Can Beethoven send takedown requests? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#51

Post by zaarn » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:22 PM UTC

Easy and stupid solution: Make it illegal to falsely claim copyright on a piece of media and additionally make transparent and fair processes around Notice&Takedown required for all larger platforms.

Youtube's DMCA mechanism is a black box, you get told you did some bad and you can say "no I didn't do bad" at which point the black box will do things and after a few days agree or not.

If someone files a copyright claim on my video I want to know who did it, why they did it, what they expect as a resolution and if the claims turn out to be false more than three times, ban them from claiming already uploaded videos of mine or even future videos.

There needs to be hurtful punishment for abusing these processes but there isn't so lots of media corporations abuse it without end.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#52

Post by dotancohen » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #37

I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But then it started getting harder and harder…

Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#53

Post by plopilop » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

clon wrote: post #40

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus h…

In my country, inheritance of more than 2 million € is taxed ~50% (20% tax for 500 000 - 1M€).

Copyright inheritance is not taxed in any way.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#54

Post by zaarn » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:25 PM UTC

maaaats wrote: post #6

> “[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address support-de@google.com cannot be read and acknowledged” Google's support in a nutshell.

It's funny because that the email in their imprint and you're technically supposed to put contact data in there where you can be immediately contacted. Sadly not outright illegal to just spam filter this inbox.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#55

Post by gdfasfklshg4 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:25 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #49

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

How about works for hire? When should the copyright on The Lion King expire when people of all ages had worked on it?

50 years.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#56

Post by richrichardsson » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:26 PM UTC

brann0 wrote: post #45

richrichardsson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Artists from what I recall make more money selling merchandise and doing concerts True, because every ass and his dog pirates music, thus the income from selling music is severely diminished. The amount of time it takes to produce/compose/record etc. music is not exactly trivial, and if you have to tour constantly in order to be able to pay the bills, then finding time and energy to create some new music to perform…

Can you provide some proof that "pirating" (I hate that word) had severely diminished sold copies? And I don't mean all those "studies" based on the false premise that downloaded records are lost sales.

No I cannot, but conversely can you prove that is has not?

All I can proffer is anecdote that as bandwidth and the ubiquity of Internet increased over the years, the sales of music via the label I'm involved with diminished. All the while our artists and the label itself became more and more popular, so it seems entirely counter inuitive that sales should have been dropping.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#57

Post by HohPum1l » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:27 PM UTC

clon wrote: post #40

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus h…

The house is recouped by society though inheritance and property tax. You keep the physical object, but it has to be continuously paid for by generations to remain private.

If keeping things copyrighted had a continuous cost then copyright holders would be incentivized to release things to public sooner.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#58

Post by clon » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:28 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #48

clon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus h…

1. Immaterial rights are not material rights 2. Private property is a false analogy 3. Copyright was established for two reasons: a) to let the author (and only the author ) to profit from their immaterial work. b) to facilitate the free exchange of ideas

That is kind of the point - why is the dad who wields a pencil going to have to leave his children in a worse position than a dad who wielded a hammer.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#59

Post by kartan » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:28 PM UTC

clon wrote: post #40

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus h…

> in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial.

In one case or you live in the house or I live in the house. In the other, you can listen to music and other million people or 1 billion at the same time.

Physical ownership is required because it is a limit resource. Copyright is not limited by any physic constraint.

So, I agree that ownership has nothing to do with the original creator. But copyright has nothing to do with a house ownership but a legal monopoly created by the state with some goals in mind that may require or probably not to extend it beyond a few years.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#60

Post by Jerry2 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #52

Jerry2 wrote: post #37

I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But then it started getting harder and harder…

Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.

>Who was sending these notices?

There's lots of them. The most notorious one I had to deal with was Adrev. There are reports of people getting notices from AdRev for videos that don't even have any music in them. [1]

[1] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/42xLe...