Its likely I have missed something, if this guy's video matched another video, why is it his one which is the offender and not the other video? Does this mean that the videos uploaded by the record companies are flagged as being legitimate by default ? If so, who decides that one then? Must every "legit" publisher register are some how legitimate?
If it were me, I would want to find out which video was supposed to be the original of which the IP was allegedly stolen, and accuse them of taking my material. Surely by these standards one of r them must be illegal, right?
Or does this lark only work one way for the benefit of the dear old mega-corps?
His video isn't identical to another video. Rather, something within the video (it might have been a five second sample) triggered a false positive match against something else that someone thinks they own the rights to.
I understand that. But then surely that match works both ways. Something in the other video must also match with his, right? So, why is it this guys getting accused and not the other video? If his video came out first, then the newer video can be said to be copying his video.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that maybe the title of his video "talking head to camera" triggered the match, as there is a band called "the talking heads" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads]
Now this raises the whole question of, is using a title that overlaps a band name a copyright infringement, a trademark infringement, or none of the above. While we all may agree the latter is the correct answer, YouTubes infringement algorithm probably says otherwise. And while we're on the subject, how interesting is it that you tube filters content based on title, and most likely not based on actual content.
I do not think he was saying his video was entitled "Talking Head To Video". He was saying that that's what his video was, a description of its content, and that there wasn't anything else in the video other than that to be matched on.
If it were me, I would want to find out which video was supposed to be the original of which the IP was allegedly stolen, and accuse them of taking my material. Surely by these standards one of r them must be illegal, right?
Or does this lark only work one way for the benefit of the dear old mega-corps?