Freesound Forums

bulbastre wrote:
MediaFire is a different entity from YouTube, and there are ways to get to the file without using the YouTube link.

Also if the mediafire link is shared the recipient isn't informed about the creator or the need to attribute , mediafire files are readily shared ...

http://imageshack.com/a/img18/8319/hsvu.gif
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/k75tt4bsq5r30l3/underground+tunnel+atmosphere+SoundEffectsFactory.wav
which is … http://www.Freesound.org/people/rjonesxlr8/sounds/221583/ [(CC BY 3.0) March 2014].

All the more reason to credit on every single file on every single place.
It's as simple as writing the author's name on the file, and perhaps the real title, then putting [SoundEffectsFactory]. Then, the link to the original file on the description, along with the other couple of things - the license will be on the link to freesound, so no need for that.
People will interpret different sounds of different authors are on a collection called SoundEffectsFactory. No one will think SoundEffectsFactory is the author, but the distributer, which that's what he is, and everything will be legal.

Easy as pie.

BTW, Timbre: how did you do that?

Timbre wrote:

bulbastre wrote:
MediaFire is a different entity from YouTube, and there are ways to get to the file without using the YouTube link.

e.g. http://bitly.com/u/o_5aprdql2ei

Also if the mediafire link is shared the recipient isn't informed about the creator or the need to attribute , mediafire files are readily shared ...

Also, there's FilesTube and other metafinders for this kind of sites, that work the same way Google would, but specializing in this kind of sites.

bulbastre wrote:
BTW, Timbre: how did you do that?

The gif animation was created with http://www.cockos.com/licecap/ then posted to imageshack
then I included its imageshack link into the post, so the animation appeared in the post.

OMG!

Regarding SEF, in the worst case scenario where he's not willing to collaborate, is there any way to report him in bulk? It's extremely inefficient to report sounds ONE BY ONE, specially since the only ones who can do that are the author of the sound or his agent.
i.e. I have to send a physical letter to USA for MediaFire to take down my one single sound.

bulbastre wrote:
... I have to send a physical letter to USA for MediaFire to take down my one single sound.

There's an online form (copy below) ... http://www.mediafire.com/help/submit_a_ticket.php?type=abuse
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/823/7wcp.png
[ if you have in-browser blocking software like "NoScript" enabled the form is not properly displayed ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA_Takedown_Notice#Take_down_and_put_back_provisions

AND THEN you have to send a physical copy to USA.

bulbastre wrote:
AND THEN you have to send a physical copy to USA.

If that's correct and you don't want to use snail mail, try "I would like to report a terms of service violation" instead of "I would like to file a DMCA Take Down notice" , ( see the form on my previous post ) ...

MediaFire Terms of Service
Acknowledgement

You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to store, share or distribute the Content ...

... If any piece of it was created by someone else, you swear you have their permission to store it for your own use or share it....

... Distribute an illegal or unauthorized copy of another person's trademarked or copyrighted work ...

... Distribute Content that violates the rights of others, such as distributing Content that infringes any copyright ...

... When MediaFire removes or disables Content for policy violations, the user who posted the Content may receive a strike. The user is notified of the violation. Repeated policy violations may result in account termination

Creative Commons Attribution License
4. Restrictions
b "... reasonable to the medium ..."

If the medium is video then shouldn't the credit be on-screen, like a movie or TV show ?

Then people viewing via YouTube re-hosters ( like "clip.dj" ) would get to see a credit ,
when otherwise they would not get an opportunity to see the currently inadequate attribution hidden in the "See more" section, so can download the YouTube soundtrack as an mp3 without being aware of its attribution license ...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/801/ig13.png

What is "reasonable" is debatable , but complying with specific license terms is not ...

Creative Commons Attribution License, Restrictions, 4
a. ... You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute ...
b(i) ...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied
b(ii) ... the title of the Work if supplied
b(iii) ... the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work

Timbre wrote:

Bram wrote: … I'm going to delete this topic…

You mean delete the thread without which SEF would still be using attribution non-commercial licensed Freesounds on monetized YouTubes without any attribution whatsoever ?

Delete the thread which allows Freesound contributors (and other creators) being lied to by SEF in personal messages to see the true picture of his activities, ( it’s in SEF’s interest that his victims aren’t aware of each others existence, or his history ).

Yes!....I think this thread is seminal in relation to (freesound) copyright issues and has been widely read.It is very useful,both to conscientious users as guidance and as a warning to potential abusers that infringement of copyright law will be exposed and strongly contested.This thread has had a definite,positive effect and it would be self-defeating to delete it.The abusive and irrelevant posts however are really annoying and should be deleted.

Yes, I'm ok with my angry posts being deleted, but not the thread - it's ridiculous.

bulbastre wrote:
Yes, I'm ok with my angry posts being deleted.....

You do know you can do this yourself? just log in!

juskiddink wrote:
This thread has had a definite,positive effect and it would be self-defeating to delete it.The abusive and irrelevant posts however are really annoying and should be deleted.

Hi all,

I'm discussing some things with SEF behind the scenes, let's see what we come up with.

We won't delete this thread, but I will sink it. This means that the thread no longer will come to the top of the list when someone posts to it. *I* will create a new post when I'm done discussing things with him and lay down some ground rules in that thread for both sides.

I did take the liberty to remove some of the heinous/horrible remarks from some of you guys in here (SEF's included!). Could you all go through the thread and delete some more please? You have the power to delete your own posts - like AlienXXX mentions!

Mods, thanks for your input, I really appreciate you guys getting in here and give me a hand!!

- Bram

Bram wrote:
... Could you all go through the thread and delete some more please? ...

A compromise : I've pixellated Kyle ...
http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/73179
[ If "The Mounties" want a picture of him I still have a copy of the original image ].

Thank you all for removing my messages if it keeps the peace and this thread alive.

I claimed the violation of the copyright of my sound on YouTube and YouTube took it down. Kyle did a counterclaim which needs my confirmation to initiate a court process. I'm going ahead, but I'm also willing to see this whole matter solved peacefully.
Should peace not come soon enough, I guess we're going to court.

And one thing to remember.

If a person had taken your sound and added their own name to it (filename for example) and redistributed then file somewhere without credits, then...

Well - if someone else takes this copy and uploads it somewhere else, then things get more messy. And then is the question: is that second person guilty if (for example) the source file they have taken and reuploaded - was wrongly described?

I don't follow this thread carefully, but I'd like to know - not who is responsible for the mess initiation, but - who should then repair it, if it expands further.

And another suggestion if I may. As far I remember - wav files also can have some sort of tags (steinberg's wavelab seems to read such things). Should not be the FS sounds be auto-tagged with proper proper licences, so that in case of pure re-distribution cases - licence information is available inside the files? Thus - only intentional removing of such tags would indicate bad things. Tags resist filename changing, and are exchangable with filenames in terms of popularity.

Alternatively, there are also other ways of encoding textual information in the files, so that these are not as simple "tags" removable by any batch processing ap (like winamp), but only by one specific app. Downside of this one - lack of attribution readable info in popular apps compatibe with ID tags.

Automatically tagging in freesound is a great idea!

Also, I wouldn't blame the person that takes my sound because it's wrongly described by SEF, but SEF itself. That being said, if I contact this last person I expect him to rename the credit.

Also, is there any way to automatically upgrade all the licenses of someone's sounds? All mine are Attribution 3.0, but would like to update them to 4.0, batch style.

ayamahambho wrote:
And another suggestion if I may ... Should not be the FS sounds be auto-tagged with proper proper licences, so that in case of pure re-distribution cases - licence information is available inside the files?

That could overwrite the metatdata the author had already put on the file they uploaded to Fresound ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata#Digital_music
Also no consistent metadata format across all audio-file-types ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3#Implementation_in_non-mp3s_and_alternatives

One can try to "watermark" her/his samples, using steganographic means ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography ), for example using this free multiplatform tool: www.silenteye.org

For mp3 files, see: www.petitcolas.net/fabien/steganography/mp3stego/index.html

For review of other available tools check:
www.jjtc.com/Steganography/tools.html
www.securityfocus.com/tools/category/55