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

YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 216 posts

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#91

Post by mafuy »

well_actulily wrote: post #74
nmz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody should keep their children far from morals? What?

Lessig isn't saying we should keep children away from morals. He's criticizing how Disney adapted the Brothers Grimm's stories, which often preached heavy-handed and regressive moral lessons in a moralizing manner.

No, he's referring to the Grimm stories. They are indeed violent. They simply are a product of their time. The Disney version is easier to digest. All of this should not detract from his main point, tho.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#92

Post by bertil »

Nothing says that YouTube (Google or Alphabet) cares a little too much about automated processes and not enough about making sense of what’s happening than they not have pro-actively removed that IP from their content recognition system—having implemented a way to do that systematically, even.

This is the canonical piece of culture whose entry into the public domain was expected and celebrated. It’s the touchstone of copyright extension.

If you work at YouTube, please get a couple of intelligent people to parse WikiData to flag those, ask rights-holders if they still want to extend strikes, and avoid getting egg on your face in straightforward cases.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#93

Post by Joel_Mckay »

trogdor wrote: post #79
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #37

"Play stupid games... win stupid prizes." Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? i.e. each digitally remastered re-release essentially extends that versions protection another 85 years. =)

>Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? No. A 2018 9th Circuit decision held that remasters are not eligible for copyright protection because they lack originality. The case was ABS Entertainment Inc. v. CBS Corporation.

"Burninating the countryside, Burninating the peasants, Burninating all the peoples" (Trogdor)

From one monster to another, cheers =)

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#94

Post by fridek »

kitsune_ wrote: post #35

From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better bal…

For me, it boils down to the question of participation in a flawed but powerful system in a hope of leading to better outcomes, or its avoidance in the hope of its downfall. This is the same line of reasoning you can apply to political elections in almost any country.

I have no illusion of being irreplacable, or of the FAANG companies going down. Even if my departure would create a ripple, hiring is not, and will not ever be a problem. There is an endless supply of purely financially motivated and reasonably talented people. To leave would be to let a worse person fill my seat. Conversly, I get to work with a lot of honest people towards better things, in the scope we have control over. You can't fix everything, but often you can really make a difference on what's right in front of you.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#95

Post by alephnerd »

willcipriano wrote: post #88
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public domain for thee, but not for me.

Hey come on they have original ideas, talking African animals, talking cars, talking fish, talking toys. Without intellectual property protection they wouldn't of made all these super original ideas.

All that IP and the talent behind it became Disney's after the acquired Pixar from Steve Jobs.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#96

Post by t-3 »

nmz wrote: post #64
fermigier wrote: post #30

"Here's my favorite example, here: 1928, my hero, Walt Disney, created this extraordinary work, the birth of Mickey Mouse in the form of Steamboat Willie. But what you probably don't recognize about Steamboat Willie and his emergence into Mickey Mouse is that in 1928, Walt Disney, to use the language of the Disney Corporation today, "stole" Willie from Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill." It was a parody, a take-off; it…

Everybody should keep their children far from morals? What?

Moralizing can have the meaning of "inculcating morality", but it's more commonly used nowadays as "relating to a narrow-minded concern [for] the morals of others".

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#97

Post by boppo1 »

kitsune_ wrote: post #35

From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better bal…

>there are other companies that seem to manage a better balance between profit and public responsibility

How's the comp and WLB? Can you list these companies?

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#98

Post by amiga386 »

ben_w wrote: post #42
safety1st wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Oops, just a bug" only goes so far. What's interesting about content ID is that only a select group of large copyright holders have access to protecting their works through it, and we have a growing number of cases where it makes "decisions" that are not in line with copyright law. So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Inquiring minds…

> So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Kinda both, IMO. So, talking to defence lawyers about copyright cases, even if you settle before going to court, is extremely expensive, and even if you're a well-earning software developer you really don't want to pay even the counterparty legal costs that would precede a court case (and those ca…

> I vaguely remember Tom Scott saying something similar as an example of the one time he used a small claims court?

Tom Scott said two things about himself in YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is. [0]

1. "A TV channel from Thailand took one of my videos, played it out without permission in one of their big television shows, and then put that entire television show into Content ID. I got a Content ID hit on my original video from them, and that took a long time to sort out."

2. "The UK has [...] the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court [1][...] and that court has a small claims track. If you're an individual photographer or video maker, you can [...] issue a claim as a "litigant in person", which is the fancy British term for "without a lawyer". I've done it, because a major company ripped off one of my videos. [...] And there I was, walking in, no lawyer, thinking I had a case, thinking I had a grip on reality. Statistically, the odds weren't in my favour, but I filed successfully. And the company settled with me, they paid me to drop the claim, because they were in the wrong, and they knew they were in the wrong, and they knew I could actually get it to a judge in exchange for a bit of work and a court fee of just over £100."

He did not say these two incidents were related.

He did not say he used a court to resolve a Content ID claim.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Enterpri...

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#99

Post by ben_w »

amiga386 wrote: post #98
ben_w wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Kinda both, IMO. So, talking to defence lawyers about copyright cases, even if you settle before going to court, is extremely expensive, and even if you're a well-earning software developer you really don't want to pay even the counterparty legal costs that would precede a court case (and those ca…

> I vaguely remember Tom Scott saying something similar as an example of the one time he used a small claims court? Tom Scott said two things about himself in YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is. [0] 1. "A TV channel from Thailand took one of my videos, played it out without permission in one of their big television shows, and then put that entire television show into Content ID. I got a Content I…

> He did not say these two incidents were related.

Thank you, I had indeed blurred both of those two together in my head.

> He did not say he used a court to resolve a Content ID claim.

I didn't intend to imply that he had, I intended to imply that it had been used falsely against him, in much the same way you kindly elaborated.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#100

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

anon84873628 wrote: post #65
kitsune_ wrote: post #35

From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better bal…

Are other companies really any better? Where can you work that is definitively "morally pure" and have such reliable income and comfortable lifestyle? (Or even in the same ballpark?) It's pretty much the same question as asking why everyone doesn't go work for non profits or NGOs. Or move away from the US and stop supporting bad US government behavior with our taxes...

I'll give Microsoft props for open-sourcing a lot of their proprietary products (e.g. DOS, major components of Windows 3.11, etc) - though it's a shame that a lot of their stuff can't be re-released because it includes source licensed from other companies (e.g. Internet Explorer)..

Don't forget id Software too (granted, they open-source their game engines, while their game content remains paywalled - but it's the spirit that counts)

Post reply on HN