Freesound Forums

klankbeeld wrote:
The ICT-system is running now for a few days, comparing my database to all these channels. That takes a few weeks, because sometimes just a part of my (longer) sound is used.

Try the channel "UnwatchableVideos"... 25,000 sounds.

What happened to falcon's account?

Did I miss something?

Head-Phaze wrote:
What happened to falcon's account?

Did I miss something?

Hi Head-phaze, no I deleted it myself temporarily. SEF's response was so absurd, dishonest (big surprise there), off base and unintelligent I thought better to not expose myself any further.

If you have any more questions or want to see any more screen shots from his prior channel though, I do have them at the ready. Cheers.

falcon12345 wrote:

Hi Head-phaze, no I deleted it myself temporarily. SEF's response was so absurd, dishonest (big surprise there), off base and unintelligent I thought better to not expose myself any further.

If you have any more questions or want to see any more screen shots from his prior channel though, I do have them at the ready. Cheers.

That was a virtuous action you took.

No further questions. I was just curious as to why your account got deleted, considering that you were helping the situation by doing some research.

Welcome back

Head-Phaze wrote:

falcon12345 wrote:

Hi Head-phaze, no I deleted it myself temporarily. SEF's response was so absurd, dishonest (big surprise there), off base and unintelligent I thought better to not expose myself any further.

If you have any more questions or want to see any more screen shots from his prior channel though, I do have them at the ready. Cheers.

That was a virtuous action you took.

No further questions. I was just curious as to why your account got deleted, considering that you were helping the situation by doing some research.

Welcome back

Cheers!

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delayed message, but life keeps me busy...

Upon receiving a message that one of my sounds was posted on youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbY7AHvFzHk ) by user ‘SoundEffectsFactory’ without proper CC attribution, I was able to make youtube remove it.

Here the answer by youtube's 'legal service':

Hi there,

Thank you very much for your notification. The content has been removed.

Regards,

Claude
The YouTube Team

Success to all the other users who have to go through the same procedure because of one impolite person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTA4CkVquFc

Claims to dispute
"Flowers for Bodysnatchers-S'effondrer", sound recording administered by:
CD Baby

This video contains the material at issue, but the material is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.
Explanation
In the video, I did say and I quote: Air Raid Sound: carterattack.mp3 http://www.freesound.org/people/guitarguy1985/sounds/57808/ guitarguy1985. This work is licensed under the Attribution License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work to make commercial use of the work Also I looked at Flowers for Bodysnatchers (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/flowersforbodysnatchers3) There is No Track called: carterattack.

If you check his Facebook he is trying to clear strikes to get his channel back...

http://www.facebook.com/SoundEffectsFactory

...you are indeed a recalcitrant thief SEF.

...and not only he is, but all these people which give him support.

I noticed that sound packs are being distributed on the page
http://www.facebook.com/SoundEffectsFactory/app_208195102528120
has links to
http://www.mediafire.com/?dsk9h183bo248j8
and
http://www.mediafire.com/?vx11ma1s9rrl50y

Once infringement of Attribution, Attribution-NonCommercial or Sampling+ files has been confirmed, one can write a DMCA takedown notice using http://www.mediafire.com/support/submit_ticket.php?type=abuse

Unfortunately, the file names are not original and metadata has been removed or overwritten, so the sounds will have to be checked.

For example, "exiftool writing on paper with pencil SoundEffectsFactory.mp3" returns:

Album: Sound Effects Pack Vol. 4
Artist: SoundEffectsFactory

But actually, there's already one match I found:
http://freesound.org/people/parabolix/sounds/72832/
is
zombie apocalypse newscast SoundEffectsFactory.wav from Sound Effects Pack Vol. 4.

I will inform parabolix.

Apparently, his account has been deleted.

ecfike wrote:
Apparently, his account has been deleted.

He is filing DMCA counters- his channel will come back up unless someone files a lawsuit.

MIght I suggest to whomever runs this site that you explicitly change your license to

"forbid the use of sound effects for monetization of videos - when such sound effects are not synced to any sort of video production - and or as they may be presented as standalone sound effects on free video sharing sites such as YouTube...regardless of attribution..etc" or however you would properly write that in legalese.

There are thousands of thieving children out there just like Kyle who will continue to do this.

If you change your TOS/license, it will be very easy to submit copyright grievances against these channels and have them removed all together.

Once a user starts submitting DMCA counters, youtube will just allow the videos to go back up unless someone files an actual lawsuit against said user. Which is ridiculous of course...so I strongly urge the freesounds community to push for changing in the licensing language that strictly forbid the Kyle Innes of the world to redistribute and monetize your hard work on sites such as YouTube while you collect nothing from it. This will make shutting the channels down once and for all much more possible.

falcon12345 wrote:
MIght I suggest to whomever runs this site that you explicitly change your license to

"forbid the use of sound effects for monetization of videos - when such sound effects are not synced to any sort of video production - and or as they may be presented as standalone sound effects on free video sharing sites such as YouTube...regardless of attribution..etc" or however you would properly write that in legalese.

If you change your TOS/license, it will be very easy to submit copyright grievances against these channels and have them removed all together.

I liked the look of digifishmusic's condition to prevent re-hosting ...

digifishmusic wrote:
4. Not allowed: You may not re-sell the sound singularly or as part of a sample library, in a similar/competing product or re-host them on another web-site with the aim of serving them for use by others or sale to others. In other words, I expect you will be using digifish music sounds creatively in (but not limited to): multimedia works, film, tv, video, music compositions, radio, live performances, art installations, in computer software, in product firmware, on web pages as embellishment of content. Not just re-selling/re-serving them.

However it I don't think it is possible to add conditions to the CC license. If the CC "Attribution License", (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode ), permits re-hosting, [i]("Reproduce the Work ... into one or more Collections")[/i], then adding terms in your profile to prevent that usage would be difficult/impossible to enforce.

Any additional conditions would certainly not be retroactive ...

creativecommons.org wrote:
8. Miscellaneous ...
e. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.

Using a "Attribution Non-commercial" CC license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ should prevent use of the sound in "monetized" YouTube video, but that license cannot be applied to sounds already released under a less restrictive license.

falcon12345 wrote:

MIght I suggest to whomever runs this site that you explicitly change your license to

"forbid the use of sound effects for monetization of videos - when such sound effects are not synced to any sort of video production - and or as they may be presented as standalone sound effects on free video sharing sites such as YouTube...regardless of attribution..etc" or however you would properly write that in legalese.

The admin of this site cannot modify the current law on CC licenses.

Surely in a way CC Attribution-Non-Commercial will encompass these terms.

I suggest that we continue to shower youtube with complaints.
And if the SEF channel is re-instated, we should repeat the complaints already made. Surely, it is as easy as following a link to a Freesound sound to confirm that the sound is a copy.

If the license on the sound is non-commercial, then the youtube video should be removed.
If the license on the sound requires attribution, then the creator of the sound can demand attribution to be given or the video to be removed.

We must continue this battle. We cannot win rightout, but we can win by attriction. - There is only one of him and many of us. It only takes a bit of effort from each of us to shower him in a mess of redtape.

Of course we know there are millions of copyright infringements in youtube - Search for Madonna songs and see how many you can find! - None of them are legal.
Youtube just does not care about copyright. I find it amazing that none of the big movie or music giants have not yet managed to cripple Youtube with a lawsuit.
OF course, youtube's defense is that "users are responsible for uploaded contents, not Youtube." and that "Youtube will remove contents found to be in copyright violation."
However, when they make it so difficult to remove and so easy to re-instate, they are obviously not taking copyright seriously.

AlienXXX wrote:
I find it amazing that none of the big movie or music giants have not yet managed to cripple Youtube with a lawsuit.

There was a big lawsuit in 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/23/youtube-wins-viacom-lawsuit

Who knows, how they are still running the site. Bribery perhaps.

Viacom could not win a lawsuit against youtube, which means nobody can. YouTube will always be able to hide behind the DMCA laws as disgusting as it is. SEF channel went back up briefly - now down again.

Youtube will continue to reinstate it periodically as long as he files counter notifications. Or maybe he'll just suddenly stop being a horrible person and stealing other peoples' content and monetizing it (unlikely).

Keep filing complaints whenever you see the channel go back up.

Regarding CC licenses, no offense to you all (I hope), but as an artist myself, my opinion is that it is ridiculous in the first place. I do not understand the concept of willfully giving away your content and allowing people to license it/monetize it (even in a sync situation). The users who look for free music/sounds under CC licenses will not translate into work that pays- the markets are completely different.

So why not just have a different Terms of Service and Terms of Use license for Freesound.org. Copy and paste the CC license, edit it, and call it the "Free Sounds Download and Usage Agreement" and incorporate whatever language you want.

I am not an expert and I am not associated with the development of Freesound. However, I know this is a number of projects that runs under and promotes the CC licenses.
Often but not always, these projects are associated with academia.

Of course, as an artist, I can understand perfectly that you want to make money from your music, sounds or other contents. Giving them away for free might look stupid. Actually, it is possible that simply because some people give sounds away for free here, it is possible that the people who download these sounds are not actually buying similar contents available elswhere. - meaning it is bad for your business and for others like you.
Sorry for that.

There are three main aspects (in my, non-official perspective) why Freesound operates and will continue to operate under/with CC licenses.
1) The people behind the Freesound project believe the CC licenses are useful and even perhaps necessary in the current time when user uploaded contents is so widespread.
2) The contents here was created initially as a research project, serving academia and students. Basically providing a large library of sounds that could be used in research projects without incurring costs or complex copyright procedures.
That is still one of the main purposes it serves to this day. Many of the people who come here are students, who cannot afford to pay for a sound library but need sounds for their school project, game, school play, etc.
3) Many of the uploaders are students too, or hobysts (like myself). We want a place to post sounds, encourage creativity and share comments and ideas.
Some of us are training sound professionals and I have even seen a few 'promotional' sounds uploaded. Although the site would probably discourage turning every sound into an advert, it is perfectly fine to have in your profile "if you like my sounds check my webpage, blah blah" thus directing traffic and potential customers to your site.

The CC licenses may not be perfect (nothing is). And there are many CC licenses to choose from... Freesound eventually came to the current form where you are alloweed only 3 licenses: CC0, CC Attribution and CC attribution non-commercial. - Which, in my view is adequate and simple.
The main advantage of the CC licenses, rather than an edited version of one of them, is that they are 'standard'. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.

Just a note on all this, one flaw with the Freesound system is that it does not track original licence terms of sounds used in remixes. So it appears to end users that a remix is CC0 when infact a contributing sound used in its creation may be attribution for example.

Until they address this I won't be posting any more sounds here since thieves like the SEF can exploit this.

digifishmusic wrote:
Just a note on all this, one flaw with the Freesound system is that it does not track original licence terms of sounds used in remixes. So it appears to end users that a remix is CC0 when infact a contributing sound used in its creation may be attribution for example.

Until they address this I won't be posting any more sounds here since thieves like the SEF can exploit this.

Sorry to hear you won't be posting sounds (for whatever reason).
In the case of people like SEF, it does not matter what license you slap on a sound, since he has complete disregard for copyright anyway.

I would say, however, that people like SEF are the exception. I have been with this sit for many years now and only found one example of such extreme revolting behaviour.
Most people are friendly and cooperative
I hope you change your mind...

In the meantime, why not report the issue in the right forum? - the developers monitor it and tend to eventually implement good ideas.