Uploaded July 2008 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
This is a series of videos about a dispute between Greg Solomon and Myrealitybytes that erupted after Greg used clips of Myrealitybytes' video to paint renetto as a plagiarist. Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA to Youtube and Youtube removed Greg's video. I examine whether renetto is a plagiarist and whether this was the proper use of copyright law.
Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem
youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw
The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.
youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MyRealityBytes wrote to GregSolomon asking him to view her video. Greg jumped to the conclusion that most of us would jump to upon watching MyRealityBytes' video—that Renetto had stolen a major part of the music. Greg made a video in which he STRONGLY hinted that renetto was a plagiarist. (Greg did not claim this as a fact, but the hint was so strong that most people would come away from that video believing that renetto did indeed plagiarize.
MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:
"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"
youtube.com/watch?v=gyGwrOYNteM
Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:
"I also have a strong belief in what is right and what is wrong. Solomon used my video without my permission - which is wrong. Solomon says that I am accusing renetto of plagarism, when in fact, it is Solomon himself who is making that accusation. So that makes Solomon a liar - which is wrong. Solomon used my video to make me look like an ass - which is wrong."
"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."
Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA complaint to Youtube and Youtube removed the video. Greg Solomon sent a counter notice, so the video should be back up in about 10 business days, unless Myrealitybytes informs Youtube that she is suing Greg.
--------------------------------------
Renetto probably should have been more thorough in crediting where he got his sound loops from, but I don't think what he did rises to the level of plagiarism. He explained how he made his song in the video entitled "How to build a song with 'GarageBand'"
youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video
American University School of Communication Center for Social Media
centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video
"...the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before."
---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.
The Purpose of Copyright Law:
themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
On Fair Use:
themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
This is a series of videos about a dispute between Greg Solomon and Myrealitybytes that erupted after Greg used clips of Myrealitybytes' video to paint renetto as a plagiarist. Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA to Youtube and Youtube removed Greg's video. I examine whether renetto is a plagiarist and whether this was the proper use of copyright law.
Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem
youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw
The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.
youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MyRealityBytes wrote to GregSolomon asking him to view her video. Greg jumped to the conclusion that most of us would jump to upon watching MyRealityBytes' video—that Renetto had stolen a major part of the music. Greg made a video in which he STRONGLY hinted that renetto was a plagiarist. (Greg did not claim this as a fact, but the hint was so strong that most people would come away from that video believing that renetto did indeed plagiarize.
MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:
"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"
youtube.com/watch?v=gyGwrOYNteM
Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:
"I also have a strong belief in what is right and what is wrong. Solomon used my video without my permission - which is wrong. Solomon says that I am accusing renetto of plagarism, when in fact, it is Solomon himself who is making that accusation. So that makes Solomon a liar - which is wrong. Solomon used my video to make me look like an ass - which is wrong."
"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."
Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA complaint to Youtube and Youtube removed the video. Greg Solomon sent a counter notice, so the video should be back up in about 10 business days, unless Myrealitybytes informs Youtube that she is suing Greg.
--------------------------------------
Renetto probably should have been more thorough in crediting where he got his sound loops from, but I don't think what he did rises to the level of plagiarism. He explained how he made his song in the video entitled "How to build a song with 'GarageBand'"
youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video
American University School of Communication Center for Social Media
centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video
"...the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before."
---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.
The Purpose of Copyright Law:
themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
On Fair Use:
themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm


![The Purpose of Copyright Law
THE PURPOSE OF COPYRIGHT LAW
This is the first in a series of videos that I will be making over the next few weeks discussing copyright law. What is the purpose of copyright law? We must turn to Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to find out:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
The Congress shall have power . . .To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Note that when the Constitution was written, the word science was interpreted much more broadly than it is today. In the 1700s, science meant generalized knowledge and learning. Thus, the purpose of copyright law as spelled out by the Constitution is to promote the progress of knowledge and learning—not to enrich the creators of new works. Copyright law attempts to achieve these ends by allowing Creators to profit by granting them a monopoly over their works. Copyright law gives authors an incentive to produce more works by granting them exclusive rights in what they produce. However, this protection of the interests of the author is only the MEANS by which the ultimate ENDS of advancing knowledge is promoted. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF COPYRIGHT LAW IS NOT THE PROTECTION OF THE CREATORS INTEREST IN HER WORKS!
See Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1750.ZO.html
In Fogerty v. Fantasy, the Supreme Court approvingly cited Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken:
The limited scope of the copyright holders statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `authors creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
The Court also cited Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service:
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but `[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
The first Copyright Act (of 1790) in the United States granted only the exclusive right to print, publish, and vend a copyrighted work, and that right was granted for a maximum of 28 years.
See: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/
Under the current copyright law, copyright owners also have these rights, plus the right to control the public performances of their works and to control the making of adaptations of their work. And the term of that control has been extended from a maximum of 28 years to 70 years after the death of the author.
Why has copyright law been extended far expanded what was imagined by our Founding Fathers? It was expanded at the behest of major copyright-owning industries to protect their cash cows. The publishing industry argued that the greater the monopoly and the protection granted to the authors of copyrighted works, the more incentive they will have to create new works.
But this overlooks two factors:
1) Almost all creators build upon the work of others. If copyright law builds too high an obstacle to the use of previous works it will stifle creativity and prevent the creation of new works.
2) The claim that the greater the monopoly granted to the author, the more they will create is not necessarily true. Current copyright law gives the creator a monopoly on his work until 70 years after his death. Does anyone believe that Stephen King would have written fewer books if copyright law only granted creators a monopoly for 28 years?
MUST READING: The Purpose of Copyright
by Lydia Pallas Loren, Asssociate Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark College
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
Professor Loren writes:
In fulfilling the constitutionally mandated goal of copyright law, Congress has had to ask, as one early legislative report did, two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? As Judge Walker of the Second Circuit recently summarized: The copyright law seeks to establish a delicate equilibrium. On the one hand, it affords protection to authors as an incentive to create, and, on the other, it must appropriately limit the extent of that protection so as to avoid the effects of monopolistic stagnation. The founding fathers wanted copyright to be a mechanism by which our democracy would grow and flourish - a way in which our storehouse of knowledge is stocked.
Loren notes that copyright law has been perverted into a tool for censorship. She cited the case of David Stowe, a professor at Michigan State, who wanted to show how sexism and racism pervaded the big band culture of the 1940s. He wanted to show this by using various cartoons in Downbeat magazine. But the owners of Downbeat refused to grant him permission to use these cartoons at any price because it would make them look bad. Stowe did not want to bear the expense of litigation or run the risk of being found guilty of infringing, so he did not use the cartoons in his study. His academic research was not as rich or complete as it would have been had copyright law not been turned into a tool for censorship.
Censorship can occur even under the doctrine of Fair Use, as the Stowe case demonstrates because some may self-censor rather than run the risk of having to defend themselves in potentially costly legislation. But Professor Loren notes that the situation was worsened under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. She wrote:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. . . seriously impedes the access to copyrighted works and the non-copyrighted elements of those works, thereby threatening the ultimate aim of copyright, the promotion of the progress of knowledge and learning. The Purpose of Copyright Law](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rCtDQ6W_HAY/mqdefault.jpg)







