Author Topic: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.  (Read 295 times)

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« on: June 17, 2017, 04:23:38 PM »
Just over a month ago I posted a partially restored version of a 1936 Ramon Montoya track on Youtube only to get a copyright claim by Warner Music the next day where they were trying to feed me the "bullsh*t" that they were doing me a favour by letting me use their track while grabbing at any money it may earn on Youtube with their claim. Differing from an earlier track that they objected to for the same reason that I deleted, this time I did the research on Australian copyright law, the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the exact provenance of the two copies I have of Montoya from the original recording company in Paris.

After an unreasonable amount of pissing around with Youtube accompanied by threats, mis-information and seriously restricted response capacity, I created a HTML page that had the works, hi res image data, Australian law, Australia/US free trade agreement and posted that as a DMCA counter claim. After another week and a half where Warner Music had the option of legal action under Australian jurisdiction, they graciously pulled their head in and did not risk legal action on recordings that they never owned and that were no longer protected by copyright.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :biggrin:

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7756
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2017, 05:46:45 PM »
Keep fighting, Hutch :t

I am currently fighting with insurance companies and public utilities, and I think I need a lawyer. Because if you kill the CEO of a major company, it's better to have a lawyer, right?

K_F

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Anybody out there?
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2017, 07:24:18 PM »
Big companies try bull-doze their way over you with a 'bluff'.
There are many times when they even don't know the specific laws - so call their bluff.

A simple access to the local law library, pull out similar cases and the court rulings.
If you're at an advantage, start hinting on the web about the other cases - It's bad publicity for them - you're not accusing them explicitly  ;), and watch their ship sail like a lead brick  :biggrin:
'Sire, Sire!... the peasants are Revolting !!!'
'Yes, they are.. aren't they....'

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2017, 09:23:26 PM »
He he, you would like it, Australian federal legislation "Copyright Act 1968" as amended in 2004 in accordance with the "Australia/United States Free Trade Agreement", proof of the original recording date from multiple sources including the record covers, original recording company's copyright in French translated to English directly off the record labels of both copies I own and a highly detailed response to the DMCA takedown with a DMCA counter claim. This is the URL of my formal response.

http://www.movsd.com/google/index.htm

hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :biggrin:

caballero

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
    • Abre Ojos Ensamblador
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2017, 10:27:33 PM »
The fondness you have for flamenco is admirable  :t
En un lugar de la Mancha de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme

felipe

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • assemble the unassembled.
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 12:56:18 AM »
 :eusa_clap:

 :icon14: :icon14: :icon14:

Well done Hutch!
Felipe.

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7756
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Warner Music, Another one bites the dust.
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 03:09:21 AM »
Quote
probably just an act of incompetence rather than direct dishonesty, it is still a fraudulent claim of ownership

Lovely :t