You honor, We will prove through preponderance of evidence, that this "teacher" was teaching "children" in a "classroom" the Major key of C, which we have used extensively through out our vast catalog of music, and therefor infringed upon our intellectual property rights.

They do.....

They can and they have. Disney has sued teachers and school systems for playing their movies for non educational reasons, pretty bs.

Technically because of the lack of fair use laws in Europe, they can sue any teacher that attempts to even play one example...

They'd rather stop new music from being created than lose a single cent they might be able to earn. This proves copyright doesnt protect artistic creation anymore. I see no reason for it to exist at this point, you dont need corporations producing and distributing albums so they shouldn't be protected.

Seriously?

Better start sending Cease & Desists to every family in the world.

@@doggy7210 Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright.

@@tannerted3920 Warner is out of control! This is worse than that time Micheal Jackson bought out Paul McCartney's songs

Doggy ...yep. They are truly scum

hello person from 2 days ago

@@silvo5955 hello person from 6 hours ago.

@@stxrenegade Hello person from 3 hours ago.

@@samfrostinjapan Hello person from 6 hours ago

@@slothysoap4589 hello person fom 13 hours ago

Absolutely no chance they watched the video. It's the first appearance of (what they THOUGHT) was the Dark Horse ostinato in the video. They probably watched up to there, went "haha, gottem, easy money", then filed the claim, disregarding the rest of the video's content.

Big Bulk >a taste of his own medicine Oh, you mean informing the masses about a dangerous precedent that is being put into play? oh heavens no! clearly he's at fault for informing the masses that people are trying to make it so nobody can ever make music again! oh the inhumanity!

I'll show you medicine

lmao this comment is underrated XD

Big Bulk You seem like the type who listens to underground artists for the simple purpose of being different. It was the small artist who went after the big company and won for a stupid reason. If he gets shamed, he brought it upon himself. Little artists who aren't scummy about the way they create music aren't affected by this guy's video. Only the assholes who try to capitalize on a big companys success and earn easy money are the ones that are affected. and they deserve it.

Big Bulk Why is a total non-musician like you arguing about music in Adam’s channel? You probably didn’t even understand a droplet of his arguments in the original video lmao. If you were actually educated enough to understand his points, you wouldn’t be saying any of these bullshit. Get out of here and go listen to your redundant pop music. Didn’t anybody ever teach you to not talk about things you have no idea about?

cekobidonq Trump is the president. What do you expect.

@@Hey_Jamie Shut the fuck up, Trump has nothing to do with music you ass, gtfo.

*EA WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A SEAT*

@@calamari3064 How are they greedy?

@@viccyyboii3308 I can name dozens of examples my dear friend

DMCA should be an innocent until proven guilty thing. Nothing happens to the offending content until the claimant can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the infringed material both belongs to them, and falls outside of fair use.

@@FNLNFNLN That would be far too reasonable and time consuming for the vultures to bother with. Far better for them to just prey on the public 🙄

👏😂 Dude, that's exactly what I was about to post. Props !

Maybe the same person worked on both cases. Ironically, by confounding both "melodies" in this instance, they simply validated their adversaries' case while trying to screw someone who was defending their case. Now that's incompetence ! Twice !

And they're still being ripped off by their lawyers it appears.

You really think WMG wanted to win this suit ... I mean, instead of creating a precedential case for all their hidious claims to come.

@@sylvainmichaud2262 LET THEM HAVE THE CORONAVIRUS AND SHOVE IT UP THEIR AS*H*LES!

And then Warner shoots himself in the foot.

Is warner gonna rape adam.... Oh right.

You forgot one big detail... those *BIG* and *HAIRY* nipples!

@@PTNLemay warner: NOT ON MY WATCH *PULLS GUN* warner:*shoots it self on the foot*.... shit

Based

@@preperforated Based?

@@Bran_Flakesx7 yeah based?

@@Bran_Flakesx7 cool

@@preperforated What "Based"?

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." 🤣🤔🤯

You missed the extra part where in the lawsuit too, where they claimed that it wasnt even their melody, but instead a background sound - then claimed the video because it was the melody.

Lol

lol

No. They are not trying to claim the video. They just claim it and get away with all the money.

Yes

Big brain ,pea brain choices.

Well, now he's a felon for music theft right? So his testimony becomes invalid, proving that they don't actually own the rights to the melody, thus they can't claim the video, which makes him not a felon thereby making his testimony admissible again, which makes it claimable again, and now we're back at the first part of this sentence...

@@Pause4011 yez

They’ll use the ad revenue to pay the attorneys guys

4. The part in question was argued by the claimants as not even being the "melody" yet they characterized it that way in the claim anyway 🤣

Seems about right

Oh the irony is so good!😂🤣😂🤣😂

5. they claimed their song was in the wrong part of the video

Hotel trivago

Perfect metaphor.

Not only that. They ripped off the wrong arm.

They also tried to do that with a kittens jaw

The time has come execute Order 66, *me clicks likes and makes it 666*

@@namedafteracar3645 *sweats in I want to like the comment but I don't want to disrupt the like number*

Honestly I never appreciated that fable before. This is a prime example.

The scorpion asked the frog for a ride across the river right?

@@therealcat5794 Yes.

Except that implies Adams video did anything for them. Hes not saving them, he made a youtube video that no one involved is going to see or care about lol.

@@edisonmoreira no

That would be absolute gold.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

He has to cut deal with Joyful noise also.

I would love to see that

@@rajatgupta1850 a small price to pay for sweet, sweet justice

Literally lol

They just want the money

This comment deserves more upvotes

@@gheorghegeorgescu7846 facts my guy

You are me.. but evil!

I actually the opposite would be right. They should have won the case BECAUSE no one can tell the difference.

@@auseryt Joyful noise was first, so, unless somebody has a time machine, i would think that Warner would deserves to loose if they can't even tell.

@@SethbotStar As far as i understood it, the point of the video they sued because of was not when comparing to Joysful, but to a part that was played by the video maker. They didn't failed to distinguish joyful from their song, but the play in the video to their song.

Stefan Ionescu the copyright claim was filed by the defendant WB, representing Katy Perry's Dark Horse. Flame was suing Katy Perry (WB); Adam defended Katy (WB); WB claimed Adam's video, based on the section of it where Flame's Joyful Noise played. This might as well have been used as evidence by the plaintiff.

Backstabbing is s sport in the corporate world, especially in the entertainment industry.

@@slappy8941 literal sport. I'm actually surprised, weirdly Delighted, shocked, disgusted, and jealous that I'll never reach that level of shamelessness.

A boring dystopia

When you lose the lawsuit, then the Defenders must have sucked and deserves punishment 😂😂

@@cobaltclaw5136 accurate to a fault. The WORST kind of dystopia, second only to 1984.

Lol

@Bum Face Gammon "f*ck it, we all stole it." Communism

@@michaeledmunds7266 Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh spotilla naveki velikaya rus

@@joseph3062 Это именно то, чего я бы хотел сказать от Иосифа Сталина.

@Bum Face Gammon you must be fun for free economies

Why would you ever trust a machine designed to maximize profit? It’s literally designed to run you over and turn your remains into money.

Corporate lawyers.

*Never trust a service you're not paying for and is closed source

@@beaconofwierd1883 no

Deoxal so you trust the light industry to not rig their lamps to break early? Or your phone company not to change charger just to force you to pay more? Or your pharmasutical company not to get you hooked on their drug? Or your aircraft manifacturer not to skip tests? All of these are services you pay for, all of these are examples of how coorporations screw you over to make an extra dollar, in some of the cases even literally kill people to get that cash. Fortunatley the government steps in sometimes, but this is not a bug in the coorporation, it is the desired feature: profit above all else.

But thats how they make money

You don't even have to be a big company. You can be a random guy

I don't understand how KZfaq thinks the default should be "guilty until proven innocent". But I mean, they were bought out by Google and Google did remove their "Don't be evil" slogan...

The worst part is the claimant doesn't need to give YT any information, BUT if YOU want to appeal it, you have to give ALL your details to the claimant. It's messed up.

what else can youtube do? if they are issues a DMCA takedown they have to comply and it is up to you to fight the takedown in the courts

On behalf of everyone who can't afford to defend themselves, I hope Adam pursues this

@Ceyhun ay If there is proof that warner knowingly and illegally claimed copyright on a legal video, which there does appear to be, they are in deep shit. Doesn't matter how much money they have for lawyers.

@@gabriels1163 You'd be surprised

You will never win in a lawsuit against that

@@Andy-xd5dj Correct, because they would settle long before it got to a court.

No

Thank goodness

Nice

what a journey

I'm genuinely happy for you. What a complete clusterfuck, man.

Sounds like a young karen at school during a test

@@rigovalentine lmao

@@rigovalentine some company didnt speak to the manager within

Me: stop listening to the Warner stuff :) if possible ;)

worse: warner : It's not copying! Also Warner: HOW DO YOU EVEN DARE TO DEFEND US WITHOUT GIVING US MONEY!?! Adam: Mates, you told me to pay you for the sounds they made,not the ones you made. if you can't notice, maybe they are right...

Copyright law might be, but the fact that you need deep pockets to defend yourself against others, even if you're in the right, is completely ass backwards.

@@Mtaalas Wooosh!

@@maverickdoe6984 there's a difference between the law and what you need for the law to be realized in practice.

Timesink I’ve looked into your account and nowhere can I find evidence that you actually work for KZfaq let alone have the authority to represent an opinion held by the entire company. Preeeeetty sure you’re just a big phony!

Dominic Airola He may be phony, but at least he’s not phony bologna. That’d be despicable.

Exactly. Warner is admitting that Dark Horse is so similar to Joyful Noise that their own employee can't tell the difference. Which means either they are knowingly infringing, or they believe the similarity to be trivial.

Judge: but we agreed that your Dark Horse was infringing the rights of Joyful Noise so your claim is 300% invalid

Saved me 5 mins thanks

Reminds me of Legal Eagle's outro of "... and I'll see you in court." That and Ace Attorney

have you ever heard of lawyers? That's a summary of their daily activities lmao

pretty much

Careful, Nintendo may copyright claim you for this. They are huge asses with this.

I want to up vote, but it's at 420 xD

😂😂

Brilliant XD XD

Dad, is that you?

2/10

He'd be such a great alloy to their cause too, but instead, they've sunk their case.

i'm steeling all of these

Steele Adam and their smash hit album The Royal Scam...

sounds like a Rule of Acquisition

@@thelyric2751 Rule of Acquisition 111: "Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them."

@@michaeledmunds7266 Men of culture I see

@Michael Edmunds Rule of Acquisition 211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.

Rule 10 is the most appropriate here. Greed is eternal.

appropriate username

You have no chance to survive take your time

It is just like other nations muscling into China's ancestral fishing waters. The nerve of the other nations! Do they not know that China's ancestral waters extend from their shores up to 24,000 miles?

Yup.

Nothing screams Frivolous law suits more than U.S multi billion dollar companies. When they waste money the government let's them write it off on the taxes they pay instead.

Hulk Slayer this is actually the best way forward.

Xplora213 legally no. That’s double jeopardy. unless the legal team files it as a separate claim under different circumstances. Besides, it would look more like Joyful’s team would rather file a complaint on Warner so that they would receive the revenue rather than going through the arduous process of filing another lawsuit, much less a lawsuit with similar circumstances. But that’s just my two cents. I could be wrong tho, so if anyone could correct me on this, much appreciated.

Casual's Breakfast an injunction against acting as if they maintained full copyright... if you steal something you can’t claim warranty on it.

Casual's Breakfast it’s not double jeopardy. This is at a different time and in different circumstances.

@@epsilomtrent932: The principle of double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and only in some circumstances (after mistrials, criminal defendants get retried all the time, and furthermore double jeopardy does not apply to distinct federal vs. state prosecutions for the same underlying actions). This is a civil lawsuit, a.k.a. a "tort". A.k.a. "equity" as opposed to "law". There are analogues of "double jeopardy" in torts; as I understand it, they usually go under the label of various forms of "estoppel" (collateral, promissory, etc.). IANAL, TINLA, ad libitum ad nauseam.

... and now we know how they lost the lawsuit.

Best tldr ever xD

@@gorkyd7912 Another artist said the same thing and started the lawsuit. He got a musicologist to lie on stand and say the line was truly unique in music (it isn't, similar lines are littered through music over the centuries). In reality, the line in question is such a basic musical figure that no one should be able to claim copyright over it.

Karl Rovey it’s fraudulent all the way down

Seemes pretty accurate, yes

That's because common cents is now my cents 🤑

Who has no common sense? MrKrabs or the Warner?

@@reymarckessaguirre5082 Warner Krabs

you just made my day

Yep. They're that brain-dead.

Warner Bros also copyrighted Meatcanyon’s “Wabbit Season”, sooo..... yeahZz

They lost the lawsuit. The point is, even after loosing, they now claim, that the competitors melody is inreality theirs. Shouldnt there be an extra massive retribut... fine for having lost a lawsuit and then not exactly repeating but commiting an even worse crime?

WHOMST HAVE AWAKEN THE ANCIENT ONE

People make mistakes. If you want to single out the employee as the culprit, you're opening the door to their (proven antisocial) company to fire them and try to get credit for having dealt with the issue so promptly and drastically. Therefore, this should be entirely on the company as a whole and its policies being all kinds of wrong, regardless which of their representatives filed the claim.

@@Co19801003 I would agree with you except it is very clear they did not watch the entire video for the context. If they did a proper investigation they wouldn't have the same faulty outcome

@@Co19801003 people make mistakes but this looks like carelessness/lack of training. I'm not a professional and i could instantly tell that it wasn't dark horse. if it's their job they shouldn't make mistakes like this especially on this video where its relevant to a court case, it should've been handled with more care i believe x

@@Co19801003 Well, the legal penalty (which should definitely exist !!!) should be for the corporation no doubt and shouldn't be concerned with the employee... but the corporation should probably penalize the employee (I'm not used to defending corporations... this feels weird) since given the history exposed by Adam, the legal team was aware and supportive of the video, so the decision to *manually* claim on this video (for Joyful Noise 9 s part of the background...) had to be a stupid mistake. Now if the guy was new he may not deserve to be fired, but he should definitely be told never to make such a frivolous claim again.

and the company too

Jlsajfj They... They actually do. They won a lot of lawsuits, for example Katy Perry’s song and Mumbo Jumbo’s intro. But who cares they already removed the copyright claim

@@neonLegend3003 Those were not lawsuits

neon The legend those aren’t lawsuits my dude.

track record of winning? Im sure they have claimed ownership of one.

Nekogami-Crystal wins, this is my favourite

He'll

I do "pirate" everything that's for my personal use and I don't give a damn about it really, the big "production" companies can sux my ass for being what they are. The only times I kind of try to pay back is when there's a unique idea by some honest individuals and that mostly happens in the form of an open source app/service; not anything off of netflix or spotify may I say. Oh and I block ads(&anti adblockers) and trackers wherever and whenever I can and it works really well.

@@ccelik97 dare I say it, based?

@@Jarda98 I don't understand your question.

@@ccelik97 it's just a dumb meme, basically I called you a cool guy :D I have the same mindset as you about this

The video reminded me of the time my family was so insistent that Katy Perry was wrong upon finding out what was happening

They probably outsource people to do this manually, they wouldn't be paying attention and probably try to find the first part it happens

no way someone can be this stupid... right? I was hoping that maybe youtube's shitty algorithm picked it up and told warner about it and they just listened to the clip without actually watching the video and said "yeah thats dark horse alright!".

@@0Clewi0 but that doesn't justify it. The moment you mention that you are playing someone's else a music, fair use allows you to play it for a few seconds. No justification needed. So the fact that they are mentioned in the title and the extract is only a couple seconds long, is enough not to claim it.

@@tonymouannes but the person is just doing the job requested to them to do, of course the company is acting like an industrial fishing boat that uses double nets to catch fish smaller than it's allowed, I'm not depending them. It's like blaming the barista for coffee being hugely unethical.

Is it possible to learn this power

"i can guide others to a treasure I cannot posses"

tbf he couldn't, since Joyful still won the lawsuit but he tried lmao

@@phigibo literally watching infinity war rn 👌👌

@@Mistersheeaun Not from a Jedi.

Hahahahahah perfect comment

BRUH

Come on charmillion I know your not that stupid. Use fire punch. Chamillionaire hurt itself in it's confusion. Charmillion has fainted. O come on throws Gameboy 😒.

they hurt themselves into stealing thousands of dollars?

Im effin dead bruh LOL

There used to be US laws about "copyright misuse" and penalties for false millenium copyright strikes. But enforcement is severely lacking, with the deviant KZfaq system further dilutes the law.

@@johncrowerdoe5527 Gotta pay a lawyer if you want to sue.

@@waterandafter Petty cash is not a real punishment.

John Crower Doe Not to mention these massive corporations have massive legal teams on payroll already. They're literally losing money if they're not actively suing people.

You CAN take a copyright claim up to the courts and sue the company, but the majority of people don't have money to throw around on lawsuits let alone the time and patience to deal with the hassle of setting up a lawsuit. That's the only reason companies can just false claim YTers and not get in trouble for it. Even if the drop the claim later, it doesn't matter since they still get your ad money up until that point. YT or the courts definitely need to set up a system to make the claimants not get any of the revenue while the claim is being challenged and to make the companies pay back said revenue if they drop the claim.

I see noone here pointing out that corporations are just acting out ip laws. We should probably blame the enabler too right?

@@peterlauch6172 yes, we should blame everyone

capitalism is the answer to all our problems, let us pray for the free market and its omniscient benevolence. For it is almighty and good and powerful, it shall save us all. Brothers, let us pray

@@YM-zf8mt whats wrong wth you

@@YM-zf8mt but most "capitalist" countries operate on a mixed market system, not a free one.

They dont deserve actual musicians support for their musical productions in song writing

Warner Bros coming through with that Freeform Avant-garde Copyright Claiming 🔥🔥🔥

Or Karma? 🤣 Defend the devil.

Sean Demers I first read this comment as “many lawyers of ridiculousness” and that seemed perfectly appropriate.

how many layers of irony are you on like, maybe 5 or 6 right now, my dude you are like a baby, watch this SUCC

I feel like corporations do stupid things to their own detriment every other day these days, it's hard for me to be surprised...

I just ask myself are they really that dumb or do they think they can get away with it.

@@monamuller8969 if they can make money, they'd sell happy ending socks to a sock factory.

this is not irony...it's contradiction...they're just stupid

@@monamuller8969 they know they can get away with it. warner chapel and other music copyright holders pump big money into yt to defend their copyrights, which in turn rigs the scales toward the copyright claimers rather than the content creators, who has hard time even getting someone from yt to review the claim. and even if a claim is found to be baseless the ad money for that time when it was claimed is already in the claimers pocket.

@@simplig1272 They don´t have to return the money they falsely claimed? So in other words they make money in claiming copyrights. Doesn´t matter if the song was really in the video. 😐

Well that is actually how patents work lmao, the only difference is that patents aren't held forever but copyright is

@@domninin Actually - that's NOT how patents work. I have five patents, I understand the process. If there is "prior art" in the area you cannot patent the prior art. You have to prove how what you're doing is different than the prior art, or how what you're doing changes or improves the prior art and then you can patent the "new" (novel) technology improvements - you just can't claim the prior art portion. In the case of gluing boards together to make a 90-degree joint, there is demonstrated prior art in that field going back thousands of years - patent application denied.

@@domninin I understand, but they don't apply to any hand-made items that I can think of. Yes, you can patent a particular look design of a chair, but you cannot patent the joinery of a chair. Dovetails are not patentable. I put forward that certain parts of music should also not be patentable.

Dominik T copyright does expire some 100 years+- after it’s created/author died. See free distribution of every Shakespeare play. Basically anything published before 1924 is public domain now.

@@buckhorncortez well the same applies to copyright too. You can't copyright an instrument or a specific sound or a Melody that existed before, but you can copyright new melodies

They are actionable, but the legal maneuver is expensive for a lot of people. A quick-counter-claims court to deal with these things, now with so many low-resource artists and creators, should be available to contest frivolous copyright claims.

@@gedalyahreback2133 Then these corp fuks will push the lawsuit all the way to supreme court, the whole time both sides pay to be there and the loser pays everyone back

@@JumboCod91 oh, sweet sweet summer child.

@@JumboCod91 yes, but will he be able to convince a lawyer to go against warner?

Lindsay Ellis has a video with Devin from LegalEagle on counter-claims.

As an aspiring author, that is 100% correct

You can't make this shit up XD

​@@DingDingTheKZfaqBuddy Why would you have to prove malicious intent? It`s like asking someone who stole your wallet, was it in purpose to make you feel bad, or just to get some extra money. Intent is a subjective thing. The thing is it doesn't even matter whether someone intends on copyrighting anything he can to get more money or not - because even if someone doesn't and simply made mistake, this means it was inaccurate analysis... other words, that person didn't even put enough effort to make sure it's correct, which results in harming content creators and their work. You have to understand that it's a job for many of those people, so it's a serious thing... it's not just some random forum reporting system, where you can make a new account and nickname or just leave it, and it wouldn't affect your livelihood.

That wouldn't work three mistakes doesn't mean they should loose the ability to defend their copyright should an actual infringement occur. Also to understand people don't usually make copyright claims it's usally bots

@@thepinkestpigglet7529 It would obviously apply only to manual copyright claims, like the one shown in the video above. It shows very well, that these companies don't really care and just try to get as much money as they can. Even if it's not all of them, this video (and many more i've seen in the past about this topic) show there is a problem which needs solution. As for "automatic copyright claims" i'm not sure how it works exactly, but if it doesn't require a person to confirm it, it should be required to confirm by the entity which would claim rights to it, and then automatically turn into "manual claim" - since they were given the chance to judge the content in the video. Consider this... you put a lot of work into creating content, and someone claims rights to its monetization based on few seconds in your clip which basically contains a lot more of your actual content - which essentially means they steal your copyrighted content. So how otherwise would you protect your copyright? This is a publishing website, not a court, and if KZfaq content creators need only 3 strikes to be taken down, why should it not apply to the other side the same way? If someone is abusing certain feature, he shouldn't have access to it. I recommend you watching these videos, to show you how broken this system is: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n8t1pdGLprSZdaM.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g-BhZ7idktiaY6s.html

Wouldn't work, KZfaq would lose a ton of money when the first lawsuit sprang. Your intent is good, but you would need to put a lot more thought into this.

@@shaunmark1 What lawsuit?

Fr

The trap has been B8'ed...

Would be hilarious

Just give em time :D

I wouldn’t put it past Warner Chappell.

lose his job for doing his job ? it is stupid, but that is what his business tells him to do, when a fake claim is all it takes and there is zero repercutions why even care ?

Thank you. This $h*t-for-brainz employee needs to be assigned to the company mail route. Perhaps that would suit their skill set better. Zero competence.

This is absolute total incompetence. A call to the PR department should fix this fast. (Note - the company dropped their claim, probably after someone there was told about the terrible publicity)

@@toby-jeanne_almy You assume they actually work directly for the publisher. This crap is probably outsourced, like some Fiver gig.

@@crnkmnky 🤣🤣🤣 honestly.. that's probably the truth the way that business is running. Fivver law students running the case, and fivver $.50 hourly workers copyright claiming everyone. Gotta keep that coin!😂