[HN Gopher] TV Museum will die in 48 hours unless Sony retracts ...
___________________________________________________________________
TV Museum will die in 48 hours unless Sony retracts YouTube
copyright strikes
Author : CoBE10
Score : 354 points
Date : 2023-09-04 11:02 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| Moggie100 wrote:
| The title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel
| would make the museum 'die' then they're simply not preserving
| the data properly.
|
| I'm not sure why folks seem to think that Youtube is a good place
| to archive anything - sure its a good distribution system, but
| time and time again we see that a handful of malicious actors can
| shut down entire channels with relative ease.
|
| I would hope that these videos are backed up somewhere else on
| any of the many bulk cloud storage providers out there B2, AWS,
| Google cloud storage, etc. etc. etc. and could, with some effort
| be made available elsewhere than Youtube, or restored to the
| platform after the current storm dies down.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Exactly. The only thing you can trust The Google to do
| correctly is delete all your data.
| porkbeer wrote:
| If only.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| A museum that nobody can access is just a warehouse.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| A museum acting as a warehouse is preserving the past for the
| future, when what they've archived can be made publicly
| available again.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Nobody can prohibit the _preservation_ , that is to say
| _archiving_ , of copyrighted works. This right is protected
| by the law, at least in the US which is relevant here.
|
| What is prohibited by law is _distribution_ of copyrighted
| works. You need permission or an appropriate license from the
| rightsholders concerned to distribute or otherwise perform a
| copyrighted work in public.
|
| It is nearly always the latter that a lot of these so-called
| "archives" trip over. Everyone, including Big Corp, is fine
| with having their copyrighted works preserved.
|
| Obligatory IANAL.
| crote wrote:
| Big Corp is _absolutely not_ fine with having their work
| preserved. See for example the Disney Vault and the recent
| move to create modern adaptations rather than doing reruns
| of classics. They are terrified of their works entering
| public domain and want you to forget they ever existed at
| all and just pay your monthly streaming fee.
| Moggie100 wrote:
| True enough, but even physical museums have warehouses where
| the artefacts are safely preserved between viewings.
|
| Analogies aside, I'm not against anyone using Youtube (or any
| other platform) for distribution - just that it absolutely
| should not be also used for your actual archive. There are
| much, much safer and better systems for that.
|
| Replicate to preserve!
| s0rce wrote:
| Those often support researchers and aren't just warehouses
| but it is a bit disappointing how much of the really neat
| stuff you can't see without special access. I really enjoy
| seeing rock and mineral collections and got a tour of the
| Royal Ontario Museum collection from a research
| collaborator when I was in Toronto and it was so cool to
| see.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Museum, often, are 90% warehouse.
|
| The idea that museums should have exhibitions and be open to
| the public was a later development.
| Inhibit wrote:
| That's generally the case with most museums. Only a fraction
| have physical displays.
|
| The idea is that the "stuff" is archived or stored properly
| which is much less of a burden. When it's desirable to do so
| public displays of it can be created.
| wl wrote:
| Most museums display only a fraction of their holdings at any
| given time.
| cwillu wrote:
| Because of limitations on physical space.
| jebarker wrote:
| I think curation is inherently valued too.
| hgsgm wrote:
| And if the full collection is on display, more people can
| curate
| s0rce wrote:
| Doesn't curation imply the full collection is not on
| display? I guess it depends on the definition you use.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Don't think you're understanding what curate means in
| this context
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| With a TV show, I would expect the curation to involve
| exhibits _about_ it. Summaries, context, interviews, etc.
| The actual episodes should be easy to access and not in
| cold storage.
| jebarker wrote:
| In the TV show case I think curation means highlighting
| notable content and grouping together similar content
| (for various definitions of similar). I suppose the
| algorithms attempt to do this but are generally bad
| compared to human curation. I agree that it makes no
| sense to have all content available underneath this
| curation though.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Distributed p2p is a thing.
| 3np wrote:
| Quality deterioration is another. Youtube has certainly recoded
| archives many times. 10yo less viewed vids look like crap not
| necessarily because of the source material..
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| Most people don't want to deal with data. So the idea that
| someone else will deal with the data is attractive to most
| people. It's as simple as that really. I used to work at a non-
| profit and we dealt with a lot of video and we spent a lot of
| time keeping that stuff organized and preventing data
| corruption.
| modzu wrote:
| this is a straw man. it's not just youtube that's within reach
| of sony's lawyers -- but your cloud, your isp, your basement
| server..
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Youtube could reject Sony's copyright claims if they wanted,
| but they're pretending to be helpless bystanders. Don't play
| their game.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sony could file an injunction if they wanted. Trying to
| defend the legality of hundreds of hours of variety TV is a
| Fair Use suicide mission, even if you've got Apple or Tesla
| lawyers. There's probably thousands of legally legitimate
| copyright claims to be made distributing footage like that.
| The value in defending it is marginal, especially for a
| business like YouTube.
|
| > Don't play their game.
|
| I don't think anyone _wants_ to play their game. Alas, here
| we are rolling our dice again because hosted video
| platforms don 't work without finding someone to host it.
| bannedbybros wrote:
| [dead]
| TekMol wrote:
| Why is YouTube needed for this project?
|
| Why not just put all those videos on a webserver?
| porkbeer wrote:
| Cost.
| yaur wrote:
| Is this MBC[1] or a different Chicago based classic tv museum?
|
| [1] https://www.museum.tv/
| mopenstein wrote:
| They do encode old content but also add the biggest and ugliest
| watermark in the lower third of the media advertising their
| website in everyone of the videos. Doesn't preservation usually
| mean not destroying the works with tacky advertisements that
| can't be removed without permanently altering the original
| content?
|
| I consume (and share) a lot of old video and I don't see this as
| a big loss since you can't enjoy the original works as they were
| intended to be.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"I consume"
|
| I prefer to watch (talking about video)> I mean those marketing
| vultures can call me whatever the fuck they want but I do not
| give a shit. I do not consume, I watch, read, eat, drink and so
| on.
| [deleted]
| criddell wrote:
| I also feel a little sad whenever I hear somebody describe
| themselves as a _content creator_. They are giving in to the
| idea that their work exists just to sandwich ads around in
| somebody else's CMS.
| julianeon wrote:
| Actually I think if you put your comment and the parent
| comment together, you can see why they use that term.
| Because the alternative to the phrase "content creator",
| for a single online person, might be: I am a YouTube video
| creator; an X tweet, photograph and video creator; an
| Instagram post, photo and video creator; also an ebook
| writer... obviously this gets unwieldy fast. "Content
| creator" conveniently covers it all. What I think using
| "read/write/record" misses, is that the format is not
| materially important.
| julianeon wrote:
| Actually I think if you put your comment and the parent
| comment together, you can see why they use that term.
| Because the alternative to the phrase "content creator",
| for a single online person, might be: I am a YouTube video
| creator; an X tweet, photograph and video creator; an
| Instagram post, photo and video creator; also an ebook
| writer... obviously this gets unwieldy fast. "Content
| creator" conveniently covers it all. What I think using
| "read/write/record" misses, is that the format is not
| materially important, when the important thing is your
| audience.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Mod parent up!
| izzydata wrote:
| Also the video still exists after watching it so it has not
| been consumed.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Though its corresponding anti-video in your mind is
| consumed when you watch it. As in, you can't watch it twice
| "for the first time", and the first time is always special.
| mlyle wrote:
| "Consume" is a generic economic term that encompasses any use
| of a good or service.
| FpUser wrote:
| I know that. And I understand when marketers use it in
| their business internally. When the person says I consume
| in relation to say watching a move as in this case, reading
| a book etc. it is different in my opinion.
| hluska wrote:
| > Biggest and ugliest watermark
|
| Please show me a citation that indicates that this is, in fact,
| the biggest and ugliest watermark in the history of watermarks.
| In lieu of that, please leave the hyperbole in grade school.
| throwaway_ab wrote:
| Exactly my thoughts.
|
| I had a look at the channel and wondered why there was no true
| archival version provided by either:
|
| 1. The channel org itself via "Internet Archive" and/or
| torrents.
|
| 2. The community. It is trivial to create archival copies of
| youtube channels and most rare true archival footage on youtube
| will be mirrored elsewhere, even if "illegally".
|
| (1) does not exist and (2) is non existent either, no one
| considers these encodes valuable enough to preserve, which does
| seem odd considering it is unique data.
|
| Load up the videos, and you see a giant watermark, thus
| destroying any archival usage.
|
| No one will fight for this channnel, no one will bother
| mirroring it, because every encode is ruined and flawed.
|
| If the channel/org has the originals, consider talking to
| Internet Archive
| saurik wrote:
| Oh come on... I read these comments and was thinking I'd see
| something ridiculously large--maybe even taking up a third of
| the video--not something that's only like a tenth the
| vertical space. Yes: it would be better to not have it, but a
| lot of TV stations had watermarks on TV shows at the time!
| This isn't that large, I can see through it, and the audio is
| (of course) fine.
|
| The reason no one is mirroring these things isn't because of
| the watermarks: it is because all of this content was already
| just ephemera that most people consider trash in the first
| place. Hell: I care a lot about this stuff... but do I want
| to personally spend the money to carry it around forever?
| This is a lot of content that I will never personally watch
| much of. But is that because of the URL watermark? No.
|
| (edit: Oh god... I started watching some of this stuff and
| realized it isn't just commercials but local Chicago news
| reporting on important historical topics and now I am in fact
| frantically archiving parts of the channel, though I am
| definitely doing so selectively; but like, they clearly
| themselves were uploading somewhat selectively, so the hit
| rate is higher than I had initially hoped even though it is
| still certainly a small fraction of the channel.)
| oefrha wrote:
| TV station watermarks are usually a lot less intrusive than
| this www.fuzzymemories.tv wordmark (URL-mark?), and logos
| are arguably timeless compared to URLs -- this one seems to
| be dead already, says "External Error" when I visit.
| RF_Enthusiast wrote:
| To me, the TV station/network watermarks from the
| original broadcasts are actually part of the history.
| mopenstein wrote:
| It's not high art, I'll concede that point, but it has some
| value in its unaltered state. There's been countless times
| I was looking for something only to have my hopes dashed
| because it was being made available from this channel
| alone. I'll also concede I'm not the average consumer of
| entertainment. But if this stuff isn't for people like me,
| then who? If no one cares, why produce it all? If all it
| does is frustrate the people that do care, why produce it
| all?
|
| Watermarks have their place, if you're the original
| creator, but to take works from others and slap your ad on
| it is pretty despicable (relatively).
| saurik wrote:
| Sure: I am not defending that they added the watermark,
| and agree that that sucks (and would even accept
| "despicable" as a good adjective to describe it)... I am
| merely defending that, if the only copy I have access to
| has a watermark, it has effectively zero impact on any
| use case I can fathom for the video.
| justin66 wrote:
| The watermarks signify that these are trash, and the real
| copies are archived elsewhere. That's why nobody is rushing
| to mirror them: it's inconceivable that anyone would go to
| the trouble of making these and not preserve the non
| watermarked versions.
| saurik wrote:
| And are they going to upload it somewhere we can find it
| easily later? I dunno: I ended up _hand selecting_ just
| over 200 of these videos that I 'd be sad to not have
| access to later, and am downloading them (almost half of
| those are going to take me hours to finish) so I have a
| copy.
| justin66 wrote:
| I _do_ think that 's a reasonable thing to do. Higher
| quality copies almost certainly exist but too much of
| digital archiving is fragile in the sense that someone
| might have taken all the precautions and... that single
| person might just pass away at some point.
| interestica wrote:
| It'd probably be best if it were a dedicate logo screen
| before the content. The content remains unaltered.
| roguesupport wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| alanjay wrote:
| This the problem with YouTube- they're judge, jury and
| executioner.
|
| If you dispute the claim its judged by _checks notes_ the person
| who claimed copyright.
|
| Even if the original work is 120 - yes, 120 - years old!
|
| See first comment on
|
| https://youtu.be/HFq7XpFmYo4
| beebmam wrote:
| Why shouldn't a business get to decide what content they host
| on their platform? They're paying to keep that data hosted and
| the services up and maintained! Are you suggesting YouTube
| shouldn't have the right to refuse hosting someone's content?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's rude to just ignore the extremely valid point someone
| made and act as if they had not brought it up in the first
| place.
| beebmam wrote:
| YouTube should, like any other business, have the right to
| be judge jury and executioner of all content they host and
| provide to others on their platform. Period. They should
| never be coerced by a government to not have the right to
| not host content.
| Kamq wrote:
| > Why shouldn't a business get to decide what content they
| host on their platform?
|
| They should. But that doesn't prevent social consequences,
| including badmouthing them on their rationale.
|
| Your response would be very relevant if the OP was proposing
| a law that would force them to carry such content, but that
| doesn't seem to be the case here.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| We need a senator to fix this.
|
| YouTube is not something that you just dump something on. It's
| not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't
| understand, those tubes can be copyright and if they are
| copyright, when you put your video in, it gets in line, and it's
| going to be taken down by anyone that holds onto enormous amounts
| of copyright material, enormous amounts of copyright of material.
| [deleted]
| paulcole wrote:
| > We need a senator to fix this.
|
| The 7 scariest words in the English language.
|
| Who the heck do you think _makes_ these messes?
| cheschire wrote:
| For the younger end of the HN population that may not have been
| aware of national politics at the time, this is a reference.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
| codetrotter wrote:
| Crucially important as well is the following:
|
| YTMND - Tubular Nets
|
| https://tubularnets.ytmnd.com/
|
| NSFW btw.
| isykt wrote:
| This is a meme but it's not a bad metaphor at all, and the
| Senator was unfairly maligned for using it.
|
| He was fairly maligned for being against network neutrality,
| though.
| 234uitnui1 wrote:
| There is _a_ series-of-tubes metaphor that makes sense, but
| not his.
|
| >And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and
| if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets
| in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts
| into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous
| amounts of material.
|
| He thinks the Internet is like a pneumatic tube, where too
| much usage means people are entirely cut off for a time. In
| truth it's like a water pipe. Too much usage results in
| reduced throughput to each user, but no one is even
| temporarily cut off.
|
| Networks avoid queues. A well-designed network will handle
| email with no perceptible slowdown even under extreme
| congestion. The Senator's metaphor predicts that email will
| regularly take days to arrive because of congestion. The
| standard pipe analogy predicts this will almost never
| happen.
|
| But really, the Internet is like a global packet-switched
| network of networks. We deserve politicians who can handle
| the truth.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Agreed, how is the Internet _not_ a series of tubes?
| Lammy wrote:
| It's a series of small trucks
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| No such thing as unfairly maligning a politician in my
| opinion.
| 234uitnui1 wrote:
| Unfairly maligning politicians makes it less useful to
| fairly malign them.
| andruby wrote:
| All politicians are bad and politics in general too? That
| would be a grim and unconstructive view.
|
| The US is a country of 330M people, the world is a
| community of 8B people. If we want to be able to live
| side by side, we need rules and policies. It's always
| going to messy.
|
| I would love it if in the next few decades we improve
| "the game" and figure out better ways to incentivise the
| players towards common good.
| barelyauser wrote:
| 8B ruled by less than 100,000. Would go as far as to
| argue less than 10,000.
|
| "The game" is brutal. The players only care for
| themselves. "The game" is as unfair as it gets. Most
| don't live side by side, they survive inspite of others.
| Competition is brutal. Got sick with cancer? Sorry, lose
| all "points". Want to buy X? Sorry, me (cancerless) will
| out bargain you.
| rebolek wrote:
| How did you come to that number? It looks really wrong
| but you certainly have something to support it.
| barelyauser wrote:
| Really wrong? Consider China. Consider Putin in Russia.
| Consider the current socioeconomic scenario in US. Jerome
| Powell (and others, for various reasons) makes decisions
| and millions have their lives affected. Power is very
| concentrated.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| We don't want to live "side by side" which is why we have
| separate nations. Granted that concept is being degraded
| to mere economic zones in which fungible units can be
| cycled though until worn out.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| One of the fundamental mistakes that I think people make
| is to anthropomorphize things which do not actually act
| like regular humans. Corporations are the most obvious
| one because corporations are made of people but do not
| actually act like regular people. If you put a black box
| around most corporations and someone asked you what was
| in it, you'd say the box contained a sociopath.
|
| I am not moralizing here, by the way. I am not claiming
| that corporations should be less sociopathic. Maybe they
| should be but we've had much better success in aligning
| sociopathy than in making the amoral, moral - see
| capitalism vs communism - so I think it's an open
| question.
|
| Another group of entities which, while comprised of
| people, does not act in the way you've come to understand
| a human to act is politicians. The incentives to act in
| whatever way that is most effective totally dominates
| their behavior. A politician who does not do what the job
| asks (amass political power) will not be a politician for
| long.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _The incentives to act in whatever way that is most
| effective totally dominates their behavior._
|
| I think that's where we seem to differ? "Whatever is most
| effective"
|
| I'll grant democracy as practiced has many side effects
| and incentive traps.
|
| _However_ , it also does _generally_ align politician 's
| goals with their voters, under threat of being kicked out
| of office.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| I will say it aligns them much better than
| authoritarianism, but also I'm not at all saying that
| democracy is bad or that because politicians are
| effectively sociopathic we should not have politicians.
| Famously, the worst system of government except for all
| the others.
|
| I'm only saying that effectively sociopathic agents do
| not deserve the courtesies, the benefit of the doubt that
| we afford regular people.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 'Al Gore claimed he created the Internet'?
|
| See e.g. "Al Gore and the Internet" by Robert Kahn and
| Vinton Cerf https://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-
| Archives/nettime-l-0009/...
| robinson7d wrote:
| I remember it, I feel that focusing just on that portion of
| the quote is a cherry-picked view. There was more to the
| quote that showed a misunderstanding of the system, which,
| at least in my circles, caused a lot of the mockery:
|
| > an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the
| morning on Friday. I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got
| tangled up with all these things going on the Internet
| commercially.
|
| Tubes or trucks: movie downloads were not causing emails to
| be delayed by 4 days, even back in those days.
| dTal wrote:
| I think the ridicule comes from the fact that it had the
| feel of a regurgitated ELI5 explanation that someone had
| given to him. You can't exactly call it inaccurate, but it
| was a bit like hearing "an airplane is like a big metal
| bird" from the head of the FAA.
|
| (A sibling comment points out that calling them "tubes"
| instead of "pipes" reinforces this garbled-regurgitation
| impression)
| b33j0r wrote:
| Jon Stewart really nailed that meme in by pointing out that
| Stevens was simultaneously earmarking online gambling, with
| specific carve-outs for horse-racing.
|
| If you're around my age, you don't need to use the Bing to
| picture in your head that graphic of horses being able to
| run through the tubes.
|
| (Jon Stewart also kinda made me and everyone I knew think
| Arby's was terrible for a long time.
|
| With great memes comes... the responsibility to recognize
| that not everyone has Katz!)
|
| ;)
| mc32 wrote:
| My guess is it was explained as 'pipes' but in his head it
| got turned into tubes. It's the same thing but because the
| argot is 'pipes' and not tubes he got ridiculed.
| paulddraper wrote:
| How does a tube differ from a pipe?
| mc32 wrote:
| In plumbing one is metallic the other can be either.
|
| In networking a pipe is a metaphor for a circuit. We have
| fat pipes into HQ. Saying you have fat tubes would seem
| odd.
| paulddraper wrote:
| IDK Home Depot sells PVC pipes
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Isn't part of the copyright law that companies must defend their
| right in the short-term, else it's effectively forfeiting the
| protection in the future? In order words, you can't cherry pick.
| They have to be thorough and consist, else they're potentially
| creating a loop hole; a loop hole that might hang themselves.
|
| Note: Not defending Sony or any Big Inc, simply wonder how the
| law is written and how that drives corporate behavior.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Sounds like you're mistaking it with trademarks
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| No. That applies to trademarks.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Good luck counting on Sony's goodwill. Historically, Sony has
| been probably the most aggressive and vicious media company when
| it comes to copyright.
|
| I refuse buying a Play Station specifically because I despise
| Sony Corporation for that.
| porkbeer wrote:
| Still nicer to its custimers than nintendo.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Nintendo is fairly average as far as enforcing copyright
| goes. I really think it's their aesthetic and presentation of
| friendliness that makes them seem to standout. Sony is far
| worse in this regard.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Or Comcast aka XFINITY
| callalex wrote:
| Nintendo has never installed root kits on customer computers
| without informing or gaining consent at least.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Neither did the Playstation group.
|
| It makes no sense to count everything with "Sony" in it as
| the same company if you're talking about their morals.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| The iPhone is also using a Sony camera sensor, consider
| boycotting it too
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| A fellow Sony hater!
|
| The Sony BMG rootkit fiasco demonstrated that they hold their
| customers in contempt and treat them as their enemies. I'm
| still pissed about their removal of the Linux capability from
| the PS3 (or at least you couldn't use both Linux and play games
| on it as was originally advertised and sold).
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| YouTube is not the problem here: its way of handling copyright
| claims, no matter how much you dislike it, is the only reason it
| survived this far.
|
| Would it be nice if they added a 'monetize, but don't penalize
| the uploader, since this is _really_ not something we care about
| that deeply ' option for content owners? Sure.
|
| But the real solution is in copyright law reform, specifically in
| mandatory licensing. If, say, what a content owner can charge for
| a license to certain content is, like, 20% of their total revenue
| _for that particular content_ over the past 5 years, that would
| solve an _awful_ lot of problems. Plus, make cross-provider
| access to certain other content a lot more convenient for
| consumers.
| jonas21 wrote:
| "Monetize but don't penalize" is one of the options for content
| holders on YouTube [1].
|
| But in this case, the copyright strikes are for full episodes
| of the TV show Bewitched, which the copyright holder does care
| about and is currently selling for $1.99 per episode [2].
|
| And I don't know about the whole mandatory licensing thing.
| There are certainly places where I would not want things I've
| written or photos I've taken to appear, even if they paid me.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system)
|
| [2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.1ca9f72
| f...?
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| [dead]
| mavu wrote:
| It's almost as if a for-profit company is not a reliable place
| for things that are not done for profit. Weird.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| I may have missed something but the two take down notices they
| show are for the Bewitched TV show. They may be old but are still
| being shown on television and sold on AppleTV/Amazon etc. - they
| are still making money for the owner.
|
| I can't see how anyone wouldn't expect a takedown notice for
| posting them or similar shows on YouTube.
| jan_Sate wrote:
| That's a bummer. Maybe they could upload the videos to the
| Internet Archive?
| magic_hamster wrote:
| The internet archive became almost impossible for larger
| uploads recently. Not sure what's going on there, but it seems
| that both using the command line app as well as the web
| uploader is extremely slow and larger files will just get a
| "network error" after a while. Searching for this issue I've
| seen it's fairly common. I imagine uploading an entire "video
| museum" is going to be a nightmare if it's even possible in the
| current state of the archive.
| yreg wrote:
| YouTube doesn't seem like the place for this kind of thing. I
| used to have a (not-monetized) YouTube channel with Apple
| adverts since Apple deletes them after some time.
|
| Even the very old videos got deleted so often that I gave up.
| nness wrote:
| Internet Archive is having its own legal troubles at the
| moment, might no longer be the archival safe-haven we'd hope...
| bombcar wrote:
| Storage is cheap, if there's something you're interested in
| it's time to become a data hoarder.
| hylaride wrote:
| Storage is cheap, but moving it is expensive.
| sekh60 wrote:
| Datahoarder here, the drives are relatively cheap, but the
| overall cost to do it right is expensive. I have a somewhat
| durable setup (about 370TiB raw, replica count 3, 5 node
| Ceph cluster). And just that before backups I work total
| cost to be about $1000CAD per usable TiB. I don't shuck
| drives though, that could probably bring it down to 800.
| MaKey wrote:
| So you've invested six figures into a private data
| hoarding setup? Not bad.
| sekh60 wrote:
| I guess it is around six figures by now. Better not let
| my wife realize that, lol.
| edude03 wrote:
| 3 replicas as in 3 complete copies of the data? Wouldn't
| something would erasure coding be cheaper?
| tremon wrote:
| Erasure coding is only used for local duplication. If you
| have cross-site or cross-machine copies, you really don't
| want the speed of the rebuild to be dominated by
| available network bandwidth.
| bombcar wrote:
| For many datahoarding things "when I drive over to my
| friend's house and retrieve the drives" is often enough
| for replicating restore speed.
| edude03 wrote:
| I guess it depends. I run minio with erasure coding but I
| also have 2x100gb interconnects between nodes and even
| with NVMEs I'm not noticing any performance issues with
| rebuilds. That said with most disks I could see how this
| could be a problem
| sekh60 wrote:
| I wish I had 100Gbps interconnects! My network is only
| 10Gbps.
| sekh60 wrote:
| There are three copies of the data as part of ceph's
| replication. Note this is not replication for backup
| purposes, erase a file and all objects composing the file
| are gone. Ceph replication is for comparing checksums and
| that for guaranteeing integrity.
| tough wrote:
| shuck was repurposing external drives popping them out
| and using the internal drive?
| sekh60 wrote:
| That is correct.
| bombcar wrote:
| There is archival quality data hoarding like you're
| doing, and then there's "this YouTube channel is
| interesting and I don't want to lose it, yt-dlp to a USB
| drive".
|
| Not being able to do the former doesn't mean you
| shouldn't do the latter, especially if the risk is
| "real".
|
| (My system is relatively cheap as it only consists of a
| ZFS mirror array and some offline drives; a major fire
| might take me out but the stuff that should survive that
| is offsite.)
| sekh60 wrote:
| For sure, usb sticks have their purpose! I keep secondary
| copies on other more temporary media of home videos and
| pictures, the actually important stuff.
|
| Our neighbourhood just recently got fiber to the home, so
| I will be going from 30Mbps upload to 940Mbps upload in a
| couple weeks. Then I can get some proper offsite backups
| going.
| hgsgm wrote:
| $1000/TiB ?!
|
| Why 20x overhead over raw storage cost?
|
| May as well use
| sekh60 wrote:
| That is all in, including motherboards, RAM, chassis,
| CPUs, etc. then replica count three as opposed to erasure
| coding. That replica count alone is 3x the cost. And TiB,
| not TB, and Canadian prices, with shipping from the US
| for Supermicro parts. Each node is about 6-7000 CAD
| before drives and I use 6 enterprise rust and two
| enterprise SSDs per node. Cost would be lower of I built
| nodes with more drive capacity, but I want to keep nodes
| to 2RU to have more nodes in 36RU.
| detourdog wrote:
| Can you share depth and breadth of your archive?
| sekh60 wrote:
| My archive is composed of cloud images and volumes for
| virtual machines for an OpenStack homelab. Then around
| 90TiB of movies, shows, YouTube videos, etc. Remuxes when
| available. About one TiB of books.
|
| Do I use it? My wife watches media on jellyfin, but I
| just have a compulsion to gather data and hoard it. I
| restrict myself to a 36U server rack at least, so it
| doesn't take up much physical space.
| detourdog wrote:
| I have no judgement, I was just curious.
| sekh60 wrote:
| I didn't interpret you as judging. It is somewhat
| pathological I admit. The cluster is a bit more than 87%
| full, at 90% it slow to a crawl. I just asked my wife
| this morning if I could buy another hard drive (I buy
| 20TB seagate exos), and she suggested we delete some
| stuff. I find deletion of files when I do it
| psychologically stressful. So it is something I should
| get addressed, but I suppose we should be thankful I
| don't have dead cats lying around, lol.
| detourdog wrote:
| I say you have saved it this long keep going. That drive
| seems to cost around $350. I use SSD drives for working
| storage and I use platters for archival. I believe the
| platters have a better recovery methods.
|
| Do you have any opinions?
|
| Thanks for more information.
| sekh60 wrote:
| I use enterprise SSDs for cloud images and VM volumes, I
| have about 7TiB useable of that. I don't know how data
| recovery from an SSD is, I think for a lot of issues you
| would have to replace the logic board and hope some
| sorcery works to figure out the ordering of data with
| wear leveling algorithms. Rust one can often recover data
| with something like ddrescue. I don't worry too much,
| with replica count of 3 for both flash and rust I can
| lose two drives with the same 4 MiB block and be fine, if
| the failing drives are within a chassis I can lose two
| whole nodes before I have data loss.
|
| I wish I had access to a tape library though, just it is
| hard to justify the upfront cost. My cluster has
| organically grown over the last ten years or so, making a
| huge near $8000 single purchase for a new tape drive,
| plus however much automatic tape rotation costs (I
| presume I need some sort of tape library for that? I have
| never used tape before) would be hard to justify.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Copyright abusers are there as well I think.
|
| At least last time I wanted to watch Tom and Jerry with my
| youngest daughter it was gone.
|
| (Or maybe that was still within copyright? I don't know.)
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| aside from whatever copyright Tom and Jerry falls under I
| believe they are also Trademarked.
| _0ffh wrote:
| I thought trademarks were for the defense against knock-
| offs, not the public domain.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| probably paranoid - was just wondering if you could get
| hit for claiming to have legitimate Tom and Jerry videos
| for download if you didn't have the trademark for Tom and
| Jerry.
| wongarsu wrote:
| If they are legitimate Tom and Jerry videos that's not an
| issue. If you make your own videos and call them Tom and
| Jerry, that's a potential trademark violation.
|
| The idea of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion,
| and while there's some abuse and perverse incentives most
| trademark law makes sense through that lens. You are
| allowed to sell your used Ford F150 under the trademark
| Ford, because that's an accurate description. It doesn't
| stop being a Ford, pretty much no matter what you do to
| it. But if you build a car from scratch and claim it's a
| Ford F150 that's a trademark violation because you would
| be pretending that the vehicle was made by the Ford Motor
| Company, with their manufacturing standards, quality
| control etc.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Thanks for a really easy to understand explanation!
| ta1243 wrote:
| Copyright is pretty much perpetual.
|
| The very first Tom and Jerry was only 80 years ago, another
| 10-20 years before the ones released towards the end of the
| 1940s would be available
|
| You can get a lot of them on amazon.
| ta1243 wrote:
| "Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC
| Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those
| transmissions were removed from YouTube for violating Sony
| copyrights, with MCCTv receiving a strike"
|
| Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and
| I'd agree, but it does.
|
| Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can
| break it without consequences.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years,
| and I'd agree, but it does.
|
| Because we end these sentences here, we are where we are.
|
| > Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can
| break it without consequences.
|
| Doubling down on the awful ending helps insure we stay here.
|
| Instead, we could continue the thought into the broken systems
| that put us here. eg: Trading law for cash+favors.
| Pannoniae wrote:
| "Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can
| break it without consequences." - Have you heard of jury
| nullification? This is not a bad-faith jab, I'm really curious.
| Laws are not absolute and there is no requirement to uphold it
| if either the judge or the jury thinks it's not reasonable.
| (Exceptions include minimum sentencing laws, AFAIK.)
| Zetice wrote:
| Exceedingly rare and shouldn't be relied upon in any case.
|
| Further, 12 random people shouldn't be able to flout
| democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion
| about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
| vkou wrote:
| Jury nullification is a bug of the jury system (Which is
| that the jury can decide to convict or acquit anyone for
| _any_ reason, be it principled, good, biased, or
| otherwise), but it 's not one that can be patched over
| without other incredibly negative consequences.
|
| Everyone is all for jury nullification until you get a few
| closet Klansmen on a jury 'nullifying' a dead-to-rights-
| guilty lynching trial.
|
| Also, if I'm putting my life in the hands of 12 randos, I
| must be really, really, really 'down bad' (as the kids
| these days say).
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" Further, 12 random people shouldn't be able to flout
| democracy."_
|
| Correct, they absolutely should not--in a working
| democracy.
|
| The trouble is democracy isn't working when it comes to
| copyright, it never has. The 1886 Berne Convention was
| snuck in and locked in place before anyone realized what
| had happened. Big vested interests like Sony have had
| governments by the knackers ever since at everyone else's
| expense.
|
| The question is how does the citizenry now regain control
| over its governance. Put another way, rule by multinational
| corporate interests isn't democracy.
| ta1243 wrote:
| It doesn't mean "Democracy isn't working" because
| democracy has decided a behaviour you don't like.
|
| See for example people who think it's fine to shoplift
| from stores because "they're big companies" or whatever.
|
| > rule by multinational corporate interests isn't
| democracy.
|
| The MPAA members, including Disney, Sony, AND netflix,
| have a combined value of $500b. Set aside netflix and
| that's $300b - 1/0th the size of a company like Google.
|
| Now you might be right that large companies that rely on
| copyright for control are a danger, but if Sony is a big
| danger, what does that make Google or Apple.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| We are talking power imbalance here, copyright is only
| one issue, there are many others.
|
| Google, MS, Meta, Amazon and many others are exercising
| monopolistic power to the disadvantage of others. Put it
| this way, the small percentage of the population who are
| very wealthy shareholders and owners of these companies--
| powerful vested interests--have inflicted significant
| damage on our society by their control over government.
|
| When the rich binge on getting richer and all others get
| poorer as a consequence and government does nothing about
| it then history tells us where that usually ends. One
| doesn't have to be Einstein to see our society is in a
| damn mess and it's getting worse.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Disney is a large company, but it's tiny compared with
| Alphabet - Disney is the underdog here, suing to prevent
| Alphabet from making money from Disney's IP.
| justrealist wrote:
| > judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if
| a jury ignores law so blatantly
|
| To be clear, only in civil cases. In criminal cases, there
| is no way to overturn JN.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United
| States, which is a democratic republic.
|
| There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that
| nullification can protect the citizens from a potential
| overreach of government.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I hear this view about jury nullification quite a bit,
| saying it's fair to ignore the law and acquit if the law
| is unfair.
|
| Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law
| and convict if someone committed some evil act but
| technically didn't break any law?
| chongli wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you give an
| example? Juries can't pull people off the street and
| convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being
| charged with a crime they clearly did not commit?
|
| Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when
| they believe the jury erred on the facts. They
| specifically give the jury instructions on the matter
| they're supposed to decide.
|
| Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not
| matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant
| did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway,
| it'll either be set aside or overturned on appeal.
|
| Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and
| punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and
| it's always bad and must be fought against.
| vkou wrote:
| > If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit
| the act and the jury convicts anyway, it'll either be set
| aside or overturned on appeal.
|
| By what mechanism? The jury, as _ultimate arbiters of
| fact_ , have identified that the defendant _did_ commit
| the act.
| hgsgm wrote:
| "Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry
| distinction.
| chongli wrote:
| How so? Matters of fact:
|
| What happened on the night of March 17th?
|
| Matters of law:
|
| What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
| hobs wrote:
| Pretty simply, no. There's no way to jail someone under
| the law without some crime or act that we have laws for
| (like involuntary committal.)
| hgsgm wrote:
| The Constitution trumps other law.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| > Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the
| law...
|
| Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as
| "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser
| extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is
| the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries
| ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By
| ignoring it, that becomes "the law".
|
| "The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's
| opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age,
| we learn more about what is acceptable in society based
| on all these things.
|
| Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular
| opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of
| society and government that forms "the law".
| michaelt wrote:
| Many people think the justice system should
| systematically err towards mercy.
|
| Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with
| a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion
| isn't supposed to let them punish people who are
| innocent. State governors have the power to grant
| pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
| Zetice wrote:
| So it's legitimate when a white jury allows white people
| to get away with killing black folks?
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| "jury nullification": I never heard of this before. Can you
| name any examples that anyone except lawyers / judges would
| know?
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| Jury nullification is where a jury 'nullifies' a legally
| correct verdict in a trial by voting against it for other
| reasons. In my line of work, the most frequently cited
| instances of jury nullification was the 10 juror
| requirement for a verdict in the State of Louisiana. The
| reduced requirement (from most jurisdictions 12 unanimous
| jurors) was instituted explicitly to allow for 'white'
| criminal defendants to be acquitted of crimes against
| African-American. Following reconstruction, the jury needed
| to appear like it could have racially diverse individuals
| serve on it, so they lowered the requirement for the number
| of agreeing jurors required so if two African-Americans
| actually made it on the jury their votes would not count.
|
| The typical historical 'example' would be the jury finding
| a 'white' defendant not guilty of a clearly proven crime
| (murder, rape, battery, etc.)
|
| A more modern example would be a jury finding a defendant
| not guilty of possession of marijuana even though the
| defendant obviously had MJ in their possession.
| hedora wrote:
| Other modern examples include Musk's stock manipulation
| trial, and jurors refusing to convict in cases where
| police use excessive force.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| There's some on the Wikipedia page
|
| e.g.
|
| > In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental
| protest organisation Extinction Rebellion were tried for
| causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the
| multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell. The judge told
| the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the
| protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had
| caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the
| activists were acquitted
| dahart wrote:
| > Laws are not absolute
|
| This also doesn't mean people will escape consequences,
| right? Broadly and statistically speaking, it's extremely
| unlikely that breaking a law you don't like will result in a
| trial that strikes the law down in your favor. I'd guess this
| might be especially true with copyright, since there is so
| much precedent - lots and lots of people have broken
| copyright and tried to fight it and lost. Why is this case
| any different?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor
| instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can
| treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police officers can decide
| that the punishment is so low that enforcing a law isn't
| worth their time (see e.g. California's shoplifting
| misdemeanor).
|
| But all of these are examples of other people disliking a
| law. If the right other people dislike a law, you can ignore
| it. But whether you like it doesn't really play into it.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The executive's opportunity to squash a law is his veto
| power. Once the law is on the books, the executive branch
| is duty-bound to enforce it, as it represents the will of
| the people via their elected representatives.
|
| If executives can just decide which laws to enforce and
| which to ignore then we're partway down the road to
| dictatorship. Judges have the power to find that a law is
| unconstitutional, but not Presidents or Governors.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Yet, states making marihuana legal while it's illegal at
| the federal level is a thing. If the federal executive
| branch did what they are "duty-bound" do to, then this
| wouldn't be possible at all.
|
| The methods the President chooses or doesn't choose to
| employ how to enforce the Controlled Substances Act seems
| to be more or less at their discretion in practice, and
| "we have limited resources and bigger fish to fry" seems
| to be a valid excuse, despite this being a judgement call
| at the whims of the executive branch.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| But they will still pull it out of their back pocket when
| it suits their needs. Like a dictator would.
| eesmith wrote:
| Copyright is part of civil law, not criminal law.
|
| The double jeopardy clause which enables jury nullification
| does not extend to civil law.
|
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification which
| cites https://ia902506.us.archive.org/9/items/verdicts-of-
| conscien...
|
| > In a civil trial, where the jury renders a verdict that is
| clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can hand down
| judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or order a new trial.
| Jury nullification is possible in a criminal context because
| once the defendant has been acquitted, and regardless of why
| he was acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same
| offense. A consideration of the constitutionality of civil
| jury nullification is beyond the scope of this Note. See
| generally Lars Noah, Civil Jury Nullification, 86 Iowa L.
| Rev. 1601, 1601, 1626-57 (2001) (discussing legitimacy of
| jury nullification in civil cases and concluding that "the
| case in favor of civil jury nullification is much weaker than
| it is in the criminal arena.)
|
| The primary reference is at https://heinonline.org/HOL/Landin
| gPage?handle=hein.journals/... .
|
| Even if jury nullification did apply, and you were lucky
| enough to get jurors who exercised that option, one clear
| consequence is _going through the civil trial._ You have no
| right to a public defender, so either you will need to pay
| for a (likely expensive) attorney, or deal with it on your
| own.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| Excellent points, I wish you had answered the what is
| nullification question from a comment above, it would have
| been better written and may have included sources.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| Jury nullification (Cornell Law):
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can
| break it without consequences.
|
| However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that
| good citizens should refuse to obey unethical laws (e.g. it
| used to be illegal to harbour an escaped slave, or the Nazi
| Germany laws against Jews).
|
| Personally, I think that media companies are harming the public
| by enforcing unnecessary old copyrights that they have no
| intention of re-distributing. We're going to end up with
| missing decades of TV/films that aren't popular enough to
| interest the copyright holder and that no-one had copies of.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that
| would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than
| PS1/hour)
|
| I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount
| for something that's trivially available with harbouring
| escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why
| another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the
| creators.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| The point about escaped slaves is to point out that
| legality and morality are only loosely correlated.
|
| I was making a general point about media companies and
| older media that seems to have escaped you and not
| specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of
| "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly
| receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably
| the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I
| have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as
| intended to incentivise him to make more shows.
|
| Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed
| there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.
| edgyquant wrote:
| The comparison of sharing movies to hiding Jews from nazis is
| one of the most blatantly historical false equivalencies I've
| ever seen.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I didn't intend it to be an equivalence, just merely a
| couple of examples of blatantly immoral laws. Apologies if
| that caused any offence as I certainly didn't mean to
| directly compare them.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I didn't expect Godwin quite so early
| fortyseven wrote:
| Try looking at the theory instead of being distracted by
| the specific example: Laws on the books do not necessarily
| equate to morally.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Burning the CO2 to watch the movie is probably more
| unethical than paying the $5.99. That CO2 isn't coming
| down for 100 years.
| hedora wrote:
| Deleting the only available copies of movies (which might
| be the case for some of these works) starts to get close.
| After all, I doubt anyone here would defend the Nazi's book
| burning campaigns:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
|
| Before you say the DMCA isn't the same, here are some
| modern incidents where copyright was used to censor things
| by repressive regimes:
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c2
| 2...
|
| https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-
| activ...
|
| And a roundup of how it is being misused in other ways:
|
| https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
| jccalhoun wrote:
| While they should be in the public domain they aren't so I
| don't know how they thought it would be ok to post entire
| episodes of tv shows that are for sale on dvd and streaming
| services.
| ta1243 wrote:
| There is a strong view amongst many people that copyright
| doesn't apply to them because it's annoying.
|
| Back in the days when you literally couldn't get the programs
| for love nor money (they were shown on US TV but weren't
| available globally for years), I'd often DCC them. I'd never
| claim that it was right.
|
| I seem the same attitude from people who copy an article
| verbatim from a closed website that you have to subscribe to.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yeah, and Bewitched seems like a terrible example. You can
| currently buy the complete season on DVD, or watch it
| streaming. It's continuing to make money and in no danger of
| being lost.
|
| _Of course_ it 's going to be taken off YouTube, the same as
| if Squid Game were uploaded.
|
| Now if we're talking TV shows that were last place in
| viewership in the 1960's so nobody's bothered to sell/stream
| and haven't been syndicated in decades, then it's a totally
| different story...
| [deleted]
| prirun wrote:
| I would review this link about disputing the DMCA copyright
| claims against your museum:
|
| https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...
|
| IANAL, but IMO, you have several points in your favor to argue
| that yours is "fair use":
|
| 1. You're not (I presume) making money from it
|
| 2. Part of it is news, which is more likely to be fair use than
| creative works.
|
| 3. The content is old and the quality is poor compared to today's
| standards.
|
| 4. The current market value of the content is not very high. It's
| not like you are publishing the upcoming Dune sequel. Current
| market value and whether you are taking away money from the
| copyright owner are considerations in determining fair use.
|
| If you are actually setup as a museum or online library, I would
| think that would bolster your case even further that this is fair
| use.
|
| As I said, I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion.
| However, I do think people are much too quick to cave on these
| automated DMCA takedowns. If you do dispute it, what's the
| likelihood this Indian company or Sony is going to sue you?
| Whether you are willing to take that risk is of course your
| decision, but their entire operation would fall apart if everyone
| disputed their claims. It only works because everyone caves
| immediately.
| mod50ack wrote:
| (Also not a lawyer and not giving any legal advice here.)
|
| Some of the points may be true, but it is virtually impossible
| that these uses are fair.
|
| Here are some reasons:
|
| 1. While the content may be old, and the production quality may
| not be considered high by today's viewers, these factors are
| not really relevant. The quality of the reproduction of the
| works, meanwhile, is good enough that they can be effectively
| viewed; while these may be less marketable than a copy made
| from a master, this is more than faithful enough to serve as a
| market replacement for the original (and thus infringes).
|
| 2. The current overall market value of the works is irrelevant.
| The question in an infringement suit is not whether or not
| there is a market for the work; it is whether or not whatever
| value the work could have is affected by the re-used version
| being used as a replacement. A popular work may have a greater
| market value than an unpopular one, but copyright law does not
| protect works based on popularity. Even if the actual market
| value of the original is near zero anyway, this does not make
| giving away free copies a fair use (since that destroys
| whatever market value the original could have).
|
| 3. The work has not been transformed in any way. The
| reproduction is faithful (to the extent this was
| technologically possible). The copies tend to be of the entire
| work. The purpose of the work (display for viewing) is the same
| as the original purpose; there is no transformation.
|
| The channel here is reproducing the original works in their
| entirety. These copies serve as a good substitute for any
| copies the original copyright holder could be making and
| selling/licensing. This boils down to the question: do these
| copies fulfill any demand there might be for the originals? The
| answer is yes. This is not fair use.
|
| The question of whether or not a copyright holder strictly
| enforces the copyrights -- in many cases, they don't -- isn't
| relevant; they remain valid.
|
| Now, for a lot of people, this seems unfair. The original works
| are often not available on the market. A lot of people think
| that non-marketed works should be able to be copied by non-
| profits for the public's use. But that's not something the law
| allows.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Aren't these processes mostly automated? Is it possible that not
| a single human has so far been involved on behalf of the
| copyright holder?
| rob74 wrote:
| Probably no human was involved on Google's/YouTube's side
| either - watch out puny humans trying to operate YouTube
| channels, the machines are coming for you!
| stayfrosty420 wrote:
| For music this is the case AFAIK.
| Inhibit wrote:
| In my case it was. Got an automatic flag on an work composed,
| performed, recorded, and released by the Air Force Band of
| the Pacific.
|
| Turns out someone was re-selling it on media and the label
| had auto-filed all their holdings. So you'd get flagged on
| _every_ usage.
|
| The sergeant in charge of the correspondence for the band was
| annoyed but as YouTube is private there honestly wasn't
| anything they could do (other than write me a polite response
| to send on that I was correct). I did make them aware of it
| in the unlikely event someone else asks, though.
|
| Annoyingly enough YouTube doesn't take down the automatic
| match even when it's a false claim from what I saw.
| tremon wrote:
| If true, does that make the situation better or worse?
| sp332 wrote:
| For a DMCA takedown, someone has to sign that they looked at
| it. I'm not aware of anyone actually getting in trouble for
| that though. And YouTube's ContentID is designed for automated
| takedowns.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| I dream of the day when the archiving of the web is no longer a
| problem: bandwith, storage, tagging, search, etc. All the videos,
| all the tutorials, all the books, everything archived and
| retrievable for posterity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-04 23:02 UTC)