[HN Gopher] Dear Google: Public domain compositions exist
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Google: Public domain compositions exist
Author : mod50ack
Score : 610 points
Date : 2021-06-28 09:31 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.dbmiller.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.dbmiller.org)
| chrismorgan wrote:
| A comment where I provided some details on English church hymns
| where such composition/melody claims were made:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. Precis: about 20%
| of the hymns we were using were being illegitimately claimed,
| almost none of the claimants were acting in good faith (they
| didn't review the disputes, but allowed them to lapse in my
| favour), and successful disputes did not prevent subsequent
| claims for exactly the same thing.
| Carioca wrote:
| I got a DMCA claim on a video of me playing a Bach piece on
| guitar, with my own AFAIK entirely novel arrangement
| tinus_hn wrote:
| The solution is to enforce the penalty of perjury required for
| these claims.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Here's the full list of reasons google will act:
|
| 1. Will it make them more money?
| elzbardico wrote:
| Well, maybe is about time to stop feeding the beast. I get it is
| a fair complaint. But what about not uploading stuff to youutube
| in the first place if it is so hostile to content creators? Let
| it be what it is supposed to be, a giant repository of corporate,
| advertising-based tacky mass culture.
| eloisant wrote:
| Unfortunately this is a network effect lock-in.
|
| Content creators need to be on YouTube because that's where the
| audience is. Viewers need to use YouTube because that's where
| the content is.
| procombo wrote:
| There are a lot of very busy bees out there right now looking
| to change that.
|
| YouTube provides easy, great advertising revenue. But as
| individual channels develop their subscriber base, YouTube's
| role diminishes.
|
| Viewers/subscribers find it easy to "juggle" multiple apps.
| People just needed a reason for alternatives.
| blunte wrote:
| Does it really still provide great ad revenue? Hasn't that
| been declining and increasingly restricted over the last
| several years?
|
| Viewers largely don't care what platform your content is on
| as long as they can know it exists (link) and can easily
| consume it without jumping hurdles.
|
| I don't care if I watch something on Youtube or Vimeo as
| long as I see what I'm trying to see.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| > So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the
| claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of
| ads running on our new production of a public domain opera.
|
| I thought that no one got paid until the claim was upheld/revoked
| and then the ad money would go to the winner.
|
| > And even more copyright trolls are definitely out there making
| what is likely a substantial amount of money off of stuff they
| definitely don't own from people who don't contest the claims
|
| The Youtube three copyright strikes and you're out is definitely
| a cause of this - there needs to be a consequence for people
| making false claims.
|
| The underlying issue is that 99% of copyright claims are probably
| valid - youtube is awash with copied video clips and with music
| they don't own. The solution is for youtube to charge $1 per
| upload. If you want to make a copyright claim or appeal you have
| to pay $10+ which you get back if you win - but would pay for a
| human to review.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Inhibit wrote:
| I actually had a copyright claim filed against an US Air Force
| band of the Pacific composition and recording. Which I got from
| them directly and had used because it falls outside copyright
| (and I like their work).
|
| It did get rescinded when I forwarded a response from a surprised
| representative. But YouTube still immediately flags those works
| as copyright belonging to a party that reproduces those
| recordings. regardless of that being impossible.
| tyingq wrote:
| This all makes me curious what barriers (technical, funding,
| legal, etc) remain for a decentralized P2P video platform to
| become highly popular. I'd love to see YouTube bring about it's
| own demise with both the increasingly intrusive ads and heavy-
| handed copyright processes.
| sneak wrote:
| Today it's certain melodies.
|
| One day it might be certain phrases.
|
| This is the same YouTube that banned any videos contradicting the
| WHO (the same WHO who said not to wear masks). The same YouTube
| who takes down videos with evidence of human rights abuses.
|
| Stop donating content to a censorship platform.
| mlang23 wrote:
| Well said. Google has become one of the big evil players. So
| fucking glad I turned down their hiring attempt.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I have recently noticed my posts on Youtube that correct
| inaccuracies in technical videos are vanishing couple of
| seconds after posted.
|
| It seems Youtube is performing some kind of sentiment analysis
| and removes posts immediately based on it.
|
| I stopped commenting on Youtube.
| loa_in_ wrote:
| It was me. I often spend 10 minutes writing a comment, I post
| it and sooner than later I delete it.
|
| Effort to put my thoughts into coherent words is often more
| important to me than the comment itself, and thus it had had
| served it's purpose in the instant I wrote it down.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I am also doing that frequently.
|
| I spend a bunch of time writing comment only to find out it
| does not improve the discussion one iota, so I delete it.
|
| But having an occasion to think something through lets me
| organize my thoughts a tiny bit better.
| Aerroon wrote:
| The spam filter might be picking up the comment. Then it will
| require approval from the creator of the video. This filter
| is _incredibly_ aggressive, because of just how much garbage
| is spammed.
|
| As an example, YouTube hid this comment and tagged it as
| "likely spam":
|
| > _I saw a Jean Bart video and I thought I might be in it as
| I went up against you yesterday, glad I was not in the other
| team in this one lol_
|
| However, there also exists some kind of other system that
| sometimes removes comments. I'm not sure how that one works.
| Even as the creator of the video I've had my comments
| disappear, but that might've also just been a bug.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I tried to have fun with comment filter to figure out what
| causes comments to trigger it but it seem it is implemented
| so that when you get couple comments removed you are no
| longer able to put _any_ comment, they are just going to
| vanish whatever you write.
| ttt0 wrote:
| I don't comment in the comment section either, but I
| sometimes read it and I often see people accusing the channel
| of deleting comments, and the responses from the channel
| owners that they don't delete any comments. And these
| channels don't even have anything to do with politics or any
| controversial topics.
|
| I sometimes comment in the live chat on livestreams though.
| I'm sure there is some kind of super clever and sophisticated
| algorithm to filter out comments, but in practice as far as I
| can tell, what comment in the live chat gets through is
| virtually just random.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I believe channel owners. The comments are being removed so
| regularly that would be practically impossible for somebody
| to react so perfectly within 2-3s of every comment.
|
| It is just youtube trying to create illusion of functioning
| community by automatically censoring anything and anybody
| that can even potentially be negative, divisive or
| controversial.
|
| And we know the dangers of removing every critical
| opinion...
| ttt0 wrote:
| Absolutely, in the full context channel owners often have
| zero incentive to remove any comments and it makes zero
| sense for them to do so, so I believe them too. Most
| people are aware of what YouTube is doing by now, but
| once in a while you have someone who will blame it on the
| channel.
| dgb23 wrote:
| They also enable a business model for countless independent
| content creators, easy access to free/open video lectures,
| talks and so on.
|
| I agree with your criticism but there are things at stake here
| that I very much appreciate as a consumer.
| sneak wrote:
| YouTube does not have a monopoly on sending video content via
| HTTP.
| 6510 wrote:
| I think this part of youtube should be spun into a separate
| entity that delivers services to governments who should protect
| copyrights for which the copyright holder should pay a fee (read
| "a tax!").
|
| I understand people are trying to make a living but I'm really
| tired of everyone else having to pay for their copyright though
| all kinds of "externalizes" like trolling fair use, making it
| impossible to find some music to add to a video, do a remix, make
| fan art etc etc etc I think the public is missing out on 99% of
| the potential creations and the creativity that comes from them.
| Learning a new skill is hard if you have no access to anything.
| The economy is compromised here. Then we also have to view
| advertisements so that copyright enforcement can be paid for? I
| use to have thousands (seriously) of youtube subscriptions. Every
| channel worth watching is gone and most of it was over bullshit
| violations of fair use. Copyright didn't enhance my experience,
| it ruined it. The best instance was a movie (that I wont name)
| made from videos endlessly duplicated on the web from which the
| origin was impossible to trace. After the movie was launched
| everyone got a take down notice. Accounts got flagged, people got
| banned. (not just youtube but also their other services like
| gmail) That the videos had been online for over a decade didn't
| bother the process at all.
|
| When I play my guitar I hardly feel every string I pull is a
| wonderful new creation that I should own from now on(???) If I do
| feel like that I would expect to pay for these services myself.
| If the creations are not valuable enough to pay for copyright
| enforcement then they are simply not valuable enough - period. It
| shouldn't mean other people now have to pay for it.
|
| If you play music (a recording) in public (in your bar, disco,
| restaurant etc) in the Netherlands you have to pay fees
| regardless of the artist being registered with the entity. The
| exception is if you have specific written permission. I'm just
| playing my guitar, why cant I just have people use my music? Why
| do I have to do extra work so that some unrelated 4rd party can
| get paid? Why does google have to pay for it? By what logic
| should google be the one to decide what shall and shall not pass?
| They have an elaborate system that took a lot of effort, cost
| them a lot of money and it doesn't work. Just let government do
| it and charge the tax for the service and deal with false claims
| similarly - in court. The recording studios claim to be missing
| out on hundreds of billions. By that logic governments could make
| a HUGE profit on these taxes. Lets not make it a flat tax, let it
| scale to the moon.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > we can't sue just because we got a copyright claim against our
| video
|
| Um, apparently the underlying problem is that someone claimed a
| clearly public domain _melody_ in Google 's copyright enforcement
| system. And the public domain status can be proven very easily
| since sites like IMSLP make early PD editions of classical music
| readily available to anyone. Wouldn't OP have a claim for
| tortious interference against whoever claimed this content in a
| clearly fraudulent way?
| kevingadd wrote:
| If it were the DMCA, yes. YouTube created a custom system that
| isn't the DMCA which means you can't punish fraudulent
| claimants and also don't have the protections of the counter-
| notice system.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > which means you can't punish fraudulent claimants
|
| Tortious interference applies quite generally, it doesn't
| require anything as specific as the DMCA. These compositions
| were entered into Content ID, which means someone has clearly
| made a false claim to being the holder of publishing rights
| wrt. melodies that were actually in the public domain.
| regularfry wrote:
| So the underlying issue is _really_ that it 's "Google's"
| copyright enforcement system, Google's database. Not a public
| register of copyright works which could be treated as
| authoritative, and corrected where necessary. The problem goes
| back to copyright being _assumed_ , not requiring registration.
| josefx wrote:
| Not sure a public register alone would solve the issues.
| There were already cases in the past where TV shows
| registered copyright on their episodes and it resulted in
| automated strikes against youtube videos featured in these
| episodes.
|
| So for any registry to work you would have to go through
| every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright
| for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who else
| might hold copyright. Basically you would end up killing the
| automation, which would most likely piss of the movie and
| music cartels/lobbyists.
| regularfry wrote:
| With a public register, if a TV show registers copyright
| incorrectly, that could then be corrected _once_ , rather
| than the current situation, which requires it to be
| corrected on every claim.
|
| > So for any registry to work you would have to go through
| every video and mark exactly what parts you claim copyright
| for, which parts you do not claim copyright for and who
| else might hold copyright. Basically you would end up
| killing the automation, which would most likely piss of the
| movie and music cartels/lobbyists.
|
| That would be a feature, not a bug.
| pieno wrote:
| No, the underlying issue is the US DMCA assuming that a
| takedown claimant holds valid copyright until disputed by the
| alleged copyright infringer, and absolutely zero real risk of
| liability for invalid takedown claims by copyright holders.
|
| Google is "complicit" (at least in the moral sense, not sure
| about the legal sense) by providing a broken service that
| appears to be unable to distinguish different performances of
| public domain works.
|
| But the principal legal and moral burden is still on the
| takedown claimant to represent that a certain video is indeed
| copyright infringement and not another performance altogether
| or fair use of copyrighted works. They should not be able to
| get away with large-scale false statements. Even for claims
| that relate to actual copyright infringement, they could not
| have a "good faith belief" of copyright infringement because
| they are simply relying on a known broken system (of Google)
| without appropriately verifying their claims, even after many
| successful disputes relating to the same issue.
| samrolken wrote:
| It seems like this case has nothing to do with the DMCA.
| Google's content ID and claim system is not related to that
| at all.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Google's claim system is _far_ more pro-takedown than DMCA
| requires.
|
| If they were actually following the process in the DMCA,
| then as soon as the original poster made a counter-claim,
| Google could put it back up and the claimant's only
| recourse would be to take legal action against the poster.
| mod50ack wrote:
| Some people on Reddit have the idea that you could do this sort
| of thing, at least:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/51457r/is_there_a_...
|
| I'm not a lawyer, and we weren't monetizing our videos anyway.
| But it's still such BS. While I know that this claim will be
| thrown out by Google since it was contested (and apparently the
| claimant won't get any money from monetization --- although we
| won't either, since we don't monetize), I'm mostly just annoyed
| that Google's system is definitely letting tons of people make
| money from those who don't contest the claims. But I can't
| change that myself --- I don't work for Google, and even if we
| were to go to court and win (assuming we had grounds to sue in
| the first place), no court would require Google to change their
| system in that way (I suspect).
| joshuaissac wrote:
| What we need are non-practising entities that let victims
| pool together rights and go after those who file fraudulent
| copyright claims.
|
| It might not make financial sense for an individual to sue
| for any particular infraction, but pooling might result in
| economics of scale that make it worthwhile to pursue
| infringers.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Just a tought experiment:
|
| How about having two Youtube accounts and copyright-flagging your
| own videos?
|
| Then during the 30 day period your other account gets the ad
| revenue, oh well.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| Quite aside from this almost certainly being against the T&Cs,
| I'm not sure what happens when multiple parties claim the
| copyright. It's literally impossible (I think?) for them all to
| hold the copyright on the same melody, so how does Google
| resolve it?
| pdkl95 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM
|
| (cw: strong language)
|
| TL;DW - nothing happens, it's an unresolvable deadlock. This
| "feature" can sometimes be used by deliberately adding _many_
| easily claimable works in a video to prevent anybody from
| monetizing it.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| That's incredible - it's from five years ago. Are people
| still using the technique these days?
| pdkl95 wrote:
| Three copyright strikes and Google may delete your entire YT
| channel, while they continue to allow (and support via their
| "content id" service) an _unlimited_ number of _patently_
| fraudulent claims from accounts that are obviously just spamming
| claims to see how much ad revenue they can steal. This imbalance
| is at the core of this issue. Google will severely punish
| creators for alleged copyright violations, but allows fraudulent
| claims.
|
| If creators have to work under a "3 copyright strikes" Sword of
| Damocles[1], the accounts of people making copyright claims need
| similar restriction. If you submit 3 fraudulent copyright claims,
| you lose your account. You cannot submit any more claims,
| "content id" no longer flags your works, and you no longer
| receive payments from any ad revenue claims on other videos. This
| may sound harsh, but so is deleting someone's channel after 3
| copyright claims.
|
| [1] 17 U.S. Code SS 512 (i) (1) ...The limitations on liability
| established by this section shall apply to a service provider
| only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably
| implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the
| service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides
| for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers
| and account holders of the service provider's system or network
| who are repeat infringers
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If creators have to work under a "3 copyright strikes" Sword
| of Damocles[1], the accounts of people making copyright claims
| need similar restriction.
|
| Since you reference federal law and not a Google-specific
| policy here, perhaps the issue is _Congress_ , nto _Google_.
| kevingadd wrote:
| The Youtube system is not required by federal law. It's a
| worse system they created themselves.
| zamalek wrote:
| The Google process pre-empts DCMA, that's the real problem.
| Congress has already considered fraudulent claims, but Google
| has/will not.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The Google process pre-empts DCMA, that's the real
| problem
|
| The reference to federal law wasn't to the DMCA safe
| harbor, but to the repeat-infringer termination rule. The
| Google termination process fulfills that requirement rather
| than preempting it.
|
| > Congress has already considered fraudulent claims, but
| Google has/will not.
|
| Insofar as the first part is true, its only in the sense
| that Congress essentially gave _carte blanche_ to fradulent
| claims since the only consequence for false takedown
| notices apply only to the assertion of ownership or
| representation of the owner of some asserted copyright,
| _not_ the part where you claim that someone is using the
| copyright protected material in an infringing manner.
| [deleted]
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| It's hard to imagine a scenario where a faulty copyright claim
| is submitted in good faith. And are the accounts of such bad
| actors of particular value to them or more likely easily
| disposable? So, one strike for fraudulent copyright claims?
| Two?
|
| Edit: OK, ThrustVectoring and thanksforfish already pointed out
| the flaws in that argument.
| mistercool wrote:
| > So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the
| claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of
| ads running on our new production of a public domain opera.
|
| Can someone explain how the copyright trolls are able to steal
| the ad revenue? Do they upload a different video with the
| "copyrighted" material, or make money off of the one uploaded
| by the defendant?
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| The latter.
| leeter wrote:
| They make money off the one uploaded and inappropriately
| claimed until they release the claim (and the money) or
| decline the counter-claim. They also have an option to claim
| a strike against the flagged work.
| bonzini wrote:
| The latter. If a creator uses copyrighted (or allegedly
| copyrighted) material, ad revenue goes to the copyright
| owner.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> to the copyright owner_
|
| The copyright _claimant_ , which may or may not actually
| own any such right.
| bonzini wrote:
| Yeah that was implicit in the "allegedly" part.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Example: copyright trolls claiming videos that use public
| domain NASA footage.
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| The troll files a copyright claim against the PD post, then
| gets the ad revenue from the PD post rather than the post's
| author.
|
| Since there's no penalty for the troll, and possible upside,
| why not do if you have no ethics anyway?
| [deleted]
| bryan0 wrote:
| Does the ad revenue go to some sort of an escrow until the
| claim is settled? Otherwise this doesn't seem to make any
| sense (??)
| gumby wrote:
| If Youtube cared they would do something like this
| excellent idea.
| pitaj wrote:
| Yes it does, this is one of the recent changes to the
| system.
| mcguire wrote:
| Filing the copyright claim requires identifying information
| from the claimant. If the ad revenue is valuable enough,
| the posting creator should have a decent case for fraud.
| gumby wrote:
| But a few thousand bucks isn't enough to sue, while a
| robot can mass collect a few thousand bucks from a bunch
| of victims at one time.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Google does not have that kind of superior legal negotiating
| position. Copyright owners use ContentID and revenue sharing in
| lieu of suing Google for knowingly participating in copyright
| infringement. If Google locks out a copyright owner from their
| alternative to legal disputes, the next step is the copyright
| owner sending large quantities of mail to Google's legal
| department to get handled manually. Complete non-starter,
| Google _needs_ to have a highly automated system with copyright
| owner participation, and as I understand it copyright owners
| are forced to opt-in if it is provided.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Google needs an automated system, but not this goes far
| beyond what the automated system needs to do.
|
| > large quantities of mail to Google's legal department to
| get handled manually. Complete non-starter,
|
| Why is it an acceptable excuse for trillion-dollar-companies
| that compliance and manual oversight would incur costs? Like,
| it costs Ford tens of thousands to make each truck. Why
| shouldn't Google have to hire some people to oversee their
| program?
| krferriter wrote:
| Google can use the automated system while also cracking down
| on false copyright claims, using a strikes system for them
| too, and by not just handing the video revenue to the claim
| maker just because they make it. They can stash the revenue
| in a sort of escrow bucket until the copyright claim is
| actually resolved in either party's favor.
| joshuak wrote:
| The DMCA provides for a counter claim that would require
| Google to restore the alleged infringer's content unless the
| alleged owner promptly shows proof of a court filing against
| the alleged infringer. This is automatable, fair and allows
| Google to avoid litigation.
| thanksforfish wrote:
| I think a challenge is that the law provides much needed
| protections to YT if they protect copyright holders.
| Distinguishing between real and fraudulent claimants would need
| to be done very carefully; could accidentally denying a
| legitimate claim cause them to lose liability protections?
|
| If so, they'd need lawyers in the loop for any decision about
| denying a fraudulent copyright claim. The cost of that is
| likely enough to make them prefer the current setup.
| gwd wrote:
| I've posted this before, but I think it needs to look like
| this:
|
| 1. Claimant files a copyright claim with Google against a
| video owner. This immediately causes the video to be taken
| down / revenue to be redirected.
|
| 2. Video owner can contest the claim. This immediately causes
| the video to go back up / revenue to be refunded (or perhaps
| escrowed pending further procedures).
|
| 3. Claimant can now re-file the claim, but putting up enough
| money to have a real, trained human actually look at the case
| (I'm thinking on the order of $1000). Video is again
| immediately taken down, and revenue redirected.
|
| 4. The video owner can now re-contest the claim by putting up
| the same amount of money.
|
| - If the video owner doesn't re-contest the claim, the money
| is refunded and the process is over.
|
| - If the video owner contests the claim, they put up the same
| amount of money. A real, trained copyright lawyer looks at
| the case and decides. Whoever wins gets their money back.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| So if you can't put up $1000, but your counterpart can,
| you're screwed?
| gwd wrote:
| Technically yes; but:
|
| 1. It's still better than the current situation, where
| you're screwed regardless
|
| 2. Not even a large corporation is going to be willing to
| lose $1000 over and over again. The only time it's
| _rational_ to put up the $1000 is if you 're pretty sure
| you're going to win, or if you're pretty sure the other
| guy can't pay. I think the chances of any random person
| being unable to come up with $1000 are reasonably low. So
| most re-claims should generally be actually valid.
|
| 3. Theoretically one could imagine services like bond
| lenders starting up, which will look at your case and
| front you the $1000; and if you win you pay them a cut of
| the refund ($50? $100?). If my predection at the end of
| #2 turned out to be false, there should be a reasonable
| market for this sort of thing.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I think the chances of any random person being unable
| to come up with $1000 are reasonably low.
|
| I want to live in the world you live in! In the one I
| live in 1k is a lot of money to a lot of people to gamble
| on an uncertain process.
| tarboreus wrote:
| We're not talking about mom and pop, here, really. This
| is presumably a population that is making money on
| YouTube. Yes, $1000 is a lot to the average person, but
| as a business expense it's really not much. And getting
| your channel banned is career (or business) ending.
| mulmen wrote:
| We are talking about mom and pop though because the
| complaints are indiscriminate and automated.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Mom and pop have not much to lose on public YouTube
| content, content creators have.
| [deleted]
| andyfleming wrote:
| This is a good idea. Just have the revenue go into escrow
| immediately after the first claim though. That could reduce
| the motivation for fraudulent claimants since the payout is
| delayed. Also, to minimize overall cost, a creator can pay
| one fee to handle up to N open claims against them.
|
| Overall, I'm not sure all of this addresses the asymmetric
| impact since it could disrupt the primary income stream of
| a creator, but it's definitely a step in the right
| direction.
| OJFord wrote:
| That would be better IMO. As it is, or in GP's example,
| what happens if the producer dies, or just stops making
| and caring about YouTube videos?
|
| A shame if the historical ones are no longer available
| for anyone to enjoy because of spam copyright claims that
| nobody's present to contest.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Parts 1 and 2 are what the DMCA calls for, except that step
| 2 includes information provided to contact the video poster
| directly. And Part 3/4 is done in a court of law (using the
| info supplied in Part 2 to file suit).
| thanksforfish wrote:
| I wonder if that would cause legitimate copyright holders
| who don't have $1000 to tie up to be blocked. YT blocking
| legitimate claims could cause them to lose legal
| protections, which opens them up to liability directly.
| kevingadd wrote:
| The # of content ID rightsholders impacted by this would
| likely be much smaller than the # of creators right now
| being impacted by claims (fraudulent or otherwise).
|
| Blocking legit claims also would not threaten legal
| protections if done correctly. Under normal circumstances
| if a content creator is subject to a fraudulent claim
| they can file a DMCA counter notice, and the creator is
| required to sue to keep the content down. YouTube just
| asks the claimant 'is this legit'? And then tells the
| creator to go screw themselves, even though all they did
| was ask the claimant whether their fraudulent claim is
| fraudulent. They're not really following the normal
| process you're required to follow, they're following a
| special one they made to stop big companies from
| harassing them.
| jedberg wrote:
| These all sound great in one's head until you flip around
| the situation and imagine where the copyright holder is the
| small time creator and the infringer is the big corp. The
| big corp can absorb many $1000 claims, but the small
| creator cannot afford it.
|
| Requiring money up front from either party isn't really a
| good way to achieve justice.
| kevingadd wrote:
| This is effectively how the normal DMCA works, though. If
| they file a counter-notice the content goes back up and
| you have to sue them.
| cordite wrote:
| Is this proof of stake
| danaris wrote:
| YouTube's system goes _far_ beyond what is required for DMCA
| Safe Harbor.
| shadilay wrote:
| Viacom had lawyers and YT creators did not, therefore they
| did not have a seat at the table when YT's draconian
| copyright system was created.
| pavon wrote:
| No what happened is that YT creators were found to be
| blatantly and directly infringing on copyright by
| uploading copyrighted video themselves. As a result they
| had to accept unbalanced settlement terms negotiated from
| a position of weakness.
| shadilay wrote:
| I have never seen any evidence that "they", YT creators,
| had any input in the YT copyright system. There was no
| negotiation. YT is afterall a contract of adhesion.
| mulmen wrote:
| Sounds like a cost of running the largest streaming video
| service on the Internet. Should Google get free electricity
| to protect their bottom line?
| ehsankia wrote:
| > This imbalance is at the core of this issue.
|
| While that was very true 1-2 year ago, I believe the tides have
| actually shifted and Youtube has done a lot to re-balance this
| dynamic. Especially since Youtube v Brady [0], which was an
| exact example of the abuse you described.
|
| From my understanding, the person receiving the copyright claim
| now has more power to contest it. So much so that there
| recently was drama from the _other side_ , with a creator
| claiming their account was in danger because they tried to take
| down a copied video and the person contested it [1]. Take a
| look at the email from Youtube in that video for a taste of how
| the new system works [2].
|
| It's still far from perfect, and as shown above, it can also
| backfire the other way around, but it does seem like they are
| providing more tools for creators to defend themselves.
| Previously the only option was to get a lawyer and go to court.
| Clearly not ideal.
|
| [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/man-sued-for-
| usi...
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuF5k4QB_zg
|
| [2] https://ibb.co/4m8fyhJ
| [deleted]
| enriquto wrote:
| > _just another evil google thing_
|
| Einstein said that "The world will not be destroyed by those
| who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing
| anything". This _probably_ puts most of passive non-users of
| google as culprits in their wrong-doings.
|
| But the case of people who voluntarily partake in the
| perpetration of google services is different. There's no
| "probably", here; their moral standing is clear-cut. I'm unable
| to feel any sympathy towards them. Not even to say "it's
| unfortunate, but they had it coming". If you have a google
| account or use google services you are directly responsible of
| their evil deeds. At this point, complaining that they are
| unfair towards you is hypocritical.
|
| Google is nothing without its users.
| gmueckl wrote:
| Could you act as your own copyright troll? That is, what
| happens when you file copyright claims against your own works
| from a second account?
|
| Also, how many TOS and laws would this violate?
| bmn__ wrote:
| > Could you act as your own copyright troll?
|
| Yes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w
|
| > That is, what happens when you file copyright claims
| against your own works from a second account?
|
| You split half and half with the copyfraudster. If you make
| more sockpuppets to copystrike yourself, you get
| proportionally more and deprive the cf, e.g. 4 puppets vs 1
| cf splits 80%/20%.
|
| > Also, how many TOS and laws would this violate?
|
| lolwhocares, I'm with emplemon - no respect for broken tos
| and laws
| foolmeonce wrote:
| I still don't get why large holders aren't getting hit? If
| you were to file takedowns on Disney's misuse of mythology,
| or whatever, wouldn't you get 30 days of their income while
| letting their rebuttal expire?
| na85 wrote:
| You'll get thrown in jail for fraud.
|
| There are a different set of laws for the wealthy,
| including wealthy corporations.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Disney, other film studios, large record labels and
| distributers, etc, have the ability to place their
| content directly into YouTube's ContentID system so a
| copyright claim will generally be denied immediately by
| one of youtube's bots.
| inkblotuniverse wrote:
| Someone made a video about doing this:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo
|
| There are several more.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| This. I recorded myself playing some Saint-Saens on cello with a
| friend accompanying on the piano, uploaded it to youtube, and the
| copyright machine decided it's owned BMG. Couldn't believe it.
| twirlock wrote:
| It's probably still copyrighted in China or something. Or maybe
| Saudi Arabia.
| minikites wrote:
| What incentive does Google have to fix this? There's no viable
| competition in this space.
| qwertox wrote:
| Google's copyright-recognition AI and how they deal with
| everything regarding copyright on YouTube should be a heads up
| for the German court which will be ruling on the Sony Music vs
| Quad9 case.
|
| One of the biggest companies in the world, the one owning some of
| the most advanced AI systems, isn't capable to rule internally in
| a fair way on copyright issues, such that the spirit of how
| copyright is supposed to work is completely neglected.
|
| Now apply this to DNS, including the fact that Google isn't the
| only one providing resolvers. What a horrible thing to do from
| Sony.
| amelius wrote:
| The internet brought us the promise that anybody could be a
| broadcaster.
|
| Well, that promise sure didn't hold up long.
| schuyler2d wrote:
| I'm somewhat surprised that Google doesn't track public domain
| works and see them as such -- it seems like a perfect honeypot to
| distinguish copyright trolls (or just over-aggressive
| studio/record-company algorithms) which they could regulate or
| push back against.
|
| I.e. public domain works are a good input to their own AI -- why
| are they leaving that on the table?
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| A specific _performance_ of a public-domain work may still be
| copyrighted. The problem is that their algorithms are not
| really tuned to distinguish different performances of the same
| song - on the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that their
| algorithms try to find as many similiar-sounding matches as
| possible, so that e.g. a song playing in the background on a
| radio is still recognized, even though it obviously sounds very
| different compared to a direct recording of a song.
| mod50ack wrote:
| That's decidedly not the problem here. They didn't confuse my
| recording for a copyrighted performance. The claim was that I
| used a copyrighted melody in an original performance --- but
| the melody is public domain.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what were those four strikes then, if not
| for four different copyrighted performances of the work?
| From my understanding of how ContentID works, matches are
| always done against recordings provided by copyright
| holders, and not against abstract melodies.
| mod50ack wrote:
| It's an opera with various songs. For four of these
| songs, content ID reported a melody match with a
| composition. Keep in mind that compositions and
| performances have separate copyrights and often separate
| owners! Compositions have to be registered separately in
| content ID.
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2822002?hl=en
|
| What happened was that each song was correctly identified
| by its melody and matched with an entry in the
| composition database, even though the compositions are
| clearly public domain.
| superasn wrote:
| Google's AI has gone totally bonkers. I've been routinely getting
| emails about 'adult content' in my videos and my videos get age
| restricted. Last one was a simple screen recording I made of an
| error to send a company with nothing but mostly white screen.
|
| I tried to appeal it but it also got rejected too (I guess that's
| also automatic?) and a quick search showed that I'm not alone, it
| is happening a lot.(1)
|
| The email you get from Google is also very scary like my actions
| may have some negative consequences for my Youtube account.
|
| (1)
| https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+YouTube+age+restricte...
| breakingcups wrote:
| I truly don't understand the point of appeals to an automated
| process if the handling of that appeal is also going to be
| automatic.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| So you have a number of AI bots running but some take longer
| and use more computing power than other ones - as you go
| through the appeals process you get shuffled along to the
| more and more expensive bots until finally you get denied by
| every bot and are fresh out of appeals.
| blunte wrote:
| Or the appeals are automatic "No, sorry" responses.
|
| I would love to see proof of an AI appeal that was
| successful.
| ourcat wrote:
| I recently had an Android app removed from the Play Store for
| offensive content in the screenshots.
|
| We're a music site/radio station, and the name of the song
| playing in the player was 'XXX'. That's all it was. It has been
| in the store like that for a few years.
|
| Updating the screenshots got it listed again, but it was, as
| you say, totally bonkers.
| samplenoise wrote:
| The consensus here on this kind of issues these days seems to be
| that it's not Google's fault. However if their rights model would
| make a correct and consistent distinction between works and
| performance, they would know that there is no right holder to the
| work (melody) they've identified. It's not impossible that there
| are copyright trolls spamming their database with performances of
| public domain works and claiming both type of rights, but than
| they should have a system to flag those as inconsistent with
| known public domain material. They have the money to clean up
| their data, it's just not as fun as iterating on their audio to
| performance and audio to work ML systems, which seem to work fine
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| The best way to fix Google (or Facebook, or Apple, or Amazon for
| that matter), is to replace it. Alternatives exist, please use
| them.
| flixic wrote:
| This article mentions that a troll is getting ad revenue. Which
| makes me assume that the author would like to benefit from ad
| revenue themselves.
|
| Do any alternatives exist in that space? Facebook's revenue
| share and copyright detection algorithms are even worse;
| Patreons work for existing fanbase. Youtube is probably your
| only choice for public viewing monetisation.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Copyright trolls are parasites, I would have a huge problem
| with them benefiting off my stuff even if I myself wouldn't
| make a dime on it. You can easily make arguments in favor of
| rental housing, usury and such, but there is absolutely no
| defense for this kind of behavior, I just find it immoral.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Firstly, it's not a given everybody wants to monetise
| everything.
|
| Secondly, advertising is only one form of monetisation. As a
| classical music fan myself, I am not going to enjoy any video
| that takes that route - I'd be happier with a sponsorship
| route or a "click here to buy on music services" (or even
| "click here to buy tickets for our upcoming performances"),
| link.
|
| Lastly, yes, other video platforms offer advertising, and
| they will only get better if content producers make them more
| competitive with YouTube.
| wincy wrote:
| It's such a crazy small pittance that a creator gets from
| ad revenue. I watched a video recently of a YouTube channel
| with 3 million subscribers doing a breakdown of how they
| make money, and they make $700 a month off the advertising.
| Luckily they have a Patreon that they make $30,000 a month
| off of, which they've used to make some really amazing
| content. It's sort of bizarre that they even run the ads on
| their videos, honestly, as you'd think not running them
| would increase appeal leading to more Patreon subscribers.
| Cipater wrote:
| _I watched a video recently of a YouTube channel with 3
| million subscribers doing a breakdown of how they make
| money, and they make $700 a month off the advertising._
|
| What's the channel? This doesn't sound right. At all.
| wincy wrote:
| You know, I checked and their breakdown of earnings video
| is from 4 years ago. My mistake.
|
| Thanks for letting me know because I was shocked at how
| little money they seemed to be making from ads vs
| Patreon.
| chovybizzass wrote:
| just use odyssey
| jedberg wrote:
| I just read a good related story yesterday. Someone on TikTok (in
| Canada) created an original "song" of them singing along with a
| cat. The song got really popular. So popular that they put the
| song on Spotify and made it available for sale.
|
| And then the original got taken down from TikTok Canada with the
| warning that "This music is not available in your country".
|
| They literally got a copyright notice on their own song with they
| licensed for sale in US.
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| What keeps bugging me with the whole copyright dilemma on Youtube
| and Twitch is that it very much feels like a "guilty upon
| accusation, only innocent when proven otherwise" situation.
|
| In my opinion it's fine that an algorithm _detects_ usage of
| copyrighted material, but it should not automatically issue
| strikes of any kind.
|
| For copyright claims (false or valid) content producers should be
| treated "innocent unless proven otherwise", as in, the copyright
| holder has to prove that usage does not fall under fair-use.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Note that it doesn't issue strikes, it only either blocks the
| video or directs ad revenue to the (alleged) copyright owner.
| You could get 100 content ID detections and not lose your
| account (although YouTube might suspend you for abuse if you
| just continuously upload hundreds of hours of copyrighted
| material).
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I mixed up the strike and
| content ID thing.
|
| Still you loose money, something that should (IMHO) not
| happen just because a system / copyright holder _thinks_ you
| _might_ be infringing.
|
| After watching Tom Scott's video linked somewhere here, I get
| where this comes from and that it is more of a problem with
| copyright in itself and the way entities with money can
| leverage that.
| Animats wrote:
| File criminal charges for false claim of copyright. It's a
| criminal offense in the US. While this is very seldom prosecuted,
| it's worth doing the paperwork to raise the issue and create a
| paper trail. The Center for New Media Rights might help.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.newmediarights.org/
| specialist wrote:
| Many comments have referenced DMCA's perjury safeguards.
|
| Is anyone keeping score? Who are the claimants? How many are
| trolls? How many claims are adjudicated and how?
|
| Surely YouTube (Google) has metrics. Make it all public.
|
| I couldn't readily find Daniel Benjamin Miller's Trial by Jury.
| Even then, I don't know if third parties (you and me) can see
| the claimants.
|
| _Edit: Found it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKsDpu5D60_
|
| OC's video had four separate claimants; Surely at least 3 are
| invalid, right?
|
| Google's DNA is to shirk any responsibility, shifting all
| administrative burden onto the afflicted.
|
| They absolutely have the means to bat away spurious claims, but
| simply choose not to bother. They're hiding behind a rigid
| interpretation of DMCA, "What choice do we have??", because
| reasons.
| SSLy wrote:
| murikan company doesn't care about users, news at 11.
| Laremere wrote:
| I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's
| Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is."
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
|
| While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the
| right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the
| vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system
| fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps
| Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's
| hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems
| with Youtube specific problems.
|
| Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely
| sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in
| many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with
| modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a
| way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching
| with their claims.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| ContentID is far beyond what YT needs to do to prevent
| themselves from being sued by copyright holders. It's a
| proactive difficult (or impossible) to appeal system. The DMCA
| requires much less involvement on their part.
| mod50ack wrote:
| Oh, Tom is right. I've seen his video (actually a fan of his
| stuff), and I know that there's a real problem here for Google.
| They need to cover their asses here, and with good reason. And
| in many cases the problem is with the global copyright system.
|
| But this isn't such a case --- nobody should get flagged for
| performing Sullivan or Mozart. It's absurd and a much easier
| problem to solve than the ones involving fair use which Tom
| discusses.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Without a system like YT currently has, it would get
| absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright
| complaints._
|
| That's false, the DMCA's safe harbor provision for content
| hosts has a mechanism in place for handling this.
| twirlock wrote:
| No, it's not a problem of the copyright system that Google the
| corporation doesn't care about the concept of public domain.
| That's a "quasi-government monopoly that benefits from gestapo
| apologetics whenever the public critiques the obvious issues
| any imbecile could otherwise identify" problem.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I think you are probably basically right, but it seems notable
| that what YouTube does is _not_ just a DMCA by-the-books
| implementation, but their own policy /structure, right?
|
| That is, they give copyright claimants more flexibilty/power
| than the DMCA strictly requires; the DCMA "counter-claim"
| process would let them put the material back up in response to
| a counter claim the end without the original claimant needing
| to approve or agree with your counter-claim, which is not how
| YouTube operates.
|
| Youtube's system _resembles_ the DMCA, but is not the DMCA, and
| is much more pro-claimant than the actual DMCA.
|
| Woudln't an actual DMCA proess be sufficient to avoiding "suing
| out of oblivion"?
|
| My guess is that part of is YouTube's current business model,
| they make money by enforcing copyright, they have no
| business/profit incentive to let you file a DMCA counter-
| notice, and plenty to make it even easier than the DMCA
| specifies to file a claim.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| YouTube's "ContentID" system came about at roughly the same
| time as Vevo (music videos on demand) became a thing. My
| guess is that it was implemented to appease the rights
| holders so they'd put their videos on YouTube.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| This is as usual a very well done video, and as Tom Scott
| mentions, there is a gap between the law and what's happening
| online.
|
| He argues for how the small guy is protected by the status quo,
| but glosses over how the big players also massively get away
| with behaviors that would be prohibitively expensive/labor
| intensive/turned against them to do without youtube's system.
|
| > a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly
| overreaching
|
| That critically is covered by the law, and removed from the
| start from Youtube's system.
| swiley wrote:
| I hated that video. I think he's absolutely wrong.
|
| If that's really the case then how come people on /gif/ and
| /wsg/ on 4chan haven't been sued? There's tons of copyrighted
| music on there (the ygyl threads are almost all just commercial
| music with anime.)
|
| By removing the legal system Google has short circuited the
| law. There is a protection for individuals here, it's called
| perjury. If the claimants here pulled the same shit they do on
| 4chan that they do on youtube they would be perjured and that's
| why they haven't deployed bots to go suing people.
| plantsbeans wrote:
| I don't understand how perjury applies here.
| antiterra wrote:
| The DMCA has a ( _de facto_ toothless) perjury clause for
| knowingly submitting a takedown for content that doesn't
| violate the copyright of the claimant. That doesn't apply
| to YouTube claims that are handled via their internal tools
| outside of the DMCA process.
| swiley wrote:
| >de facto toothless
|
| On YouTube, it appears to work just fine on other sites
| like GitHub.
| loeg wrote:
| When has a corporation been punished for perjury for
| false DMCA takedown notices on Github?
| _0ffh wrote:
| If you make a false copyright infringemenet claim, you
| commit perjury.
|
| https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_
| a...
| gnopgnip wrote:
| The big difference here is 4chan threads are ephemeral, they
| rarely show on on search engines. Youtube vidoes often rank
| highly
| antiterra wrote:
| YouTube was sued by Viacom, and Paramount I believe, with
| some support given by Universal. Mind you this happened
| _after_ content ID was in place, but was limited to content
| that came before. Viacom ended up settling while appealing
| the decision from the Court of Appeals.
|
| It seems clear from the opinion that Content ID itself was
| evidence YouTube was actively collaborating with content
| creators. The court believed creation of that collaboration
| was the intent of the DMCA takedown process. It doesn't seem
| like something they could remove without serious
| repercussion.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Sue 4chan and members? And garner the focused attention of
| one of the most vile communities of trolls the world has ever
| seen? Let me get my popcorn, because that will be an epic
| shitshow to watch.
| swiley wrote:
| >4chan and members
|
| 4chan has no members?
| Forbo wrote:
| Users that bought a 4chan pass could be considered
| "members" of a sort. Regardless of whatever you choose to
| call them, be it "users", "members", or "shitposters", I
| think the point you're trying to make is overly pedantic.
| swiley wrote:
| My point is that every other website doesn't appear to
| have this problem, it's definitely one Google created.
| esjeon wrote:
| > a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly
| overreaching with their claims.
|
| That will only harm small businesses and individuals. It
| doesn't take a huge sum of imagination to draw the situation in
| the brain. A lawyer hired by a big corporation on one side, and
| a poor artist on another side, both standing in the same
| courtroom. You already get the drama about to happen. Lawyers
| will happily bully those poor souls that they are fully capable
| of introducing more misery to their opponents, so you should
| just sign this paper and f** off. A few may resist, and few
| will survive, but the majority won't even take the case to the
| court out of fear.
|
| So, no, that's not a solution.
| pkilgore wrote:
| The corporate bullies have been trotting out this argument
| forever to keep the status quo. But it is not as if it is
| impossible to craft a law that carves out protections for
| this exact harm, like fee shifting provisions or a cheaper
| administrative proceeding available to small business and
| non-corporate ownership. We are, as a society, capable of
| changing and writing creative laws.
|
| Specifically here, how do you imagine a punishment for
| overreach hurting small owners? They are the plaintiffs here,
| assuming they bring meritorious casee, they are in the
| driver's seat with no downside over the status quo.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| If the copyright owners were punished (monetarily) for broad
| overreach, then the poor artist's lawyers would take the
| cases on contingency.
| kevingadd wrote:
| The DMCA (federal law) already provides a way to punish
| claimants, both small and large alike. A false claim under
| the DMCA is perjury (a felony in many locales). YouTube's
| system isn't the DMCA, which is why it's worse for creators
| and more generous to fraudulent claimants.
| bccdee wrote:
| The way to punish someone for a false claim (both for
| claims filed on youtube and claims filed elsewhere) is to
| file an expensive lawsuit against the original claimant.
| It's very burdensome.
| izacus wrote:
| No it's not, but it's what DMCA is. And EU is following USA
| with building broad and abusive copyright protection
| legislation.
|
| And everytime there's a proposal to make copyright law less
| abusive and ridiculous, there's a huge pushback from both
| authors, giant content megacorps and even people on HN who
| should know better.
|
| I bet Warner/Disney/etc. lawyers are laughing their ass off
| when Google - due to their crazy incompetence and use of AI -
| gets blamed for the law they lobbied to accept.
| pkilgore wrote:
| Last I checked DCMA did not require proactive removal like
| contintID, but to be responsive to claims. Did that change?
| izacus wrote:
| No, but the claims are automated as well (there are APIs
| between content publishers and big content silos which
| make this distinction pretty unimportant).
|
| Ideally, the law would defend you against content
| providers and Googles/YouTubes and protect you from
| frivoulous claims. Instead DMCA codifies this approach
| (even if it's a bit different than what Google is doing
| right now).
| kevingadd wrote:
| The codified counter-notice approach in the DMCA is
| different from YouTube's approach in a very significant
| way. The difference is clearly felt by creators.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| No, I don't get it. When a large corp steals music from a
| small musician, they already get all this, and copyright
| doesn't help with the situation. Disney has been ripping off
| independent artists and musicians for decades with no
| consequences. Ffs even Robin Williams struggled to get paid
| by them.
|
| I'm not sure what situation you're describing?
| leeter wrote:
| I personally think the better solution is going back to how
| copyright worked pre 1976, where copyright had to be positively
| asserted to exist and everything else went into the public
| domain. I'm also of the position that a 'make available' clause
| needs to be added to ensure that a work is constantly available
| during its period of copyright; moreover if the rightsholder
| should fail to make it available for longer than a set period
| of time it reverts to the public domain permanently. Finally I
| think the default period for copyright should be 23years (in
| line with patents) with progressively more expensive renewals
| based on the annual income of the property, the goal being to
| encourage people to let things go into the public domain unless
| they are extremely profitable.
| shadilay wrote:
| I wholly agree with this but the extension period should be
| forever with exponentially increasing fees not based on the
| profit of the work which can be gamed like movies are.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Why forever and not terminated at the author's funeral (or
| 20 years after publication, whichever is later)?
| redflagsTA wrote:
| This is tougher when the work is produced by a team and
| the copyright is owned by the company.
|
| There also needs to be logic to handle this other case.
| not2b wrote:
| Wouldn't help; with Content ID the big companies are
| positively asserting copyright to things they don't own.
| grishka wrote:
| IMO copyright for creative works should last a year, maybe
| two or three, but no more. The most income something
| generates is usually when it just gets released. Movies, for
| example, usually don't even count their revenue from outside
| of movie theaters.
|
| This is the only way to make copyright mostly work, and make
| people respect it. Right now it's so long it could as well
| never expire. On the other hand, if it only lasts several
| years, many people would have the choice of paying right now
| or waiting for the copyright to expire and getting it for
| free. It's also very unfortunate that the entirety of our pop
| culture is covered by copyright right now.
|
| And second thing to make it work even better: copyright
| should not be transferable. It should not be possible to sign
| something to forfeit your exclusive rights to your own work.
| sverhagen wrote:
| >The most income something generates is usually when it
| just gets released.
|
| YouTube is still making me pay to see movies (again) that I
| saw decades ago. Meanwhile, didn't Bob Dylan sell his
| entire catalogue for $300 million, just last year? David
| Guetta, $100 million? Paul Simon? I am not saying this is
| how I want things to work. Just that your statement seems
| factually... troublesome?
| giantrobot wrote:
| The GP parent said "most" while you're listing obvious
| outliers.
| jfim wrote:
| Would moral rights have a longer period in this case? In
| the current US copyright regime with a long forward, moral
| rights aren't really considered too much, but with a
| shorter covered period it might actually happen during the
| author's lifetime that their art is used in a way that they
| don't approve.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > usually don't even count their revenue from outside of
| movie theaters
|
| I assure you, people are counting revenue. They're not
| releasing Blurays as a charity.
| grishka wrote:
| I meant in publicly available "box office" figures and
| all that. Box office earnings alone usually cover all the
| expenses already, many times over.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| I'm fairly sure the only reason for this is to minimize
| backend payments to actors & directors.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Exactly, it's to not pay anyone that has terms in their
| contracts that say something like "earns 1% of the film's
| profits". If all the revenue is paid out to the studio in
| the form of "consulting fees" then voila: no profits.
| akiselev wrote:
| The industry doesn't exist in a vacuum - movies and TV
| shows are all financed with the expectation of long tail
| revenue and the people financing them are the ones who
| invented Hollywood accounting. A lot of the big budget
| stuff would be too risky without that revenue and it
| effects everything from the actor-SAG-studio relationship
| to licensing deals between major studios.
| blacklight wrote:
| I don't get it: if Google correctly identified that the melody
| was from a 100+ years old composition, and that it wasn't a
| reproduction of copyrighted content, why did it raise a copyright
| infringement claim in the first place? It sounds like it has
| already a database of compositions it matches against, and the
| year of release is probably reported on that database. The
| solution may be as simple as not raising a copyright infringement
| claim on any match again compositions that are 70 years old or
| older.
| narrator wrote:
| In the constitution you have the 5th amendment due process
| clause. This is basically your right to good customer service
| from the government when you are the one charged with a crime.
| The administration of due process is very expensive, and any good
| corporate manager driven by OKRs focused on revenue would do away
| with the process all together in favor of plaintiffs, unless the
| defendant was a significant taxpayer or something like that.
|
| This does not apply to private corporations. However, now we have
| these trial like processes going on inside of Google and they are
| driven by OKRs and quarterly profits, so its 100% plaintiff
| friendly, because Google knows the defendants are largely
| powerless and not revenue generators.
| fencepost wrote:
| I find myself wondering if there's any grounds for action based
| on "unjust enrichment" here, because there are absolutely
| entities making money they're not entitled to. If there's
| involuntary monetization then Google is definitely one of those
| entities.
| mlang23 wrote:
| I've said that in a comment about a similar article recently, and
| it needs to be repeated here: Google is actually helping big
| players to harass small groups into submission. And they are
| using their copyright system as a weapon. But nobody questions
| the sloppy execution of that self-declared law enforcement. I
| guess they are deliberately trying what they can get away with,
| to set the ground for future harassment.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I don't think Google is the main culprit here.
|
| The big players have big lawyers. And they fell on YouTube like
| vultures the moment Google bought it. Google essentially had no
| choice if they wanted to keep YouTube alive in a way that isn't
| a massive loss for them. Small groups don't have what it takes
| to defend themselves, so it is obvious which way Google is
| going.
|
| The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls
| for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is
| very little penalties for bogus claims.
|
| Still, I don't think what Google does now is good, and I think
| it will be their downfall if they don't correct course. It is
| understandable, but it definitely looks like the company is run
| by robots running a Monte-carlo simulation. It is a very good
| way of solving computational problems, but it not really
| compatible with the way human work.
|
| In the future, I expect tech giants dominance to erode thanks
| to companies that actually look like they are being run by
| humans who care about their customers/partners/users. There are
| stories all over the web about customers being shut down with
| no reason given. Technically, Google may have excellent
| security and reliability, but I don't want my business to
| depend on what is from my point of view, a dice-rolling
| company.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| >The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA
| calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and
| there is *very little penalties for bogus claims.*
|
| I would have to disagree here. The penalty for knowingly
| filing a DMCA claim is perjury. Since it is typucally used as
| a weapon against the little guys though, we've never got to
| see this actually enforced.
| prox wrote:
| The problem is that trying to talk to Google, or even have a
| meaningful dialogue is like trying to talk to a stone wall.
| You can talk but no one is there to listen. I doubt even
| there is anyone from Google here on HN who can do anything
| about this.
| [deleted]
| krferriter wrote:
| Google's system for handling copyright claims is largely
| disconnected from provisions of the DMCA law. Google created
| its system in order to avoid contact with the legal system.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Let us be clear: what Google does has nothing to do with
| DMCA. This is entirely out of their own volition.
| lovehashbrowns wrote:
| Google's ContentID came as a result of Viacom's lawsuit in
| 2007. It's used to hang on to their "safe harbor" status.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement
| _...
|
| One of the provisions is that the service provider isn't
| directly profiting from infringing content.
|
| A publisher would argue it's unfair for Google/Youtube to
| be considered a safe harbor if they make money from ad
| revenue between the time the infringing content is
| published and taken down by a DMCA claim. They'd also claim
| Google makes money using infringing content if users know
| that content is being hosted on Youtube.
| superice wrote:
| Okay, evil shower thought: why not actively start abusing this on
| a massive scale, claim as many copyrights as you can
| automatically so Google has to address this? If they don't do
| anything, you put the 'stolen' revenue in a fund for uploaders to
| access again.
|
| Worst case, nothing happens, and video uploaders still get a
| payout, best case Google is forced to make some changes.
| thrwaeasddsaf wrote:
| I'm with you on this. The system is blatantly broken, and one
| way to get something done about it is to get _everyone_ to
| abuse the hell out of it so that the system gets removed or
| fixed.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Maybe we could use deep RNN to produce novel but likely
| soundbytes that politicians are likely to say to be included in
| copyright audio tracks, and then hit the politicians' videos
| themselves.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-28 23:01 UTC)