Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 321 posts

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#151

Post by [deleted] »

thatcat wrote: post #89
graeme wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about business. Any business writing is copyright protected too. I've been on business for eight years, and it would be very weird it the stuff I wrote and still use on my site expires in 12 years. It potentially will still be just as valid in that time. I know the tech world changes fast but there are some niches where something written or recorded in 1998 is still valid today.

That's the point of copyright, so that the public eventually benefits from giving you protection for the term of the copyright. It's suppose to still be valid.

[deleted]

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#152

Post by markvdb »

clon wrote: post #94
markvdb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comparison is intellectually lazy or maybe even dishonest. One difference between a house and a recording is marginal cost of replication/reproduction: not zero in case of a house, effectively zero in case of a recording. Without a government granted monopoly on copies, the marginal financial value of a copy is close to zero in all but the most exotic cases. With a government granted monopoly comes a real cost:…

On the other hand, the society does not have a $DEITY granted right to benefit from the creations of an author, material or immaterial. The fact that in one case the creation is easily reproducible with almost zero marginal costs, speaks not of the inherent value of the original creation (that was presumably undisputed at the author's lifetime), but is mere opportunistic thinking from the perspective of the society.…

Freely sharing copies after a reasonably short state protected monopoly has expired does not equal stealing.

P.S. I do feel for the difficult bit of history in your native country's past. Lots of friends and family from a small republic "liberated" 3 times the last 80 years, consecutively by the USSR, Nazi Germany, and again the USSR...

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#153

Post by wilsonnb3 »

sametmax wrote: post #61
zaarn wrote: post #51

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 clai…

Powerful entities are getting less and less liable to the public every day. And it's mostly because of us: we don't make them pay any mistake, so they carry on as long as it profit them. Google is not your friend. It's a for profit company that protect its interests. Basically, they won't do anything because: - they don't care. They never did. They used to pretend they did when they were not the leader. Now they are.…

Why can't a for profit company that protects its interests be my friend?

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#155

Post by Pxtl »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #4

Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades (I'm being kinda generous, some songs are old after a few months / one to five years). I hate the state of copyrighted works. Movies can stay copyrighted for a good 40 to 50 years, anything else is crazy. Books maybe 50 years too, but again, it's just crazy and clear that the extended years of co…

One thing I find bewildering is how the ownership of a song is far longer than the ownership of a recording.

I remember reading about (very liberal) Randy Bachmann supporting a very conservative copyright plan, and being confused... but it was explained that his earlier recordings were going to be public domain while he still lived. That was his worry - that he would cease to own his first albums. Not the songs, which are covered constantly, but the actual albums.

To me, it's exactly backwards that recordings have a short shelf-life (X0 years), while writings compositions have a long one (X0 years after death of author). It seems far more important to me to allow new artists to iterate on old art, than it does to set the actual original recorded performance of that art free.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#156

Post by qubax »

Firstly, the assumption by google should be innocence rather than the guilt of the youtube creator. The burden should be on the accuser and not the accused.

Secondly, if 3 copyright violations gets the accused banned, then 3 false copyright accusations should get the accuser banned. Under youtube's current model, it actually incentivizes companies to claim everything since there are no consequences.

Thirdly, with what youtube is doing, it seems like they just want to be a platform for corporate media. It seems like they are heavily pushing established media like CNN, Late Night Shows, SNL and celebrities like ( Kevin Hart, Will Smith, etc ). I'm seeing so many more corporate media recommendations on youtube than ever before. If that's the case, what's the point of youtube? If all they want is for me to see CNN or Kimmel clips, what do I need youtube for? I can just go watch CNN and Kimmel on TV.

Youtube's selling point was that it wasn't TV. It was different. That's the case less and less now. I still have hope for youtube and I still like a lot of the non-corporate content there, but I hope youtube really reassesses their handling of claims.

Edit: And as for copyright, there should be less, not more of it and it should be for limited time. It stifles creativity and it pretty much enriches the few ( most of whom had nothing to do with the creation of art ).

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#157

Post by jacquesm »

visarga wrote: post #123
jacquesm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those people laying bricks are still around. Are you going to tell me they have no right to their own work anymore 20 years after they laid those bricks? After all they are still alive and kicking and people are still walking on those streets many years later. We 'knowledge workers' have it pretty easy compared to the people doing physical work. 30 years should be plenty for all media.

Different situation. Brick layers are getting their full salary when they work. Content creators don't have a salary, but a recurring revenue from sales.

Plenty of content creators have one time pay: session musicians, contract programmers. Copyright then gets transferred to those milking the cow.

Plenty of content creators are salaried employees as well.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#159

Post by jwilk »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #126

> However, I intended to release all of my videos under a free license, so that they could be used in the future for others to educate and inform students about these beautiful works. Even in cases where my defense to the ContentID claims were successful, the videos were not reverted to this free license, making it much more difficult for others to use and share these digitized works in the way I originally had inten…

The music is not copyrightable, but presumably the videos are.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#160

Post by asmithmd1 »

yoz-y wrote: post #28
Zigurd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Are you going to tell them they have no right to their own work anymore 20 years after they had one of their most successful releases?" In a word, yes. The entire purpose of copyright is to enrich the commons by granting a limited term monopoly. Without that purpose in mind, copyright loses legitimacy. It's a government granted right, and, in the US, there is specific authorization in the constitution to make such a…

All rights, human rights included, are just some arbitrary rules some part of humans have decided to follow. These laws could also set the counter for let's say 5 years after the death of all of the original authors or something like that. There is no reason for these rights to transfer indefinitely.

You need to read the US Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The signers knew what they were doing was against the Kings laws - but they said, for the first time, there are higher laws that everyone is entitled to. Copyright and patents, while maybe good law, are not among these.

Post reply on HN