dear alexander rodchenko

Dear Alexander Rodchenko

From: YouTube Subject: Information about your video "Logical Conclusion #978"

Date: December 21, 2011 2:17:36 PM PST

To: AlexanderRodchenko

help center | e-mail options | report spam

Dear AlexanderRodchenko,

Your video, Logical Conclusion #978, may have content that is owned or licensed by PIAS.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for moreinformation.

Sincerely,- The YouTube Team

2011 YouTube, LLC901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066






Your video, Logical Conclusion #978, may have content that is owned or licensed by The Orchard Music.









Your video, Logical Conclusion #798, may have content that is owned or licensed by INgrooves.









Your video, Logical Conclusion #978, may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA.




On November 3, 2007, I began uploading every possible monochrome video to YouTube.

Each flat rectangle is paired an unrelated sine tone.

When complete, I will have uploaded 16,777,216 videos.


Date: August 25, 2011 7:18:27 AM PDT




Your video, Logical Conclusion #7929, may have content that is owned or licensed by Dance all Day.





Date: September 22, 2011 3:28:59 PM PDT




Your video, Logical Conclusion #7873, may have content that is owned or licensed by IDOL (Independent Distribution On Line).





Date: November 15, 2011 5:49:19 AM PST




Your video, Logical Conclusion #2346, may have content that is owned or licensed by Believe.





Date: October 3, 2011 7:30:39 PM PDT








In the summer of 2011, I began receiving emails from YouTube, informing me that I have been uploading content that is actually owned by someone else.


Date: December 24, 2011 9:41:14 AM PST









Date: September 22, 2011 5:04:02 AM PDT




Your video, Logical Conclusion #22419, may have content that is owned or licensed by Made in Etaly.









Your video, Logical Conclusion #2174, may have content that is owned or licensed by finetunes.









Your video, Logical Conclusion #19735, may have content that is owned or licensed by Rebeat Digital GmbH.




What happens is that YouTube compares all the videos it hosts to a database of copyrighted content.

When it finds a match, it automatically does what the copyright holder wants: monetize, track, or block.


Date: October 23, 2011 5:22:12 AM PDT













Your video, Logical Conclusion #17506, may have content that is owned or licensed by EMI.









Your video, Logical Conclusion #12424, may have content that is owned or licensed by The Orchard Music.




I found it hard to believe that more than 30 of these Logical Conclusions videos were actually owned by someone else!

Sure enough, after investigating, I found that the original was not even remotely like my copy.

And furthermore, in almost every case, my copy was made and published prior to the original.






Your video, Logical Conclusion #2371, may have content that is owned or licensed by Armada Music.




These are false positives, caught up in a sweep of the cloud.

Or maybe they are legitimate matches, after all?

One cant help but imagine generating and uploading every permutation of Content ID, with the video as an afterthought. Think of the domain name squatters, or people who flip real estate. There is a real art to it.


Date: November 5, 2011 11:27:17 PM PDT









Date: September 3, 2011 7:12:05 PM PDT









Date: November 23, 2011 11:09:34 PM PST








Sincerely,Sean Dockray


Date: August 26, 2011 10:06:12 PM PDT








dear alexander rodchenko

Documents

video logical conclusion

youtube subject

youtube team

possible monochrome

content id matches section

llc901 cherry ave

san bruno

pm pstto