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

301–310 of 321 posts

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#301

Post by chimeracoder »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #300
chimeracoder wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would go into the public domain is Steamboat Willie, the original Mickey Mouse short. Steamboat Willie is likely to enter the public domain shortly, in fact.

As above: expect another attempt to push the copyright protection further, shortly.

> As above: expect another attempt to push the copyright protection further, shortly.

No, it really does appear that this time they've given up. There are articles that have written about this - If Disney were preparing for a big push, we'd have started to see it by now already.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#302

Post by cyphar »

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #293
cyphar wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a legal right. We agree that the current laws are like this, but laws change all the time and laws are supposed to reflect society's ethics (in the US this is a joke nowadays -- they reflect the (lack of) ethics of large corporations). If the current laws are unfair, then having a discussion of how the laws should be (to inform a decision on whether such a reform should be lobbied for and put to into an actual…

We agree that the current laws are like this, but laws change all the time and laws are supposed to reflect society's ethics In exactly the same way that property rights are enforced. We're barreling into a knowledge-based economy, yet HN wants to devalue knowledge and IP.

It's not the same way that property rights are enforced. This is a common misunderstanding because of the term "intellectual property". In most countries the concepts of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, etc are separate legal concepts with completely different regulations.

Copyright protects against the copying of works -- there is simply no analog of "copying a work" for physical property. You cannot "copy" a chair, or "copy" a table. You can make a new one from scratch based on the design of the old one, and assuming it has no patents, this would be completely legal.

Copyright also can place restrictions on redistribution of works, as well as modification (or even use) of works. This is something that is has no physical property laws associated with it -- the previous owner of a house cannot place restrictions on who you can sell your house to (or whether you can drill holes in the wall or where you can place your furniture). A publisher cannot restrict your ability to sell a book you bought to someone else second-hand.

The same argument can be drawn out for all of the other completely separate legal concepts.

Not to mention that "intellectual property" doesn't mirror the core concept of property -- it is based on scarcity. The reason why ownership of a house is important is because there is only one such house, and there must be a way to figure out who has the right to make executive decisions about that house. This is not how "intellectual property" operates. There simply is no scarcity, as ideas can be spread and copied without cost.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#303

Post by beshrkayali »

mLuby wrote: post #212
beshrkayali wrote: post #144

> lawful free expression online What's the point of using the word "lawful" here? Free expression is free expression, conforming to a law or not is subject to the country and time. I think it somehow dilutes the absolute nature in the meaning of: free expression.

You're technically correct but in a meaningless way. One is "free" to do basically anything they have the power to do, but nobody acts that way (they'd be jailed or dead) so when we say "free" we mean within reasonable bounds, which usually includes the law.

I'm not sure how it's meaningless. When we're talking about a concept such is free speech, there is no point of "within reasonable bounds... the law", at least in an ideological frame. The only bounds are those of any greater freedom, meaning do as you like as long as you're not transgressing on someone else's. Freedom of expression using ones own means is an absolute freedom that should be self-evident and self-defined.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#304

Post by mdrzn »

oarsinsync wrote: post #280
golem14 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's complete nonsense. Have any hard evidence to share?

There was a post on here (HN) a while ago about an entire company account getting suspended because Google had linked an employee of that company to his personal google account which was being used to re-sign Android apps for redistribution. It’s an extreme example, but if that account is true, google definitely have automated tooling to link distinct accounts. I can’t actually imagine any reason why they wouldn’t. I…

I actually have a few gmail accounts that are "Youtube banned" for same content ID thing but the mail/drive/whatever part of it still works. So the "Google account wide" ban seems pretty rare and more motivated than just 3 copyright strikes.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#305

Post by mehrdadn »

mdrzn wrote: post #304
oarsinsync wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a post on here (HN) a while ago about an entire company account getting suspended because Google had linked an employee of that company to his personal google account which was being used to re-sign Android apps for redistribution. It’s an extreme example, but if that account is true, google definitely have automated tooling to link distinct accounts. I can’t actually imagine any reason why they wouldn’t. I…

I actually have a few gmail accounts that are "Youtube banned" for same content ID thing but the mail/drive/whatever part of it still works. So the "Google account wide" ban seems pretty rare and more motivated than just 3 copyright strikes.

Thanks for this data point!

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#306

Post by golem14 »

oarsinsync wrote: post #280
golem14 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's complete nonsense. Have any hard evidence to share?

There was a post on here (HN) a while ago about an entire company account getting suspended because Google had linked an employee of that company to his personal google account which was being used to re-sign Android apps for redistribution. It’s an extreme example, but if that account is true, google definitely have automated tooling to link distinct accounts. I can’t actually imagine any reason why they wouldn’t. I…

That's nonsense. They have banned the entire org in this case, not linked accounts that weren't before.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#307

Post by jpttsn »

kartan wrote: post #62
jpttsn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs, for those who invest in artists. This theoretically enables larger investments that can support the artist further up front.

> A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs I go to the bank. I ask for a loan. I tell them that I will small marginal profits after 75 years. I do not get the loan. Even if in some cases this was actually possible. Still, we need to evaluate if it is worth it. All the stories, movies, characters that are part of your formation and your culture will be privately owned and restricted…

What if record companies finance artists in ways that banks wouldn’t?

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#308

Post by yoz-y »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #160
yoz-y wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. C…

For me the important thing is that _they said_ that there are higher laws. Don't take me wrong, I do like the human rights and all. But they are just a man made construct, there is no higher power bestowing any of them upon us–it is up to humanity to ensure that we keep them.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#309

Post by MereInterest »

graeme wrote: post #286
MereInterest wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is meant to be an incentive for the creation of works that otherwise would not be made. Copyright was there as an incentive for the release of works that would otherwise be kept hidden. As an example, playwrights were very secretive about the plays that they had written. Actors would only be given copies of their own lines, not the lines spoken by anyone else. Full copies of the script were never distribu…

Do you have any source for your claims? The first copyright act in the modern sense was the Statute of Anne in the UK in 1710. The purpose was “for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books”. I included the full preamble below. As for America, the reasoning on the continental congress on copyright was: “that nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protec…

Hmm, I'm having difficulty finding it. I remember hearing that copyright was largely for preservation in a class, but that would have been over a decade ago. Thank you for pointing out that that portion is unsupported. Until and unless I can find a source for it, I will avoid repeating it.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#310

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

mirimir wrote: post #281
kragen wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever you use YouTube, you're already watching videos on dozens of different websites. YouTube is made up of thousands of servers, if not hundreds of thousands, spread all over the world. You just use a user interface that hides the difference from you. Similarly, whenever you use BitTorrent, the different pieces of your file come from dozens or hundreds of different machines, operated by different people, none of…

BitChute is a front end for P2P torrents. And then there's Hola and other streaming frontends for torrents.

There's also PeerTube, which is a p2p YouTube clone using WebTorrents for distributing video, and which also utilizes the ActivityPub W3 recommendation for distributed federated social networking. [1]

[1] https://activitypub.rocks/

Post reply on HN