16 August 2012

KingCast and many others say: Supertramp and/or Evergreen Social Media Associates are playing YouTube hardball for no reason; copyright douchebags.

UMG.... sucks. Remember the Sex Pistols EMI?
Well EMI sold out to UMG.... and it gets worse from there.
The Spitzer lawsuit was just the tip of the iceberg.
Now YouTube lets them flip flop on me twice in one day,
Sorry guys the first approval constitutes a waiver.
I will find another lawyer and sue these pigs.
Intellectual property is not my forte but I know right from wrong.
2 Jan 2012 Second Update, they flip-flopped.


2 Jan 2012 update: UMG reviewed and released me, I win again.

Motherfucker they are back again!!!!
21 Dec. 2012
UMG.... but look what YouTube first said about UMG back on 16 August, no problem!!!
Information about your video "Supertramp: It's Raining Again... In Brooklyn." Inbox x YouTube Aug 16 to me help center | e-mail options | report spam Dear KingCast65, Your video "Supertramp: It's Raining Again... In Brooklyn.", may have content that is owned or licensed by UMG, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, it may be blocked, or ads may appear next to it. This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video. Sincerely, - The YouTube Team © 2012 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

So what, now all of a sudden 4 months later it's a fucking problem? What a goddamn bunch of hemorrhoids Supertramp and their agents are being. So my response:


Oh BTW I won my case....as you can see in the video both of my Supertramp vids from that rainy day in New York are back live. I've lost only one YouTube argument and I'm still looking into that one, involving a Seattle slumlord named Savannah Fuentes. I did put up a second video in her case. 
Nearly 500,000 views, hundreds of musical selections and never a problem.... until yesterday. Supertramp and/or Evergreen Media Associates are among the last holdouts of artists or agencies who would actually go for a strike against people for using their music in a non-for-profit context on the Internet, specifically in YouTube videos. I remember 4,5,6 years ago this was an issue but then the music World woke up and changed the business model. 

The fact that Supertramp -- a prog rock band -- is apparently so retrograde in actual practice will forever taint my opinion of them. And what is so funny is that when I sent the videos to a friend of mine yesterday who works in Boston's Entertainment Industry she said "I'll have to watch with no sound because I hate Supertramp for some reason." Well I just gave her one, Fucking A. And I've got a bloody right to say it. Copyright that, bitches.



I spent a long time editing a rainstorm movie in Brooklyn yesterday. It  was not for profit and the music was all Supertramp, Breakfast in America in the first version and It's Raining Again was the track in a virtually identical second version. Here are the stills that remain. YouTube sent out its typical "no big deal" notice, informing that advertisements may be posted by folks with legal profit rights to the songs. Come to find out that these guys are viewing Fair Use in a way materially inconsistent with the enjoyment and celebration of the work, as noted. Plus I've never had a YouTube infringement issue. Now I have two in one day and like others I am fairly insulted that they just don't issue a warning or something when you go to purchase the songs because most of us logically believe that we've not exceeded Fair Use guidelines by paying no-for-profit homage to a band we love. This seems senseless and much ado about nothing.

23 comments:

guitar62player said...

It so saddens me that the record label is behind this, not Roger Hodgson or Rick Davis. I have had conversations with many upset people for this reason. Many individuals have had videos removed from their accounts they have had posted for years and also received strikes. It's just wrong and only rings out of what can I do to profit from the musicians......If I can't then I will punish the people who have been their loving fans ....

BoilerRoom4 said...

Get some hackers to take THEM down.
info@evergreenmediagroup.com

Anonymous said...

You have got to be kidding Supertramp...mine was a Happy Thanksgiving video, featuring my cat, sent to family. GONE! I am an evil stealing bitch, i guess. Just disgusted by this...

Malcolm McCaffery said...

yeah I made the mistake of covering a Supertramp song, having previously been a fan and purchasing many of their albums, this is a total turnoff.

Malcolm McCaffery said...

I made the mistake of covering (badly, mind you) a supertramp song and uploading to YouTube. First copyright strike against my account in the many years of covering others music. Having previously purchased much of their music I certainly will not be contributing any further to purchases from this record company. Of course my lonely boycott won't make any difference to them, one can only hope more people get pissed off over time, I hope their greedy grab strategy fails financially for them.

Lawrence Sarabia said...

It's so unfair, to say the least. I had made a wonderful work (appreciated by the youtube community) based on Fool's Overture for solo accustic guitar and I was accused of infringing copyright. I was peforming alone in my room with no intention of becoming rich and famous at Supertramp expense. It's simple, I'm not buying or listening to any supertramp music anymore. Perhaps they are rich already, but when it comes to real art, it's not just money what counts

Lawrence Sarabia said...

It's so unfair, to say the least. I had made a wonderful work (appreciated by the youtube community) based on Fool's Overture for solo accustic guitar and I was accused of infringing copyright. I was peforming alone in my room with no intention of becoming rich and famous at Supertramp expense. It's simple, I'm not buying or listening to any supertramp music anymore. Perhaps they are rich already, but when it comes to real art, it's not just money what counts

Anonymous said...

If I knew how to arrange and promote a "Boycott Supertramp" site I would. I will support one tho!!

Anonymous said...

Roger definitely, I uploaded a video of Argosy, the Roger´s group before Supertramp, with Elton John, and they have removed it. Why Rick would do that? (sorry of my english.
JSZM

Anonymous said...

I got the same warning from youtube recently for posting a video of me playing the piano and singing breakfast in america. I have no intention of making any money from this, I just did it because I love the song and wanted to share my take. Very dissappointing on every level.

Otto Silveira said...

I got two videos deleted from YT, both videos of me playing Supertramp songs on the piano solo... strange that this only happens with Supertramp songs, didn't know they were so retrograde on this matter...

Anonymous said...

Hello friends. My name is Ernesto (VoyeurRex) and I am from Mexico. The same thing with Supertramp was happening to me today january 9th 2013 in YouTube. I made a video with samples extracted from the 'Breakfast In America' vinyl record and I put photos of that LP I BOUGHT!! I HAVE IT!! I OWE IT!! It's mine!! I paid MONEY FOR IT!! Just, it isn't fair. I wanted to show people my last adquisition or things related with vinyl records audio quality, not to sell anything!! Jesus!! Tomorrow, we won't possibly be able to even talk about it!! It's a shame. Thank you so much. Regards

musicman33 said...

hey Chris- love your page. and I totally agree with this ridiculous behavior by some cuuuuunts called Evergreen and / or Rodger Hodgeson... unreal. Happened to put up on youtube a test I did with my new gopro camera in concert and, by bad luck, used my cover of logical song and BAM.. strike one after years of you tube use. unbelievable.

agree- "douche-bag" is an appropriate term for this kind of reaction. peace from bordeaux ;-)

musicman33 said...

hey Chris-
love your page. and I totally agree with this ridiculous behavior by some cuuuuunts called Evergreen and / or Rodger Hodgeson... unreal. Happened to put up on youtube a test I did with my new gopro camera in concert and, by bad luck, used my cover of logical song and BAM.. strike one after years of you tube use. unbelievable.

agree- "douche-bag" is an appropriate term for this kind of reaction. peace from bordeaux ;-)

M.L said...

Ive just been sanctioned for copyright last night after uploading a video of a friend playing "The Logical Song" on an original 1929 Wurlitzer theatre organ....as if it was ever going to make any money, not that that was my intentions, but it's seriously stupid, Its the first time Ive ever had anything like this happen!

M.L said...

Ive just been sanctioned for copyright last night after uploading a video of a friend playing "The Logical Song" on an original 1929 Wurlitzer theatre organ....as if it was ever going to make any money, not that that was my intentions, but it's seriously stupid, Its the first time Ive ever had anything like this happen!

johnny begood said...

ROGER YOUR STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE WICKED WITCH OF ENGLAND NOBODY IS MAKING MONEY ON YOUR STUFF THAT'S WHY SUPERTRAMP VIDEOS HAVE MANY DISLIKES BECAUSE ROGER IS A TRAMP OR WITCH AND TAKE THE LONG WAY HOME FOR ALL I CARE .

johnny begood said...

Roger Hodgson is starting to look like the Wicked Witch of England giving strikes on you tube why does he have many dislikes on Supertramp videos ??? wonder why Roger tramp and take the long way home for all i care

Anonymous said...

Yesterday I covered Take The Long Way Home on my YouTube channel. Just a simple vocal and piano deal... And they pulled it off and issued a strike!

Well, no more super tramp covers I guess- and I'm not buying their albums either!

Tim said...

Copyright strike basics: How to resolve a copyright strike and restore your account’s good standing: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en

Anonymous said...

I couldn't see why there was no Supertamp on You tube. I wanted to hear their music again as I recalled it was irritating and so wanted to check if I still thought that. As there was none on Youtube I downloaded their entire catalog from torrent and after hearing each album I hit delete. Still irritating and minor league band and a very old dumb idea of how music is consumed now.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:
the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:
the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.