Censorship of music reviews.

[Spectral Morn]

This could have a broader scope than just music, but as this is about reviews of music I thought here was a good place to put it.

Yesterday I was made aware of a copyright claim made agaist a reviewer of mostly prog rock on You Tube, Darren Lock. Darren who is also a musician, and appears to be a published reviewer in other areas, was reviewing the current set of King Crimson vinyl box sets. The reviews were a mixed bag, some positive some not so. Darren had obtained the box sets with his own money and did not play any music. The reviews featured an unboxing and discussion of the box sets.

Yesterday DGM, via a representative filed 23 copyright claims against all of Darren Locks King Crimson reviews. This was done, according to Darren to shut him up, because DGM are not happy with his views. During a live chat about this, Darren also mentioned that the representative of DGM, has a personal grudge against Darren.

Now here is the thing, if a review is subjective opinion, is factual, contains no copyright material, or audio, has no defamatory of liablous material how can it be pulled by DGM, on what basis? Reviews need to be what they are, good, bad, or meh.

Frankly I am disgusted at DGM and King Crimsons actions. Censorship, using a You Tube TOU rule falsely to shut up a reviewer should not be allowed, particularly when they are not breaking copyright laws or any other laws. Shame on you DGM, shame :(

Darren earns a small living through his You Tube channel which helps him support his daughter who has special needs. This attack on his channel, has basicaly left him unable to run his channel, and according to ths now gone live stream - did he pull it, or another copyright strike, I don't know - he will probably have to close his channel.

I for one will never buy new again anything from DGM or KC again.

Darren Lock - https://www.youtube.com/user/vrooomuk/videos

What do forum members think?

[AJSki2fly]

If factual, and not libellous then I cannot see how an independent review can be pulled in this way or someone stopped from making their opinions heard, it sounds like someone stopping free speech. The only way that copyright might be infringed I suppose is that he was using KC material in terms of the box set images and material within to gain exposure to his site and reviews. I suspect that was why it was pulled.

[Spectral Morn]

If factual, and not libellous then I cannot see how an independent review can be pulled in this way or someone stopped from making their opinions heard, it sounds like someone stopping free speech. The only way that copyright might be infringed I suppose is that he was using KC material in terms of the box set images and material within to gain exposure to his site and reviews. I suspect that was why it was pulled.

Bar unboxing the product and discussing it no. He had no art work as a title piece. Can you claim copyright on an object in someones video?

[struth]

i doubt it would stand up, as he took the pics. it might be he got a letter/email with threats and he decided it wasnt worth the fight

[AJSki2fly]

i doubt it would stand up, as he took the pics. it might be he got a letter/email with threats and he decided it wasnt worth the fight

Well its not very nice of DGM or the person that initiated it for them, but they have always been that way with KC stuff.

[Spectral Morn]

Well its not very nice of DGM or the person that initiated it for them, but they have always been that way with KC stuff.

Its simply not on, to claim copyright on something that is actually Mr Locks Copyright property, his review videos. They are his intelectual property. DGM and Declan Colgan Music have no right to claim something that is not theirs to claim. Gagging and censorship should be fought. Regardles of whether Darren gets his channel back or not I will never give DGM, Declan Colgan Music any of my money ever again.

[Spectral Morn]

i doubt it would stand up, as he took the pics. it might be he got a letter/email with threats and he decided it wasnt worth the fight

No pics were taken Grant, nothing was taken, reproduced or music played. Darren bought the King Crimson box sets and filmed a review, based on unboxing and sharing opinion about the products. How does that break DGM, or KC copyright? In my view it doesn't.

I do though have first hand experience as a reviewer of having an audio company threaten to sue me if I wrote one word about their products. I bought and paid for the samples myself. I did the review, listened to them and decided that not sharing my subjective views on the items actual did them more harm than writing about them. A fair and impartial review was lost to them, and they scored an own goal. Their loss, not mine.

[struth]

How do they stop folk on the likes of amazon reviewing

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Darren's you Tube channels have now closed. It would be interesting to hear from DGM's point of view,
but if currently before the courts, that has to await their determination.

There looks to be more to this, than just a viewpoint expressed ( free expression ) about KC albums.
https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

[Rosewind]

That just put an end to my interest in ever buying anything remotely related to King Crimson.

[Lawrence001]

What's the relationship between DGM and KC? If DGM just bought the rights it's not really KC's fault.

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Light Dependant Resistor]

What's the relationship between DGM and KC? If DGM just bought the rights it's not really KC's fault.

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

The relationship is provided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_Global_Mobile and is one in the same
As I said in an earlier post it would appear something additional or separate, to normal free expression allowed on You tube,
has occurred. DGM's position as I understand, is its artists, retain all copyrights.

It remains necessary I consider to understand what areas of copyright have been infringed, before jumping to conclusions.

[Spectral Morn]

Darren's you Tube channels have now closed. It would be interesting to hear from DGM's point of view,
but if currently before the courts, that has to await their determination.

There looks to be more to this, than just a viewpoint expressed ( free expression ) about KC albums.
https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

From Darrens now closed channel he mentioned that it was Declan Colgan Music on behalf of DGM that was pursuing Darren. That his channel is now gone completely is a disgrace and angers me.

There will be no courts as Darren is not wealthy and this centres on DGM and DCM using you tube reporting system to shut him down. So the appeal is with You Tube to prove he did not do what DGM claim. Stopping DGM and DCM abusing the reporting system again, which I believe they have done, as I saw no copyright infringement in the reviews is impossible. No doubt they would do it again, and again, and again. If Darren broke copyright then the material needed removed. I dont support copyright thieves, but in this case I believe he didnt.

He broke no copyright doing those reviews and yet they win in shutting him up, destroying an excellent music review channel, one that no doubt brought DGM sales, as he reviewed many DGM artists, Penguin Cafe Orchestra to name one, other than KC.

Anyway my mind is made up no DGM artist or DCM represented artist will ever get my money again, because those parties will benefit as well.

[struth]

best way to stop them is to hit them in the pocket, as they are only there for that obviously.

[Spectral Morn]

The relationship is provided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_Global_Mobile and is one in the same
As I said in an earlier post it would appear something additional or separate, to normal free expression allowed on You tube,
has occurred. DGM's position as I understand, is its artists, retain all copyrights.

It remains necessary I consider to understand what areas of copyright have been infringed, before jumping to conclusions.

Good luck with that, because my understanding is that neither DGM, or DCM would tell Darren. His view was because he hadn't and what was done to him was personal, coming from Declan Colgan Music, who had a grudge against Darren. On that I can not say more, only report what Darren said, and I have done in good faith. What I can say is I saw the reviews, and as far as I am concerned I saw no breach of copyright, nothing a claim could be made regarding that review material.

[Spectral Morn]

best way to stop them is to hit them in the pocket, as they are only there for that obviously.

Grant I support artists who every they are, in whatever medium, and their right to deal with copyright theft so if this had been the case I would not have written anything. From what Darren said on his now gone channel, these attacks, and the attack in this case was personal. The ins and outs of that I dont know. All I know, believe is DGM, DCM abused you tubes reporting system by making false copyright claims to shut Darren down. In that they succeeded. No doubt they will disagree.