Warner Music Group attacks and indirectly accuses YouTube users for Copyright infringements.

This documentary report is not permanent. You can always expect changes during the time and forward. Last altered: 05 june 2010

1: What is a copy?

A copy is an exact duplicate of the original, a " 1 - 1 result ". I will use this "1 - 1" term quite often.

The laws and rules these days are still vague and in general.

The laws cannot go into details, because there are too many variables.

Companies like Warner Music Group are companies with enough funds to pay lawsuits that can add

more rules to the existing laws.

Some rules are obvious or actually good, sometimes they refine some situations, and in some cases they

support situations like the "fair use" policy.

What they dont want to do, is supporting the "fair use" policy. If you as YouTube user put up a video with a

copyrighted music track in its full lenght they will charge you (YouTube is not the actual owner of your video, or at least

thats what their 'disclaimer' says.).

Companies like Warner Music Group (In the Netherlands it is companies like Buma & Stemra) can be taken responcible

by importing the law that forbids 'Embedding'.

Its absolutely acceptable and understandable that if some Mr A. has published some material of its own on his

website, and some Mr. B embedding Mr. A's material to its own page, letting it look like the material belongs to Mr. B.

In that paricular way, that law or rule fits well, but to forbid the entire embedding code in combination of a YouTube video

with the possibility of showing copyrighted material, i cannot live up to that rule or law.

Another thing. Companies like Warner Music Group (call your own companies names of your own country) can alter

the laws by paying lawsuits and let them play that out in court. But what about the normal standard citizen?

Do we have enough funds or time or menpower to introduce our own laws?

The only 'power' we have is by voting some politicians, and im sure, in general, we dont agreed with everything of what

they stand for or what they actually do.

Remains the same question: What can we do?

2: Why did i made this page?

I put on this page because recently i got being accused by this Warner Music Group company for doing criminal activities,

which i will never do. ( or at least, never intended to do that on purpose )

So i took a long dive into the books of laws about CopyRights.

I also read all information i could gather about companies like Warner Music Group, ( Buma en Stemra in my country)

and i discovered their strategy.

We all know companies like Warner Music Group (Buma & Stemra), insists 'defeating' illegal activities, and basicly, thats a good thing.

Companies like that tried to fight against downloading illegal content, peer 2 peer software, long time ago Buma & Stemra

tried to shut down ThePirateBay in my country, but in the end they failed to do so, but they have accomplised to alter the

law in such way that they can charge everyone if they suspects you of doing illegal activities, even though its not true.

Don't think they cannot harm you, because in the end, they can.

Their strategy starts altering small things in the law book, using the press when they accomplished something, and starts

telling they all do this to stop people from doing illegal activities.

They even can force your provider to obtain your private information, even though you are innocent.

'If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide' some people say, but its not about that.

They violating the laws of freedom (for an example: free speech) under the motto: 'Anti-terrorists', or 'Illegal downloading'.

We can close our eyes and keep on thinking, that companies like Warner Music Group, can never outcast downloading

or sharing contents, because they can by altering the laws more and more.

Never heard of the '3-strikes and you are out' term introduced in France?

Never heard of putting tax on everything that can hold MP3 or other media types? For an example, Ipods, cell phones?

You buy an original CD, you pay extra tax that goes into the total price of that CD. With paying that few cents you pay your

'ownership' for personal use and only for you. In my country for short it was allowed to make copies as many as you want as

long as you kept them for yourself (not sharing with others that is (not even your own wife??).)

BUT.... You buy empty discs to make copies for yourselve to save your original for being scratched or whatever reason you may

have, you pay again that little tax for this so-called 'owner ship'.

The law don't care if you are going to use these empty discs for your own artistic skills of making your own music.

You buy yourself a mp3 player for use while working, you pay again that little tax, even though the mp3 will play LEGAL contents.

Not to mention cell phones....... :( (not sure if this 'media type' is taxed, but i have heard rumors last year (2009) about this.)

Its not about the amount of this tax, because its so less, you and i can survive that, but its about the basic principles.

The law doesnt know yet about any grey area, but only knows black and white, yes or no.... there is no maybe.

Companies like Warner Music Group doesnt care about this grey area, or at least its not their first priority.

So thats why i put on this page.

Its not that i believe that this text will open peoples eyes, no not at all, I absolutely believes nothing will change for the better.

I absolutely believe that if we, citizen, let companies do what they do now, our lives will become more worse than better.

3: Now, what happened to me to make this page?

I have made a video about some Doom2-related game. I have used a soundtrack called Anime Dansen.

Now the differences between the two YouTube video's are that mine is all junked-up with weapon-, footstep, jump/land sounds

during the whole lenght of the soundtrack. Also, the music has been reduced in volume.

But in some way, Warner Music Group company still decided my video was still breaking the copyright law...??

Now, YouTube's information webpage somehow tells me that they use some vague identification software.

In other words, its a program that knows only ONE's and ZERO's, the program knows only YES's and NO's, and by that information

It seems then to know whether some content is illegal or not. Where is the tolerance, where is the compromisation,

where is the human factor !?

Dont get me wrong, i dont know exactly about the workings of this Identification Software, i just did some logical thinking on

this, because what if it IS software controlled ?? Then the Identification software that looks for some 'watermark' of 'fingerprint'

in the information register, it failed working properly.

My way of the usage of this song is far from a 1 - 1 copy/material, and therefore i have broken no law or rule.

Yet, they still call me indirectly being a criminal.

In some countries you hear terms like: "You are guilty untill proven otherwise !", well, this is the same.

Warner Music Group or YouTube's Identification tool accused me being criminal (breaking the Copyright law), yet, im haven't

breaking any laws.

Even better, i have tried to protect the content, so that it gets real hard, if not, impossible to get back to the 1 - 1 copy.

There are a few important laws, and it goes like this:

As long as somebody don't make any profit of any materials, whether you got it legal or illegal, which is now not important,

because its not about a 1 material anymore (the soundtrack), it became together with the video a new other product,

(like the food production laws, you may not re-produce a same material under some other or even a look-alike name and visa versa)

and that new other product (the video in its whole) protected the one material (the soundtrack) from being ripped FROM this

new product. So i lived up to the copy law, and protected it from become a 1 on 1 copy again. Thats 1.

Im also not making any money out of this, so there is no profit here, and i dont making any damage to the business, companies

or organisations with my methodes of protecting the used materials. Thats 2.

Now if non of these laws that i have mentioned above, are being accepted as they are being put, then the Copy and CopyRight laws

without the human factor and therefore, without common sense will fail in all degrees. YouTube is using this Identification Software,

and THAT piece of software doesn't have a human factor, which then cannot be used as a rightfull evidence, and i say it again, without

the human factor (common sense), and therefore i cannot be accused of anything or being prosecuted in any way. Thats 3.

By still accusing me whether it is indirectly or directly by who ever party it is being done, who ever it is doing, they violate the laws or

rules of the freedom of speech. Thats 4.

The way these organisations. companies, or businesses, are using the laws, (hoping to get somebody who doesn´t know the laws and

automaticly redraws (which is my own opinion btw)), they should know they can be hold responcible of creating a limitation of being

creative for people with limited (re)sourses, which there is not really a law in existance i think. Im just making a point here if you

(whoever is reading this) don't mind. Thats 5.

No i never learned rights and laws, but i know, this is the way it should have been. Since they put me into this mess, i start reading

and studying the laws, and these are my findings sofar. AND.... Warner Music Group and YouTube, you know that im making a good

point here. Common sense, human factor, and non profit. That alone should be enough. But i can come up with more details

If companies, organisations, or businesses like Warner Music Group or any related alike companies, organisations or businesses can't

or will not aknowledge to these rules, rights and laws as they are or as the way i put it up here, then i cannot aknowledge theirs.

I can give you more details if you want, just give me time to do some more studyings about rights, laws and exceptions.

4: Communications with YouTube.

Please, be aware that some of these contacts with YouTube was written and send in Dutch language.

I used Google translator for the translations.

First I have tried their standard counterclaim, but nothing happened to the video Copyright infringement status. The claim still stands.

later I start to write them an e-mail, and a few standard and automated replies came to me.

I already expected this kind of replies, so soon i'll start a more efficiënt methode to force them alitle bit more to listen to me.

	To: nlcopyright@youtube.com
	Subject: YouTube DMCA-counterclaim
	Date: April 2010

	Hello YouTube,

	As far as i know, this video : http://youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0 is considered copyright infringement.
	I dont think so by the following reasons:

	As the laws are written and available to the average citizen, it is always unclear what exactly copyright-infringement is all about.
	What I know is that as a song, which is the case here, just as in identical origin, then we indeed are talking about the copyright.
	As my material does not match the accusation here, i commit no crime.
	Of course, I expect that my method of use is not described in the law as a condition of the "protection of copyright material(s)".

	But I would be gladly to see the copyright infringement charge off of the table real soon.

	Thanks for your time.

	To: UnTrustable
	Subject: Reply, YouTube DMCA-Counterclaim
	Date: April 2010

	Thank you for contacting YouTube.
	You've reached the Copyright Team.
	Your message has been received and is now in queue for evaluation.
	Moreover, general requests for help are not answered.
	If you have questions about other matters relating to this site, go http://www.google.com/support/youtube/ our Help Center.
	Want to report abuse or inappropriate material? Go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic=13044 .
	If you have a privacy complaint, go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=78346 .
	When you request to remove a video that possibly infringes your copyright, you must provide us any information
	indicate that we need to handle your complaint. Incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim.
	See if you have questions http://youtube.com/t/copyright_notice about our copyright policy and information on reporting
	a copyright infringement.

	Did you know that YouTube is a tool for owners of Copyright notification that it is easier to submit?
	When a large number of videos to be removed, or if you expect your regular material of YouTube need to remove possible breach,
	you can sign up for our program content verifycation.
	With this program we are electronicly on the informed, every error,and we can possibility quickly remove infrigging material.
	Go to http://youtube.com/t/copyright_program to register for this program and to Report.

	Sincerely ,
	the YouTube Team

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: April 2010

	Hello,

	Thank you for your message. We have received your copyright complaint.
	We could not process your complaint, however, because the data was not complete.
	Complaints can now also be submitted online via http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form for faster
	processing your request. (You need a YouTube account.)

	You can also reply to this message with all the required information (Including statements of good faith and accuracy).
	An overview can be found at on http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice .
	CHECK WHETHER YOU ALL REQUIRED ITEMS HAS ENTERED before you answered the e-mail to ensure that your complaint can be processed.
	For any missing information, your confirmation is required.

	If you have inappropriate content, abuse or privacy issues to report, please go to
	http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py?contact_type=abuse .

	If you complain about other legal issues to submit, please go to:
	http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=140536 .

	Visit our Help Center for http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/ help with other problems with the site.

	Sincerely,
	The YouTube Team

	To: nlcopyright@youtube.com
	Date: April 2010

	Hello YouTube,

	My complaint is not the U.S. copyright they have forced up on all other Western countries.
	The problem however is that you, YOUTUBE, are convinced that one of my videos on your server, has been tagged to be
	copyright infringement.
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?=78vWcn6kcr0
	In what law is written the agreement with what goes on in this video?
	And why would I agree with a civic duty fabricated by the authorities message, "anti-piracy", which I DID NOT had a say into it or ever had?
	The way I got the music done in the video, should be sufficient to NOT voilate the copyright laws.
	If you as YouTube cannot compromise with me, which i believe this will lead to, then this is our last collaboration, because it appears
	that you, Youtube, are not impartial.
	Although I am not aware of the latest rules and laws these days, I know of myself that I have not violated the copyright law in any way.
	The soundtrack is also available in even better quality here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zN4ICwZKmA&feature=related
	and without addition of many other sounds that makes it impossible for the third party to reuse and/or to store on other media medium
	to convey.

	Sincerely ,

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: April 2010

	Hello,

	Thank you for your message.
	Before your application to be processed takes place I need two more things.

	- A statement said the complainant in good faith to believe that use of the material the way it is done, was not or as authorized by the
	way it is done, was not or as authorized by the copyright owner, its representative, or the law.
	- A statement that the information in the complaint accurate and that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the
	owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

	If you send us these statements, I can work further on the matter.

	For more information see the page with our copyright policy http://youtube.com/t/copyright_notice

	Sincerely,

	The YouTube Team

	To: YouTube Team
	Date: May 01 2010

	To meet up to the demands for explanations add to the counterclaim used against audioworks in conjuction with other sounds which are
	not original to the audio work, i honest believe that it is YOU that should fill in that missing explanations, that you need so badly.
	Infact I got the copyright infringement claims from YouTube itself, right?
	I have no idea and I do not know whose coverage it was that puts a copyright claim on my video.
	Under Dutch law legislation, as how this video has been done, I can do this without being pursued or being held for criminal activity.
	I'll take this false accusation very seriously, and always seek a way to protect materials that isnt mine.

	Incidentally, I get the impression examen the layout of your message, that ny message is not clear enough for you, or perhaps not taken
	seriously.
	There is no question of an alleged statement, but what is your opinion about the fact that an alleged breach, is not my opinion.
	Whether you dont know the law or you're making fun of me somehow.
	This video doenst violates any Dutch Copyright law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	The choice is yours, to convince me that this IS the case.
	Success.

	Sincerely ,

	Oh, I log everything, so all I and you will discuss whether to send, is stored and preserved.
	(Attachment: "YouTube_vermeende_auteursrecht_schending.png)

Communications with Warner Music Group (WMG)

Please take note, that i have slept badly and got really annoyed by this so called companies using (in my opinion) their mighty powers.

	WMG: http://www.wmg.com/contact
	Subject: Copyright claim, fair use policy !
	(02 may 2010)

	Hey there,

	According to YouTube.com your policy or your rules (your laws) makes me a criminal when it comes to Copyright infringements.
	Please, be so kind to examen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	and compare it then with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzWQGUSHDOA

	Now, your self made laws, which i do not acknowledge (because they do benefits only 1 side of the party),
	forces companies such as YouTube to accuse me of doing criminal activities. I dont take that lightly.
	Maybe i should, but then again, You as company CAN en will make laws, while the normal citizen cannot take
	any part of of it. We as citizen have no say in such actions, right?
	Now that brings me of why i do not acknowledge YOUR laws, however, i do agree the fact that people mis-uses
	other peoples work.
	So thats why i lowered the quality and volume of the song, let all other sounds that comes from the game IN.
	There is no way people can rip the song and put in on any media they want.
	Im sure, I will not receive any positive respond from your side, like YouTube do.
	If you do, please do. Tell YouTube that this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	falls under the term, acceptable.

	Thank you for your time.

At 5 may 2010 i also send a more friendlier e-mail to the Benelux version of Warner Music Group (Warner Music Benelux (WMB)).

But received nothing. It was all expected.

They are not the first companies who starts troubling me during my life for whatever reasons they had.

Communications with YouTube.

	To: YouTube Team
	Date: May 05 2010

	To meet up to the demands for explanations add to the counterclaim used against audioworks in conjuction with other sounds which are
	not original to the audio work, i honest believe that it is YOU that should fill in that missing explanations, that you need so badly.
	Infact I got the copyright infringement claims from YouTube itself, right?
	I have no idea and I do not know whose coverage it was that puts a copyright claim on my video.
	Under Dutch law legislation, as how this video has been done, I can do this without being pursued or being held for criminal activity.
	I'll take this false accusation very seriously, and always seek a way to protect materials that isnt mine.

	Incidentally, I get the impression examen the layout of your message, that ny message is not clear enough for you, or perhaps not taken
	seriously.
	There is no question of an alleged statement, but what is your opinion about the fact that an alleged breach, is not my opinion.
	Whether you dont know the law or you're making fun of me somehow.
	This video doenst violates any Dutch Copyright law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	The choice is yours, to convince me that this IS the case.
	Good luck.

	Sincerely ,

	Oh, I log everything, so all I and you will discuss whether to send, is stored and preserved.
	(Attachment: "YouTube_vermeende_auteursrecht_schending.png) (Not send, because you have received it already.)

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: May 05 2010

	Thank you for contacting YouTube.
	You've reached the Copyright Team.
	Your message has been received and is now in queue for evaluation.
	Moreover, general requests for help are not answered.
	If you have questions about other matters relating to this site, go http://www.google.com/support/youtube/ our Help Center.
	Want to report abuse or inappropriate material? Go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic=13044 .
	If you have a privacy complaint, go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=78346 .
	When you request to remove a video that possibly infringes your copyright, you must provide us any information
	indicate that we need to handle your complaint. Incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim.
	See if you have questions http://youtube.com/t/copyright_notice about our copyright policy and information on reporting
	a copyright infringement.

	Did you know that YouTube is a tool for owners of Copyright notification that it is easier to submit?
	When a large number of videos to be removed, or if you expect your regular material of YouTube need to remove possible breach,
	you can sign up for our program content verifycatoin.
	With this program we are electronicly on the informed, every error,and we can possibility quickly remove infrigging material.
	Go to http://youtube.com/t/copyright_program to register for this program and to Report.

	Sincerely ,
	the YouTube Team

	To: YouTube Team
	Date: May 10 2010

	To meet up to the demands for explanations add to the counterclaim used against audioworks in conjuction with other sounds which are
	not original to the audio work, i honest believe that it is YOU that should fill in that missing explanations, that you need so badly.
	Infact I got the copyright infringement claims from YouTube itself, right?
	I have no idea and I do not know whose coverage it was that puts a copyright claim on my video.
	Under Dutch law legislation, as how this video has been done, I can do this without being pursued or being held for criminal activity.
	I'll take this false accusation very seriously, and always seek a way to protect materials that isnt mine.

	Incidentally, I get the impression examen the layout of your message, that ny message is not clear enough for you, or perhaps not taken
	seriously.
	There is no question of an alleged statement, but what is your opinion about the fact that an alleged breach, is not my opinion.
	Whether you dont know the law or you're making fun of me somehow.
	This video doenst violates any Dutch Copyright law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	The choice is yours, to convince me that this IS the case.
	Good luck.

	Sincerely ,

	Oh, I log everything, so all I and you will discuss whether to send, is stored and preserved.
	(Attachment: "YouTube_vermeende_auteursrecht_schending.png) (Not send, because you have received it already.)

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: May 11 2010

	Thank you for your email.
	Your video was recognized by the YouTube Content Identification.
	When a Content Identification agreement recognizes between a user upload and material in the reference library, the usage policy which
	is chosen by the content owner.
	The use policy is determined or YouTube content on the system blocks or permits.

	If you receive a notification that a Content Identification agreement found your video, go to the page "Content-ID contracts" in your
	account for more information on use policies associated with your video: http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_copyright .

	If you believe that this claim rests on a misunderstanding, or you are otherwise authorized to use that content, you can deny this claim
	or other viewing options in the area "Video ID Agreements" section of your YouTube account.
	YouTube does not mediate disputes concerning copyright .
	You can find more information about Content Identification disputes: http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=83768 .

	We are pleased that the Copyright Act seriously, just like YouTube itself.
	In general you should check whether your video infringes makes someone else's copyright before the video to our upload site.
	We can not decide for you, it is your responsibility for knowing the rules, but we encourage you to our Copyright Tips to read
	http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright , where we have some guidelines and Links are included to enable you to determine
	whether your video is violates someone copyright.

	Sincerely,
	The YouTube Team

	To: YouTube
	Date: May 12 2010

	I understand what you write, but I don 't understand.

	You wrote:

	"Your video was recognized by the YouTube Content Identification."

	So I should really be with you for being challenging YOUR claims.

	You wrote:

	"Where Content Identification recognize an agreement between the upload of a user and reference in the library, the usage policy which
	is elected by the content owner."

	How does this co-called "Content Identification" software works?
	Ignores YOUR Identification Software any various other sounds mixed together with the actual soundtrack?

	I believe that these so-called identification software does not work, and I cannot agree to YOUR claim.

	Explain in more detail about HOW the hell YOU came to the conclusion that my video contained content that is breaking the Copyright law,
	or WHO made this claim.
	The known information is so vague, unclear and to my opinion that makes this Copyright infringement claim not justified.

Send in multiple counter copyright notice's during 12 may till 22 may.

Communications with Warner Music Group (WMG) Suddenly out of nowhere after many days, a reply came in....!

	From: Collins, Amanda
	To: UnTrustable
	Date: Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:58 AM
	Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Copyright claim, fair use policy !

	Thank you for your message.
	I am out of the office until Monday 5/24 and will respond to you as soon as possible.
	If you are a journalist on deadline or need to reach me more immediately, please call my cell phone.

	Thank you
	Amanda

I did know about a high ping possibility, but to have to wait for 20 days, out of them 3 weekends, 15 working days left (if you exclude

the 3 saturdays) and then to receive a auto message that she is out of office???? You better shoot me !

	From: UnTrustable
	To: Collins, Amanda
	Date: Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:13 AM
	Subject: Reply: Out of Office Autoreply: Copyright claim, fair use policy !

	Thank you for the autoreply,

	According to YouTube, your company, WMG, apparantly decided to claim a copyright infringement to a YouTube video.
	I have done so much to live up to my own country laws when its about copyrighted stuff.
	I like to know HOW and based on what, to call me indirectly doing 'criminal activities'.
	I re-direct your company to the fair use policy, and my own ways to live up to the 'rules'.
	The video im talking about is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0

	Maybe your company should import a new rule/law or better understand the fair use policy, AND to
	compromise on certain levels.
	The video indeed uses a soundtrack all mixed with other sounds.
	The law in general says (long story short) no COPY allowed, and COPY means, a 1 - 1 product.
	My video is no longer a 1 - 1 product.
	So im not breaking any laws or rules.
	The track in its FULL lenght has been reduced in volume, has been mixed with all (annoying) sounds,
	like in-game footsteps, in-game weapon clicks etcetra.
	Nobody will be able to rip the audio in its cleanest form and use it for other purposes.
	So where the hell did your company based the claim on?
	Before i end up into jail or get a bill presented, i first like to know why.
	If your company or your country still have problems with people using copyrighted or non-copyrighted materials,
	and protecting those materials on my way, (non 1 - 1 copy, attach the real source, altering the original
	and what more) your company will have a problem.

	Im not going to call you on your cell phone, Amanda, there is no way im going to do that.

	Oh yeah, take note that whatever your comapny says or writes, i save everything on file for court purposes
	if it comes to that.

	Thank you for your time (when you get back in your office at Tuesday. I hope i didnt offended you.
	I just got irritated by accusations that are in no order. Thats all.).

Back to Communications with YouTube.

I tried to 'e-mail bomb' YouTube with 10 e-mails in a row, not really e-mail bombing if you ask me, because there was just only

10 of them.

	to: nlcopyright@youtube.com
	Subject: My video has no CopyRight infringements !

	Come on YouTube!! What must I do to get your attention !?
	All this time I see my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0 inside the ID-agreement section.
	This video does not break any law at all.
	Stop sending auto-replies and communicate with me on the proper way.
	It is very easy for you people to un-tag my video, and give it a free go again.

Unfortunally.... I received an autoreply in return... 10 times. Then again, its funny anyways, i mean, i could have expect this to happen....

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: May 23 2010

	Thank you for contacting YouTube.
	You've reached the Copyright Team.
	Your message has been received and is now in queue for evaluation.
	Moreover, general requests for help are not answered.
	If you have questions about other matters relating to this site, go http://www.google.com/support/youtube/ our Help Center.
	Want to report abuse or inappropriate material? Go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic=13044 .
	If you have a privacy complaint, go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=78346 .
	When you request to remove a video that possibly infringes your copyright, you must provide us any information
	indicate that we need to handle your complaint. Incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim.
	See if you have questions http://youtube.com/t/copyright_notice about our copyright policy and information on reporting
	a copyright infringement.

	Did you know that YouTube is a tool for owners of Copyright notification that it is easier to submit?
	When a large number of videos to be removed, or if you expect your regular material of YouTube need to remove possible breach,
	you can sign up for our program content verifycatoin.
	With this program we are electronicly on the informed, every error,and we can possibility quickly remove infrigging material.
	Go to http://youtube.com/t/copyright_program to register for this program and to Report.

	Sincerely ,
	the YouTube Team

The next day 24 may 2010 i was about to 'e-mail' bomb them again with another 10 times, just like yesterday (23 may 2010) but......

	The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by the server.
	The rejected e-mail adress to: nlcopyright@youtube.com.
	Subject: 'My video has no CopyRight infringements !',
	Account: 'bla.blabla.nl', Server: 'bla.blabla.nl', Protocol: SMTP,
	Reaction of server: 'xxx x.x.x Invalid Address ', Port: xx, Secured(SSL): XXX,
	Server error: 501, errornumber: xxxxxxxxxx

Could have be an automatic blocking software mechanism to avoid being bomb mailing. Anyways.....

Send in 3 more counter-copyright notice's on the days 25, 28 and 30 may 2010

http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py?contact_type=copyright_counternotice

	Send to: copyright@youtube.com
	At: 30 may 2010

	Hello YouTube,

	As far as i know WMG (Warner Music Group (According to your site) claims this video
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0 To be breaking the copyright laws.

	I think not.

	Only when a music track is identical to the original, then we're talking about copyright infringement.
	The music track that has been used in this video is not identical to the original. and therefore i
	do not commit any illegal activities.
	I dont expect my methodes to 'protect' the materials to be a 'fair use' in the copyright laws, then
	yet again, i do like to see the false accusations of this video be gone.

	thanks for your time.

	To: UnTrustable
	Date: May 30 2010

	Thank you for contacting YouTube.
	You've reached the Copyright Team.
	Your message has been received and is now in queue for evaluation.
	Moreover, general requests for help are not answered.
	If you have questions about other matters relating to this site, go http://www.google.com/support/youtube/ our Help Center.
	Want to report abuse or inappropriate material? Go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic=13044 .
	If you have a privacy complaint, go to http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=78346 .
	When you request to remove a video that possibly infringes your copyright, you must provide us any information
	indicate that we need to handle your complaint. Incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim.
	See if you have questions http://youtube.com/t/copyright_notice about our copyright policy and information on reporting
	a copyright infringement.

	Did you know that YouTube is a tool for owners of Copyright notification that it is easier to submit?
	When a large number of videos to be removed, or if you expect your regular material of YouTube need to remove possible breach,
	you can sign up for our program content verifycatoin.
	With this program we are electronicly on the informed, every error,and we can possibility quickly remove infrigging material.
	Go to http://youtube.com/t/copyright_program to register for this program and to Report.

	Sincerely ,
	the YouTube Team

Sincerely, the YouTube Team??? Sincerely Auto message software you meant !

Its no wonder people gets more angry with such kinds of results.

YouTube apparently wish no contact.

Wrong choice YouTube. I can get worser and worser each step i have to make. :p but not just yet.

	Send to: copyright@youtube.com
	At: 30 may 2010

	Then Do somthing with this info !
	I dont like to be send off and on to nowhere.
	Its no wonder that some people stands negative towards YouTube.
	I now know why, and thats something i can work with.

	I finally got contact with WMG, and funny as it is, they dont know anything about the accusation and re-directs me back to you guys.
	I dont take this lightly.
	I demand communication with you guys on very short notice to solve this minor video tagging problem before this situation escalates into
	a juristical matter.
	Just to let you know.

	Sending to you my contacts with WMG, not that is will be usefull, because all you people do is sending auto-replies, don't you?

	<The entire conversation i had with one of the employees of company WMG>

No replies.

	From: UnTrustable
	To: http://www.wmg.com/contact
	Date: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 - Send another (hopefully better) e-mail -
	Subject: YouTube CopyRight

	Hey there,

	According to YouTube.com your policy or your rules (your country laws) makes me a criminal when it comes to Copyrights.
	Please, be so kind to examen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0 and compare it then
	with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzWQGUSHDOA

	Now, your company -and related companies self-made laws, or self-adjustments laws, which i can not acknowledge
	(because they do benefits only 1 side of the party(your clients side)), accuses me of doing criminal activities.
	I dont take that lightly.

	Thank you for your time.

30 may 2010 Send entire file to: mailto:infobenelux@warnerchappell.com

Since this company is owned by WMG but is settled in my country

Site is: http://www.warnerchappell.com/contactus.jsp?currenttab=about_us#

	From: Collins, Amanda
	To: UnTrustable
	Date: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 18:26:24.0953 (UTC)
	Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: YouTube CopyRight

	Thank you for your message.
	I am out of the office until Tuesday 6/1 and WMG's offices are closed for the holiday on Monday.
	I'll respond to you as soon as possible.
	If you are a journalist on deadline or need to reach me more immediately, please call my cell phone.

	Thank you
	Amanda

I couldn't help myself to facepalm for a long period of time. Seconds became hours to me, still, as 'quick' as possible i couldn't resist

sending up this:

	To: Collins, Amanda
	Date: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010

	You are away alot miss.
	I want to talk about this little Youtube issue as soon as possible.
	Dont wait too long, just to let you know.

Before you go apeshit on me, yelling how polite this lady is, to be willingly answering me at sunday, while i am doing very hostile, or

jerk-like..... When her server autoreplied at 22 may 2010 to be out of office untill 24 may 2010, she or anyone else who works there, had

at least 5 working-days the time to review their e-mails or back-upped e-mails. So in fact i was very patient to them.

But yeah, you're right. Im reacting like this on purpose, just to lure a reaction from them :p

(I had conflicts with more companies in the past and i learned from them to behave like this to achieve results in the highest gear.)

And actually unexpected later that night, just before i want to go to bed....

	From: Collins, Amanda
	To: UnTrustable
	Date: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010

	What is the nature of your issue with YouTube? Have you reached out to YouTube already?

	To: Collins, Amanda
	Date: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010

	Hi,

	According to YouTube.com, your company, WMG, has tagged one of my video to be breaking the copyright laws.
	Im sure it is not.

	Please, be so kind to examen my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0
	and compare it then with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzWQGUSHDOA
	I like to know what made your company to be so sure, my video is absolutely breaking the copyrights?

	Im sure your company can convinced YouTube to 'untag' my video.
	In the meantime i try to contact YouTube myself too.

	Thank you for your time.

No replies since. So.... that makes me think like, WMG really doesnt know what im talking about. That means, they are not guilty??

Just logically thinking... YouTube is the only here to blame for. Why?

Their Identification software clearly tagged my video to be copyright infringement,

and clearly said that the 'problem' was the audio, and the content owner was WMG.

YouTube didnt help me out by sending in multiple counter copright notice's during the month April 2010.

So i was quite convinced i had to talk to WMG about this.

Accidently i got on some Google Forum linked to YouTube. on 31 may 2010

That Topic is located here, but if it got removed somehow by whoever and by whatever reasons they might have had,

here is the same Topic, so removing the information would be pointless.

	Topic: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 1 June 2010
	By: UnTrustable

	Short and straight version:
	I have a video that is tagged as copyright infringement by WMG: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=78vWcn6kcr0
	I called out for this WMG company, but they send me back to YouTube to deal with this issue.
	So, here is my excuse that i absolutely dont believe i have break some laws.
	That is, depending in what perspective you look at it.
	Short version: i would direct to the fair use policy.
	Long version: I have used music, reduced it in volume and kept all in-game sounds in, in such way nobody is
	able to re-use this track in any way without all the annoying in-game sounds.
	In the law it says, we should not alter materials, well, that line is very unclear, because i DID alter the song
	in my video by merging all in-game to the song..... just a matter of perspective i guess...
	Anyway the law is sometimes very vague.

	Now back to my question or actually it is a request to YouTube. Please untag my video, unless you really
	think i would have broke the law somehow.
	Then again, why not checking out the difference between my video and this one?
	http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=KzWQGUSHDOA
	I tried many times to fill in the counter copyright claim, but that doesnt work. i only receive auto replies thats
	help me no further.
	I accidently got here, so i try here now.

	Update:

	Edit: same situation here: http://www.google.com/support/ forum/p/youtube/thread?tid= 0e5597ffe246540f&hl=en .
	Sorry people, didnt seen that post when i post mine. All with all, still, sending a counter notice doesnt work for me, since
	i send it in a month ago, and my video is still tagged as being infringe the copyright.
	I dont get it, but im very sure YouTube's Identification software fails big time.
	That piece of software also made me moving towards/against WMG, and they seems not to know anything about this.

	Whatever this software is doing, in my point of view today is, its accusing me indirectly for doing criminal
	activities, and putting me on the wrong track for believing i have to deal with WMG about this.

	YouTube team only answers constantly with autoreplies.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 1 June 2010
	By: Rewboss

	Any use of third-party material without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal, even if you edit it or
	change it or merge it with other sounds -- it is quite simply illegal. "Fair use" is a defence you can use, but
	you may have to go to court to make your case.

	For proper legal advice, I'm afraid you'll have to consult a lawyer.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 1 June 2010
	By: UnTrustable

	True, absolutly true when i would make profit over this, or keeping (in this case) the audio track intact as being a 1 to 1 copy.
	My video's soundtrack is a non 1 on 1 copy, and cannot be brought back (ripping) to be a 1 on 1 copy. (with doing this, im not breaking
	the copy law here.)
	I indeed not re-direct the rightfull owner name or group name of that specific song.
	But even if i do so... today, im sure my video still gets tagged in this ID indentification system.

	But im not going to lecture anyone, but i cannot aknowledge a law that is only giving profit to only 1 side of the party.
	I strife for some balance here and more important, a common sense here.
	I mean, im planning making more and more materials the same way as i did like this 'stupid to mention'
	video, (but now including the rightfull owner of whatever materials im about to use.)

	The laws that are now being used by the goverment and/or copyright companies who likes to 'attack' the
	internets, actually are killing-, if not tighter the people's non-profit creativities.
	I know a few laws about creativity too, together with the copyright laws, it will mix quite nice.
	Everything together, i know im doing right here.

	I dont know if ANY YouTube Owner/Boss has some common sense, but at least think about this
	Im not going to make this a case, i simply don't have the money, nor the time, nor the transport, nor the energy for it.
	And certainly not for just a 'stupid' video, where people like to fight for.
	I just call out to the YouTube owner or maintainer to consider my thoughts about this.
	I did do my homework, so i know how certain laws works.

	No offence to any of you there. Just trying to make a point here to think about.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 2 June 2010
	By: Epontius

	YouTube has no control over it. It's between you and WMG. YouTube is simply doing what the law requires them to do.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 2 June 2010
	By: UnTrustable

	hmm, well thanks for the information.

	To: http://www.wmg.com/contact
	3 June 2010

	Hi there, Im sorry but here i am again, and untill this matter has been talk out and solved, i have to contact you people at WMG again,
	and i have no intensions to stop.

	Yep, again the accusations continues, according to YouTube's forum members,
	its not YouTube's fault that their webpages says that it actual party to discuss this with is WMG.
	http://www.3dshots.nl/WarnerMusicGroup2008_YouTube/False_Claim_Of_YouTube_-_Full_Page.png
	YouTube simply do what they have to do according to the laws.
	I know HOW companies, organisations, and or businesses LOOK and HOW they USE the laws, so do i in return.
	I have done some studies in the COPY law, in combination of the COPYRIGHT law AND in combination
	of the freedom of artistics.
	And if you combinates all of these together with the verdict of your company (according to YouTube that is)
	your company claims that im a criminal before the actual case came to court.
	So the fact that... well... American way of laws, I am guilty untill proven otherwise, right?
	Well, thats not how it works in Europe, so in that case i can reverse your claims to be against
	the human rights. So... shall we talk? or would your company prefer to act innocent and not aware of
	any false accusations?
	How i came to the conclusion to have done or act everything in order according to the laws about the
	YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vWcn6kcr0 i wont tell you.
	You figure that part for yourself.
	Therefore i assume your company knows how excatly to perform the laws the right way.
	And please dont bother me with the fact it i used a audio track that is a 1 on 1 copy, cause according
	to the laws, my music track is not a 1 on 1 copy at all.
	I also not taking any profit, and just only that 1 specific law makes me innocent.
	I however used every methode to 'protect' the materials that i used, but if we all use the way your company
	is using and handling the laws, well, i didnt have to do so much effort to 'protect' the materials,
	How could you sue someone who is recording their dancing child on a music track that plays in the background
	with awefull bad quality?
	Thats NOT how the laws works, and your company knows that pretty well.
	Now i friendly ask your company to send YouTube a (if necessary multiple) messages to untag my video.
	Please, use common sense.

	Thank you for your time.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 5 June 2010
	By: UnTrustable

	I did some more investigation on my own....

	Im still confused according this You Tube's identification Software.
	Who build that program, and how does it works? Because i have reasons to believe
	whatever information it has gathered is not enough to state the claim to accuse
	anyone of CopyRight infringements.
	YouTube still needs a human factor of (a third party ( it could be a judge)) to determine that
	the claim has been made correctly or not.

	I would like to see the information that the identification software gathered that
	resulted into the claim that it had stated to my YouTube account.

	I also like to talk to someone of the YouTube team that knows about rights and laws, very soon.
	Very soon i said, because i believe YouTube is fast in judging people but is extremely slow in
	answering their actions.

	Warner Music Group seems to be an agency that has the song that i used registrated.
	And thats where everything stops for them.
	According to YouTube's available information, it claims to have set up this identification Software
	and therefore they are the one's responcible of whatever the software is making claims on video's.
	I say that the Identification software of YouTube made an error. It also misses the human common sense
	and cannot tell that some video falls into a 'grey area'.

	Oh yeah, keep notice that i record everything about this matter and publish this anywhere i like.
	Any third party that has nothing to do with this issue or were helpfull in any way, will become anonymous,
	if they want to, or if they get harmed directly or indirectly they will become anonymously automaticly in
	my report.

	Thanks for your time.

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 5 June 2010
	By: Rewboss

	What's happened is this: The auto content ID system detected your use of the disputed material in your video,
	and this is what is called "prima facie" evidence of copyright infringement.
	The claimant ordered your video disabled.
	By law, YouTube had to comply with that request and also give you a way to dispute the claim. You did dispute the claim.
	After that, I don't know what happened, because you didn't say what these unhelpful automated responses were that you say you received.
	Two possibilities: Either you made an error filing your counter claim, or the claimant informed YouTube of their intention to obtain
	a court order against your use of their intellectual property.
	If the former, then you should get a lawyer to help you file your counter claim. If the latter, then you should get a lawyer
	to help you defend yourself in court.

	Please note that no matter how much you alter the original, no matter how much you edit it, no matter how difficult you make it for others
	to reconstruct the original, it may still be copyright infringement even if you are not making any money from your video.

	This is not merely YouTube policy, this is the law.
	Only a court case can finally establish once and for all whether you can legally use the material you used.
	We cannot help you any further, and nothing you can post here will change the situation.

	References:

	[1] Copyright Tips A few guiding principles : General Copyright ...

	Topic: Reply: ID identification YouTube video
	Date: 5 June 2010
	By: UnTrustable

	What started as anti copy: (Copy: A true copy that preserves all the markings and contents of the original.) transformed into CopyRight?
	Figurely speaking, if i change a Snickers candybar, into a Mars candybar (taking out only the peanuts), changing the material into a whole
	new or other material (anti copy) dispite the fact the two candybars are still sweet, but without the peanuts is still forbidden according to
	the copyright?
	I know, it sounds stupid, and in a matter of speaking the example might not rightious the situation, my situation for that matter.
	...Just pointing out the controversity of this...

	If YouTube takes everything by the letter, then here is something to think about.
	According to the law section 106 (if you rationalized this backwards, the owner of the copyright has the right to and to authorize
	*to prevent the reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.*

	...In copies...? Is the used material in its whole a copy? I like you to re-read the first 2 lines of this post.

	Well , i admit it has become a new material (Snicker to Mars methode) together in the video, yet the law also said indeed not to make
	any alterations.
	So reducing its volume or to add multiple other sounds to prevent reconstructing the material back to its original content, is useless?

	You say: "The claimant ordered your video disabled." Did that really happened? According to what i have received from the claimant sofar
	was confusion.
	They didnt know what i was talking about and advised me to go talk to YouTube.
	So its normal for me to believe YouTube auto-react on their own. Just say, if im wrong at this.

	We all know that this video causes no treat to the industry, to be honest, this video was mainly meant to show people ( just 356 hits only )
	how to gather the available weapons in this game, not to bring this song illegal to the people.
	So basicly you can see this video be more like educational... game-wise that is. :P
	No, im not attempting to justify any of my actions.
	As i said before, im just trying to reach for the common sense in the fair use policy.
	If you want to, Im even willing to reduce the song more so that its far far deep in the background.
	I guess thats not the point here, right? Yeah i know, the law says so...
	As you said: "nothing you can post here will change the situation."
	So there is only one more solution left for me to do, if i dont choose court.

	Well, someone has to add the fair use policy more power, because without it, I believe YouTube is basicly destroying itself slowly.
	Luckely YouTube has commercials addons.

	Well, at last i like to say that i might sound like a jerk, or a fool, whatever you want to name me, but i really had to know these things
	from YouTube's perspective, so thanks for the important info.
	I also hope YouTube understands my perspective, even though i have given so less information.
	http://www.3dshots.nl/WarnerMusicGroup2008_YouTube/CopyRights_FairUse_WMG_vs_YouTube_vs_UnTrustable.htm

	I now know again why im against certain specific laws restrictions when you take everything to the letter.
	Just squeeze an eye from time to time to a video that basicly causes no treat to the industry.
	Dont get me wrong, im still honering the laws, yet like many others, in my fair way.
	I'm always try to do the right thing, but with the way YouTube (has to) uses the law, i cannot longer trust and use YouTube's services.

	Thanks for the good times and goodbye. ;)

And thats where i stop using YouTube's online services when it comes to uploading video's/audio's and stuff.

I have not said i will stop using YouTube's services when it comes to postings, or communicating with other YouTube people in

the form of texting or whatever that will become available now or in the future to communicate directly or indirectly with other YouTubers,

unless something changes for the better of both sides, me and youTube, where we can trust in each other.

05 june 2010:

Minutes later i have removed all of my video's from YouTube because: (PAY ATTENTION, because this is the moment why im against

the law when people takes it by the letter.)

	I cannot longer trust YouTube's law system.
	Therefore im not going to use YouTube's Upload (video) services any longer when it comes to (in YouTube's terms and
	or perspective of the law) illegal content.
	That means all my video's has to be removed, because they all use materials (not just audio only) that are against
	the CopyRight law.
	Simply, the fair use policy does not aknowledge the term amusement, and therefore ALL video's of mine are against
	the law.

	I know, its vague, and it should not, but if you take the law by the letter, all of my video's are against the law.
	Having a non-profit or 'protecting' the copyright material wasnt enough so it seemed.
	Im merely stay here for chatting, text postings, or viewing other people's video's.

	M.A.D.2 will not be available to YouTube, because that projects uses Sprites that is copyrighted to Id Games. (EDIT: Id Software.)
	According to the CopyRight law in YouTube's perspective even the recolors (alterations) are not permitted for
	broadcasting.
	Sorry people. Its the law. :D

Basicly this sprite-concept might be alittle exaggerated, yet, im just making a point here that basicly we cannot do much else

to perform our harmless hobby's with existing materials now-a-days.

This was the result i was trying to get by creating this report.

The End.

Not the end.... 'sigh'

The more I study the available online information about the copyright laws, The more I found gaps and holes in the system.

I also understand better why certain companies acts the way they acts towards the people and what perspective they have reading and understanding the laws.

I might considering myself to do the same strategy, but then from my own perspective.

The eventually result will be a situation where both sides of the party is acting according to the law, and if nobody is willing to understand or compromise

there will be chaos.

However, im just alone against the rest of the big wealthy (and so it seems a very) powerful industry.

Sofar i found two gaps:

First: article 16c Copyrightlaw 1912, known as the HomeCopy. (its the 1 - 1 copy thing im bashing about all these times.)

Second: article 1201(f) DMCA of 1998, known as the reverse enginering for educational purposes.

The rest is a matter of perspective or human factor, or if none of these, the law has vague statements that has an empty- or doesn't have a solid explaination.

Like the 'Fair Use Policy' at article 107	1) 'The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
	educational purpose', which the profit part cannot be said or determined by a second party such as WMG or youTube,
	however, YouTube should/could have known that I had no profit marks on on my account, on their servers.
	That part could have been easely detectable for YouTube, but they did not do that. Don't ask me why?
	I also like to ADD: ' ...for amusement purposes' instead of educational purpose' only, however, making a video is
	certainly educational to me. :p
	Amusement can be non profit too.
	2) 'The nature of the copyrighted work'? What does it say, the nature? That could be everything. Does it mean in what status
	the copyrighted material finds itself in? Is it the way the copyrighted material has been used?
	3) 'The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole'? what does this mean?
	Are they saying about the lenght of the used (if soundtrack) materials? Where does the law say what the lenght may be?
	People are whispering about a maximum of a 30 seconds of lenght.
	4) 'The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work'? As the way YouTube and WMG
	done the things to me, for within 1 month nobody or any possible calculation, or any verdict based on an assumption
	can determine whether the copyrighted (and certainly not in my case) materials had a positive- nor a negative effect on the
	potential market. Thats just guesswork, and to be on their safe sides they choose to mark my video.

15 june 2010:

I have deleted my YouTube account, because even when i have deleted ALL my video's, YouTube still says that im a criminal by saying

that this TheUnTrustable account still deserves a warning of Copyright Infringement.

YouTube likes to have a explaination of why someone's deleted their account, so here is mine:

Translated text (google)

False accussations of YouTube itself.

Sadly how YouTube (despite their free services and their rules).

I deleted this account because i still see the false accusations despite the fact that i have removed ALL of my video's.

Infact it is YouTube itself who is the guilty one, who keeps saying (even though its software-matic) who is criminal while that is not the case.

Making contact with YouTube seems to be impossible. Despite the free services, this whole is a bad development.

Original text:

Valse beschuldiging van YouTube zelf.

Zeer treurig hoe YouTube (ondanks dat ze een vrije service aanbieden, met de daarbij behorende regels en instellingen).

Ik zeg deze account op omdat ik ondanks dat ik ALLE video's heb verwijderd, YouTube blijft zeggen dat ik criminele akties heb

ondernomen, terwijl feitelijk het YouTube zelf de schuldige is die CLAIMED te mogen zeggen (hetzij met software) dat iemand

een crimineel is, terwijl dat NIET het geval is.

Contact met YouTube personeel opnemen is ook al ondenkbaar. Ondanks de vrije service, een hele slechte onwikkeling van/voor YouTube.