a different organ. I complained and the video was taken down almost immediately. In another case I got a copyright strike for posting a video of a 1915 version of a currently popular song played from an original paper roll on an antique machine. I contested the strike on the basis that the material in question was no longer subject to copyright and they reversed the strike.

I have the impression that they work fairly hard to stay on the right side of copyright, at least for material where anyone is actively protecting their rights. Theres a lot of content, eg from defunct record labels from the 30s and 40s with no obvious subsequent owner, that is allowed to pass in the absence of objection. Is that a crime? I'm not a copyright lawyer so I won't say. In any event I suspect it's a civil not a criminal violation, so probably not under the RICO statute.

[Doug Garson]

Do you have any flagrant examples of Youtube allowing copyrighted music or other content to be misused. I don't have any first hand experience like Roger but I often hear Youtubers say they can't include a soundtrack with a video due to copyright restrictions imposed by Youtube.

[Andrew More]

No, they don't. The modern internet is dependent on the "Safe Harbor" provision that states that just providing a venue to post things doesn't make the owner of that venue libel for what's posted. There have been a few rumblings over the years about changing it, but it's essentially an all or nothing situation. Either people are allowed to post whatever they want, including copyrighted works in their entirety, without the owner of the forum being libel OR the entire system needs to change such that all content is moderated, which would shutdown new content almost all modern platforms immediately. The crux of the problem is the massive fire hose that is allowing anybody to post, and the inability for the platform providers to "police" this content without a massive investment in moderation employees. I can't remember the numbers for how much content YouTube gets posted each day, but I think the moderation workforce would end up being something like everybody living in Florida or something.

So no, it's not illegal. That having been said, some of the rumbles of changing the Safe Harbor provision have been from IP owners who have noticed how much pirated material ends up on YouTube without Google doing much about it. Personally I find it _very_ interesting that they shutdown Google Music, and moved to YouTube Music, which also incorporates content from YouTube. Content like pirated music and playlists. Even more interesting is that often when I ask Google Assistant to play a specific album and artist that I KNOW they have in their library, it seems to end up on some random YouTube account version, and NOT the officially licensed version......

[Jim Koepke]

I do not recall which artist objected to music in one of my funky videos, as I recall it only applied to one European country.

If I do have music on it tends to be instrumental and very old, hopefully out of copyright.

jtk

[Ole Anderson]

Content creators are very careful to not record even if a song is playing in the background for fear of being demonetized. That being said, I don't understand how they can just repost entire copyrighted movies.

[Jim Becker]

The crux of the problem is the massive fire hose that is allowing anybody to post, and the inability for the platform providers to "police" this content without a massive investment in moderation employees. I can't remember the numbers for how much content YouTube gets posted each day, but I think the moderation workforce would end up being something like everybody living in Florida or something.

It's not really done by "people" other than when something is protested. It's all done automagically by software and it's a sure thing that AI is going to quickly come into play relative to this kind of content moderation

[Edward Weber]

It's not really done by "people" other than when something is protested. It's all done automagically by software and it's a sure thing that AI is going to quickly come into play relative to this kind of content moderation

Audio watermarking should go a long way to solve the problem of using content you're not entitled to. With AI and other algorithms, this type of content can be easily flagged.

[Bill Dufour]

Napster got put out of business for copyright violations years ago. They remind me of Uber and Lyft trying to say they are not employers and not responsible if the driver rapes and murders you. Those are just independent contractors.
Bill D

[Doug Garson]

It's not really done by "people" other than when something is protested. It's all done automagically by software and it's a sure thing that AI is going to quickly come into play relative to this kind of content moderation
Apps like Shazam can identify a song in a few notes.

[Ole Anderson]

We stream our services at church through Facebook and Livestream. We can get tagged even if our pianist plays something classical as a prelude and clearly in the public domain. The catch? Usually it is the bots in Russia that catch it months or even a year later and try to claim rights. We typically don't get tagged while it is running live.

[Ronald Blue]

Like roger said many regular content posters make sure they don't allow any music from the radio or other sources to play in the background to avoid copyright infringement.

Ole my church buys a license to be able to use the hymns. I don't recall if it's an annual license now or bi-annual. The cost isn't outrageous as I recall. We've never had any issues with the live stream on FB showing the music portion of the service as well.

[Brian Elfert]

Like roger said many regular content posters make sure they don't allow any music from the radio or other sources to play in the background to avoid copyright infringement.


This exactly. One mechanic on Youtube mentioned they usually have a radio playing in the shop, but it gets turned off when he is making a video. I also notice that the radio in customer cars gets turned off right away to avoid copyright strikes.

Youtube has a decent sized library of music that is free for content creators to use in their videos.

[mike stenson]

I know someone who has had their videos taken down (automatically), for using their own music.

[Andrew More]

It's not really done by "people" other than when something is protested. It's all done automagically by software and it's a sure thing that AI is going to quickly come into play relative to this kind of content moderation

Honestly, it depends on the platform. Youtube is all AI, Reddit not so much. Both rely on the Safe Harbor provision to avoid liability.

There are ways to determine if copyrighted material is used, and yet there also appears to be a lot of ways to get around it, since you can find almost anything you like on YouTube with a simple search.

[mike stenson]

Both rely on the Safe Harbor provision to avoid liability.
.

So does every special interest forum, like this one.

[Ole Anderson]

Ole my church buys a license to be able to use the hymns. I don't recall if it's an annual license now or bi-annual. The cost isn't outrageous as I recall. We've never had any issues with the live stream on FB showing the music portion of the service as well.
We have every license available from CCLI and One License. The bots don't know that and there is no provision to let them know. It would be easy enough for FB and YouTube to search for licenses, but that doesn't happen. Frankly most strikes occur a year or even two later so it is not a big deal. Just yesterday we got 4 strikes on classical music our pianist played during announcements in 2021 before the actual service started.

[Mark Wedel]

I had a coworker who makes spin workout videos with music (from current/well known artists). I asked him about it - what he said is that youtube takes care of all the royalties, etc, as long as he isn't monetizing his videos (eg, the ads youtube puts in his stuff pays for those rights)

So that may be how many videos get away with it - youtube is paying the needed royalties. This might also be why those who do monetize their videos (per posts above) are much more careful about it - they want the money, and don't want to be paying for those royalties out of the money they are making.

[Jim Becker]

YouTube's integral library of royalty free music available to creators is "yuge" so that can provide an out for these situations. I used some as well as some royalty free music within iMovie when I was doing the time lapse videos for my shop build.

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

It would be impossible to search for licenses. too many private licenses and even wholesale licenses for use. For instance, Lions International has free downloadable programs for it's logos and trademarks etc. The provision is by down loading, you are licensed to put the logos to use but only in connection with legitimate Lions' clubs uses. hats, shirts, etc. even made for profit to sell to Lions members. So there is a license for every one who clicks the terms of use button.

Face book and or My Space, can't recall which, about 15 years ago got into a tiff with a heart broke young man in the DC area. He was dumped by a girl, but wrote a poem and placed it up on her page. It didn't sway her emotions, but somebody recognized the poem as having some worth and published the poem in card or something. Terms of use, he clicked when he signed up for the service, gave property rights in content to the social media company. It was winding it's way on appeals and I do not know what happened. Under copy right law, a copy right attaches at the first public airing or publishing, regardless of registration. But his clicking the button transferred that copy right the second he posted the poem.

I have met some folks who make a small amount based on you tube channels. One guy might get 30K a year. The effort he puts into it doesn't seem worth it, until you realize the notoriety it beings, and people searching out his products to buy. his sales have jumped way up.

I see folks viciously stealing ideas back and forth on You tube. the second one video seems popular, 17 other guys in the business are doing the same thing. (about 6 or 7 years ago, a teenage girl in England, used an electric tea light to make a Christmas tree lantern, she posted a very primitive poorly done video on a face book page about wood turning. Well a year ago or so, such things became a popular item to demonstrate and now there are almost 30 such videos. It is a pity, Caitlan gets no credit.

Copy right laws may seem rather concrete, but there is a wide open area called "Fair Use" which permits a pretty wide exception for sarcasm, humor, etc. Any body remember the National Lampoon with a picture of a Floating Volkswagen in a pond. The caption said, "If Ted Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagon, he'd be President today" It looked like a legit VW magazine ad and the American public was up in arms, VW filed suit, a judge forced the magazine to recall issues and on appeal IIRC, the decision was that the ad was 100% fair use political speech, even if sold for money. The laws have been modified since then, so I don't know any effective changes for that court opinion.

Another license problem. The movie It's A Wonderful Life, went into public domain and TV channels were playing it to the point of nausea, because they thought they did not have to pay any royalties. Well, the movie went into public domain, but the guys who owned the script renewed and financially clobbered all those TV channels with infringement suits. So it is easy to have a piece that is fractionalized, part public and part still under copyright. Another example is a song written in 1784 by a German living in Paris. Called "Plesure De Amor" (sp) One of the most popular classical love songs ever written. A poem from a French novel was adapted to the tune around 1800 and it continued thusly for 160 years. Two movie music writers needed a song for a teen movie about a tropical resort tour guide and his girlfriend. They needed a slow love song for the female lead to sing to their male lead. They resurrected that 1784 tune and 1800 lyrics, translated the french loosely, added a phrase from an early 1800's Alexander Pope essay rearranged a few notes. When the male lead heard the tune, he insisted on singing it in the movie and it became one of his biggest hits. The original tune is public, the alterations, English translation are copy righted, the phrase stolen from Pope's essay is not. (fools rush in) The song, "Wise Men Say" sung by Elvis Presley in Blue Hawaii. an example of fractionalized copy right now 63 years.

As for RICO, there is something regarding the intent and policies by the social media companies which separates them from enticing a particular person to violate the law for their enrichment to just letting it all pass in so long as they are not responsible., Sort of like maintaining a flea market where you know stolen items are routinely sold but you have neither resources and possibility to check, vs a pawnshop that specializes in fencing stolen goods and knows all the stuff is stolen. It is an intended substantial part of the pawn shop business to sell stolen items, where it may be part of the flea market business, the owner of the market is just opening to the public and knows illicit behavior will go on along with all the legit behavior.

[Andrew More]

Thanks Perry, good detail on the mess that IP rights have become.

Reminds me of my time working for a Dot Bomb 99-2001. We were basically trying to sell music over the internet, and as you might imagine, really struggling. It wasn't just that Napster was giving everything away for free, it was also that we could not get any of the decent music. There was such a mess of copyright, publishing, mechanics, performance, and song writer rights that it wasn't legally possible to get the music industry to move very quickly. Also they had concerns (still do) about putting out a perfect digital copy. After struggling with this for a few years, the company cut staff 40% with $100 million in the bank, and never really recovered.

Somehow a year or two later Apple music managed to cut this Gordian knot and publish all the music. I still to this day have no idea how they did it, maybe they got congress to pass a law?

[Jim Becker]

Apple, Spotify and others got to do it by compensating the artists/IP owners, something that the early sharing platforms failed to do. While the level of compensation is arguably pennies on the (currency unit) for artists relative to streaming, it's still an income stream for them that didn't happen "back in the day". YouTube has the same licensing/compensation requirements on them.

[Brian Elfert]

My understanding is streaming pays a fraction of a cent per song streamed. I have heard artists say that streaming pays a fraction of what they used to get for each CD, tape, or album sold. That is why they do a lot of concerts and merchandise sales.

[Jim Becker]

That's correct, Brian.

[Pat Germain]

My understanding is streaming pays a fraction of a cent per song streamed. I have heard artists say that streaming pays a fraction of what they used to get for each CD, tape, or album sold. That is why they do a lot of concerts and merchandise sales.

My son is a singer/songwriter. His music is on Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and other platforms. MTV featured some of his music in their reality shows several years ago. My son gets a check from ASCAP every year for about $12.00-$24.00.

Streaming platforms like to boast about "Average Royalties" being over $100,000 a year. The reality is that's some heavy averaging. The vast majority of artists make a few dollars a year while Taylor Swift makes millions. That averages out to about $100,000 a year.

Artists are relying more on live shows for revenues. Unfortunately, a lot of fans get angry when concert tickets are $200 and up. They blame the artists, but the fact is artists have nothing to do with ticket prices. Zero. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. Ticket prices are controlled by vendors, like Ticketmaster, venues and labels. Artists must also bow to radio conglomerates like iHeartradio, which used to be Clear Channel. iHeartradio will demand artists to do shows for free. If an artist objects, iHeartradio will say, "OK, I guess we won't be including your latest album tracks in our daily rotation...". This is no different than saying, "That's a nice album you released last month. It would be a shame is something was to happen to it; like nothing!". Yeah, it's basically extorsion.

The fact is, every music artist who signed with an American label has been cheated, scammed, exploited and a lot worse; even huge acts like The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and The Rolling Stones. It's been this way for decades. I remember reading when Jimi Hendrix died, he had a little over $20,000 in the bank and he owed a lot of back taxes. When Jim Croce died, his widow asked the music label about royalties and only got excuses. She spent years fighting them in court and eventually got them to cough up something. Before that, Croce had received pretty much nothing.