REFUSED
 
The reason for the dispute: All the material on the video is your original content and you own the rights to it
 
Filed: September ? 2018
 
Explanation: I personally perform the work of Bach. Who died 300 years ago. All rights belong to me.
 
Appeal is possible until September 1? 2018
 
When different people play the same music, the problem arises: sometimes they sound the same. And if the music belongs to the composer who died 268 years ago, leaving his works in the public domain, then someone can write it down, and someone - put it on the Internet. In this story, a mixture of copyright-bot and corporate intransigence led to an attack in the spirit of Kafka.
 
 
Musician James Rhodes laid out on Facebook video , where he plays Bach. Sony Music Entertainment said that 47 seconds of this speech belongs to her. As a result, Facebook turned off the video.
 
board of shame .
 
 
One of the arguments in favor of the current process of content filtering is that there must be a system of checks and balances. Removal notifications should only be sent by the copyright owner, who really believes that his rights have been violated. And if the claim is unfair, then the counter notification from the real owner will correct the situation.
 
 
The idea of ​​counter-notification is not optimal. For example, they are burdensome for individuals and require a certain amount of private information. Even bona fide authors always have a fear that the other party will still sue, which they can not afford.
 
 
Rhodes really challenged the notice and explained: "This is my own performance of Bach. Who died 300 years ago. I own all the rights. " Sony rejected this argument .
 
 
I am beyond furious. @SonyMusicGlobal have rejected my dispute. I recorded a short piece of Bach, they claimed they owned 47 seconds of it and removed it. I appealed. And hey have rejected my appeal. What. The. FUCK? @SonyMusicGlobal @SonyClassicalUK Please RT - this is insane. pic.twitter.com/42da3I9MYX
- James Rhodes (@JRhodesPianist) September 1? 2018
 
We do not know for sure how things are done in Sony, but you can guess that the cause of the mess was a copyright-bot or a person acting just as mechanically. A real person would see a musician performing a work on the video, which is older than the US copyright law . He would understand that the company can not own them. It's very likely that Rhodes' counter appeal also was rejected by the bot, because we hope, of course, that a thoughtful person would receive his notification and approved it.
 
 
Rhodes told his story on Twitter, where he received some support - and dared to send a letter to the public relations manager Sony Classic and Sony. At the end of the Knon, his video was restored. He is wrote on twitter : "And what about the thousands of other musicians who did not do the same? " Good question.
 
 
None of the alleged checks worked. The public pressure and perseverance of Rhodes are the only reasons why the complaint was considered, despite the fact that rules should protect fair use and public domain.
 
 
How much more proof is needed that copyright creators and filters fail? What to give them such powers, as it is is ready to make the European Union , is dangerous and short-sighted? Information about these failures appears about the same as conflicts are resolved: only if they create enough noise. How many more works will be deleted without the right to restore?