# Guy STEALS my live performance. Then issues copyright strike against it.



## Daniel James

Hey all,

This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.

A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.

Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way

His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂

HIS:


Mine:



If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.

-DJ


----------



## gussunkri

Yikes!


----------



## LudovicVDP

Damn... That's lame... Sad... Pathetic...

I hope you get this sorted out.


----------



## Geomir

This is so irritating. I disliked "his" song with all my gmail accounts. Maybe if more people do this (I mean the ones that read this post here) his song will have more negative than positive reactions.

Of course the comments are disabled, so no one can directly expose him.

It's really beyond lazy. Instead of creating art, stealing the art of others...


----------



## Toecutter

Dude... no way  not only lazy but he has awful taste...... I'M JOKING!!! XD

Sure you can contest the claim? The Ethera Sahara stream improv was fire btw, protect it at all costs!


----------



## AndyP

Reported this to Bandcamp. The track is also on there.


----------



## Sunny Schramm

AndyP said:


> Reported this to Bandcamp. The track is also on there.


me too


----------



## AndyP

I was just wondering if we have discovered the true identity of StayPufft?


----------



## Daniel James

AndyP said:


> Reported this to Bandcamp. The track is also on there.


Cheers! Will do that now. I wonder if this is like that Raskin guy? maybe if anyone else does videos they should scan through his work to see if he got them too?


Toecutter said:


> Dude... no way  not only lazy but he has awful taste...... I'M JOKING!!! XD


Haha well you got me there 😂



Geomir said:


> It's really beyond lazy. Instead of creating art, stealing the art of others...


Exactly this. Whats the point of being a composer if you don't want to do the composing bit! Unfortunately though this isn't the first time its happened to me.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Sorry man - that really sucks! Downvoted on YouTube.


----------



## Toecutter

AndyP said:


> Reported this to Bandcamp. The track is also on there.


I googled it and the track is basically everywhere! I don't know how these people can sleep at night

And it sucks that he uses a similar name to this clarinetist who has nothing to do with media composition but shows up on the top results https://soundcloud.com/andrew-martin-smith


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Terribly poopy man. I'm so sorry.


----------



## Smikes77

Same - downvoted


----------



## zimm83

SHAME ON HIM. Must be sent to another planet...with big false musician bad Alien eaters because nobody bothers our national DJ !!!


----------



## visiblenoise

Disliked! Would have commented if he hadn't been a coward and disabled comments. Screw him


----------



## Christoph Pawlowski

View attachment VapidLimpingBluemorphobutterfly-mobile.mp4


----------



## Gingerbread

And there's a certain perverse irony that the names to all this guy's music are all religious-themed. Very pious!


----------



## GGaca

@Daniel James btw. Are You aware of this Youtube channel - as far as I know, this is Your track but channel isn't.


----------



## Daniel James

GGaca said:


> @Daniel James btw. Are You aware of this Youtube channel - as far as I know, this is Your track but channel isn't.



This is a testiment to how poor the customer service at CDBaby is. That is my release which they assigned to the wrong artist. I have been trying to change it literally for years.

-DJ


----------



## mybadmemory

Horrible. And I’m afraid it happens in all creative industries. I ran a design agency for 8 years where we had the fortune of getting our work featured on some major sites, and we got ripped off on an almost monthly basis after that.

I even had another agency contacting us one time asking if we were interested in selling some of our projects for them to show them off as their own. I don’t understand what people aim to achieve with this.

Even if you do get a job using someone else’s merits, how will you be able to actually deliver in the end?


----------



## LordOfTheStrings

Your livestream today showed up in my reccommended, good stuff :D


----------



## LamaRose

Funny, an advert for the NRA popped up on his YT version.


----------



## RogiervG

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



Reported his version on youtube as misleading, with this text:
"This dude stole from the orginal composer, added some percussion and is claiming it is his work!!!! Here is the discussion on it with the original composer: https://vi-control.net/community/th...en-issues-copyright-strike-against-it.108914/
Please take the martin andrew smith version offline, and BAN his account forever (incl. IP bans)"

Not sure if it will work, but i can try


----------



## GGaca

Daniel James said:


> This is a testiment to how poor the customer service at CDBaby is. That is my release which they assigned to the wrong artist. I have been trying to change it literally for years.
> 
> -DJ


oh, ok... good to know that this isn't that guy's fault.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Jesus, this is mind boggling.


----------



## Maxime Luft

What's even more weird, look at his bandcamp.... 

*"Daniel *7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

*King James Version* (KJV)"
​credits
released April 5, 2021


----------



## Daniel James

Maxime Luft said:


> What's even more weird, look at his bandcamp....
> 
> *"Daniel *7:25
> And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
> 
> *King James Version* (KJV)"
> ​credits
> released April 5, 2021



This is getting meta as fuck!

-DJ


----------



## Smikes77

I especially like his other releases:

Grace and Truth

The Righteous Man


----------



## MauroPantin

You have a lot of notoriety, so I'm not surprised this happened. I'm a nobody and a few years ago I found more than half of my demo reel being used for profit without my knowledge on YouTube. But unlike you I had the opportunity to issue the copyright notice. Guess what? The clients that had legitimately licensed music from me were hit with it, too. Apparently you don't get to slap ContentID on a track and target it to just the one dude who's being a jerk-off. ContentID is an all encompassing, top of the mountain, "THIS IS MY TERRITORY!" broadcast of ownership. It was a nightmare to deal with that event's fallout.

There's no way to win with them. So I have no reel posted now, I don't ever want to go through something like that again. I'll just get clients through word of mouth and call it a day.


----------



## doctoremmet

The mind boggles. How extremely annoying. Disliked video and reported user just now.


----------



## CT

Really despicable shit. I don't think anyone wants to rip me off but this kind of thing cements my aversion to having anything posted anywhere. Sucks.


----------



## Drundfunk

I don't understand people...


----------



## Double Helix

"Hi, I'm Franz Liszt, and I have come back for the dead to play my Transcendental Etudes for you. . ."
("Forget the label--Don't know who this Berman character is, but it's really me. No, really!")


(Daniel James, I feel for ya. It isn't like the perp is not going to be publically busted, but the hassle involved is unconscionable.)


----------



## davidson

I just checked out his bandcamp profile - the guy bangs out several tracks a day. Don't hate on him just because he's more productive than the rest of you


----------



## robgb

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



Un-fucking-believable.


----------



## Rob

sorry Daniel, downvoted


----------



## Polkasound

Gingerbread said:


> And there's a certain perverse irony that the names to all this guy's music are all religious-themed. Very pious!


I saw that, and was troubled by it, because there's nothing more dangerous to the Christian faith than a "Christian" who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. I sent him a kind message appealing to his sense of honor asking him to have the song removed from all streaming and download services.


----------



## MarcusD

If only his dad had wiped it on the curtains..

Also downvoted and reported the channel for impersonation. Can't believe the Gall of some people, doesn't seem long ago when Dirk was talking about his tracks being abused in a similar fashion.


----------



## CT

MarcusD said:


> If only his dad had wiped it on the curtains..


Man I appreciate a well-crafted takedown, this made me crack up.


----------



## M_Helder

This is creepy.

Religious subtexts, tasteless imagery... my spidey senses are tingling.
I wouldn't mess with cuckoo people, Daniel. 

Although, it would be cool as hell to know that some satanists chose my horror trailers as their ritual bangers and stuff. Still very creepy of course. But also cool.


----------



## LordOfTheStrings

M_Helder said:


> This is creepy.
> 
> Religious subtexts, tasteless imagery... my spidey senses are tingling.
> I wouldn't mess with cuckoo people, Daniel.
> 
> Although, it would be cool as hell to know that some satanists chose my horror trailers as their ritual bangers and stuff. Still very creepy of course. But also cool.


I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss your opinion on religious beliefs.


----------



## MusicalG

Maxime Luft said:


> What's even more weird, look at his bandcamp....
> 
> *"Daniel *7:25
> And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
> 
> *King James Version* (KJV)"
> ​credits
> released April 5, 2021



the irony lol


----------



## MusicalG

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



Fuck, sorry to hear that mate. Any progress?...
On a lighter note, I have come up with a new advertising slogan all on my own, even designed the logo myself.  

all joking aside, I hope you get it sorted out mate. x


----------



## Satorious

Sorry to hear this DJ - been ripped off myself on several occasions - so downvoted the original vid for ya!


----------



## M_Helder

LordOfTheStrings said:


> I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss your opinion on religious beliefs.


Wow. Gatekeeping, really?
I was mocking the thief's taste and how creepy it all looks mashed together. What does it have to do with anyone's religious beliefs?

It always astounds me how people get upset nowadays about literally everything. Can't we all relax and just have fun for once?


----------



## rgames

Daniel James said:


> This is a testiment to how poor the customer service at CDBaby is. That is my release which they assigned to the wrong artist. I have been trying to change it literally for years.
> 
> -DJ


Yes - I have fought with them on that same issue but from the other side. Someone else's music was assigned to me and it appeared on Spotify, iTunes and the auto-generated YouTube videos that show up when you release music through CDBaby.

The lesson there is to be careful when accusing someone of stealing your music. If it's obviously altered as yours was then that's clearly theft. But if it's an exact duplicate of your track showing up under someone else's artist/brand then it might be a mistake that had nothing to do with the artist/brand.

rgames


----------



## Polkasound

I received a response from Martin. He said there were three unofficial tracks that were "influenced by the great composer Daniel James." He claims he took them down.


----------



## tc9000

MusicalG said:


> all joking aside, I hope you get it sorted out mate. x


this might be extra-appropriate in a way because nike also 'robbed' the artist that created the swoosh (they payed her all of $35 for it!).









Swoosh - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Double Helix

tc9000 said:


> this might be extra-appropriate in a way because nike also 'robbed' the artist that created the swoosh (they payed her all of $35 for it!).


Hey, $35 would buy most of a _venti_ non-fat/no-foam latte at Starbuck's (or so I'm informed)


----------



## Fidelity

M_Helder said:


> Wow. Gatekeeping, really?
> I was mocking the thief's taste and how creepy it all looks mashed together. What does it have to do with anyone's religious beliefs?
> 
> It always astounds me how people get upset nowadays about literally everything. Can't we all relax and just have fun for once?



You really shouldn't be talking about "cuckoo people" while acting this way. He called you out. Own up to it.

Anyways, this whole stealing works and issuing copyright strikes thing is horrid. Testament to how unreliable the system is.


----------



## LordOfTheStrings

M_Helder said:


> Wow. Gatekeeping, really?
> I was mocking the thief's taste and how creepy it all looks mashed together. What does it have to do with anyone's religious beliefs?
> 
> It always astounds me how people get upset nowadays about literally everything. Can't we all relax and just have fun for once?


Not so fun for christian people who just want to hang around on this forum and discuss music to be called "cuckoo". I feel like the world already has enough on this on other places, where this is just a place to escape from that and discuss music.


----------



## M_Helder

LordOfTheStrings said:


> Not so fun for christian people who just want to hang around on this forum and discuss music to be called "cuckoo". I feel like the world already has enough on this on other places, where this is just a place to escape from that and discuss music.


Hey mate, I can see it's a touchy subject for you. I am sorry to hear that.

But it was a joke, that was clearly addressed towards the person in question, disregarding any particular religion he may or may not be following.

If you see it that way and take it personally, that's on you.


----------



## M_Helder

Fidelity said:


> You really shouldn't be talking about "cuckoo people" while acting this way. He called you out. Own up to it.
> 
> Anyways, this whole stealing works and issuing copyright strikes thing is horrid. Testament to how unreliable the system is.


Thanks, but you really shouldn't be telling people what they should or shouldn't do.


----------



## ThomasJ.Curran

That sucks! I hope you get it sorted @Daniel James. I don’t really understand how anyone can get the slightest satisfaction from stealing someone else‘s work and claiming it as their own. That guy needs to get in the bin.


----------



## Daniel James

Polkasound said:


> I received a response from Martin. He said there were three unofficial tracks that were "influenced by the great composer Daniel James." He claims he took them down.


Inspiration is something we all do. Plagiarism is worse. Straight up ripping my performance, editing it a bit, and calling it original is just lazy stealing and unacceptable. Had he asked first and offered some rev share I might have even been up for it. But to just take it and then trigger a copyright strike against the person from whom you stole it is a joke.

-DJ


----------



## tzilla

BALLZ


----------



## LordOfTheStrings

M_Helder said:


> Hey mate, I can see it's a touchy subject for you. I am sorry to hear that.
> 
> But it was a joke, that was clearly addressed towards the person in question, disregarding any particular religion he may or may not be following.
> 
> If you see it that way and take it personally, that's on you.


I realize christianity is under the "okay to make fun of" category in todays society, while I'll take a guess you wouldn't do the same with other "touchy subjects" and then say "if you take it personally, that's on you". Tired of the double standards.
But lets just move on, because we should take this discussion elsewhere if we continue


----------



## MarkusS

That happened to me too, possibly by the same guy since the release was religion related as well (Jesus Christ something). Publisher got a claim from Tunecore but our release was years before this publication. He didn’t alter my music at all, though. Thought it was really ironic the ripp-off release was religiously themed.. the nerve..


----------



## Macrawn

The fact he issued a copyright strike seems like he has a vendetta and probably wants to try and stop you from posting videos. Very sad and I hope it doesn't stop you from doing what you are doing.


----------



## Chaosmod

I can't even IMAGINE doing anything like this - kinda low-key thankful I haven't released anything on the internet yet. 

It really disturbs me when someone perverts themselves before their god. If they really believe, they have to know they'll be accountable for their actions, right? 

Self-defeating, when they should be self-deprecating.

Thumbed it down on 4 accounts. YouTube would be doing themselves a favor to ban this account, and that was my recommendation to them and bandcamp as well.


----------



## ThomasJ.Curran

MarkusS said:


> That happened to me too, possibly by the same guy since the release was religion related as well (Jesus Christ something). Publisher got a claim from Tunecore but our release was years before this publication. He didn’t alter my music at all, though. Thought it was really ironic the ripp-off release was religiously themed.. the nerve..


You’d think they’d take “thou shalt not steal” a bit more seriously


----------



## BenG

Why even add the drums?!


This is just incredibly irritating and I'm sorry you have to deal with this garbage.

This happened to me with a few tracks being stolen and sold online under different track names (sometimes not even). Had to file disputes all over the internet.


----------



## Trash Panda

Disliked and reported as promoting terrorism.


----------



## MusicalG

tc9000 said:


> this might be extra-appropriate in a way because nike also 'robbed' the artist that created the swoosh (they payed her all of $35 for it!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swoosh - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


I didn’t even know that, insane


----------



## ProfoundSilence

To the gallows with the scum


----------



## edhamilton

I clicked on this thread thinking either Guy Bacos or Guy Mitchelmore stole your shit ......


----------



## Polkasound

Daniel James said:


> Inspiration is something we all do. Plagiarism is worse. Straight up ripping my performance, editing it a bit, and calling it original is just lazy stealing and unacceptable. Had he asked first and offered some rev share I might have even been up for it. But to just take it and then trigger a copyright strike against the person from whom you stole it is a joke.


I wholeheartedly agree.

There's something that should be clarified, though. Was the copyright strike automatically generated by AI, or did Martin knowingly refute your copyright counter-claim? Martin did pull the tracks down, so it seems to me he's probably the kind of musician who steals from the internet and then gambles that he'll never get caught. I don't think he meant to cause any harm. He just needs to wise up.


----------



## CoffeeLover

mentally ill fanboy and his obsessive behaviour.
sorry you have to deal with this sort of nonsense from people.


----------



## IFM

Totally sucks. Downvoted as well. Hope you get this sorted.


----------



## JonS

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



Sorry to hear about this, Daniel. A major A-list composer stole my music a long time ago and used it in a long-running TV series. Unfortunately, stuff like this happens in this business. Composers who do this are total losers.


----------



## artomatic

Incredible. Seems to be happening a lot these days. I’m also a victim of blatant theft! Something must be done with YouTube’s algo.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Video is no longer available on youtube.


----------



## Toecutter

JonS said:


> Sorry to hear about this, Daniel. A major A-list composer stole my music a long time ago and used it in a long-running TV series. Unfortunately, stuff like this happens in this business. Composers who do this are total losers.


wow how you dealt with that? did you get paid eventually? I mean, long-running TV series, big money I suppose?


----------



## jonathanparham

sorry man


----------



## Arbee

Jett Hitt said:


> Video is no longer available on youtube.


Mission accomplished 👍


----------



## kgdrum

@Daniel James 
I’m sorry to hear about all of this but I’m glad the video was pulled. 👍


----------



## bill5

Chaosmod said:


> It really disturbs me when someone perverts themselves before their god. If they really believe, they have to know they'll be accountable for their actions, right?


Yeah I'm sure he's real religious. 

OP, sorry to hear this - never a shortage of losers in the world. They breed like cockroaches.

On the plus side, looks like the video was taken down, sweet.




Double Helix said:


> Hey, $35 would buy most of a _venti_ non-fat/no-foam latte at Starbuck's (or so I'm informed)


Or a copyright on the song/group of songs.

Exhibit A folks: copyright your stuff. (I know, easy to say in hindsight...still...)


----------



## dylanmixer

What a turd.


----------



## Kony

Has it only been taken down from YT though - is it still on his Bandcamp and other platforms?


----------



## GtrString

But is it so bad, though? Wouldn’t his release have to be registered as a remix of yours, where you would get the royalties? Copyright strikes are difficult on YT, if you don‘t release videos through an aggregator. But if his release is registered properly (as a remix of yours), the strike would work for you, no? Just collecting though his aggregator.

I’m not arguing against how you feel about it, just trying to pose questions about the legalities of this, which may actually work for you, either way..


----------



## Kony

Sorry, couldn't resist in the absence of a Dobby gif from @doctoremmet.


----------



## doctoremmet

(Note: Donby’s not a typo. Dobby feels like a Don at the moment)


----------



## Daniel James

Cheers for the support lads. Looks like he is starting to realize the error of his ways and pull it from services.


GtrString said:


> But is it so bad, though? Wouldn’t his release have to be registered as a remix of yours


He literally lifted the audio file from my live stream, released it as _his own_ track and it filed a copyright strike against the video of mine he lifted it from. It was pretty bad. I feel like this is what he does, Steal music, edit it a bit then sell it as original..... it's just this time the copyright algorithm picked up on it... but it filed AGAINST me.

Like I said earlier had he reached out first we could have talked about, but to literally just take the audio from my video and try to sell it as original hoping no one would notice is unacceptable and needs to be condemned.

-DJ


----------



## Manaberry

Joke aside, I'm sick of seeing people stealing or covering famous composers without giving any credit. 
The distributor is also responsible for that situation. CD Baby is no exception. A lot of them are thieves as well, they don't pay attention to their customers. They want their cut.


----------



## GtrString

Daniel James said:


> Cheers for the support lads. Looks like he is starting to realize the error of his ways and pull it from services.
> 
> He literally lifted the audio file from my live stream, released it as _his own_ track and it filed a copyright strike against the video of mine he lifted it from. It was pretty bad. I feel like this is what he does, Steal music, edit it a bit then sell it as original..... it's just this time the copyright algorithm picked up on it... but it filed AGAINST me.
> 
> Like I said earlier had he reached out first we could have talked about, but to literally just take the audio from my video and try to sell it as original hoping no one would notice is unacceptable and needs to be condemned.
> 
> -DJ


Right, sorry to hear that. Unacceptable for sure!

Had he been a better criminal, he could have done a remix of your published work, and registered it properly. Still theft, but legal theft then.


----------



## doctoremmet

Daniel James said:


> Cheers for the support lads. Looks like he is starting to realize the error of his ways and pull it from services.


Whenever you need my ultra-violence applied again, just holler mate


----------



## Smikes77

I also like his other releases:

Habitation of Justice

Redemption

Maybe he realised the error of his ways and quickly wrote these yesterday.


----------



## Chaosmod

Manaberry said:


> The distributor is also responsible for that situation. CD Baby is no exception. A lot of them are thieves as well, they don't pay attention to their customers. They want their cut.


It's a built-in feature of the recorded music industry. It used to be that the vultures hovering over an artist's shoulders were record labels, producers, managers - now there's a whole other layer sandwiched in there trying to "get their cut" - aggregators, distributors, streaming services, etc.


----------



## TiagoG

Yikes, that's horrendous...

@Daniel James what are the chances you would have found out about it, if the guy hadn't issued the copyright notice? And is there any software out there that monitors some sources and alerts you if there's a possible 'match' (like soundhound for copyright)? I'm probably dreaming here but surely that's got to be the future...


----------



## davidson

Polkasound said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> There's something that should be clarified, though. Was the copyright strike automatically generated by AI, or did Martin knowingly refute your copyright counter-claim? Martin did pull the tracks down, so it seems to me he's probably the kind of musician who steals from the internet and then gambles that he'll never get caught. I don't think he meant to cause any harm. He just needs to wise up.


You seem like a nice person, maybe too nice! I wish I could see things as glass-half-full as you do, but I think the guy is pure scum. He took these particular tracks down because he got caught, but do you think this is the only scummy thing he's done in music? I'm willing to gamble the majority of his 'work' is stolen. Don't forget the guy is doing this to _sell_ his tracks and profit from them. He's not inspired, he's a thief and a complete tosser.

Now you'll have to excuse me for a moment, I've just been inspired by the money in my local bank. Where's my balaclava and shotgun...


----------



## Daniel James

Ok so the guy reached out and apologized. It seems sincere and I believe that thought process was most likely that it would be fine to just steal as no one would ever notice as he is a smaller artist. 

I responded that I am willing to believe this is a genuine lack of judgement and not representative of who he is generally speaking. Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads. Hopefully, lessons are learned.

-DJ


----------



## AudioLoco

I am a pacifist and a 100% non violent person.
When I read these things my beastly impulses a-la 2001-grab-a-bone-and-use-it are tingled massively.
That is so f...d up and so wrong. 
My sympathies... in an ideal world this guy should get banned from every single audio distribution service.
Unreal.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov

From his Bandcamp: "I am a Born Again Bible-believing Christian from England and I love composing music themes that reflects the word of God and the life of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ." 
Somebody tell him that stealing is a sin


----------



## Geomir

Daniel James said:


> Ok so the guy reached out and apologized. It seems sincere and I believe that thought process was most likely that it would be fine to just steal as no one would ever notice as he is a smaller artist.
> 
> I responded that I am willing to believe this is a genuine lack of judgement and not representative of who he is generally speaking. Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads. Hopefully, lessons are learned.
> 
> -DJ


I wouldn't be so sure that he meant his apology...

I would be willing to accept that he meant it, if he just stole your music and stayed there. But then he attacked you that YOU stole his music. He opened a case against you. So everyone involved got alerted. Individuals + Distribution Companies.

This is very contradictory with the whole idea he tried to present you, that he is some smaller unknown artist and so no-one would ever notice...


----------



## AudioLoco

Daniel James said:


> Ok so the guy reached out and apologized. It seems sincere and I believe that thought process was most likely that it would be fine to just steal as no one would ever notice as he is a smaller artist.
> 
> I responded that I am willing to believe this is a genuine lack of judgement and not representative of who he is generally speaking. Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads. Hopefully, lessons are learned.
> 
> -DJ


There is no justification for stealing music and selling it and there are going to be more here falling victim to this kind of shit, maybe even from the same person.
This person is not going to get any better or change his ways (just learn not to get busted maybe) if he came to this low life behaviour once.

The only only reasoning I could give to "save his soul" (hahah) is that the sampling culture went to his head, as this is actually how many many people "make" music most of the time: get a good track form someone who actually know what they are doing and put some shitty drums (and some oh oh whoopping and a bit of mumbling) and voila!... So, it's normal, why not "sample" Mr. James, innit?


----------



## szczaw

He just may be young and undiscerning. "Influenced by the great composer Daniel James". A little audio collage could be his way of looking up to DJ (and at the same time making a buck )


----------



## doctoremmet

szczaw said:


> He just may be young and undiscerning. "Influenced by the great composer Daniel James". A little audio collage could be his way of looking up to DJ (and at the same time making a buck )


Yeah. No. Seems more like a guy who talks a lot about his faith and virtue-signals away his clear inclinations to steal from others. There’s a reason he’s turned off comments I betcha. He’s all talk, and does not practice what he preaches. It seems his religious “motifs” make some of you way less critical of his acts. Almost as if criticisms are also (indirectly) directed at his faith. This is not the case, I can assure you.


----------



## Kony

Daniel James said:


> as no one would ever notice as he is a smaller artist


Or, no offence, but he didn't realise who you were and that his theft would get noticed? The fact that he downloaded your track, added fuck all to it and then passed it off as his own while making religious claims makes him look like a right shyster!


----------



## doctoremmet

Kony said:


> Or, no offence, but he didn't realise who you were and that his theft would get noticed? The fact that he downloaded your track, added fuck all to it and then passed it off as his own while making religious claims makes him look like a right shyster!


Honestly... call me a cynical guy... but this makes way more sense.


----------



## DANIELE

I really don't want to look how my music is used in the internet because I'm sure that if I do it I'll find things I don't want to know. One thing I know is that I received a copyright claim for every single track I posted on YouTube, every single one. I had to write to YT every single time to make them retire the copyright claim and I still have one opened that they refused to retire (I don't know why).

I discovered that my music is used from famous YouTubers that never asked me about it and never credit me. I even remember a user writing in the comment that I had stolen a track from a famous YouTuber.

I spend a lot in music software, hardware and a lot of time in composing, studying after my real work etc...and I have almost no income, how do you think I feel about it?

Rage increasing.....no, it's not worth it!!


----------



## szczaw

doctoremmet said:


> Yeah. No. Seems more like a guy who talks a lot about his faith and virtue-signals away his clear inclinations to steal from others. There’s a reason he’s turned off comments I betcha. He’s all talk, and does not practice what he preaches.


Could be, but he may not be in fact aware of that he is stealing. To immature or stupid, it may not be apparent.


----------



## doctoremmet

szczaw said:


> Could be, but he may not be in fact aware of that he is stealing. To immature or stupid, it may not be apparent.


If I had to guess a likelihood for this scenario, I would say this is a six sigma event. Although a lot of people ARE stupid of course, most still kind of grasp that “taking something you did not make and claiming you did in fact make it” is not totally correct... But ultimately... who cares. Stupidity or theft. Both are totally irritating phenomena to be dealing with.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov

szczaw said:


> He just may be young and undiscerning. "Influenced by the great composer Daniel James". A little audio collage could be his way of looking up to DJ (and at the same time making a buck )


He's like 45 or something


----------



## doctoremmet

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> He's like 45 or something


So... young.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov

doctoremmet said:


> So... young.


Well, you can say that he's young...






.... Young enough to know better.


----------



## szczaw

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> He's like 45 or something


If that's the case, then the guy is a hypocrite.


----------



## JEPA

I am very interested if CDbaby has stated, said something about it?


----------



## fourier

Daniel James said:


> I responded that I am willing to believe this is a genuine lack of judgement and not representative of who he is generally speaking. Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads. Hopefully, lessons are learned.
> 
> -DJ


You're a bigger man than I am - as much as I'd like to believe that such decisions boils down to a lack of judgement, I can't. There's a lot of red flags here, and as someone who has been plenty naïve in my years on this planet, I struggle to picture this being anything but someone getting caught and scrambling to muster up an excuse of sorts.


----------



## HarmonyCore

mybadmemory said:


> Horrible. And I’m afraid it happens in all creative industries. I ran a design agency for 8 years where we had the fortune of getting our work featured on some major sites, and we got ripped off on an almost monthly basis after that.
> 
> I even had another agency contacting us one time asking if we were interested in selling some of our projects for them to show them off as their own. I don’t understand what people aim to achieve with this.
> 
> Even if you do get a job using someone else’s merits, how will you be able to actually deliver in the end?


It shows the severe lack of artistry skills because simply they are not artists and they don't know how to compose a motif. They feel bad for themselves for their inability of composing even a second version of a twinkle twinkle little stars. Instead, it's easier to steal and rip off others and show how smart they are.

Both Pathetic and Pity in the same time! Huh! What a losers!


----------



## HarmonyCore

Mike T said:


> Really despicable shit. I don't think anyone wants to rip me off but this kind of thing cements my aversion to having anything posted anywhere. Sucks.


Then how do we promote and market our music if we don't have anything posted anywhere? Problem still not solved!


----------



## MarcusD

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> He's like 45 or something


Would be more partial in forgiving a youngster who doesn't know better.. But if the individual is genuinely 45 then... I'd be biased in thinking they're not going to change their ways, only refine the process of not getting caught again. 

Fair-play though for giving them a chance DJ, hopefully they will learn not to do it again. But if they do, at least you know you tried to be cool about it.


----------



## dohm

How are some of you finding the use of your music on YouTube, etc.? Is there a free service that correlates all the YouTube audio against a provided music clip? Sorry, if obvious, but I have never looked into it. Seems almost impossible to stumble across your music by accident. I certainly don't watch that much YouTube.

It is really unfortunate if someone thinks that it is ok to plagiarize. Surely all of the schools, starting at a young age, teach that this is not ok. The internet platforms that host this material should do more to help content originators protect their rights. But, when you are the product and not the customer, they have little motivation to help.


----------



## HarmonyCore

Daniel James said:


> But to just take it and then trigger a copyright strike against the person from whom you stole it is a joke.
> 
> -DJ


We have a saying in my country that describes this phenomena. It says "Eat him for lunch before he eats you for dinner" and that what exactly he did! To close all the doors of problems


----------



## HarmonyCore

Polkasound said:


> I don't think he meant to cause any harm. He just needs to wise up.


Huh?! "scratching head"


----------



## MauroPantin

dohm said:


> How are some of you finding the use of your music on YouTube, etc.? Is there a free service that correlates all the YouTube audio against a provided music clip? Sorry, if obvious, but I have never looked into it. Seems almost impossible to stumble across your music by accident. I certainly don't watch that much YouTube.


I was alerted by a client that had a 2-year exclusive license to a few tracks of mine. The illegitimate use was within his exclusivity period and he was understandably upset to find the music elsewhere.

There are tools to track music online, though. I've used one or a few over the years. There's TuneSat, DistroKid (or similar, Stem, Tunecore, etc that allow you to register with ContentID at the time of distribution), Audiam, AdRev, there's a new one called Blokur now that I think uses blockchain (haven't tried that one, though). Anyway, tons of them. You just need to pick one or a couple depending on who you license to and check in periodically. 

No free service that does this that I know of, but they do have different business models and it's a matter of choosing the one that works best for you. If you have a catalogue to protect it is usually worth it to go after those royalties 'cuz it can be a lot of money and well worth the investment.


----------



## X-Bassist

Kony said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist in the absence of a Dobby gif from @doctoremmet.


Why did you wake a sleeping Dobby? It was going so well until then.... 😄

Sorry to hear Daniel. Glad it’s down. I think some young people just think “if it just looks like I have experience, it will get me a gig where I’ll shine!”

But as you’ve said, it takes time, real experience (and practice) PLUS making contacts in the industry to really get composing work. Your videos may get ripped off, but they are also getting you known outside the normal industry circles, which I hope you see as a great advantage. Composers generally don’t promote themselves enough, and are therefore not well known outside of music lovers, but Daniel James is getting there. Not through phone calls or parties, but simple youtube videos and a good attitude.

If it helps I think that guy will be looking for work for a long time, yet you will still be hearing from people that saw “that video in 2021!”, Who want you to score there film, for decades to come. Thanks for your videos, they are great.


----------



## HarmonyCore

szczaw said:


> Could be, but he may not be in fact aware of that he is stealing. To immature or stupid, it may not be apparent.


OR maybe he's a DJ hater!


----------



## X-Bassist

MarcusD said:


> Would be more partial in forgiving a youngster who doesn't know better.. But if the individual is genuinely 45 then... I'd be biased in thinking they're not going to change their ways, only refine the process of not getting caught again.
> 
> Fair-play though for giving them a chance DJ, hopefully they will learn not to do it again. But if they do, at least you know you tried to be cool about it.


Clearly he doesn’t know what he’s doing. So regardless of age he’s a music newbie (or wanna be) who is trying to breakthrough and cannot do anything close on his own. That shows inexperience and a lack of understanding.

After all, let’s say he gets a job based on the track, how would he produce any music close? In his mind he believes he will rise to occasion, but he knows he can’t.

So ironic that if he knew more, he could find phrase libraries or loops that would work fine and be perfectly legal. Clearly a mistake of a young man OR someone that thinks like one.... I’d argue that’s the same thing. 😄


----------



## kitekrazy

LordOfTheStrings said:


> Not so fun for christian people who just want to hang around on this forum and discuss music to be called "cuckoo". I feel like the world already has enough on this on other places, where this is just a place to escape from that and discuss music.


 I didn't see it that way. You will find in this thread from your response is eventually that VI Control is not just a place to escape from that and discuss music if you wander in certain areas. It is not as heavily moderated by removing political and religious posts plus there are areas on the site for this. It's not a complaint. You are a new member and don't know how things really go around here.


----------



## kitekrazy

X-Bassist said:


> Clearly he doesn’t know what he’s doing. So regardless of age he’s a music newbie (or wanna be) who is trying to breakthrough and cannot do anything close on his own. That shows inexperience and a lack of understanding.
> 
> After all, let’s say he gets a job based on the track, how would he produce any music close? In his mind he believes he will rise to occasion, but he knows he can’t.
> 
> So ironic that if he knew more, he could find phrase libraries or loops that would work fine and be perfectly legal. Clearly a mistake of a young man OR someone that thinks like one.... I’d argue that’s the same thing. 😄


 So many of us were naive back in the days of Napster. So it could be ignorance. We also live in an age were people steal just to steal and they do it right in front of you.


----------



## Polkasound

davidson said:


> I wish I could see things as glass-half-full as you do, but I think the guy is pure scum.





HarmonyCore said:


> Huh?! "scratching head"


I'm taking Martin's age out of the equation and making the assumption that he hasn't been doing this long enough to have developed a sense of honor. What he did was wrong, but people who do wrong things aren't always scummy people. Sometimes they're just naive and misguided, and getting caught is just what they need to help them understand the error in their ways.

If he took music from one musician, for all we know, his entire catalog could be filled with music he lifted from other sources. He claims the rest of his catalog is originals, but because he got caught, he knows he has no credibility to stand on right now. That can't be a good feeling. I have hope that his interaction with DJ has been a teaching moment for him, and that he will learn from it and make better decisions in the future.


----------



## Kony




----------



## MarcusD

X-Bassist said:


> Clearly he doesn’t know what he’s doing. So regardless of age he’s a music newbie (or wanna be) who is trying to breakthrough and cannot do anything close on his own. That shows inexperience and a lack of understanding.
> 
> After all, let’s say he gets a job based on the track, how would he produce any music close? In his mind he believes he will rise to occasion, but he knows he can’t.
> 
> So ironic that if he knew more, he could find phrase libraries or loops that would work fine and be perfectly legal. Clearly a mistake of a young man OR someone that thinks like one.... I’d argue that’s the same thing. 😄



It's tough because an individuals circumstance could also play a part in their decision making which causes them to do silly things. It's hard to figure out when its a honest mistake or just an excuse.

Dispite inexperience or circumstance, when you're conciously making a decision to use someone else's work (and pass it as your own) without even crediting that person, it makes it more difficult to believe said individual. Espeshially when they're sampling your music from stream and adding their own stuff on top. 

Most people I've seen sampling streams, are just sampling something that's been said and turning it into a track for the streamer, like fan art, track gets a play and gets a reaction from the host. If the streamer likes it, it's free promotion for a fan.

If the guy was crediting DJ you could probably say it was more due to inexperience and at least they're acknowleding it and being conscious of using someone else's work.

As DJs done, its probably best to give the benefit of the doubt regardless. If it was an established individual (who knows better) or brand pulling that crap, it'd be a different story.

Maybe send them a link to that AI composing software 😄


----------



## Polkasound

MarcusD said:


> As DJs done, its probably best to give the benefit of the doubt regardless. If it was an established individual (who knows better) or brand pulling that crap, it'd be a different story.


This is how I feel. Even though he took DJ's music and credited himself for it, it might just be lack of experience and values. Hopefully someday, he'll get better as a composer to where people start pilfering his music. _That's_ when he'll fully understand the gravity of what he did with DJ's music, and will never do it again.


----------



## HarmonyCore

Polkasound said:


> I'm taking Martin's age out of the equation and making the assumption that he hasn't been doing this long enough to have developed a sense of honor. What he did was wrong, but people who do wrong things aren't always scummy people. Sometimes they're just naive and misguided, and getting caught is just what they need to help them understand the error in their ways.


Intentionally taking other people's content called naive and misguided these days? Wow! the 2021 standards for legal theft. Amazing man!


----------



## Trash Panda

Hey guys. I’m an orchestral newbie too. You cool with me lifting your stuff and selling it as my own?


----------



## HarmonyCore

Trash Panda said:


> Hey guys. I’m an orchestral newbie too. You cool with me lifting your stuff and selling it as my own?


No, I am not cool! And I KILL you if I caught you do so


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Polkasound said:


> This is how I feel. Even though he took DJ's music and credited himself for it, it might just be lack of experience and values. Hopefully someday, he'll get better as a composer to where people start pilfering his music. _That's_ when he'll fully understand the gravity of what he did with DJ's music, and will never do it again.


If you look at the guy’s Bandcamp page, he has plenty of tracks there, all of a “religious nature”, and judging by the photo on his page, he’s not some “callow youth”! 

Seems like he has experience, but no values!


----------



## Trash Panda

HarmonyCore said:


> No, I am not cool! And I KILL you if I caught you do so


Ok. Cool cool. I’m going to do it anyways, but now I’m going to file a copyright strike against you since you were mean here. Hope you’ll forgive me after I have to pull the track down. I’ll be a better person and grow from it. Honest.


----------



## doctoremmet

Leslie Fuller said:


> If you look at the guy’s Bandcamp page, he has plenty of tracks there, all of a “religious nature”, and judging by the photo on his page, he’s not some “callow youth”!
> 
> Seems like he has experience, but no values!


It was already established the bloke is 45 years old. So really... we shouldn’t judge the youngster too hard... plus he is religious so there really isn’t even a remote chance he intentionally wanted to steal. He just.... made a mistake all of us could have made. Because reasons.


----------



## MarcusD

Polkasound said:


> This is how I feel. Even though he took DJ's music and credited himself for it, it might just be lack of experience and values. Hopefully someday, he'll get better as a composer to where people start pilfering his music. _That's_ when he'll fully understand the gravity of what he did with DJ's music, and will never do it again.



For me, if the copyright strike was alogarhythm triggered, I may have forgiven him to some extent.

If the guy purposely issued the copyright strike, then that just screams the guy's a dosser with no morals.


----------



## Kony

Would this be a bad time for me to plug my new album, Maneater?


----------



## kitekrazy

doctoremmet said:


> It was already established the bloke is 45 years old. So really... we shouldn’t judge the youngster too hard... plus he is religious so there really isn’t even a remote chance he intentionally wanted to steal. He just.... made a mistake all of us could have made. Because reasons.


We live in a culture of no forgiveness. The guy communicated with DJ that is something right there. Sometimes we don't know how naive people can be.


----------



## Jett Hitt

kitekrazy said:


> We live in a culture of no forgiveness. The guy communicated with DJ that is something right there. Sometimes we don't know how naive people can be.


Hmmm. . . and maybe he is just afraid of being sued.


----------



## kitekrazy

Jett Hitt said:


> Hmmm. . . and maybe he is just afraid of being sued.


 Hmmm.....what's wrong with benefit of doubt? Legal action is rarely taken unless there is a lot of money involved. We live in a culture of no forgiveness.


----------



## Jett Hitt

kitekrazy said:


> Hmmm.....what's wrong with benefit of doubt? Legal action is rarely taken unless there is a lot of money involved. We live in a culture of no forgiveness.


This guy may not know that lawsuits are seldom pursued. He sees DJ and thinks oh crap this guy might come after me. And what doubt could there be? Do you think he didn't know he was stealing DJ's music? Do you think he didn't disable comments for a reason? Imagine the pathological cynicism necessary to steal a piece of music and incorporate it into an "I love Jesus" song. Put him on the rack, I say. Employ the thumbscrews. And when he's had enough, release the Kraken.


----------



## ThomasJ.Curran

He actually wouldn’t have personally turned off the comments because his YouTube channel is auto generated when his distributer uploads his albums to YouTube. The comments are automatically disabled and I don’t believe you can change them.

Not that I’m in anyway defending this heathen!


----------



## kitekrazy

Jett Hitt said:


> This guy may not know that lawsuits are seldom pursued. He sees DJ and thinks oh crap this guy might come after me. And what doubt could there be? Do you think he didn't know he was stealing DJ's music? Do you think he didn't disable comments for a reason? Imagine the pathological cynicism necessary to steal a piece of music and incorporate it into an "I love Jesus" song. Put him on the rack, I say. Employ the thumbscrews. And when he's had enough, release the Kraken.


LOL! Kudos to DJ for handling this in a fashion that is not cruel. You want to turn this into a pissing contest. We live in a culture of no forgiveness. Appropriate action was taken. Let is rest.


----------



## kitekrazy

ThomasJ.Curran said:


> He actually wouldn’t have personally turned off the comments because his YouTube channel is auto generated when his distributer uploads his albums to YouTube. The comments are automatically disabled and I don’t believe you can change them.
> 
> Not that I’m in anyway defending this heathen!


Some also can't take criticism on their youtube video. Even developers do that.


----------



## JEPA

Consciously recording a stream from a composer that’s not you, consciously recording his music into your hard drive, consciously adding crap beats on this recording, consciously uploading this mix for distribution, consciously selling it as yours, consciously not giving credit to the original composer. How would you name that? = ...


----------



## Polkasound

MarcusD said:


> For me, if the copyright strike was alogarhythm triggered, I may have forgiven him to some extent.
> 
> If the guy purposely issued the copyright strike, then that just screams the guy's a dosser with no morals.


That's the question I posed to DJ. Considering that Martin pulled his three "DJ-inpsired" tracks down, I'm guessing it was an algorithm-triggered copyright strike which Martin immediately sought to rectify. That's why I am regarding this matter as a lapse of judgement and not labeling Martin as a scumbag.



Leslie Fuller said:


> If you look at the guy’s Bandcamp page, he has plenty of tracks there, all of a “religious nature”, and judging by the photo on his page, he’s not some “callow youth”!
> 
> Seems like he has experience, but no values!


One doesn't need to be youthful to be ignorant at something. Martin has roughly 100 tracks, but they only go back five years. If he's only been doing this for five years, then there's a lot of time for him to make poor decisions and learn from them — this being one of them.



Jett Hitt said:


> Do you think he didn't disable comments for a reason?


He had no choice. YouTube automatically disables comments on art tracks.



Jett Hitt said:


> Put him on the rack, I say. Employ the thumbscrews. And when he's had enough, release the Kraken.


Early in my music career, I was ignorant and made mistakes. I never got in trouble, but I eventually learned how to do things properly as my sense of values and morals matured. Five years from now, if Martin were to get caught taking other people's music, I wouldn't be as forgiving. But as for right now, at this point in time, he has not done enough to warrant such a negative judgement from me. Therefore I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. And if he were to ask me for assistance in moving forward in the right direction, I'll gladly provide it.


----------



## robgb

All I can say is this. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, then BE a Christian. You don't make a "mistake" like this. Would he have reached out if he hadn't been caught? Sorry, I have zero tolerance for this behavior. Maybe because my writing was plagiarized several years ago and it still angers me to this day.


----------



## Toecutter

JEPA said:


> Consciously recording a stream from a composer that’s not you, consciously recording his music into your hard drive, consciously adding crap beats on this recording, consciously uploading this mix for distribution, consciously selling it as yours, consciously not giving credit to the original composer. How would you name that? = ...


Hollywood?

I only roast the ones I love.


----------



## Polkasound

JEPA said:


> Consciously recording a stream from a composer that’s not you, consciously recording his music into your hard drive, consciously adding crap beats on this recording, consciously uploading this mix for distribution, consciously selling it as yours, consciously not giving credit to the original composer. How would you name that? = ...


It could be an intentionally malicious act, but it could also be poor judgement fueled by ignorance. In Martin's case, he's the only one who knows what it was. As for the rest of us, may the person who has never exercised poor judgement out of ignorance, in any aspect of life, cast the first stone.



robgb said:


> All I can say is this. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, then BE a Christian. You don't make a "mistake" like this. Would he have reached out if he hadn't been caught? Sorry, I have zero tolerance for this behavior. Maybe because my writing was plagiarized several years ago and it still angers me to this day.


Even though it's justifiable to hold a Christian to a higher standard, they're still human and can make the same mistakes as everyone else.

My music, photography, writing, and likeness have been lifted over the years and used without permission on everything from radio commercials to other people's albums. But I don't go after these people with anger. I blindside them with kindness and understanding. It's _extremely_ effective. When kindness doesn't work, that's when I resort to more official means. But I much prefer solving copyright infringement issues over a beer than with a kraken.


----------



## Loïc D

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> From his Bandcamp: "I am a Born Again Bible-believing Christian from England and I love composing music themes that reflects the word of God and the life of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ."
> Somebody tell him that stealing is a sin


Plus he stole from the devil himself


----------



## dzilizzi

LordOfTheStrings said:


> Not so fun for christian people who just want to hang around on this forum and discuss music to be called "cuckoo". I feel like the world already has enough on this on other places, where this is just a place to escape from that and discuss music.


There's a difference between calling Christians cuckoo and calling out a cuckoo who uses Christianity as an excuse for his craziness. Unfortunately, there are a lot of "religious" people whose actions are not very "religious". And they make actual religious people look bad. So, I think you were missing the point.


----------



## AndyP

I think it also depends a lot on the context.
To use a song without permission or to sell a plagiarism as his intellectual property to make money with it is for me something different than if it was used without commercial background as background music or whatever.

Here someone has deliberately tried to earn money with the intellectual property of another. And since there is a strong religious context here, it seems to me that the good Martin has either not understood his message himself, or it is primarily about the money and the religious background is a scam.

Probably the name is not even real but deliberately chosen with the background to achieve a higher hit rate in search engines by the similarity with a real artist.

For me, this does not look like a coincidence, but intentional.


----------



## dzilizzi

Polkasound said:


> But I much prefer solving copyright infringement issues over a beer than with a kraken.


Doesn't that take the fun out of it though?


----------



## Jett Hitt

dzilizzi said:


> Doesn't that take the fun out of it though?


Again I say, release the kraken!


----------



## AndreBoulard

unbelivable man. i super sorry to hear this stuff happens specially with your great talent around. people is just dumb. i have no respect for that type of thing.


----------



## CT

HarmonyCore said:


> Then how do we promote and market our music if we don't have anything posted anywhere? Problem still not solved!


No clue man, but let me know if you come up with a good solution. Until then I will blame my lack of worldwide fame and acclaim on my unwillingness to market myself, and absolutely nothing else.


----------



## AndyP

Just publish the tracks mega badly mixed (like me). It's actually about the composition, not the sound. Nobody steals that for sure.


----------



## Double Helix

fourier said:


> . . .*I struggle to picture this being anything but someone getting caught and scrambling to muster up an excuse of sorts.*


^^ (my thoughts exactly) ^^
Only "sorry" after he got caught


----------



## JEPA

Polkasound said:


> It could be an intentionally malicious act, but it could also be poor judgement fueled by ignorance. In Martin's case, he's the only one who knows what it was. As for the rest of us, may the person who has never exercised poor judgement out of ignorance, in any aspect of life, cast the first stone.


I am only asking how would you name this? @Toecutter already answered “Hollywood“...


----------



## Double Helix

Jett Hitt said:


> Again I say, release the kraken!








. . .oh, "kraken" -- never mind. . .


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov

Daniel James said:


> Cheers for the support lads. Looks like he is starting to realize the error of his ways and pull it from services.


I guess, what they say it's true: god works in mysterious ways.


----------



## HarmonyCore

I have to re-read this thread!


----------



## Drundfunk

Daniel James said:


> [...] I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt [...]


----------



## Rubric

Shiiiiiiiiiit, I’m so sorry @Daniel James , I’ve been through this awful _shituation_ myself and it’s why I use a pseudonym now and not my real name. My scenario was similar to @MauroPantin ‘s. Only difference, a music library (non-exclusive) I’m in required us to NOT have music in Content ID. Some dick KNEW this, then started uploading my entire discography (40+ albums) through Distrokid and slapped Content ID claims on not just my channel, but literally thousands of other filmmakers and game devs that’ve legally licensed my work. In one day, I received hundreds of emails from clients, some of them threatening to sue, one threatening something far worse, but most just angry with me and some vowing to never work/license with me ever again.

I’m currently building my own library where I can control all the licensing myself forever in the future and eliminate assholes from repeating this for the next exploitable tech platform (Instagram, TikTok, etc...)

Your situation is unique though DJ, as you’re sharing your process openly with us, which is an awesome and vulnerable thing. I hope opportunist assholes don’t discourage you from continuing to be open and honest my friend. Does YouTube itself not let you, like, Content ID your own channel? Or are distributors the only ones that can do this?


----------



## M_Helder

Rubric said:


> Shiiiiiiiiiit, I’m so sorry @Daniel James , I’ve been through this awful _shituation_ myself and it’s why I use a pseudonym now and not my real name. My scenario was similar to @MauroPantin ‘s. Only difference, a music library (non-exclusive) I’m in required us to NOT have music in Content ID. Some dick KNEW this, then started uploading my entire discography (40+ albums) through Distrokid and slapped Content ID claims on not just my channel, but literally thousands of other filmmakers and game devs that’ve legally licensed my work. In one day, I received hundreds of emails from clients, some of them threatening to sue, one threatening something far worse, but most just angry with me and some vowing to never work/license with me ever again.
> 
> I’m currently building my own library where I can control all the licensing myself forever in the future and eliminate assholes from repeating this for the next exploitable tech platform (Instagram, TikTok, etc...)
> 
> Your situation is unique though DJ, as you’re sharing your process openly with us, which is an awesome and vulnerable thing. I hope opportunist assholes don’t discourage you from continuing to be open and honest my friend. Does YouTube itself not let you, like, Content ID your own channel? Or are distributors the only ones that can do this?



Holy sh*t.

My sympathies, man. Having everything you worked for so long to get ruined like that in an instance. That is just plain evil.


----------



## Polkasound

JEPA said:


> I am only asking how would you name this? @Toecutter already answered “Hollywood“...


Ah, OK. I made the assumption that when you asked "how would you name this?" that you were intending to ask "how would you explain this?" My apologies.


----------



## Pianolando

Polkasound said:


> . Martin has roughly 100 tracks, but they only go back five years. If he's only been doing this for five years, then there's a lot of time for him to make poor decisions and learn from them — this being one of them.



My guess would be that every one of these 100 tracks are stolen in the same way, only that no one noticed yet? If so, and if he actually realized his wrongdoing, wouldn’t he take down those tracks as well? What are the odds that this only happened this once, and that all his previous content actually is created by him?


----------



## doctoremmet

Pianolando said:


> My guess would be that every one of these 100 tracks are stolen in the same way, only that no one noticed yet? If so, and if he actually realized his wrongdoing, wouldn’t he take down those tracks as well? What are the odds that this only happened this once, and that all his previous content actually is created by him?


Nah. Just turn the other cheeck and totally never be suspicious. He says he’s sorry. Now stop the whining, he apologized already 😂 - I am extremely confident all his other tracks are legit. Who are we to judge. Besides... when I was four years old I took some kid’s cookie, so I too am not without sin and therefore I should not cast the first stone.


----------



## Daniel James

doctoremmet said:


> Nah. Just turn the other cheeck and totally never be suspicious. He says he’s sorry. Now stop the whining, he apologized already 😂 - I am extremely confident all his other tracks are legit. Who are we to judge. Besides... when I was four years old I took some kid’s cookie, so I too am not without sin and therefore I should not cast the first stone.


I'm a believer in growth over canceling people. Lets hope he takes this as a learning moment, actually gets good at writing music and improves the lives of the people around him.

I will always be wary and suspicious. But we all make mistakes, and I think we need more second chances in the world these days. What he did was unacceptable but now he has an opportunity to turn shit around and do things for real. 

-DJ


----------



## doctoremmet

Daniel James said:


> I'm a believer in growth over canceling people. Lets hope he takes this as a learning moment, actually gets good at writing music and improves the lives of the people around him.


I hear you. Not much of a canceler either to be honest. But having a hard time believing his other posts are actually composed and played by himself. Which is not a huge concern maybe. Having some trouble digesting a certain double standard when it comes to moral issues as soon as someone’s religion enters into the equation. Not at all a fan of all the snarkiness about that, but I find some people’s “naivité” slightly annoying. But hey! Thanks for kindly kicking me in the butt Daniel! You’re right: another day is here, and I haven’t had my first coffee yet  Away with the chagrin and on with the show. Make some cool music lately?

❤️ and sorry if I offended some people. Not my intention at all. I shall keep my mouth shut and channel my inner Dobby-who-has-just-been-gifted-a-sock. Peace y’all. And respect for the very mature way you’re dealing with all of this DJ.


----------



## Manaberry

Daniel James said:


> Ok so the guy reached out and apologized. It seems sincere and I believe that thought process was most likely that it would be fine to just steal as no one would ever notice as he is a smaller artist.
> 
> I responded that I am willing to believe this is a genuine lack of judgement and not representative of who he is generally speaking. Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads. Hopefully, lessons are learned.
> 
> -DJ


You are too good Daniel in my opinion.

The guy has no excuse for being a thief, especially if he mentioned: "because I'm a smaller artist".
I'm also a small artist. I'm working hard to make my way through.
I feel attacked when someone attacks other composers. Because they do harm the job and what it represents.

We need to show them what the risks are. There are more and more people like him out there.


----------



## Daniel James

doctoremmet said:


> I hear you. Not much of a canceler either to be honest. But having a hard time believing his other posts are actually composed and played by himself. Which is not a huge concern maybe. Having some trouble digesting a certain double standard when it comes to moral issues as soon as someone’s religion enters into the equation. Not at all a fan of all the snarkiness about that, but I find some people’s “naivité” slightly annoying. But hey! Thanks for kindly kicking me in the butt Daniel! You’re right: another day is here, and I haven’t had my first coffee yet  Away with the chagrin and on with the show. Make some cool music lately?
> 
> ❤️ and sorry if I offended some people. Not my intention at all. I shall keep my mouth shut and channel my inner Dobby. Peace y’all. And respect for the very mature way you’re dealing with all of this DJ.


Sorry mate, I wasn't having a dig, just saying why I give the benefit of the doubt  

And when it comes to religion or politics on the internet I literally just zone it out. Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to their own blind spots. I don't think people are being malicious, we just sort of forgot how to live and let live. I don't care what you believe so long are you are a decent human being. So when you see this stuff just let it roll off you, opinions on contentious issues are literally worthless as minds have been made up, so why waste any energy on it. Use that time to work or do something you love instead. Its been working great for me so far!

-DJ


----------



## doctoremmet

Daniel James said:


> Sorry mate, I wasn't having a dig, just saying why I give the benefit of the doubt


I know. I was having one at myself 😂🙏


----------



## Daniel James

Manaberry said:


> You are too good Daniel in my opinion.
> 
> The guy has no excuse for being a thief, especially if he mentioned: "because I'm a smaller artist".
> I'm also a small artist. I'm working hard to make my way through.
> I feel attacked when someone attacks other composers. Because they do harm the job and what it represents.
> 
> We need to show them what the risks are. There are more and more people like him out there.


He now knows what it feels like to get caught. I imagine that shame will act as a deterrent for him. I feel like putting him on blast for what he did is the best way to deal with these things. Reputation is quite important in the industry and should be enough to make it not worth it for most composers (I think). But it still gives him the opportunity to rebuild.

If someone does it and refuses to stop then you move to legal stuff. Thats how I see it at least.

-DJ


----------



## el-bo

Sorry to hear about this and other similar stories in this thread. Should feel maddened; just feel saddened.

Props, DJ, for the way in which you are thinking about and dealing with this.


----------



## robgb

Polkasound said:


> Even though it's justifiable to hold a Christian to a higher standard, they're still human and can make the same mistakes as everyone else.


I suspect that anyone with a conscience wouldn't make this "mistake."


----------



## Daniel James

robgb said:


> I suspect that anyone with a conscience wouldn't make this "mistake."


More like a lapse in judgment than a mistake? I don't think he 'accidentally' stole it, he just didn't realize quite how _wrong_ it was taking it. Now he does.

-DJ


----------



## AudioLoco

What does "canceling" has do to anything with this?


----------



## T-LeffoH

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



_*"Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context."*_

I think the issue goes a bit beyond this actually and relates more to quality issues that will always occur from the compartmentalized nature of information flow in industries where multiple hand-offs occur in the scope of business and the various companies' business solutions being put in place are not functionally dependent in the overall workflow - compared to an organization where it's just an end-to-end product coming out from under one company with many departments.

I did some analysis work a few years ago for one of the library CEOs at PMC after we had a dialogue (because they had an OEM background) about data quality & information processing in industries.

YouTube actually created this problem because the solution they created to catch it was designed to solve the problem they created and not designed in tandem with industry buy-in, so these quality-related issues will always exist.

The more frustrating issues I saw when working with third-party software engineering companies in corporate work always had to do with requirements definition or modification occurring outside the input or control of the affected party.

And once a _hack_ of a solution gets released in a production environment...solving the problems it creates become more & more difficult - not easier.

All that being said - what the individual did is _not ok _and you have every right to pursue a remedy in your favor.


----------



## Daniel James

AudioLoco said:


> What does "canceling" has do to anything with this?


Destroy the guy's career, suing him into oblivion, legal action etc. The common term for 'persona non grata' these days is canceling them.

Instead of doing that, I think the best outcome would be for him to learn and grow from it rather than canceling him? Follow the logic of that?

-DJ

Not everything is a tribal political trigger buzzword that needs a fight, which, unless mistaken, I think is how you took it. I thought the context of how I was using it was pretty clear. Take a step back from social media, if mentioning the word cancel got you worked up.


----------



## Daniel James

T-LeffoH said:


> _*"Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context."*_
> 
> I think the issue goes a bit beyond this actually and relates more to quality issues that will always occur from the compartmentalized nature of information flow in industries where multiple hand-offs occur in the scope of business and the various companies' business solutions being put in place are not functionally dependent in the overall workflow - compared to an organization where it's just an end-to-end product coming out from under one company with many departments.
> 
> I did some analysis work a few years ago for one of the library CEOs at PMC after we had a dialogue (because they had an OEM background) about data quality & information processing in industries.
> 
> YouTube actually created this problem because the solution they created to catch it was designed to solve the problem they created and not designed in tandem with industry buy-in, so these quality-related issues will always exist.
> 
> The more frustrating issues I saw when working with third-party software engineering companies in corporate work always had to do with requirements definition or modification occurring outside the input or control of the affected party.
> 
> And once a _hack_ of a solution gets released in a production environment...solving the problems it creates become more & more difficult - not easier.
> 
> All that being said - what the individual did is _not ok _and you have every right to pursue a remedy in your favor.


Yeah I hear you, Although I wish they would, at least in their content ID, check to see if something is claiming to be a new release.... and if the algorithm finds a match of something that came out before it triggers an investigation. Unless I am misremembering, you have to state when releasing something that it is original. So if Youtube has that data of release, it would be a simple stop-gap to say...well this cant be original because its recognizing something with an earlier date. But TBH I don't even think youtube cares about how it affects people on our level. It does seem stacked in favor of bigger artists or labels. Money talks.

And yeah I know I would have grounds but like I keep saying, I am not vindictive, and I don't think he meant harm, so I am happy for him to grow. With the hope, he becomes great and is a net positive to the world, rather than me 'go after him', which only has negatives. Again I am always going to be wary but hopefully, he learns.

-DJ


----------



## AudioLoco

Daniel James said:


> Destroy the guy's career, suing him into oblivion, legal action etc. The common term for 'persona non grata' these days is cancelling them.
> 
> Instead of doing that I think the best outcome would be for him to learn and grow from it rather than cancelling him? Follow the logic of that?
> 
> -DJ
> 
> Not everything is a political trigger buzzword that needs a fight, which, unless mistaken, I think is how you took it. I thought the context of how I was using it was pretty clear. Take a step back from social media, if mentioning the word cancel got you worked up.


You do what you think is right, but the guy is a petty criminal and scammer for what concerns me.
Criminals don't get "cancelled", that's why I think the term is out of place in this context.


----------



## T-LeffoH

Daniel James said:


> Yeah I hear you, Although I wish they would, at least in their content ID, check to see if something is claiming to be a new release.... and if the algorithm finds a match of something that came out before it triggers an investigation. Unless I am misremembering, you have to state when releasing something that it is original. So if Youtube has that data of release, it would be a simple stop-gap to say...well this cant be original because its recognizing something with an earlier date. But TBH I don't even think youtube cares about how it affects people on our level. It does seem stacked in favor of bigger artists or labels. Money talks.
> 
> And yeah I know I would have grounds but like I keep saying, I am not vindictive, and I don't think he meant harm, so I am happy for him to grow. With the hope, he becomes great and is a net positive to the world, rather than me 'go after him', which only has negatives. Again I am always going to be wary but hopefully, he learns.
> 
> -DJ


Only speaking from my analyst experience...but they can do exactly you're saying - they just don't.

Most issues, like this & others, I read/hear of from their copyright strike system are things that aren't particularly complicated to solution and are generally preventable.


----------



## dzilizzi

I wonder if some of this is coming from the remix culture. They used to get permission to remix songs and add new vocals. Then they just started remixing in clubs without a problem, then it just became okay, we don't have to ask. Just copy and add our own stuff and call it ours.

It's hard. You see the lawsuit against Katie Perry and think WTH? I can't hear what they are saying is a copy. But then you have direct thefts like some have talked about here and nothing gets done. It is very frustrating to see this.


----------



## dzilizzi

3DC said:


> Pardon my beginner ignorance but shouldn't you register all your work with Copyright Office before you post it to any media or distribution?
> After all you get a number and a date for each creative work that you can then use for "rebuttable presumption of ownership" which basically means other people have to prove in court you are not the owner of copyrighted material.
> 
> I am asking because I just finished an Introduction to copyright course and it says that you can register a collection of creative work for 50 bucks. It also says that this protection expedites all disputes in your favor way faster then if go trough distribution protection.


Since around the 70's, copyright is automatic when you write it. Within reason. You can't write an ostinato and claim it as yours since it is something that is standard in music. But a melody is yours as long as you didn't copy it from someone else. 

That said, if you go to court, a registered copyright is easier to show a date of initial writing than a computer file that could have been changed. There's also the "poor man's copyright" where you mail a sealed envelope with the writing in it to yourself to have a postmarked date. They can argue you unsealed and resealed it, but it is better than nothing. 

Copyright cost is per submission. So a great deal if you have a number of works at the same time, but not so great for one at a time. Also won't work in this case where the guy recorded from a live show as it was being written. Technically, they were done on the same date.


----------



## Double Helix

Daniel James said:


> . . .But we all make mistakes. . .
> -DJ


Daniel, you have good heart; however, in my view "a mistake" is when one mis-adds the column of numbers in a checking account or when one takes a wrong turn in an unfamiliar locale--these "mistakes" are easily rectified.
It seems that this action was intentional; he knew exactly what he was doing.
Great that you can give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do not see that there is any doubt.

[edit -- spellin' R us]


----------



## tabulius

3DC said:


> Pardon my beginner ignorance but shouldn't you register all your work with Copyright Office before you post it to any media or distribution?
> After all you get a number and a date for each creative work that you can then use for "rebuttable presumption of ownership" which basically means other people have to prove in court you are not the owner of copyrighted material.
> 
> I am asking because I just finished an Introduction to copyright course and it says that you can register a collection of creative work for 50 bucks. It also says that this protection expedites all disputes in your favor way faster then if go trough distribution protection.


Good luck registering your composition BEFORE the live feed when the composition is made.


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> I suspect that anyone with a conscience wouldn't make this "mistake."





Double Helix said:


> It seems that this action was intentional; he knew exactly what he was doing.
> Great that you can give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do not see that there is any doubt.


Do people with a conscience sometimes make the mistake of texting and driving? Yes. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they haven't personally injured or killed anyone and can't relate to the danger of their actions. And they will continue to do it until they get caught by the police and/or wise up.

I look at what Martin did from the same perspective. Yes, he knew it was wrong, but didn't have the experience to relate to the harm in it. Then he got caught.

Is Martin a scumbag to be thrown to the lion's den, or is he a texting driver who used poor judgement? The only thing that would make Martin a scumbag in my eyes is if he continued to lift and use other people's music going forward. I can't predict the future, so I'm going to lay down the pitchfork and give Martin the benefit of the doubt. Given how well he handled this matter with DJ, I think he deserves that much.


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> Do people with a conscience sometimes make the mistake of texting and driving? Yes. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they haven't personally injured or killed anyone and can't relate to the danger of their actions. And they will continue to do it until they get caught by the police and/or wise up.
> 
> I look at what Martin did from the same perspective. Yes, he knew it was wrong, but didn't have the experience to relate to the harm in it. Then he got caught.
> 
> Is Martin a scumbag to be thrown to the lion's den, or is he a texting driver who used poor judgement? The only thing that would make Martin a scumbag in my eyes is if he continued to lift and use other people's music going forward. I can't predict the future, so I'm going to lay down the pitchfork and give Martin the benefit of the doubt. Given how well he handled this matter with DJ, I think he deserves that much.


I’m all for second chances and giving opportunities for growth etc. but I think that the critical part to consider is not that he copied the music, but that he then tried to copyright-claim DJ out if his own creation.

Again, I very much condone the lenient and bridge-building nature of Daniel’s response, but I don’t think it’s right to judge the perpetrator as naive and not cognisant of the implications of his actions.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Polkasound said:


> Do people with a conscience sometimes make the mistake of texting and driving? Yes. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they haven't personally injured or killed anyone and can't relate to the danger of their actions. And they will continue to do it until they get caught by the police and/or wise up.
> 
> I look at what Martin did from the same perspective. Yes, he knew it was wrong, but didn't have the experience to relate to the harm in it. Then he got caught.
> 
> Is Martin a scumbag to be thrown to the lion's den, or is he a texting driver who used poor judgement? The only thing that would make Martin a scumbag in my eyes is if he continued to lift and use other people's music going forward. I can't predict the future, so I'm going to lay down the pitchfork and give Martin the benefit of the doubt. Given how well he handled this matter with DJ, I think he deserves that much.


You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there is no way you can miss that it's wrong to record/download and re-publish someone elses work as yours and actually send out strikes.
It's just not possible, unless your judgement is impaired beyond any hope.
It's not a mistake out of temporal mindless and habit.

And if people text frequently they are do not have enough conscience. Only makes sense if it's a rare slip of the mind. Whereas lifting someones music and sending Content ID strikes takes a lot of work and concious effort, has NOTHING to do with quickly sending a text on a phone. (which is bad of course, but just not comparable in terms of conciousness of one's actions)


----------



## dzilizzi

3DC said:


> Maybe some of you guys should read official publications before posting "funny" disinformation like this.
> 
> Copyright registration for Musical Compositions
> 
> Then again some people can learn to read these papers only after very expensive mistakes.
> Yeah "good luck" to you too.


Actually, Copyright Law varies from country to country. I really only know the US law on this.


----------



## dzilizzi

DarkestShadow said:


> You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there is no way you can miss that it's wrong to record/download and re-publish someone elses work as yours and actually send out strikes.
> It's just not possible, unless your judgement is impaired beyond any hope.
> It's not a mistake out of temporal mindless and habit.
> 
> And if people text frequently they are do not have enough conscience. Only makes sense if it's a rare slip of the mind. Whereas lifting someones music and sending Content ID strikes takes a lot of work and concious effort, has NOTHING to do with quickly sending a text on a phone. (which is bad of course, but just not comparable in terms of conciousness of one's actions)


Did Martin send out the strikes or did YouTube do it automatically? How does it work? That would be the distinction in intent for me. If YouTube did it automatically, I would give him a second chance. If he did it? No second chances in my book.


----------



## Polkasound

el-bo said:


> I think that the critical part to consider is not that he copied the music, but that he then tried to copyright-claim DJ out if his own creation.


I don't think he claimed the copyright for the purpose of hurting DJ. I think he claimed the copyright because it was the easy, fast way to get his song digitally distributed, and he gambled that nobody would ever find out, nor would his actions hurt DJ. In the old days before Content ID, he would have gotten away with it. I think that if Martin understood uploading the song would have barred DJ from claiming the copyright and royalties, he never would have uploaded it. When he got caught, he didn't say or do anything to refute DJ's claim. He apologized and immediately pulled his songs down.

So for this reason, again, I cite poor judgement. He knew it was wrong, but didn't fully understand the harm in his actions. He got caught, and now I believe he's coming to understand how detested copyright infringement is, how it can affect composers, and how much easier it is to get caught these days.




DarkestShadow said:


> You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there is no way you can miss that it's wrong to record/download and re-publish someone elses work as yours...


I'd like to rephrase your words, but from my perspecive: You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there's no way you can miss that it's wrong to do it. And while you can't miss that it's wrong to republish someone else's work as your own, you might not think about the harms of doing it.




DarkestShadow said:


> ...and actually send out strikes.


Unless I missed something [and someone please correct me if I have these facts wrong] I don't think Martin actively pursued trying to take away DJs credit to the song. I believe it was YouTube that auto-generated the strike. If Martin knew that that was going to happen, I doubt very much he would have uploaded the song.


----------



## Traz

dzilizzi said:


> Actually, Copyright Law varies from country to country. I really only know the US law on this.


As someone who has had to take music business classes regarding copyright laws as part of my major, everything you said is exactly what we are taught as well.


----------



## Daryl

Traz said:


> As someone who has had to take music business classes regarding copyright laws as part of my major, everything you said is exactly what we are taught as well.


However, in the UK, your music is copyrighted the nanosecond you have written it. No need to register it anywhere. However, some evidence would be useful if you ever needed to prove that you wrote it.

In DJ's case, it wasn't just the music copyright that was infringed, but the recording as well. Two separate copyright infringements.


----------



## tabulius

Daryl said:


> However, in the UK, your music is copyrighted the nanosecond you have written it. No need to register it anywhere. However, some evidence would be useful if you ever needed to prove that you wrote it.
> 
> In DJ's case, it wasn't just the music copyright that was infringed, but the recording as well. Two separate copyright infringements.



This is how it is in Finland (I guess) too.


----------



## AudioLoco

Polkasound said:


> Do people with a conscience sometimes make the mistake of texting and driving? Yes. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they haven't personally injured or killed anyone and can't relate to the danger of their actions. And they will continue to do it until they get caught by the police and/or wise up.
> 
> I look at what Martin did from the same perspective. Yes, he knew it was wrong, but didn't have the experience to relate to the harm in it. Then he got caught.
> 
> Is Martin a scumbag to be thrown to the lion's den, or is he a texting driver who used poor judgement? The only thing that would make Martin a scumbag in my eyes is if he continued to lift and use other people's music going forward. I can't predict the future, so I'm going to lay down the pitchfork and give Martin the benefit of the doubt. Given how well he handled this matter with DJ, I think he deserves that much.


It's more like ramming your car into another car trying to throw it off road, that is the problem  
Or more simply and apptly stealing a car...
Also if you text and drive and kill an entire family because of that....it's kind of bad...


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> I don't think he claimed the copyright for the purpose of hurting DJ. I think he claimed the copyright because it was the easy, fast way to get his song digitally distributed, and he gambled that nobody would ever find out, nor would his actions hurt DJ.


That's definitely a possibility and a much better way of looking at the situation.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Polkasound said:


> I don't think he claimed the copyright for the purpose of hurting DJ. I think he claimed the copyright because it was the easy, fast way to get his song digitally distributed, and he gambled that nobody would ever find out, nor would his actions hurt DJ. In the old days before Content ID, he would have gotten away with it. I think that if Martin understood uploading the song would have barred DJ from claiming the copyright and royalties, he never would have uploaded it. When he got caught, he didn't say or do anything to refute DJ's claim. He apologized and immediately pulled his songs down.
> 
> So for this reason, again, I cite poor judgement. He knew it was wrong, but didn't fully understand the harm in his actions. He got caught, and now I believe he's coming to understand how detested copyright infringement is, how it can affect composers, and how much easier it is to get caught these days.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to rephrase your words, but from my perspecive: You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there's no way you can miss that it's wrong to do it. And while you can't miss that it's wrong to republish someone else's work as your own, you might not think about the harms of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something [and someone please correct me if I have these facts wrong] I don't think Martin actively pursued trying to take away DJs credit to the song. I believe it was YouTube that auto-generated the strike. If Martin knew that that was going to happen, I doubt very much he would have uploaded the song.


It wasn’t just YouTube though! As mentioned much earlier in the thread, Martin was actively “selling” his “edit” of DJs track as his own on Bandcamp! The guy also has “his music” on Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Music and even Pandora (which we cannot access in the U.K.).


----------



## José Herring

Sucks it got stolen, but also enjoyed the piece. It's a nice little jam.


----------



## Daniel James

3DC said:


> Maybe some of you guys should read official publications before posting "funny" disinformation like this.
> 
> Copyright registration for Musical Compositions
> 
> Then again some people can learn to read these papers only after very expensive mistakes.
> Yeah "good luck" to you too.


When you write something original you own it from the moment you write it, beyond that is proof. I have the date I streamed it, the day the VOD was created on Twitch and the date it was uploaded to Youtube. All of which are dated and protected content on the platforms they were uploaded to (doubt you will find many officially copywritten youtube videos yet they are all protected by copyright.... if you don't believe me try re-uploading one 😂).

Then there is the hours of video evidence and context of me coming up with those melodies and parts, live in the moment. Again this is all self-contained within my live performance, so all the content within is protected, as it has already been published via twitch and youtube.

And legal agreements/contracts are made every time you upload a video as you have to agree with their EULA and Terms to publish on their platform. All of which I could use as proof of my date of creation. Sure registering with the copyright office would be an easier thing to prove. But as others have said, I can't really register my live performance before I write it, BUT it is being recorded AND uploaded as I play it. Under the agreement I already have with Twitch, that's where my copyright starts, the second it is played and documented.

Given these points, I would feel confident in the event of a legal case.

-DJ

p.s usually the studies on how you should pay to 'officially' copyright everything, are usually by people who want you to use their service to do so. Copyright exists from the moment of creation, again beyond that its all about proof, of which I have plenty.


----------



## Daniel James

AudioLoco said:


> It's more like ramming your car into another car trying to throw it off road, that is the problem
> Or more simply and apptly stealing a car...
> Also if you text and drive and kill an entire family because of that....it's kind of bad...


If you want to use this analogy...its more like he was texting and driving and then rear-ended my car because he wasn't paying attention. He didn't kill anyone but he fucked up by doing something he knew was wrong but didn't think would be a problem. But he saw the error of his ways, owned up to the fault and offered to fix the damages. 

He shouldn't text and drive in the first place, but it's too late for that. Let's be thankful he learned the lesson rear-ending someone rather than running over and killing a family (to use your example)

-DJ


----------



## Rubric

Daryl said:


> However, in the UK, your music is copyrighted the nanosecond you have written it. No need to register it anywhere. However, some evidence would be useful if you ever needed to prove that you wrote it.
> 
> In DJ's case, it wasn't just the music copyright that was infringed, but the recording as well. Two separate copyright infringements.



Really? That's completely rational and artist-friendly. I wish we in the U.S. would get our shit together!

We provide way so much leniency for the sake of _economic_ _growth_. Can't remember if it was Uber or Lyft, but when they got into the scooter game, I remember my neighborhood, overnight, just flooded with random scooters everywhere. Like, in people's yards, smooshed between mailboxes, littered throughout parking lots. When local officials reached out to ask _wtf_, the response was something like _"what law is there that says we can't randomly toss scooters everywhere?_".


----------



## Polkasound

Leslie Fuller said:


> It wasn’t just YouTube though! As mentioned much earlier in the thread, Martin was actively “selling” his “edit” of DJs track as his own on Bandcamp!


Yes, I know, but my point of view doesn't change whether he was selling the tracks on 2 sites or 200. To quote myself, "...he gambled that nobody would ever find out, nor would his actions hurt DJ." That's my opinion. DJ's analogy above is excellent. Martin used poor judgement, got caught, and hopefully learned from the experience.


----------



## tabulius

3DC said:


> I would also like to point out that there is no such thing as "poor man's copyright". Its actually not valid or even used in court.


I had to check and in Finnish copyright law, the copyright is being created at the moment when an art or piece is created. Of course, one has to be able prove in court when he/she has created the piece (I wonder if a LIVE FEED of me composing the track would be enough for a proof  )

A rough Google translated example:

"§ 1
Subject of copyright (22.5.2015 / 607)
Anyone who has created a literary or artistic work has the copyright in the work, whether it is a literary or explanatory written or oral performance, a composition or stage work, a cinematographic work, a photographic work or any other work of fine art..."


----------



## AudioLoco

Daniel James said:


> If you want to use this analogy...its more like he was texting and driving and then rear-ended my car because he wasn't paying attention. He didn't kill anyone but he fucked up by doing something he knew was wrong but didn't think would be a problem. But he saw the error of his ways, owned up to the fault and offered to fix the damages.
> 
> He shouldn't text and drive in the first place, but it's too late for that. Let's be thankful he learned the lesson rear-ending someone rather than running over and killing a family (to use your example)
> 
> -DJ


Got ya! 
The only thing with analogies is they can become very complicated... 
Was he texting his secret lover or his mom? Was he texting his friends about the charity they are organizing for homeless people or about an evil plan to kidnap a dog? 

BS apart, I'm happy for you it got resolved and glad you found your peace with what happened and get on with your work etc. These things are very very stressful and distracting.

All the very best!


----------



## Daniel James

tabulius said:


> I had to check and in Finnish copyright law, the copyright is being created at the moment when an art or piece is created. Of course, one has to be able prove in court when he/she has created the piece (I wonder if a LIVE FEED of me composing the track would be enough for a proof  )
> 
> A rough Google translated example:
> 
> "§ 1
> Subject of copyright (22.5.2015 / 607)
> Anyone who has created a literary or artistic work has the copyright in the work, whether it is a literary or explanatory written or oral performance, a composition or stage work, a cinematographic work, a photographic work or any other work of fine art..."


As I mentioned above, when you stream on twitch or upload to youtube, you have an actual contractual agreement with them, a digital legal document every time you upload where you state that you agree to their terms and the work you are uploading is legal to do so. You also sign an agreement in the content on the video so they can inform their advertisers if you are friendly to advertise on. 

So many different legal 'things' happen every time you stream and upload stuff, Of which you have legal agreements which will be dated... worth mentioning here, these agreements are really to protect them from legal action if YOU stole something, but as they are documented for their protection they also double up as a dated legal document showing the agreement you have regarding the video in question. If you take all that evidence to a judge, it's easy to verify, and judging by how well Youtube can use those rules against the users, the contracts and agreements you sign are very real and enforceable 😂

At the end of the day....Don't steal shit, particularly if it's easy to prove you didn't write it.

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James

AudioLoco said:


> Got ya!
> The only thing with analogies is they can become very complicated...
> Was he texting his secret lover or his mom? Was he texting his friends about the charity they are organizing for homeless people or about an evil plan to kidnap a dog?
> 
> BS apart, I'm happy for you it got resolved and glad you found your peace with what happened and get on with your work etc. These things are very very stressful and distracting.
> 
> All the very best!


Thanks mate, yeah analogies are very rarely perfect, at best they can help you understand the logic the other person is working with. And I think it did just that here. Hopefully, he embraces the second chance and really makes something of himself. That would be a win-win all round.


----------



## doctoremmet




----------



## jononotbono

You should invite him onto your live stream. 😂


----------



## Mike Greene

Daniel James said:


> More like a lapse in judgment than a mistake? I don't think he 'accidentally' stole it, he just didn't realize quite how _wrong_ it was taking it. Now he does.
> 
> -DJ


That makes a lot of sense. As Lizzie said, a lot of this could be because of the remix culture, where at times it can sure look like this okay. Back in the hip hop days, it was similar, where some people truly didn't know that putting beats on a sample didn't qualify as a "new" song. Most did, of course, but there were still plenty of times I'd have to tell someone that they'd get sued up the wazoo if they did what they were thinking of doing.

In any event, I applaud your attitude on this.


----------



## Mike Greene

Daryl said:


> However, in the UK, your music is copyrighted the nanosecond you have written it.


It's that way here, too. As long as you can prove (through whatever means) that you wrote the song before the infringer did, you're covered. (In Daniel's case, that's easy.) I rarely register songs of mine. As long as I can prove when I wrote them, then I'm fine.

Registration is only needed when you actually want to sue. (Or if you have no other means of proving when you wrote the song.) And ... you can register retroactively and _then_ sue. DJ could do that in this case if he wanted to.

The other benefit to registration is that if you do sue (and if you registered it _before_ the infringement,) then you may also collect "Compulsory Damages," which I think is capped at $160k, so given that you won't get an IP attorney to answer the phone unless the case is worth at least a million, doesn't really matter much.


----------



## Daniel James

3DC said:


> There is this thing called "Rebuttable presumption of ownership" or first appearance and true unless someone comes forward to contest it. And you must contest it in court of law.
> 
> In simple words I could register your work as mine with copyright office, then its your job to prove in court of law its not mine. Not only that I keep all money from YT until you prove otherwise. On top of that not even YT, Twitch or any other platform can contest my registration number of your creative work. Once I got the number its almost impossible to deny at least 50% of ownership. Most cases end with bitter settlement.
> 
> All I am saying its not so simple and I would advise everyone to educate themselves about copyright law.
> 
> 
> I would strongly suggest that you check how this contracts affects your copyright protection. If you signed an agreement that they are the publisher of your work then you could have some serious legal and administrative problems. They could claim percentage of profit from your creative work.
> 
> Again this is not something people think about until they make a hit song.
> 
> Guys do what you think is best for you. Mine are just suggestions to consider. Take care.


Sure you could do that. But I have a wealth of evidence, plus live witnesses who could verify my live performance. Let alone the dated, documented video evidence of the work creation. Sure you could register the copyright, but I would sue and I would easily be able to disprove your claim, as well as pass on the legal fees to you for the hassle. Not to mention the reputational damage, legal action is one thing, industry reputation being another. Is that worth the hassle for you? especially knowing you are in the wrong .

You have to keep in mind this is a live improvised performance, and it has been published, with dates and dated agreements made to ensure that publishing was possible. In a court, video evidence is still relevant. So regardless of your copyright registration of my work, the dated video of me literally playing it will be hard to contend with. 

And the part about it being serious legal and administrative issues with Youtube is irrelevant to this, This is about copyright, no one signs the rights or ownership their work over to Youtube when they upload, if that was the case they would now own most of the worlds music and movies 😂. 

One side is you with an official copyright registration of my work dated today. The other side is a live performance published in 3 locations each with an agreement signed upon the uploading of the content, each an earlier date than yours. Over 100 witnesses to my performance. The extra thousands of views from the Youtube viewing, the ad revenue both Youtube and I would have made from its existence (again which needs its own legal agreement).

I get it mate, you studied the textbook. BUT The second you write something you own its copyright, that is just the reality in most places. At the end of it literally just comes down to proof. And I have plenty.

I register work that I release officially, but as far as I am concerned when it comes to live performances, the copyright is protected so long as you have the evidence. And publishing the content _as_ you create it makes this very handy. 

-DJ


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Out of interest I checked around regarding the track in question, and it does seem to still be available (as a single) from Martin’s account on Pandora. Being in the U.K., I can’t check this, but perhaps someone in the USA could!

The Third Temple (Single) by Martin Andrew Smith - Pandora​https://www.pandora.com › martin-andrew-smith

Discover Martin Andrew Smith's top songs & albums, curated artist radio stations & more. Listen to Martin Andrew Smith on Pandora today!


----------



## Daniel James

3DC said:


> 2. In court of law life performance and registered creative work is not the same. You can claim in court of law only the authorship of life performance but I could say its derivative of my previous registered creative work. Now with all your "live evidence" you are in trouble. Not only that, now I can sue you for actual and statutory damages.


How could you claim my live performance is a derivative of your work, which would be registered later? Also sure, its a live performance, but I am also live performing me, writing music. So the video would serve as evidence of me both writing (composing) the work and also me performing that newly written piece at the same time. Again, literally, as the notes leave my brain and cause music in the real world, I own the copyright. The videos, in multiple locations, covered under multiple dated agreements, all dated before your registrations, would all serve as evidence of me writing the notes. You literally watched me do it. It doesn't matter if I live perform my composition as I write it, I still wrote it, with a live audience, and had it published all in one motion. Again its irrelevant how you prove it, but I think watching me literally compose the music, with a live audience, will be a strong case.

-DJ


----------



## davidanthony

Mike Greene said:


> given that you won't get an IP attorney to answer the phone unless the case is worth at least a million, doesn't really matter much.


This isn't true, there's another pre-infringement registration benefit -- winning attorney can collect their fees from the losing party. An open/shut infringement case with fees awarded at the end is great training for junior associates, plenty of firms would take it if the work was properly registered.


----------



## Rubric

Leslie Fuller said:


> Out of interest I checked around regarding the track in question, and it does seem to still be available (as a single) from Martin’s account on Pandora.



It takes awhile for DSPs to remove content once it's in their catalog. Pandora, in my experience is usually the slowest. Spotify and Apple are typically much quicker.


----------



## icecoolpool

3DC said:


> Calm down. No need to get upset.


He was calm, he didn´t get upset. He simply rebutted your points. 



> Invest some 45 minutes of your time to educate yourself trough a short but detailed course about copyright protection.


And rather than counter the very reasonable points made by DJ, you´ve decided to double down on the condescension. 

Ignored.


----------



## davidanthony

3DC said:


> Invest some 45 minutes of your time to educate yourself trough a short but detailed course about copyright protection. Most people underestimate the legal aspect of their creative rights which is usually a costly mistake.


Great advice. For anyone in the US, this series is a carbon copy of the lectures Harvard Law Copyright students received a few years ago:  Slightly out of date given recent changes to the law, but will get you 95% there, and you don't need to be an attorney to understand. (It can be a little dry and dense, though.)



Daniel James said:


> Given these points, I would feel confident in the event of a legal case.


It's important to remember that there are two things at play when it comes to figuring out the economics of a US copyright law case: what the actual law says you deserve, and the cost of navigating the legal system in order to get that decision. 

So even if you're completely legally 100% in the right, you may need to pay tens of thousands of dollars and wait a long time to find out the court thinks you're owed a fraction of that amount. Moral victory, sure, but can leave you penniless.

Now, when you register the copyright before the infringement, you can change your odds significantly, because your attorney is allowed to recoup their fees from the losing party. This means two things. One, a lot more attorneys will be willing to look at the case, and two, you now have a huge piece of leverage when it comes to settling (making a deal with the infringer outside of court).

The math is simple. Your attorney writes a letter saying you violated my client's registered copyright # XXX. If we can work something out, then we won't have to take you to court. After consulting an attorney, 9/10 companies will take the settlement, because they know it's literally never going to get cheaper or easier for them than it is in that moment. 

If you don't have a registered copyright, then they can call your bluff and see if you're willing to cough up the money to go to court with no guarantee that you walk out with more than you went in with. Two very different games.


----------



## Daniel James

davidanthony said:


> Great advice. For anyone in the US, this series is a carbon copy of the lectures Harvard Law Copyright students received a few years ago:  Slightly out of date given recent changes to the law, but will get you 95% there, and you don't need to be an attorney to understand. (It can be a little dry and dense, though.)
> 
> 
> It's important to remember that there are two things at play when it comes to figuring out the economics of a US copyright law case: what the actual law says you deserve, and the cost of navigating the legal system in order to get that decision.
> 
> So even if you're completely legally 100% in the right, you may need to pay tens of thousands of dollars and wait a long time to find out the court thinks you're owed a fraction of that amount. Moral victory, sure, but can leave you penniless.
> 
> Now, when you register the copyright before the infringement, you can change your odds significantly, because your attorney is allowed to recoup their fees from the losing party. This means two things. One, a lot more attorneys will be willing to look at the case, and two, you now have a huge piece of leverage when it comes to settling (making a deal with the infringer outside of court).
> 
> The math is simple. Your attorney writes a letter saying you violated my client's registered copyright # XXX. If we can work something out, then we won't have to take you to court. After consulting an attorney, 9/10 companies will take the settlement, because they know it's literally never going to get cheaper or easier for them than it is in that moment.
> 
> If you don't have a registered copyright, then they can call your bluff and see if you're willing to cough up the money to go to court with no guarantee that you walk out with more than you went in with. Two very different games.



Fair enough. To be frank though, I wasn't looking for this thread to be a debate on the semantics of copyright law. I think we can all clearly see this isn't a particular situation that merits going so deep into it, perhaps a side thread? If you want to keep going down that point though feel free, I think I made my thoughts on it pretty clear, so don't have any intention to carry on responding to that particular thread. Although I appreciate the input 

-DJ


----------



## Polkasound

Mike Greene said:


> That makes a lot of sense. As Lizzie said, a lot of this could be because of the remix culture, where at times it can sure look like this okay. Back in the hip hop days, it was similar, where some people truly didn't know that putting beats on a sample didn't qualify as a "new" song. Most did, of course, but there were still plenty of times I'd have to tell someone that they'd get sued up the wazoo if they did what they were thinking of doing.


I think this is a good point. It's the assumption that something is acceptable based on the fact that so many people are doing it. For example, everyone knows littering is a violation, but a lot of people think cigarette butts are exempt as litter because that's the one item people toss out their car windows.

From my conversation with Martin, he fully understands what he did is wrong and my gut tells me that he is sincere. He does not strike me as a bad person at all. I think DJ's smooth candor in all this has led to the best possible outcome for everyone. The krakens will have to wait another day.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Polkasound said:


> I don't think he claimed the copyright for the purpose of hurting DJ. I think he claimed the copyright because it was the easy, fast way to get his song digitally distributed, and he gambled that nobody would ever find out, nor would his actions hurt DJ. In the old days before Content ID, he would have gotten away with it. I think that if Martin understood uploading the song would have barred DJ from claiming the copyright and royalties, he never would have uploaded it. When he got caught, he didn't say or do anything to refute DJ's claim. He apologized and immediately pulled his songs down.
> 
> So for this reason, again, I cite poor judgement. He knew it was wrong, but didn't fully understand the harm in his actions. He got caught, and now I believe he's coming to understand how detested copyright infringement is, how it can affect composers, and how much easier it is to get caught these days.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to rephrase your words, but from my perspecive: You may not think about the harms of texting while driving, but there's no way you can miss that it's wrong to do it. And while you can't miss that it's wrong to republish someone else's work as your own, you might not think about the harms of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something [and someone please correct me if I have these facts wrong] I don't think Martin actively pursued trying to take away DJs credit to the song. I believe it was YouTube that auto-generated the strike. If Martin knew that that was going to happen, I doubt very much he would have uploaded the song.


YouTube itself doesn't send strikes to anyone without your action. You'd first have to register it with a Content ID company as far as I know, otherwise there wouldn't be any data for any bots to take down an upload.

And yea, we don't need to keep going with this silly driving example. If someone is doing that more than a tiny amount occasionally they definitely lack some brains - but it's still not as obviously wrong (even though there is more harm potential of course!!) than stealing someones work.
It's not about these harms you are married to. It's the act of stealing itself that is wrong.
There surely won't be a lot of harm for the most part from a random person stealing someones track and uploading it to bandcamp or YouTube. It's not profitable at all unless you are popular.
It's the stealing itself - and you can't miss that. While you can completely forget that you could cause and accident while texting and might also think it just won't happen, "it's just a quick thing" you might think. In that case you indeed can miss that's it's wrong. "Why should it be wrong? It's just a quick thing. Surely it won't cause an accident - I'm careful enough and the road is straigh and easy going" etc... that's of course bad but it's something someone could think to almost entirely miss that it's wrong. Whereas the act of taking someone elses work as yours is about as obvious as it gets.
You didn't do it - so you don't take credit for it, sell it and act as the owner. It doesn't matter how much or little money has been made, the mere attempt is obviously wrong on every step.
It's also a much longer lasting and non impulsive act with much more time for reflection when lifting someones track, rather than the seconds lasting texting.
This is silly and I won't keep going with that comparison.



dzilizzi said:


> Did Martin send out the strikes or did YouTube do it automatically? How does it work? That would be the distinction in intent for me. If YouTube did it automatically, I would give him a second chance. If he did it? No second chances in my book.


Yes, I may have jumped on the train too quickly - but there is no way YouTube would send strikes while you are doing nothing. I'm at least fairly certain you have to register the piece somewhere to have it either monetized or taken down. There are services like AdRev and Epic Elite for that.
But it certainly requires your input to some extent. It would a hot mess if YT would send out strikes automatically with little or no action from people.
Maybe there will be clarifaction, I couldn't see it yet.


----------



## Rubric

Polkasound said:


> The krakens will have to wait another day.


Okay fine...


----------



## Polkasound

DarkestShadow said:


> YouTube itself doesn't send strikes to anyone without your action. You'd first have to register it with a Content ID company as far as I know, otherwise there wouldn't be any data for any bots to take down an upload.


I'll openly admit I don't know how YouTube works since I am not a member, but I have copyrighted music digitally distributed on it. I assume if someone tried to copy my music on YouTube, their Content ID system would catch it and send a strike to the violator, but I don't know for sure nor do I know exactly how that process works.

I'm simply assuming that Martin didn't get a message from YouTube saying "Daniel James is claiming the copyright on your song. Do you want to refute it?" and he clicked "Yes, it's MY song, not his." If he did that, it would kinda change everything.


----------



## Rubric

I'm unaware of the specifics, but it's a safe bet that the music was uploaded via a distributor (Distrokid, CD Baby, etc... ) where Content ID is simply a checkbox that is usually already auto-checked. After upload, the work is fingerprinted via Content ID. Once that work is submitted, it's all automation and bots. Not defending the dude btw, but it would be very, very easy to simply click 'submit' without an awareness of the consequences, future copyright notices, etc..


----------



## T-LeffoH

DarkestShadow said:


> YouTube itself doesn't send strikes to anyone without your action. You'd first have to register it with a Content ID company as far as I know, otherwise there wouldn't be any data for any bots to take down an upload.
> 
> And yea, we don't need to keep going with this silly driving example. If someone is doing that more than a tiny amount occasionally they definitely lack some brains - but it's still not as obviously wrong (even though there is more harm potential of course!!) than stealing someones work.
> It's not about these harms you are married to. It's the act of stealing itself that is wrong.
> There surely won't be a lot of harm for the most part from a random person stealing someones track and uploading it to bandcamp or YouTube. It's not profitable at all unless you are popular.
> It's the stealing itself - and you can't miss that. While you can completely forget that you could cause and accident while texting and might also think it just won't happen, "it's just a quick thing" you might think. In that case you indeed can miss that's it's wrong. "Why should it be wrong? It's just a quick thing. Surely it won't cause an accident - I'm careful enough and the road is straigh and easy going" etc... that's of course bad but it's something someone could think to almost entirely miss that it's wrong. Whereas the act of taking someone elses work as yours is about as obvious as it gets.
> You didn't do it - so you don't take credit for it, sell it and act as the owner. It doesn't matter how much or little money has been made, the mere attempt is obviously wrong on every step.
> It's also a much longer lasting and non impulsive act with much more time for reflection when lifting someones track, rather than the seconds lasting texting.
> This is silly and I won't keep going with that comparison.
> 
> 
> Yes, I may have jumped on the train too quickly - but there is no way YouTube would send strikes while you are doing nothing. I'm at least fairly certain you have to register the piece somewhere to have it either monetized or taken down. There are services like AdRev and Epic Elite for that.
> But it certainly requires your input to some extent. It would a hot mess if YT would send out strikes automatically with little or no action from people.
> Maybe there will be clarifaction, I couldn't see it yet.


Content ID solutions already provide live streamers with somewhat of an operational option to protect their content.





__





Use Content ID matching on live streams - YouTube Help


These features are only available to partners who use YouTube Studio Content Manager. Certain partners can use Content ID matching to find c



support.google.com





The underlying issues, as Daniel alluded in a reply to me, have more to do with the logic built into YouTube's solution - it wasn't built out with industry buy-in, it was built out by content & streaming services as a band-aid to a problem that those services created...so they are missing a LOT of real-world use cases and always will until they partner with the creators, publishers and interested parties to build it out correctly & completely.


----------



## givemenoughrope

I've only read the subject line and I know I'll get killed for this but it just made me laugh honestly. You should just do the same to him. (Don't really do that)


----------



## Trash Panda

givemenoughrope said:


> I've only read the subject line and I know I'll get killed for this but it just made me laugh honestly. You should just do the same to him. (Don't really do that)


That would require him actually making tracks of his own first. Ba-dum-ting!


----------



## givemenoughrope

Trash Panda said:


> That would require him actually making tracks of his own first. Ba-dum-ting!


Right, I guess he couldn't get passed that part. And just fyi, the "comedy" was in the complete stones on the guy. It's just..beyond but I guess fitting in 2021. I do feel for DJ. Very frustrating.


----------



## AndreBoulard

Daniel James said:


> I'm a believer in growth over canceling people. Lets hope he takes this as a learning moment, actually gets good at writing music and improves the lives of the people around him.
> 
> I will always be wary and suspicious. But we all make mistakes, and I think we need more second chances in the world these days. What he did was unacceptable but now he has an opportunity to turn shit around and do things for real.
> 
> -DJ


I can witness that myself back then in 2012. i have been a witness of fraud and stealing and change my life because mistakes to do better. I not only teached me something importent but also build a better life for myself in a different way leading to more confidence towards myself. hardwork was put into it but i wanted it that bad. thanks james for sharing your thoughts on that and i truly believe thats a good way to think despite how hard it is. I hope the same for that guy to do the right thing. I cant imagine the conciousness of this guy and anxiety caused by himself with this.


----------



## jononotbono

givemenoughrope said:


> I've only read the subject line and I know I'll get killed for this but it just made me laugh honestly.


Same man. I read it and then walked into the kitchen to make a cup of Tea and honestly, I burst into laughter thinking about it.

I mean, as if someone stealing your music and then selling it and making money on it isn’t bad enough. Actually watching someone’s live stream, ripping the audio and once “repackaged” and on CDBaby, actually sending the original author a copyright strike!! Yeah, the copyright strike part really got me. The gall of this guy is just exceptional and I never thought I’d ever read such a thing! 😂


----------



## Gerry

Daniel James said:


> Once I see he gets the track pulled I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will remove these threads.


Hi, Daniel. First off, the whole situation sucks, and I'm sorry to hear that so many of you have been victims of copyright/intellectual property theft. While I've been told many times not to worry about it, I know that it goes on. Honestly, to this day it still keeps me from freely promoting my stuff online. Hell, I never got comfortable with people taking videos of me in live performance. And yes, I should officially register copyrights in huge batches, since I can't afford to do them one at a time. But then that, in itself, is a huge undertaking and hurdle to get over before *finally* feeling free enough to post my music, taking away any and all spontaneity and timeliness in the process. Bleah.

Anyway, Daniel, I'm mostly writing to implore you to *not* take down this thread once the issue has been fully resolved. Clearly this is a meaty subject, and we can all learn some very valuable things from what you're going through now, as well as what others have posted from their own experiences, too. I urge you to keep this post up for the history books. Thank you.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

jononotbono said:


> Same man. I read it and then walked into the kitchen to make a cup of Tea and honestly, I burst into laughter thinking about it.
> 
> I mean, as if someone stealing your music and then selling it and making money on it isn’t bad enough. Actually watching someone’s live stream, ripping the audio and once “repackaged” and on CDBaby, actually sending the original author a copyright strike!! Yeah, the copyright strike part really got me. The gall of this guy is just exceptional and I never thought I’d ever read such a thing! 😂


Looking at the background of Martin last night, he seems to be a prolific composer who knows exactly what he is doing! 

He has a business based on “his compositions”, GodsWord Media Productions, which seems to house a lot of his many tracks. His music is available everywhere, and on many more less mainstream services, like Audio Jungle, I Heart Radio, KKBox and Hungama. 

I can only see a “single version” of the piece he took from DJ, which is currently on Pandora.


----------



## jononotbono

Leslie Fuller said:


> Looking at the background of Martin last night, he seems to be a prolific composer who knows exactly what he is doing!
> 
> He has a business based on “his compositions”, GodsWord Media Productions, which seems to house a lot of his many tracks. His music is available everywhere, and on many more less mainstream services, like Audio Jungle, I Heart Radio, KKBox and Hungama.
> 
> I can only see a “single version” of the piece he took from DJ, which is currently on Pandora.


Well just so it’s not misunderstood by what I said, I wasn’t laughing at Daniel or piracy or theft. It was just the whole thing of actually doing this and sending a copyright strike. My English sense of humour is straight in the gallows I’m afraid 😂


----------



## Ross Sampson

I had someone download this video, re-upload to YouTube and put in a copyright stike against me. All it really does is introduce some annoying, unnecessary admin time. Chancers chancing, not worth caring for.

Had it in 'the industry' too... the guy who sold my track without the rights to do so, who lied about knowing what it was used for went on to give a talk at a recent composer meetup back in the before times. And you just shrug and think well, people eh.


----------



## doctoremmet

Ross Sampson said:


> And you just shrug and think well, people eh.








But I’d be more like


----------



## mscp

I'm reading this thread while listening to "Every Breath You Take" by The Police, covered by Puff Daddy. 

Joke aside: Puff Daddy did acquire the rights.


----------



## doctoremmet

Back in the day when the hiphop artists were still lightyears ahead of the lawyers and IP specialists (that would be the mid eighties to maybe 1990 period kids), albums like Paul’s Boutique were made. I am amazed it is even still legal. Pretty sure that no NI instruments could have been legally used in the creative process. (But that’s another thread).


----------



## GdT

Sorry to read about all you people being ripped off. Been there and I know how it feels.
I have given up caring about if my music gets ripped off, but then I am not dependant on it for a livelihood.
I have met a few nutcases in my long life (a lot were musicians) and I wouldn't mind guessing that this scum bag has serious "mental issues" (to use the current jargon). And some of the nuttiest people I have met say that they are Christians. I suggest this perpetrator needs step back from chasing "stardom" and do some soul searching.


----------



## mscp

doctoremmet said:


> Pretty sure that no NI instruments could have been legally used in the creative process. (But that’s another thread).


Oh man...I'm laughing so much over here.


----------



## Mike Greene

doctoremmet said:


> Back in the day when the hiphop artists were still lightyears ahead of the lawyers and IP specialists (that would be the mid eighties to maybe 1990 period kids), albums like Paul’s Boutique were made. I am amazed it is even still legal. Pretty sure that no NI instruments could have been legally used in the creative process. (But that’s another thread).


I can't say specifically with the Beastie Boys, but artists would get sued like crazy back then. It was not uncommon to settle these cases by giving up 100% of the publishing. I can tell you first hand that happened with a few songs on Cypress Hill's first album. (There was no point in the rappers insisting on a trial, since these were slam dunk cases, and in a Biz Markie case which _did_ go to trial, the judge ordered all copies to be taken off the shelves.)

Then artists and labels would start "clearing" (get permission to use) samples. Expensive, but better than the alternative. That's been "the way" since the early 90s.

I'm not sure which category Paul's Boutique would fall under, but they definitely would have cleared or been sued over any samples they used (aside from drum hits or grunts or other one-shots), since it's such a successful and high profile record. (As opposed to rap records I produced ... )


----------



## Ross Sampson

This ones pretty good - someone has put up a version of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata' on YouTube and called it _Wicca Moonlight_ and put out a claim of copyright on someone doing a performance of Moonlight Sonata. So if you upload a video of you performing Moonlight Sonata you might a claim from this person. YouTube ruled the dispute in the favour of the person claiming to own copyright to Moonlight Sonata. Eesh.

(Just to clarify person in the video did a performance of Moonlight Sonata and got a strike against her)


----------



## Composer 2021

People have done that to Sheet Music Boss too. They took audio from their YouTube videos, registered and distributed it, and claimed the revenue. It's really expensive to be proactive about registering your audio when you do covers of copyrighted music.


----------



## Composer 2021

Ross Sampson said:


> This ones pretty good - someone has put up a version of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata' on YouTube and called it _Wicca Moonlight_ and put out a claim of copyright on someone doing a performance of Moonlight Sonata. So if you upload a video of you performing Moonlight Sonata you might a claim from this person. YouTube ruled the dispute in the favour of the person claiming to own copyright to Moonlight Sonata. Eesh.
> 
> (Just to clarify person in the video did a performance of Moonlight Sonata and got a strike against her)



I did a piano cover of Satie's Gymnopedie and YouTube copyright-claimed it as someone else's performance. I'm afraid to appeal it.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Composer 2021 said:


> I did a piano cover of Satie's Gymnopedie and YouTube copyright-claimed it as someone else's performance. I'm afraid to appeal it.


There was a similar case where YouTuber “the piano forever” (I think), played Satie’s Gnossienne No.1 and a Spanish YouTuber put some words over the piece, changed the title, and “the piano forever” received a copyright strike! I think enough people complained, and the strike was removed in this case.


----------



## doctoremmet

Mike Greene said:


> I'm not sure which category Paul's Boutique would fall under, but they definitely would have cleared or been sued over any samples they used (aside from drum hits or grunts or other one-shots), since it's such a successful and high profile record.


For sure. But they at least still followed whatever their creativity told them was a cool sound to pursue. In that sense, after a while the lawyers won and the whole process flipped I imagine, where a sample would only have been used if it had been cleared in advance. Records like Paul’s Boutique have a very high “sample density”  so I bet there may still be some undisclosed little snippets on there...


----------



## Yogevs

Oh wow... I read the title and I thought Guy Michelmore did that... I'm kind of relieved


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Yogevs said:


> Oh wow... I read the title and I thought Guy Michelmore did that... I'm kind of relieved


 Guy is a U.K. National Treasure! He could never do that!


----------



## GNP

Does the guy have his own youtube channel?

Steal his stuff, add some lame layers over his stuff, and then block him back.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

GNP said:


> Does the guy have his own youtube channel?
> 
> Steal his stuff, add some lame layers over his stuff, and then block him back.


Yes, he has two YouTube channels. One in his own name, and one in the business name.


----------



## darkogav

fascinating story. you get copyright claim notices regardless of whether you give credit or not. i have a copyright claim against me for an audio experiment I did even though i fully credited and i also replied to their email in via YouTube stating the fact. This was years ago. Never heard back. I doubt anyone reads it. It's all automated.


----------



## el-bo

Yogevs said:


> Oh wow... I read the title and I thought Guy Michelmore did that... I'm kind of relieved


I'd be honoured if he'd done it to one of my tracks


----------



## patrick76

Ross Sampson said:


> This ones pretty good - someone has put up a version of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata' on YouTube and called it _Wicca Moonlight_ and put out a claim of copyright on someone doing a performance of Moonlight Sonata. So if you upload a video of you performing Moonlight Sonata you might a claim from this person. YouTube ruled the dispute in the favour of the person claiming to own copyright to Moonlight Sonata. Eesh.
> 
> (Just to clarify person in the video did a performance of Moonlight Sonata and got a strike against her)



Oh my god I effing hate google.


----------



## JEPA

patrick76 said:


> Oh my god I effing hate google.


I did searched after her video: "ARPA_CS_ECAD_CS_SOCAN, VCPMC_CS"

Here are some informations:





SOCAN







www.socan.com


----------



## JEPA

JEPA said:


> I did searched after her video: "ARPA_CS_ECAD_CS_SOCAN, VCPMC_CS"
> 
> Here are some informations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOCAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.socan.com


another one: (Vietnam)
https://www.vcpmc.org/vcpmc/




__





CISAC






members.cisac.org





another one: (Brazil)




__





Home - ECAD


O Ecad é a entidade brasileira responsável pela arrecadação e distribuição dos direitos autorais das músicas aos autores e demais titulares.




www3.ecad.org.br


----------



## darkogav

Socan is sort of like the Canadian song writers and composers association.They are funded by the government. (Or were in the past).

http://www.socan.com/about-socan/




__





Pending | Copyright Board of Canada


The proceedings for the proposed tariffs listed below have yet to be initiated. SOCAN




cb-cda.gc.ca





So it seems from that video that a bunch of these kinds of organisations joined together to try to monetize music on YouTube?


----------



## fairyclown

Daniel James said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This one blew my fucking mind. And unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has literally lifted entire work from me and SOLD it as their own.This one is so blatent and irritating though.
> 
> A composer by the name of Martin Andrew Smith recorded the audio from one of my live stream performances, then mixed it a tiny bit and put some shitty drums over it. Then he released that via CDBaby and issued a copyright takedown notice against my video which was released months before his!!!!!!!. Surely an algorithm is smart enough to check release dates, I guess not. And this is the inherent danger of using AI to determine copyright issues. AI doesn't understand context.
> 
> Seriously though, this is beyond lazy. This is not the way to go about it lads. This is not the way
> 
> His whole work is made up of my live performance, but just to show its the same recording you can even hear my crappy voicings 😂
> 
> HIS:
> 
> 
> Mine:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a new composer, or a lazy one, or a shit one.....stealing from other composers will never have a positive outcome. At best you are benefiting from stealing from someone else. That won't help you build a career. It wont make you friends. Its just fucking annoying admin to deal with.
> 
> -DJ



Wow, this all sounds so horrible! I think the person who stole this is probably just not all there in the head. It looks like you got it taken care of though because I see that this Martin person's video is gone.


----------



## fairyclown

mybadmemory said:


> Horrible. And I’m afraid it happens in all creative industries. I ran a design agency for 8 years where we had the fortune of getting our work featured on some major sites, and we got ripped off on an almost monthly basis after that.
> 
> I even had another agency contacting us one time asking if we were interested in selling some of our projects for them to show them off as their own. I don’t understand what people aim to achieve with this.
> 
> Even if you do get a job using someone else’s merits, how will you be able to actually deliver in the end?


Omg that's crazy!! LOL there are so many frauds out there and what I can't believe is that the fraudsters tend to be luckier business-wise. They often get the work to go further than the original artist does and I can't figure out how! I had some artwork of mine stolen and put on some iPhone cases that were up on Amazon. They have been taken down but wow, I myself don't even know how you get products on Amazon


----------



## Polkasound

fairyclown said:


> I had some artwork of mine stolen and put on some iPhone cases that were up on Amazon.


A few years ago, a photo of my mom's Cairn Terrier got lifted off the internet and used by a vendor selling dog breed items. I reached out to Amazon to ask for the photo to be removed, and explained that if they zoomed in on the photo, they'd clearly see my name and copyright mark on the photo. I also pointed them to the full-size photo on my website. You'd think it would have been a slam dunk case, right?

Nope. It was as if Amazon's copyright infringement department was run by Larry, Moe, and Curly. I never encountered such unfathomable incompetence before. They said they removed the photo, but they didn't. When I asked why, they started spitting out repetitive form responses and giving me the runaround. After several days of getting nowhere, I gave up and contacted the vendor personally who was very understanding. My experience with Amazon was so bizarre, I wrote an article about it.



fairyclown said:


> Wow, this all sounds so horrible! I think the person who stole this is probably just not all there in the head. It looks like you got it taken care of though because I see that this Martin person's video is gone.


I don't know how much you read of this thread, but the title is a little misleading because it implies that Martin's goal was to knowingly prevent DJ from copyrighting his own composition, which is an act of malice. I believe Martin's goal was to get away with a little IP theft without anyone finding out, which to me is not an act of malice but an act of poor judgement. When he got caught, he apologized and immediately sought to get the tracks taken down. He did the right thing, and his apology seemed sincere.

What Martin did is actually a practice similar to one that was once very common. Before digital distribution, thousands of unknown indie bands and musicians were releasing albums of cover songs without licensing the songs. Why? Because the odds of getting caught were virtually non-existent.

Digital distribution has undoubtedly made IP theft tougher to get away with, and I believe Content ID probably caught Martin by surprise. In my view, there's nothing wrong with Martin. He's just one of the thousands of indie musicians over the years who exercised poor judgement.


----------



## Chamberfield

Damn, I'm way late to this thread and never even got to hear the shitty drums. Is there an archive anywhere just for laughs?


----------



## Leslie Fuller

Hi all, not wanting to drag over the past on this matter involving @Daniel James, but just to advise that “the Guy in question” had been releasing libraries on Pianobook, and gained a following there.

As of the past week, it seems he has been banned by Pianobook, “as the samples may not have been his own work”!


----------



## davidson

Leslie Fuller said:


> Hi all, not wanting to drag over the past on this matter involving @Daniel James, but just to advise that “the Guy in question” had been releasing libraries on Pianobook, and gained a following there.
> 
> As of the past week, it seems he has been banned by Pianobook, “as the samples may not have been his own work”!


What a fkn tool. I wish nothing but the worst for people like that.


----------



## Leslie Fuller

For context, the following link is to his Youtube video (from another of his accounts) responding to the Pianobook banning.


----------



## davidson

I wonder who really wrote the music playing in his video? It's absolutely made my morning that this dick is having a bad day


----------



## Trash Panda

davidson said:


> I wonder who really wrote the music playing in his video? It's absolutely made my morning that this dick is having a bad day


It sounds like a slightly tweaked version of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata, which would be so on brand.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

darkogav said:


> Socan is sort of like the Canadian song writers and composers association.They are funded by the government. (Or were in the past).
> 
> http://www.socan.com/about-socan/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pending | Copyright Board of Canada
> 
> 
> The proceedings for the proposed tariffs listed below have yet to be initiated. SOCAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cb-cda.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems from that video that a bunch of these kinds of organisations joined together to try to monetize music on YouTube?


SOCAN is the PRO for Canadian artists (it's my PRO).


----------



## musicsoftwaredeals

How do people know this is the same guy? He seems to have a different name and domain?

Also, VST is trademarked by Steinberg and they've already taken down many vst domains (eg. vst4free is now plugins4free, dopevst is now dopesonix etc.). I'm sure they'd be interested to see the domain he is using...


----------



## Leslie Fuller

musicsoftwaredeals said:


> How do people know this is the same guy? He seems to have a different name and domain?
> 
> Also, VST is trademarked by Steinberg and they've already taken down many vst domains (eg. vst4free is now plugins4free, dopevst is now dopesonix etc.). I'm sure they'd be interested to see the domain he is using...


If you play another of the videos on that channel (Voices of Peace), he does mention his name while walking to a studio. Also, the MusicVsts.com website shows his name, and the instruments for sale which were previously available on Pianobook.


----------



## blaggins

Do you happen to know what he did to get kicked off Pianobook? I don't know why but morbid curiosity is getting the better of me and now I've watched a few of his videos, some of them show "proof" that he did make at least some of his sample libraries in collaboration with (what appears to me to be) remote musicians working in their home studios, or in the case of the choir one in a real studio in the UK. Is this practice not allowed by Pianobook? (Legit question, beyond browsing some of their offerings in the past I really haven't dug into the Pianobook ecosystem much).


----------



## musicsoftwaredeals

From the video it looks like he had setup multiple fake profiles to rate his products highly so he could get to number 2 rated samplist


----------



## blaggins

I was under the impression the ban was more about 



> As of the past week, it seems he has been banned by Pianobook, “as the samples may not have been his own work”!


----------



## Leslie Fuller

blaggins said:


> Do you happen to know what he did to get kicked off Pianobook? I don't know why but morbid curiosity is getting the better of me and now I've watched a few of his videos, some of them show "proof" that he did make at least some of his sample libraries in collaboration with (what appears to me to be) remote musicians working in their home studios, or in the case of the choir one in a real studio in the UK. Is this practice not allowed by Pianobook? (Legit question, beyond browsing some of their offerings in the past I really haven't dug into the Pianobook ecosystem much).


No, sorry. I only found out as a YouTuber I follow reviewed the Sounds of India Pianobook library, and someone commented on that video that Martin had been banned from Pianobook.


----------



## PeterN

Leslie Fuller said:


> For context, the following link is to his Youtube video (from another of his accounts) responding to the Pianobook banning.



That's a good track. Needs some basic polishing. But its good.

Of course, if he wrote it.

If he wrote it, half of his sins shall be forgiven.


----------



## Polkasound

Martin Andrew Smith has a little problem on his hands — he's a former known cheater trying to defend himself against new accusations of cheating. Whether he's innocent or guilty in this Pianobook matter, his plagiarism stint last year means he will never win this case in the court of public opinion. Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking about stealing another composer's work. _Don't do it._ It's a reputation-damaging mistake that can follow you for years.


----------

