|
Get a judge in the uploader's country to order the uploader to remove it, just like if a guy is illegally selling tickets to watch his transformers 4 DVD at his chicken shack at the mall. Why does being on the internet change anything?
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Get a judge in the uploader's country to order the uploader to remove it, just like if a guy is illegally selling tickets to watch his transformers 4 DVD at his chicken shack at the mall. Why does being on the internet change anything? I'm talking about the case where industry groups are taking down legal, fair use, content or even completely original content over insane justifications. The difference mainly comes in to how the DMCA applies to the internet and how many sites just go "look they can sue us harder than you can so tough poo poo". This would be like Universal Media Group being able to come to a film festival and just take all the copies of your student film because a car in the background was playing a song they own loud enough to hear for two seconds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Well the whole point of sites having these systems is so that the courts don't get involved, someone who is supposed to have appropriate responsibility for content claimed to be taken without permission issues a request to remove it, and then if the uploader contests it the request gets reviewed for validity. There's also that it's fairly rare for the copyright action performed to be a video being removed, instead the entities filing the report just seize any ad revenue generated. That tends to be the most common means of copyright fraud done through those systems. Crain posted:I'm talking about the case where industry groups are taking down legal, fair use, content or even completely original content over insane justifications. The difference mainly comes in to how the DMCA applies to the internet and how many sites just go "look they can sue us harder than you can so tough poo poo". This really has nothing to do with the DMCA in particular, such actions frequently occur in Europe without any reference to DMCA rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Crain posted:I'm talking about the case where industry groups are taking down legal, fair use, content or even completely original content over insane justifications. The difference mainly comes in to how the DMCA applies to the internet and how many sites just go "look they can sue us harder than you can so tough poo poo". They're only saying that so that you can't, for instance, record a bunch of Panthers games off the TV and put together a "Season Highlight" DVD and sell it (which is reasonable!), not that the NFL is gonna bust down your door at the office if you tell someone about a touchdown pass Monday morning. But YouTube and the DMCA are essentially doing the second, instead of just protecting the first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:
No, they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well the whole point of sites having these systems is so that the courts don't get involved, someone who is supposed to have appropriate responsibility for content claimed to be taken without permission issues a request to remove it, and then if the uploader contests it the request gets reviewed for validity. 1) You get flagged 2) You contest this and youtube gives the claimant a chance to respond. 3) They reinstate their claim. 4) youtube shrugs and goes "they said it's theirs, sue 'em I guess". 5) You lose your revenue or your video is taken down. With the exception, seemingly, of users with backing or who are major platform contributors, no one at youtube is actually reviewing these claims. fishmech posted:This really has nothing to do with the DMCA in particular, such actions frequently occur in Europe without any reference to DMCA rules. In the specific area I'm talking about, online platforms for content sharing, it does apply due to Title 2 of the DMCA which established the basic framework we're talking about here. Limiting of liability via safe harbor rules for online platforms was established in the DMCA. Foreign laws are interesting, but unless they bleed over into how the US laws operate (or like recent EU rulings end up forcing US companies to comply due to an international market) they're not applicable since I'm focusing on US copyright law ITT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:But YouTube and the DMCA are essentially doing the second, instead of just protecting the first. Eh, I'm talking more about someone either making a Fair Use, derivative work that gets taken down, or an original work that gets taken down with a spurious claim (like a nature video being taken down because it was filmed on a beach, and someone claims it because they released a meditation soundtrack that featured waves as well.) Not something clear cut like your example since teeeeeeechnically the NFL is within their rights to do the second in the case of something like a sports bar that just plays the game on TV (Or puts up a Pay-Per-View special on without buying a broadcast license). It's just practically infeasible to do IRL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:You know how during a football game, there's that copyright speech that says "everything is property of NFL, with no transmission or description without express written consent allowed"? That statement is legally meaningless, the parts of it that are legally correct are still correct if not said (you don’t have a license to reproduce and sell clips beyond what is allowed by fair use) and the parts that are unenforceable are, well, unenforceable (you are allowed to describe the game no matter what they say).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Man reading up on copyright stuff, things are especially weird and fucky concerning sound recordingswikipedia posted:Sound recordings fixed in a tangible form before February 15, 1972, have been generally covered by common law or in some cases by anti-piracy statutes enacted in certain states, not by federal copyright law, and the anti-piracy statutes typically have no duration limit. As such, virtually all sound recordings, regardless of age, are presumed to still be under copyright protection in the United States.[3] The 1971 Sound Recordings Act, effective 1972,[4] and the 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provide federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes.[5][6] Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.[7] On that date, all sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, will go into the public domain in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Crain posted:I'm talking about the case where industry groups are taking down legal, fair use, content or even completely original content over insane justifications. The difference mainly comes in to how the DMCA applies to the internet and how many sites just go "look they can sue us harder than you can so tough poo poo". Rerouting the revenue after a successful ruling is much better than taking down the video and asking questions later. You could hold ad funds in escrow when the claim is made and pay to whoever wins once the case finishes. This hurts uploaders who are dependent on the revenue now so I'd like to see a penalty for a claim that's rejected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah I understand. I think you could legally protect neutral content hosts. They don't have to take anything down without the copyright claim against the uploader being upheld by a judge in the uploader's country. The idea is that court case would be between the copyright holder and the uploader, not the content host. I mean, there's still the issue that the court system is stacked in favor of the big corporation, but that's sort of outside the scope of the copyright thread. It's hard to have fair use be meaningful if you can't trust judges to recognize and uphold it. Because automated, trust-the-algorithm takedowns/DMCA strikes are absolutely abused that way currently, and there should be some sort of protection of a small critic/company having an out against these companies. Because even if you win, the DMCA takedown and resulting delay on your, say, review of Shooterman III, will be completely worthless after two weeks, so takedowns can be used offensively as well as defensively. Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:It'd be nice if fair-use people could argue in front of a judge that Nintendo (to pick a particularly-aggressive example out of a hat) had a consistent overreaching use of the DMCA, and get them labeled vexatious litigants. You can't call a company vexatious litigants when they're not filing court cases, my dude. You're really asking for a reckoning on what parts of this whole business of video games are copyrighted by who under what circumstances, and the results of those rulings are likely to end up being quite different by country AND going to leave a bunch of YouTubers unhappy because their method of doing things is going to be ruled "nah if you want to make money on that, it's only going to be if the company who owns it says it's fine". It's not like people looking to make money are going to be able to just ignore other countries' rules, it's extremely common for large follower groups and hence large advertising payouts to come from building an international audience. Just look at how so many of the most popular ones are Swedish or German or British but got mostly American fans. On the broader level, the scope of the legal issues and questions of how anyone's going to make money? It's like the history of recorded entertainment labor/monetary disputes happening all over again, with the various independent youtubers facing somewhat similar issues to those of various actors/showrunners/etc. Early American radio in particular had a whole thing going where people looking to really get into making money had to produce radio content on their own dime before they could get direct sponsors, or be picked up by a network as a "sustaining" show. (Sustaining shows meant shows that did not have a direct sponsor, or any advertising at all, and filled network time between those that did. They "sustained" the value of the network as an entertainment outlet to the general public, which guaranteed ears for sponsored content). Really most YouTube people out there are performing the role of a sustaining show, as they just get penny shavings in revenue to themselves and don't have any means of making their stuff pay through YT itself, often not even additional sources like paypal donations. In the end what came out of that was actors' unions, fairly big companies producing most of the stuff, and so on. And it's not like that always meant even those big companies win - consider the common phenomenon of BBC TV shows using popular music for broadcast, but the recorded version that you as a viewer can buy later has it hastily hacked out and replaced with soundalikes with varying degrees of quality. It's because as the broadcast monopoly for the country ~80 years ago they'd been able to get themselves free reign to use any music they wanted under very cheap standard licensing fees, but bring that to DVD or something and you're negotiating the licensing the way an American TV show has to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Harik posted:E: added the quote I was responding to so my reply isn't contextless. So? Why would a dead man need money. Hell according to his will he wanted a Communist party to inherit his proceeds but the court decided to give it to his father and brother instead, freezing out his partner and ignoring his wishes. And why would a company risk murder investigations to cut out the hassle of a contract if that meant that everyone else who didn't commit a murder could produce a rival product and risk crowding the market? They don't seem to be hurting cutting deals and contracts. I could maybe see how copyright could incentivise a really stupid and greedy publisher to start bumping off its talent since they would still benefit for over 50 years if they got away with it, but that's a pretty big stretch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
They might not start killing artists and writers, but they'd probably draw up contracts that make the publisher or media company the sole benefactor after the creator dies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:So? Why would a dead man need money. Hell according to his will he wanted a Communist party to inherit his proceeds but the court decided to give it to his father and brother instead, freezing out his partner and ignoring his wishes. Secondly, it's nonsensical to have an essentially random period of copyright protection. Something published today should be protected until 2028, not "until some time between now and 2028, depending on how strong the author's heart is." "Death of the author" would just mean everything was held by a LLC the author formed to own the copyright, which does nobody any good but lawyers. Just give everything a fixed term of a decade, tops. Who cares if someone inherits royalties for a few years? It's not like you can build a massive media estate over multiple generations on one guy's back catalog the way it happens now. While slightly tongue in cheek, it's not like there's no history of companies having people killed for costing them money. Bumping off JKR could be worth a billion or so, for example. Just because the publishing/media field hasn't had to deal with recalcitrant south american farmers, union organizers or native people inconveniently located on top of oil reserves doesn't make them somehow immune to the demands of capitalism. I did specify "foreign" for a reason. For a company located inside the US, a life outside the borders of a first-world nation is essentially meaningless and can be snuffed out without any consequence the vast majority of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Harik posted:Banning non-individuals from holding copyright is a bold proposal but it goes a bit beyond what's been discussed so far. How would you even manage anything resembling modern big-production movies/media/games when one person has to hold it? Don't ban them from holding copyright, just ban them from inheriting. They have to buy it outright. No acquisition of holding company tricks either. Make it a big obvious exception. No cheapy sales either, assess the value independently and make that the sale baseline. Throw in enough red tape to frustrate them. quote:Secondly, it's nonsensical to have an essentially random period of copyright protection. Something published today should be protected until 2028, not "until some time between now and 2028, depending on how strong the author's heart is." "Death of the author" would just mean everything was held by a LLC the author formed to own the copyright, which does nobody any good but lawyers. And combined with a fixed period of copyright, there goes the major encouragements for treating copyright like assets: they're expensive and they don't last long. quote:While slightly tongue in cheek, it's not like there's no history of companies having people killed for costing them money. Bumping off JKR could be worth a billion or so, for example. Just because the publishing/media field hasn't had to deal with recalcitrant south american farmers, union organizers or native people inconveniently located on top of oil reserves doesn't make them somehow immune to the demands of capitalism. No, but at least it's an obvious motive, one that can be followed through in the case of victims deemed worth avenging. And reducing its worth hopefully reduces the temptation to murder the globe for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Harik posted:
Sorry but you don't seen to understand the point of IP as a commodity. Its value is in its exclusivity not its artistic merits. If you don't have exclusive rights to profit from a work its potential profits are diminished considerably. This is why hundreds of corporations across the world have been lobbying for decades to increase copywright, not weaken or get rid of it. They benefit far more from a system that lets them exploit a commodity exclusively for as long as possible than one that would have them competing with rival products from day one. You've built a conspiracy theory that requires the shadowy capitalists to do things that damage their own monopolies. To use your own analogy, this would be like oil companies trying to abolish the concept of land ownership to save a few bucks in plot auctions and ignoring that they've just let every other oil company tap their fields whenever they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see how the advent of streaming rights will effect the discussion around public domain as well. Someone mentioned way up thread that something like 2 Fast 2 Furious has essentially no value to anyone at this point, but the fact is that if you're Universal, you can now bundle 2 Fast 2 Furious with 150 other movies of similar quality and renown and lease out their streaming rights to Netflix or Prime or Crackle or whatever the gently caress. A rights-holders content catalog now has collective value that probably exceeds what the sum of its parts. Netflix is pumping billions into making all this original content because they expect to hold the rights to it for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
General Dog posted:It will be interesting to see how the advent of streaming rights will effect the discussion around public domain as well. Someone mentioned way up thread that something like 2 Fast 2 Furious has essentially no value to anyone at this point, but the fact is that if you're Universal, you can now bundle 2 Fast 2 Furious with 150 other movies of similar quality and renown and lease out their streaming rights to Netflix or Prime or Crackle or whatever the gently caress. A rights-holders content catalog now has collective value that probably exceeds what the sum of its parts. Netflix is pumping billions into making all this original content because they expect to hold the rights to it for decades. What part of this looks different to you from how film rights libraries were packaged for cable/syndication use around the 70s and 80s?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What part of this looks different to you from how film rights libraries were packaged for cable/syndication use around the 70s and 80s? Just the scale I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Just the scale I guess? I don't really see how future streaming rights can be larger than existing global rebroadcast and home video rights, to be honest. It looks just like shuffling around the sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
General Dog posted:It will be interesting to see how the advent of streaming rights will effect the discussion around public domain as well. Someone mentioned way up thread that something like 2 Fast 2 Furious has essentially no value to anyone at this point, but the fact is that if you're Universal, you can now bundle 2 Fast 2 Furious with 150 other movies of similar quality and renown and lease out their streaming rights to Netflix or Prime or Crackle or whatever the gently caress. A rights-holders content catalog now has collective value that probably exceeds what the sum of its parts. Netflix is pumping billions into making all this original content because they expect to hold the rights to it for decades. Netflix is pumping billions into making all this original content because the entire entertainment industry has now wised up to how popular and valuable streaming media is - as well as the fact that having access to good content is what makes or breaks a streaming platform. The weak point of streaming platforms is that they're dependent on content that's licensed to them, and Netflix is trying to break that dependency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's going to be an issue of the exact wording of the contract you signed, if the contract allows for it or not. The standard clause is "all media whether currently existing or not yet devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity" so good luck with that. E: completely off topic but this is a great read and great "suck a dick, dumbshits" to the financial industry so enjoy: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/02/27/2120422/meet-the-man-who-could-own-aviva-france/ If anyone in the rich global north is getting merc'd by a major corporation it'll be that guy. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
As I understand it the increasing importance of intellectual property and other intangible assets has important implications for corporate governance and valuation, and this in terms has implications for economic policy at the national level. Kean Birch, "We Have Never Been Neoliberal: A Manifesto For A Doomed Youth", Zero Books, 2015, pp. 134-136 posted:In order to understand the how corporate governance has been rereoriented around SVM it is first necessary to understand how the way businesses are valued has been transformed by changes in accounting practices, especially in the accounting of intangible assets. Since I’ve already defined assets above, a good starting point for the discussion here is to define intangible assets. According to International Accounting Standards (IAS) rule 38.8, an intangible asset is:
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Sorry but you don't seen to understand the point of IP as a commodity. Its value is in its exclusivity not its artistic merits. If you don't have exclusive rights to profit from a work its potential profits are diminished considerably. JKR dies tomorrow and the copyright on the potter books expire. For the sake of it we'll say all the IP rights stemming from the books go as well, just to avoid gotchas of "No, that's trademark law". Aside from Universal not writing any more royalty checks, what changes? The movies are still under copyright as a separate thing so it's not like you're going to lose sales to a massive bootlegging campaign, and making your own cinematic universe version of potter would be an uphill battle. Who's got the resources to do that, even with the rights being up for grabs? More importantly, who's got the resources to compete on that level that doesn't have their own franchises up for disruption? A ton of source stories would instantly be a free-for-all based on the death-of-the-author, like basically every superhero out there would be usable. Does Disney really want to get into that battle with Universal? And poo poo, it was mostly a throwaway joke about massive corporations being evil, I didn't expect people to start jumping on the "Big money would never do THAT if you ignore all of recorded history" bandwagon. I'm all for abolishing copyright in general but the unfairness of the system isn't improved with a literal death of the author proposal while keeping the rest of it around. Just make the exclusivity term short and consistent and get rid of this perverse reverse-lottery idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
  Disney !!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 06:05
|
|
