|
No copyright would probably mean more video games are client-server - does the presence of the legal system really change much there? I don't think "it's illegal" is the primary or secondary reason why I don't pirate games, personally, though obviously I don't speak for most people. There's tons of game piracy anyway and companies already undertake their own methods of avoiding it. A movie is kinda different because no matter what form it comes in, the end result is sound and video which can be captured and recreated.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Computer code should not be copyrightable at all. Once one coder puts up an algorithm on StackOverflow, everyone is using it. And that's how code improves. If you stop that, you are just keeping old bugs for the sake of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
I'm sad that I live in a world where people consider paying for software that doesn't include source code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Jethro posted:But "stealing" a cg model only has any meaning in a society with intellectual property laws. If I took my desk home with me, that's stealing because then my company doesn't have that desk anymore. If I take a copy of desk.mdl home with me on a thumbdrive that I snuck in to the office, that doesn't deprive anyone of anything except the ability to profit from something that derives most of it's profitibility from the artificial scarcity created by ip laws. Well, no, it also violates the contract your company likely had you sign saying that you wouldn't take company data home and use it for your own profit! I'm sure there's also probably some caselaw about not using company property for your own benefit without permission, even if you're not depriving the company of that item. Same goes for the Optimus Prime 3D model thing: if whoever owns Transformers hires a company to produce a 3D model of Optimus for them, they do so under a contract with that 3D company, stipulating that they won't let anyone else use the model. If they then sell that model to someone else, then they get sued into oblivion - not because of copyright violations, but because they broke the contract which clearly said they couldn't do that. Copyright law isn't that significant to business relationships these days, since contract law covers most legit cases and things like trade secrets can plug the holes where there's obvious misconduct. Rather, the main role of copyright in business these days is to let everyone extract rents from everyone else - for example, the tech world has a lot of uneasy MAD pacts where everyone in a given sector has a patent that could potentially tank everyone else in the sector. And of course we can't forget the patent trolls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Computer code should not be copyrightable at all. Once one coder puts up an algorithm on StackOverflow, everyone is using it. And that's how code improves. If you stop that, you are just keeping old bugs for the sake of it. Algorithms are not copyrightable, the code itself is. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:No copyright would probably mean more video games are client-server - does the presence of the legal system really change much there? I don't think "it's illegal" is the primary or secondary reason why I don't pirate games, personally, though obviously I don't speak for most people. There's tons of game piracy anyway and companies already undertake their own methods of avoiding it. A movie is kinda different because no matter what form it comes in, the end result is sound and video which can be captured and recreated. I'm not really sure what the benefit to anyone of making only client-server models work for code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Algorithms are not copyrightable, the code itself is. If I were in charge I wouldn't stop there and you'd probably have to distribute source code for both client in server but I'll stand by software copyright law already doing very little in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:My point is really that companies are doing that anyway because the legal system doesn't really stop anyone from pirating software. Individual personal piracy is more of a headache than any sort of the "real problem". 1994 ID software would like you to not pirate doom II. They would prefer you don't but they will live and the game will be sold at walmart and people will still buy it. What the end of the road is is if there is no copyright and walmart can just sell doom II and print it's own disks and cut ID out completely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Individual personal piracy is more of a headache than any sort of the "real problem". There was a stage in time where it was easier to pirate things online than trudge to the store to buy them, and that did have a significant effect, which is why things like Steam or Netflix exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What the end of the road is is if there is no copyright and walmart can just sell doom II and print it's own disks and cut ID out completely. Since you're assuming a gigantic change in one area of society (basically the abolition or significant modification of an entire form of property) why are you assuming everything else would be the exact same? It makes no logical sense to assume ID software would exist in the same manner that they do now if the entire basis of I/P were radically different. Presumably the abolition of existing copyright would be linked to a new fundraising mechanism or support system for creative types.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Since you're assuming a gigantic change in one area of society (basically the abolition or significant modification of an entire form of property) why are you assuming everything else would be the exact same? It makes no logical sense to assume ID software would exist in the same manner that they do now if the entire basis of I/P were radically different. Presumably the abolition of existing copyright would be linked to a new fundraising mechanism or support system for creative types. Again I'm fine with copyright existing in the sense that you have to attribute the original author and can specify whether or not you're buying direct from them. Misleading buyers as to the authenticity of something feels criminally wrong to me in a way that merely distributing it without permission does not and I'm fine if walmart. Okay, okay, law proposal: Copyright exists in the sense that there is still a copyright holder. If you wish to sell copyrighted software without a license, you have to include a big, obvious, cigarette-style disclaimer that you are not the copyright holder, and that the software can be downloaded for free on the internet instead of paying for it here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
As I keep saying, since a dramatic change to I/P laws is already pie-in-the-sky it seems fair to assume that other dramatic changes would also be taking place, and I'd hope one of them would be the breaking up of massive monopolistic entities like Wal Mart and Disney. It's hard to imagine a world where a political coalition of people opposed to I/P actually captures control of the government and enacts such a sweeping change without also assuming there are other alterations to the political economy of the nation. And it seems like the logical corollary to socializing the cultural commons would be breaking up some of the vast concentrations of private corporate power that also exist. It seems no more or less plausible than the end of copywrite so why not shoot for the moon? Current I/P laws don't exist in a vacuum, they exist at least in part because these gigantic corporate entities lobby for their existence and enforcement. If you want to change the law with any permanency you'd probably have to do something about the economic interests that are behind those laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Since you're assuming a gigantic change in one area of society (basically the abolition or significant modification of an entire form of property) why are you assuming everything else would be the exact same? It makes no logical sense to assume ID software would exist in the same manner that they do now if the entire basis of I/P were radically different. Presumably the abolition of existing copyright would be linked to a new fundraising mechanism or support system for creative types. this is kind of a bizarre argument: "well, if i got my way, then so many other things would be different who knows what the results would be!!!" sure, you're asking for a radical change and if you have the ability to push through a radical change presumably yes, you do have the ability to push through other radical changes. but that's not a reason for people not to follow the effects of radical idea #1 to their natural conclusion and go "hmm, seems bad" - the onus is then on you to explain what the other radical changes would be and how they'd fix it. Helsing posted:Current I/P laws don't exist in a vacuum, they exist at least in part because these gigantic corporate entities lobby for their existence and enforcement. If you want to change the law with any permanency you'd probably have to do something about the economic interests that are behind those laws. this is true only in a trivial, fairly meaningless sense because our current IP laws are not that different from the IP laws passed shortly after the constitution, implementing the IP clause of the constitution, which needless to say predate the existence of disney-like corporations
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
How does society stand to benefit from entertainment entering the public domain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
General Dog posted:How does society stand to benefit from entertainment entering the public domain? how does it not
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is kind of a bizarre argument: "well, if i got my way, then so many other things would be different who knows what the results would be!!!" I'm specifically responding to OOCC who seems to be basing all his objections on the premise that the economy would look the exact same except where it regards I/P laws. That seems totally implausible. We're clearly speculating about a dramatic paradigm shift in how culture gets produced and distributed so we should at least be open to talking about how we would make additional changes that would be necessary to have the new system of I/P function properly. I was doing this a bit upthread, speculating on hypothetical replacements for funding once I/P is abolished. I think the key question is why we would be advocating a change to I/P laws and in my mind the answer would be the opening up of the cultural commons. That means giving a much wider range of people the opportunity to participate in creative endeavors, while simultaneously removing the barriers that mean most publicly recognizable artifacts are controlled by private bureaucracies. To my mind the alteration of I/P laws is necessarily of a piece with the breaking up of current entertainment companies. The point should be to free our culture from the stranglehold of these overly centralized and powerful concentrations of private power. It wouldn't be desirable to strip away all protections for artists and creators if we're not also going to address the monopoly power of entertainment corporations. quote:this is true only in a trivial, fairly meaningless sense because our current IP laws are not that different from the IP laws passed shortly after the constitution, implementing the IP clause of the constitution, which needless to say predate the existence of disney-like corporations Plenty of other institutions of similar vintage are now consigned to the history books. Entire categories of property have been abolished in the interim but I/P laws are much the same as they were back then. Since we know that I/P imposes certain visible costs on society I think it is fair to assume that ceterus paribus there would have been some move to modify or remove I/P unless there were powerful countervailing forces in society ensuring that I/P laws remained much the same. General Dog posted:How does society stand to benefit from entertainment entering the public domain? People should have broad freedom to reproduce and play around with the inherited symbols, music and stories of the culture they are born into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm specifically responding to OOCC who seems to be basing all his objections on the premise that the economy would look the exact same except where it regards I/P laws. That seems totally implausible. We're clearly speculating about a dramatic paradigm shift in how culture gets produced and distributed so we should at least be open to talking about how we would make additional changes that would be necessary to have the new system of I/P function properly. European clowns paint their face on an egg then put the egg in a community museum and if you copy someone else's clown egg they will come beat you up and/or not let you do shows in their town. Or at the very least you will be known as a dishonorable clown in the clown community and have no clown honor from the other clowns. The idea of intellectual property exists in pretty much all societies with the variations being on how strictly and formally the enforcement is. You could try not having any laws, but clowns are still gonna come beat you up and tell you you have no honor if you don't follow whatever the norms they set are, which is like laws but worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
please do not share the inner secrets of clown society, thank you honk honk
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:please do not share the inner secrets of clown society, thank you honk honk It's mostly important for everyone to know that "clown eggs" are a thing that exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
One of the biggest problems with copyright law is work-for-hire. A patron comes to an artist and says, "I'll give you a steady income if you'll produce things for me. You waive your rights to what you produce and they become my property to do with as I will." The artist is happy to do this, because they don't have the means to promote themselves like their patron does, their art would never get a wide audience, and they'd most likely starve on their own. With this model, they have 100% guaranteed food on their tables and a roof over their heads, their patron gets a steady supply of assets to profit with as they will, and everybody lives well. In a capitalist system, the patron would want to get maximum profit over time on their investment, so they would be absolutely opposed to copyright limits; paying one guy's salary for 40 years is peanuts next to a thousand years of
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:European clowns paint their face on an egg then put the egg in a community museum and if you copy someone else's clown egg they will come beat you up and/or not let you do shows in their town. Or at the very least you will be known as a dishonorable clown in the clown community and have no clown honor from the other clowns. Nobody has ever suggested there won't be both a legal and normative framework governing these issues though? In fact I've made a number of suggestions for alternative normative and legal arrangements to address the issues currently solved through copywrite. You're the one who cannot seem to let go of the idea that no matter what else might happen there will always be gigantic entertainment corporations like Disney, even though it's very hard to imagine how Disney would survive in its current form in a world with radically different I/P laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:To my mind the alteration of I/P laws is necessarily of a piece with the breaking up of current entertainment companies. The point should be to free our culture from the stranglehold of these overly centralized and powerful concentrations of private power. It wouldn't be desirable to strip away all protections for artists and creators if we're not also going to address the monopoly power of entertainment corporations. I'm very much in favor of breaking up the vertical integration, monopolistic behavior that's been growing in the media/entertainment business. But I just don't see any way that movies and television shows are produced without large entertainment companies. You need a certain size to be able to have the funding to put those together; you need an even bigger size to be able to deal with the high level of variance (many TV shows and movies bomb, and your company can't go under due to one bad movie/tv show). When it comes to music, yeah there's not a tremendous amount of value the record companies add in this day and age. Novels, well, publishers are mostly dead anyway, the only money anyone makes on books is on textbooks. Basically, I'm not even sure what you're trying to attack here or what your end goal is here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Crain posted:I guess this is a good segue into another aspect of this: free speech vs. authorial intent or perception. rather infamously hariet beecher stowe wanted nothing to do with getting a copyright for a dramatic production of uncle tom's cabin as she found plays distasteful. this helped contribute to a large number of derivative plays made by people who did not have stowe's abolitionist ideals and many more people ended seeing these plays then reading the original serialized novel. while the book itself is problematic in many ways the plays are what really focused on and popularized the minstrel elements that to this very day are what comes to mind when the work is mentioned. i do find it discomforting to think that an author's work could be so thoroughly usurped in the public consciousness, but it does seem like something that would be rather rare even with no protections in place GhostofJohnMuir fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Dec 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can't really get a movie or a major video game created without copyright monopolies. I would say the fact that indie, amateur, and homemade films exist, the massive modding projects that have existed since the late 90s atleast, and the various fan games that keep cropping up, often enough with significant work done, despite the fact that the company always blocks it kind of proves this point wrong. People will create works of all kinds for no gain, sometimes at even at great personal expense, because they want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I would say the fact that indie, amateur, and homemade films exist, the massive modding projects that have existed since the late 90s atleast, and the various fan games that keep cropping up, often enough with significant work done, despite the fact that the company always blocks it kind of proves this point wrong. Most indie movies are still typically semi-major productions with investors or rely heavily on sorta skimming existing production/studio stuff/talent (to say nothing of actual distribution). Modding literally requires an existing game (typically with assets) to mod off of, and a lot of other indies use engines that are provided for free with the agreement that the engine makers get a cut of the revenue. And in the background for most of that is that there's an off chance that they'll also really strike it big (or even medium). The other issue isn't that people won't produce things, but that a threshold of quality/content likely exists where reward-coordination is required. Mad Max (movie or game) simply require resources beyond hobbyist level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
General Dog posted:How does society stand to benefit from entertainment entering the public domain? If you want to read Moby Dick you can go to a website that has the full text available for free and just start reading immediately. In contrast if you want to read the Great Gatsby you either have to pay for it, commit a crime, or find a library. Further restrictions on the use of the characters and story limit the ability of modern artists to create new art inspired by the copyright material and add additional costs to projects in the form of fees to the copyright owner. The argument is that the additional costs of consuming the copyrighted material and constraints on creating new art are necessary to encourage creators to produce. I doubt F Scott Fitzgerald was particularly motivated by the prospect of Scribner earning rents in his works for over three decades after the death of his son however. A copyright that does not incentivize creative production serves no purpose and should become public domain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I would say the fact that indie, amateur, and homemade films exist, the massive modding projects that have existed since the late 90s atleast, and the various fan games that keep cropping up, often enough with significant work done, despite the fact that the company always blocks it kind of proves this point wrong. indie films are still profit-making enterprises; amateur films are either terrible or are made with the goal of breaking into the industry or are some boring artistic crap that has little mass appeal to anyone outside a very narrow niche; the only homemade films i have ever heard anyone being interested in watching, well, it wasn't for the plot. the fact that like, five mods that are genuine games have been created in the past three decades is not a replacement for a video game industry. video games are one of the areas open-source development works the least well, and it simply can't replicate aaa titles. and the idea that there would be some sort of "movie" that one could watch and some sort of "game" that one could watch in a world without copyright isn't really all that relevant, when at best we're talking an utterly tiny fraction of the content people like. nobody is stopping people from making games and movies for free these days, and that's even with the effective subsidy on that activity that for-profit moviemaking and videogame-making create (by creating a much larger pool of talented people who know how to do it, and who can support themselves by doing it keeping their skills sharp). yet if i grabbed a thousand random people i doubt any noticeable percentage of them have seen a movie filmed and released for free, or played a completely free game, even if i only grabbed people who don't know how to pirate games and movies so they have to pay for the non-free content.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you want to read Moby Dick you can go to a website that has the full text available for free and just start reading immediately. In contrast if you want to read the Great Gatsby you either have to pay for it, commit a crime, or find a library. Further restrictions on the use of the characters and story limit the ability of modern artists to create new art inspired by the copyright material and add additional costs to projects in the form of fees to the copyright owner. Also, people can make Sherlock Holmes films, make movies based strongly on various religious stories/myths, and all sorts of other derivative works based on stuff in the public domain that enriches our culture. The public domain is not just good because it's free books/music/whatever, it's good because it's free content that can be used and remixed to create new works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, people can make Sherlock Holmes films, make movies based strongly on various religious stories/myths, and all sorts of other derivative works based on stuff in the public domain that enriches our culture. The public domain is not just good because it's free books/music/whatever, it's good because it's free content that can be used and remixed to create new works. The dubious copyright status of the Cthulhu mythos created a lot of difficulties for people who wanted to work in that shared universe. It's still not 100% clear it is out of copyright. And Lovecraft died with no heirs but distant relatives, who are all dead now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The dubious copyright status of the Cthulhu mythos created a lot of difficulties for people who wanted to work in that shared universe. It's still not 100% clear it is out of copyright. And Lovecraft died with no heirs but distant relatives, who are all dead now. This is actually a big copyright problem that's been caused by the abolition of a requirement you renew your copyright to get a full term: there's tons of "orphan" works where nobody really knows if anyone holds the copyright and whoever does clearly could not care less about it (but if there's money to be made suing someone, might perk up in a decade). Requiring copyright renewal would do a lot to get stuff like this clearly into the public domain, and clear out a huge amount of stuff that is not benefiting anyone by remaining under copyright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I would say the fact that indie, amateur, and homemade films exist, the massive modding projects that have existed since the late 90s atleast, and the various fan games that keep cropping up, often enough with significant work done, despite the fact that the company always blocks it kind of proves this point wrong. The lack of copyright protections in fan game and mod communities tend to be a huge problem. Like it's a huge issue in skyrim mods with people making huge free mods, then someone else copying the whole mod or huge chunks of it then making it a paid mod and the person working on the free one eventually simply having to quit because there is no recourse. Even without the money aspect that has always been a huge issue that is always a core of drama, Like someone making an xcom mod pack that has 100 guns then someone copying the whole thing and releasing the exact same mod but with 101 guns, and that one getting near 100% of the downloads because it's one more gun, and the guy that did all the work getting totally cut out and the 101 guns guy getting to be the gatekeeper for updates and stuff because everyone only downloaded the mod through him and the guy that made the real work having no say in anything and just having to work as an employee of the 101 guns guy if he wants to get anything put out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The lack of copyright protections in fan game and mod communities tend to be a huge problem. on the other hand there was the time that guy made the skyrim mod that put towns in the seamless environment as the general countryside. then he modded Oblivion gates into every town because "artistic vision" everyone hated it and a goon released a version of the mod that took out the oblivion gates. the guy lost his loving mind and went on a loving jihad to get that mod banned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
E: added the quote I was responding to so my reply isn't contextless.Squalid posted:If you want to read Moby Dick you can go to a website that has the full text available for free and just start reading immediately. In contrast if you want to read the Great Gatsby you either have to pay for it, commit a crime, or find a library. Further restrictions on the use of the characters and story limit the ability of modern artists to create new art inspired by the copyright material and add additional costs to projects in the form of fees to the copyright owner. Death of the author isn't a good cutoff, Stieg Larsson died before his work was even published, and someone who writes a good book young could rest on it forever. You do not want to incentivize the mouse to start bumping off foreign authors to get their work for free. Whatever we do does need to be uniform. Harik fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Dec 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
Harik posted:E: added the quote I was responding to so my reply isn't contextless. I'm smelling a great spy thriller.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 11:15
|
|
|
Harik posted:You do not want to incentivize the mouse to start bumping off foreign authors to get their work for free. I think copyright murders would probably be a little much and don't sound like a thing that would happen much, but I also think disney would not have bought marvel and would of instead written "untitled spiderman movie 202?" on their internal upcoming movie list and would be very excited that many of the most beloved authors from people's childhoods are always inherently elderly when they are old enough to have their own children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Is there a list somewhere of the various works that are coming out of copyright now? Particularly books / ebooks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is there a list somewhere of the various works that are coming out of copyright now? Particularly books / ebooks? There are a number of sites with lists of notable works if you search for “public domain [year]”. But a lot of them just list the big name stuff like Chaplin’s work, Agatha Christie novels, and popular music. You can search on Wikipedia for lists of things that will be entering the public domain, which are similar to the “[year] in film” pages. The most complete source would be the US Copyright Office’s copyright database here: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First Warning though: that site is REAL slow and has a lot of non-media entries relating to licensing and stuff to dig through to find what you’re looking for. You may need to do your own legwork though and look up what was published in 1923 in various mediums. Since everything from that year is what is going into the public domain, but even those lists are incomplete since they wouldn’t cover self published stuff unless it was particularly popular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The dubious copyright status of the Cthulhu mythos created a lot of difficulties for people who wanted to work in that shared universe. It's still not 100% clear it is out of copyright. And Lovecraft died with no heirs but distant relatives, who are all dead now. It was not dubious, there was simply a company interested in telling you they owned the rights to Lovecraft's work when they really didn't - but at the same time nobody else was around to try to push those rights for many years. There were no valid copyright extensions filed on any of his works at times that would leave them in copyright now. There are "Lovecraft" stories that are in copyright now, but those are ones you had like August Derleth doing a "posthumous collaboration" with Lovecraft on the basis of Lovecraft's letters and notes and story outlines. So really they're Derleth stories that are copyrighted, not Lovecraft ones. Derleth sure loved to put his own works in with republications of Lovecraft work though which had some outwardly confusing copyright but which did not matter. And the "Cthulhu mythos" aspect itself was natively public domain, all authors participating encouraged their friends and random readers to take gods, concepts, rituals, etc and actively try to place them in other work. The point was to make something that was like a version of open source for its time - if you're some unsupsecting reader of the cheap fiction rags, and you see "Cthulhu" named in one story, and then another story references Cthulhu the same way it'd reference Jupiter, and then a third one references it the way you'd see a particular murderer of history referenced - it starts to really feel real to you, like there's a secret history that all these people happen to know. It was always impossible to try to own that, even at the depths of ol Gusty trying to bully people away if they wouldn't work for his publishing outfit. As for Lovecraft's true collaborations and ghostwriting career and revision work, copyright was almost always assigned to the other party. Cuz that is how those things go. The copyright or not on most of them was hashed out long ago, and wasn't very relevant to the overall work. fishmech fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Here's a semi-new direction of discussion: Internet Copyright Enforcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqj2csl933Q Is there anything to really be done to address this? Probably not on youtube itself since this isn't directly a system put in place due to US laws but rather their own system, although it is a result of lawsuits brought under the DMCA. I guess the only real solution would involve a massive overhaul of how the legal system works in this country since most of the hurdles here are due to it being monetarily impossible to bring someone like VIACOM or UMG to court over false DMCA claims. Non-youtube sites or private hosting basically get away with whatever till the hosting service ends up shutting them down, and then they just pop back up somewhere. So it's also a matter of youtube's effective monopoly on internet video hosting. It's also entirely inconsistent. Major content producers on youtube get massive protections from youtube that the average user can't even potentially access. Part of this is due to their own corporate backing as well. I know some youtube users have tried some stuff in the past: Producer Unions, Multi-Channel Networks, Legal funds, and some other things but ultimately these are futile because youtube isn't really interested in taking control of ContentID away from the industry giants since it exists explicitly FOR them. I wonder if somehow we'll ever see another rash of Monopoly busting like in the past. I mean, Microsoft was ruled to not be allowed to bundle Internet Explorer with it's OS not 17 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Crain posted:Here's a semi-new direction of discussion: Internet Copyright Enforcement. Sorry, what are you asking to be addressed? Also I don't understand what you seem to be alleging with that last set of sentences there - Vimeo or whatever has automated systems in place to try to stop you from just uploading Transformers 4, it's exactly the kinds of things large video hosts need to do to limit their own liability. Crain posted:
Multi-channel networks are 99% about advertising revenue, and allowing the people making the videos to take a small bit of it after the network takes a generous cut. They mostly only care about defeating false claims as such claims temporarily hurt their bottom line. Crain posted:
Er, no, it was very much ruled that Microsoft could bundle IE with Windows and they never stopped doing it. They just had to offer pointless extra versions for hypothetical customers that didn't want it. Also microsoft's "monopoly" was never "busted" either, it's still absolutely dominant over operating systems. fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Sorry, what are you asking to be addressed? Also I don't understand what you seem to be alleging with that last set of sentences there - Vimeo or whatever has automated systems in place to try to stop you from just uploading Transformers 4, it's exactly the kinds of things large video hosts need to do to limit their own liability. Just correct that to cover the big big video sites vs. independent platforms people set up for their personal stuff. Like how TeamFourStar set up their home site to host the videos that kept getting taken down by Toei. Someone like Viacom can still send you a DMCA notice, but they don't have a free backdoor to take your stuff down directly like on YT. Closest they get is threatening your hosting provider or directly suing you. As far as what to address: DMCA abuse on internet platforms. How could you balance protecting copyrights without allowing for such wanton abuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:11
|
|