NOTICE: if your work contains unlicensed music, it will be removed. The Audio Portal, Kevin MacLeod's huge archive at Incompetech, and freemusicarchive.org are great resources for original music you may use. If you're not in any rush, you should also try the Collabinator!
Remixes & Covers: If your song is a cover or remix, it must be done with the permission of the original artist and must not be for a song that is represented by a major label or licensing agency. We are unable to host this sort of material.
These policies are like telling every artist ever they can't draw Deadshot because someone else already drew him and made money off of it, despite someone else drawing Deadshot and calling him Deathstroke and making money off of it, and someone else drawing Deathstroke and calling him Deadpool, and... you know what? Now that you mention it, you just can't draw any snarky spandex clad superheroes, period, because the comic companies want to make money off of them and you drawing stuff for free doesn't make them any money, because someone else might like looking at your content more than theirs. Of course, if they draw your characters and make money off of it, even if you can prove they were yours first, that's okay, because they have more money than you, and you're comparatively broke and therefore powerless.
This logic is being applied to everything under the sun, from automatically silenced/deleted YouTube videos to the logos on those blurred out shirts in that last rap video you watched. That's right, that sweet couples-things slideshow your friend linked to his girlfriend that was unceremoniously deleted by automatic algorithms and that blurry T-shirt you were trying not to stare at in that one Eazy-E video have something in common, and it's the same thing that's happening to music in our portals. Probably won't be long before our Art Portal starts getting cleaned out of its brand name characters and fanart, too.
This is what I'm talking about, copyright infringement, and let me just start by saying the prospect of this whole thing has me completely, totally, perhaps permanently PISSED OFF...
But before I really dig in, I know this new content policy isn't the NG team's fault. @TomFulp never would have let things go as far as removing flashes based on copyrighted BGMs and remixes of popular songs if it weren't necessary; after all, he himself has used copyrighted music in his older creations before and we, NG, collectively stood up when that preposterous SOPA crap started. Why? We had to. It spelled death to the internet and free speech as a whole, y'know, kinda like what's going on now that China made puns illegal and only selectively enforces it.
SOPA would've essentially been the same thing; whoever the rich people in power liked would get to do and say whatever they wanted on the internet. Whoever said things that pissed off said rich powerful people would get shafted. This is already happening on the internet and media worldwide, but SOPA would have just made it legally sanctioned.
So, if it's not NG's fault that our content is being policed, censored, and removed without summary explanation, whose is it?
Labels, media giants, moguls, all of the above, people and corporations who thought SOPA was a good idea and more -- not to mention the entitled morons who, despite visible warnings, still upload stolen copyrighted songs for geometry dash, the uninspired Justin Bieber remixers who essentially drop an acapella rip over a half-ass beat (easy targets), and Google's audio analysis algorithms, which are used to aggressively pursue possible copyright claims on videos posted to YouTube and quite possibly the rest of the web.
Seeing as it's become a part of their search engine on smartphones, not only can they catalog what's playing on your radio; they can even police the permanent-marker mixtape that one wannabe rapper friend played in your car, at least, once it starts recognizing the same samples the mainstream hiphop producers are so fond of.
With this software, Google has officially become dangerous, and the prospects are terrifying. If you doubt that, let's take a moment to appreciate how easy it is for Big Brother to listen to your private conversations via your iPhone, even when it's off. Google's audio search uses the same hardware when prompted, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to do the same thing some day, probably citing something like "market research" to cover their tracks someone ever discovered. After all, the government is able to get off scot free by citing "national security", despite many of their targets being law abiding citizens who just happen to be a little mouthy about the absolute bullshit the government has been doing for years. (Patriot Act anyone?)
"...getting the implant into the phone in the first place is “difficult,” but once there, the agency can usurp complete control of the device. Implants can be installed via a phone’s Internet connection, cellular network, or physical interception."
"American and British law enforcement and intelligence services have used mobile phones to surveil targets for years. A technique discovered in 2006 called “roving bug” also allowed spies to remotely switch on cellphone mics, and locate users within a few yards."
If Google managed this, the way royalties, work, your CD collection could turn you some label's personal piggy bank, and all it would take is for Google to sell them the proof and say you were in public with the location data to back it up. Considering they already sell the information contained in your emails to ad peddlers and track everywhere you go, it's not much of a stretch. Chew on that while you listen to Britney Spears on speaker.
So, big labels are bad, and Google, despite disliking SOPA-like regulations on paper is scary. What do powerful SOPA supporters and Google's audio recognition software mean for the future of NG content?
That's a big question, but it's one that's been on the table for a long time. We're only now just starting to see the answer clearly. So, what's in our future? Copyright infringement complaints, most likely. Ridiculous amounts of copyright infringement complaints. On everything. This news post will probably be in line for an automated DMCA because it mentions Britney Spears and CocaCola, actually, and has the word "coffee" in it.
If you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a couple more reasons to grind your teeth, take a look at this article on very real, very stupid automated DMCA abuse, which I suspect we may be facing at this very moment, and keep in mind that if a few (very big) entities like Warner Bros and Total Wipes get caught, it's highly likely a lot more are doing it. What you're about to see here is just two repeat offenders of many from Google's transparency report, and there's undoubtedly more around the world. Not everyone goes public with this kind of stuff.
Total Wipes, which represents 800 international labels, stated in an email to Ars Technica that the recent notices were the result of a bug in their automated anti-piracy script. According to the email, “several technical servers [sic] problems” during the first week of February caused their automated system to send “hundreds” of DMCA notices “not related at all” to any of their copyrighted content.
But the bug is only part of the problem. Sending automated notices, without human review, is itself an abuse of the DMCA takedown process.
The article goes on to detail the extent of the abuse, and some of the most ridiculous offenses.
Seeing ridiculous takedown requests from Total Wipes is nothing new. Back in August, TorrentFreak reported on a month-long DMCA notice-sending spree in which the music company targeted, among other things, sites that utilized the word “coffee.”
The more you read, the less it sounds like idiocy, and the more it sounds like mindless harassment, and almost certainly criminal. Of course, nearly limitless riches protect Warner and Total Wipes from nearly any who would bring charges against them. They need to be anti-trusted, imo.
We have in the past criticized Warner Brothers Entertainment for using robots to issue thousands of infringement accusations, without any human review, based primarily on filenames and metadata rather than inspection of the files’ contents. Like Warner Brothers, Total Wipes is similarly using robots to abuse the DMCA takedown process.
... between May 28, 2014 and February 22, 2015, Total Wipes sent Google 41,321 requests to remove webpages from Google’s search results, with a median of 1,214 requests per week... [to] remove a total of 196,963 URLs. And according to the Chilling Effects database—which collects and analyzes legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials in an effort to help Internet users know their rights and understand the law—Total Wipes sent Google over 12,000 takedown requests in the last month alone.
So, as you see, with how connected the web is, it's easier than ever for labels to not only scour our site (or any site, really) for "copyrighted material" with bots, but to stroll YouTube for any of our content -- all you'd have to do is search "Newgrounds" -- find a copyrighted song via Google's audio analysis tools, DMCA us, and/or collect royalties on the YouTube video because it just burns them that they aren't currently liquidating every soundwave on Earth.
Supposedly, someone is supposed to review DMCA claims before any action is taken, but that isn't always the case, and they usually get away with it anyway.
Due to the lack of human review, automated takedown notices often result in censorship of perfectly legal content. Although Google has the wherewithal to analyze takedown notices and reject those that are unwarranted, it doesn’t always do that. And many other sites automatically take down allegedly infringing content upon receipt of a notice, even when the notice is clearly bogus. This is because so long as a service provider complies with the DMCA’s notice and takedown procedure, it is protected from monetary liability based on the infringing activities of third parties. Of course, unwarranted takedown requests would not subject a service provider to monetary liability, but not all service providers undertake even the moderate level of effort that Google does to assess whether content complained of should actually be taken down.
Why does this happen? If it weren't obvious already, the media policing, money hoarding brigade doesn't like competition, so it seeks to remove it at every turn. At the same time, it doesn't like sharing its profits or waiting around to find actual instances of copyright infringement, so it uses bots instead. This results in a ton of headache for victims at best and legal action at worst, maybe even termination of the targeted site(s).
Rather than get shut down under the sheer weight of copyright crap the labels are now so aggressively pursuing, seemingly without reason, we updated our policies not only to keep copyrighted content off of our servers but also to save users the headache of submitting content only to have it removed for copyright infringement now that corporations have caught on. That's well and good for keeping NG's butt out of the fire, but it really screws with older users like me, who didn't exactly have an advance warning before our submissions were taken down.
You heard me right. Some of my old submissions have been removed for violating a new policy forced into existence by some greedy corporate assholes. I don't even have backups for them, meaning that's a good couple hours of my life lost for no reason other than a record label wasn't getting .0001 pennies off of ad revenue/royalty -- because of NG getting hoisted up by the undies to get rid of flashes like mine or face legal action over copyrighted background audio -- the same exact reason @RealFaction got contacted to redo the sound track for Pico's School -- because Tom couldn't use the audio anymore without getting shafted, and a new soundtrack would be cheaper than a lawsuit. Speaking of, check out that link. It's lit.
Recently, @TomFulp asked me to replace the copyrighted music in Pico's School he could sadly no longer use, by making a new soundtrack for it. I was shocked, and I'm honored, because I know how iconic that game is and how it made Newgrounds what it is today. If it wasn't for that game and the other controversial fun games Tom made, NG wouldn't have gotten it's popularity at the time. -RealFaction
I want to be clear, I don't blame Newgrounds or @TomFulp in any fashion for the new copyright policies. Tom has warned us for years that not relying on our own user created content is putting out rotten meat for vultures; they will come, they will flock, and they will gorge on anything their prying beaks can get at. I don't care if it's your grandma's hand-knitted CocaCola sweater you unwittingly rotoscoped in that fifteen second frame-by-frame animation you made ten years ago to the lime-in-the-coconut song, or a Clock Day short to Coldplay's "Clocks", these guys are mad they're not the ones making money off of it, and Tom himself has experienced first had what lengths labels and media groups go to when they're angry.
Once upon a time, Tom received a video in the mail with no return address. He was given permission (or rather encouragement) by the creators, to post it on Newgrounds, where it promptly went viral. Then, something magical happened. The MPAA, sensing they were not making money on this video, swooped in like the menacing vultures they and the likes of Warner and etc. usually pretend not to be when it's convenient.
we soon received a cease and decist letter from the MPAA. I had been under the impression their only purpose was to assign ratings to movies; boy was I wrong!
These high and mighty media police quite literally tracked him down with a PI and showed up with fancy papers, demanding he hand over the copyrighted material and shut down his site after "leaked" footage of "Freddy Got Fingered" blew up back in 2001.
"We request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to this site;
2) Remove this site from your server; and
3) Terminate the account of the account holder for this site."
I'm of the opinion that generally, anything that requires you to hire a PI is probably morally incorrect, but this right here is exactly why we're having to implement this no-copyright-material policy -- because of media bullies like the MPAA who slam people with DMCAs and ask questions later. I guess at least this one wasn't automated though. Don't think the labels were at that point in their development quite yet. What we see today goes to show they would have if they could have, though.
"So think about that, the MPAA attempted to SHUT DOWN my entire website and have it removed from its servers over a PUBLICITY STUNT. Twelve years later, they are fighting to pass SOPA into law. Think they'll use it sparingly?" -TomFulp
I have no doubt Newgrounds never would have gone the direction it has if we had a choice, if the labels and media police weren't threatening to stamp us out. It's not like they haven't tried, and I'm sure the ultimate goal of forcing us to go by this policy is to drive users away from Newgrounds and toward sites such as SoundCloud and YouTube, not to mention app stores -- Y'know, where these guys make bank and content creators don't make $#!7 but for a chosen few that aren't censored to F&%# by groups like Warner Bros, the guys who silence your videos if their automated audio sniffing catches a whiff of their content. Otherwise, why would labels be trying to pin NG by the balls, despite most of us on NG not making $#!7, unlike those on SoundCloud and YouTube with better exposure?
Of course, SoundCloud doesn't pay its artists and actually charges their userbase to host their content (which NG doesn't), and YouTube will actually take your videos, block them in certain countries, delete them altogether, delete your account, or just transfer the dollars to whatever record label claims the audio in it. This could be a Britney Spears song playing in your brother's room, barely audible on your video, but Google's audio recognition system will automatically attribute it to a label and F&#% your $#!7. And don't even get me started about the ridiculous content guidelines.
You know, maybe the labels hate us so much because, unlike these other sites, we've always refused to roll over until now.
I've always felt like NG is being progressively backed into a corner, now more than ever. The labels hate us, Google hates us, we're blacklisted on Google's adsense... It's like the world is against NG, and that will probably never change, but I wish it didn't mean we had to change.
This is why this new policy pisses me off. It renews my hatred for the coporate bully and brings his tyranny home. It forces me to look at that reality with every audio submission I put through the Portal. I just hope it doesn't drive any potential talent away once they realize that awesome remix they made isn't welcome here.
However, if it saves us thousands in legal fees in the here and now, that's a small concession I guess we have to make. Just, God, audio mods, if you're going to start on my submissions, please, let me download all the mp3s first, PLEASE.
/rant
