timmcmorris saidAre they obliged to reply to you?
In these cases I usually contact the person or company and request their purchase license number. A few times I have actually received back an authentic license and was glad I did not get their video removed because they had in fact licensed the song.
No they aren’t legally obligated to. They will be legally required from my lawyer however – but I am not looking for that.This is interesting to me that many are in favor of identity protection when so many people are stealing your work
I did not say I was in favor of identity protection; it was just a simple question….
I totally and completely side with Tim on this one. I do the large majority of my work outside of AJ. In fact, like 99%. But some of the files I find “re-purposed in a questionable manner” are files that have been made available for sale here. Now this is not to say that my efforts outside this community do not need constant monitoring as well. I run searches every week and, unfortunately, it becoming more and more rare when I do not find dubious download sites offering up my files. I produce a lot of tutorials, preset packs, etc as well as audio files, and those are also very difficult to keep track of. The saddest thing about that is that it is other musicians who download things like preset packs (NI Massive and FM8 are very popular right now) without paying, and then I stumble across a download for a set that has been downloaded a couple thousand times in a couple weeks. I hate to think how few musicians/producers are actually paying for their tools right now.
I am currently in Thailand, have been for going on 8 months now. I normally reside in the States and I cannot believe how blatant the piracy is here. I have had the chance to hear my AJ files not once, not twice, but three times on a major television network here. One even had the watermark on it still! And this was in advertising for the network, not some small product! So it is not just YouTube users who are doing this, and we should all know that.
I feel that we, as creative professionals, need to take a stand at some point with those who are blatantly abusing a broken/incomplete system. Tim is right in raising the topic and asking for a way to that a license code is valid, nothing more. We all take a minimum of a 50% hit on a sale to be included in a big and growing network such as this (and I know this number varies from place to place), and it is not just marketing and traffic generation that we are all counting on and expecting, support is also included in that. The customers (which we all are, authors and buyers alike) understand all of this and agree that it is best when we join up, so there really shouldn’t be any questions about it!
I for one would appreciate a tool like the one Tim is describing built into the Envato system in an official capacity. It would not only be convenient, but it would speak volumes in regards to the fact that Envato sides with the authors, the honest buyers and the law on this matter. After all, I seem to recall a blog post and forum thread started by Collis recently about protecting intellectual property and how Envato will not stand for anyone in their network abusing rules and laws that are clearly stated. Why should this conversation happen any differently than that one?
My two cents. End of rant.
Thanks, Tim. I feel this is a good discussion to have as a community and it’s healthy to have the chance to better understand various opinions and experiences held here.
I fixed your post ohm, had a couple of tags doubled…
p.s: off-topic: was in Thailand myself… was absolutely dumbstruck upon visiting one of their “computer centers” looking for a batch of CDRW only to find myself surrounded by all possible pirated software… I didn’t even consider the dimension of copyright infringement and detrimental value of such a “marketplace” at that time… as I was quite young, but now, at my current age, I think my shock back then was totally legitimate. If I were to pinpoint a single 3D program I’ve seen marketed there for under 2-3 $... the losses per sold copy would reach up to 3898$. Per copy. yeah…
Regarding Tim’s method of verification and some of the counter-points brought up in this thread, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ask for a verification data related to one of your own creations. If it is not provided, and the takedown has taken place, the saddened buyer will surely contact you as soon as he notices, and you will cordially apologize mentioning the 72h time he had to provide the verification. If he doesn’t… well guess what.
Privacy is good… but not when it overcomes polite dialogue with the purpose of protecting copyright of ones work. Remember, it’s not like some recent copyright protection acts that blatantly infringe against personal privacy by providing open access to “all data” with the sole purpose of verifying a single bit of information, but rather just asking politely for that 1 little almost anonymous information to make sure you aren’t being mugged.