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

Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#11

Post by peddling-brink »

LargeTomato wrote: post #7
wavemode wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…

If your computer program perjures itself who is liable? I mean, realistically no one because Di$ney but maybe they should get enough of a wrist slap to update their algorithm to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Computer programs don't perjure themselves, LLM's aside.

The company that is running the offending program should be liable.

But who knows, I'm no lawyer.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#12

Post by freedomben »

skinkestek wrote: post #8
wavemode wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…

Automated or not it should still be perjury, shouldn't it? I could argue it is even worse if a company their size who definitely has the legal capacity to know about these issues have actually automated perjury.

I agree. In fact, this is an important thing we need to establish. If your automation violates somebody's rights with a decision, that needs to be held to the same standard as if a human did it.

Failing to enforce this, while clearly pragmatic, has IMHO led us to the somewhat dystopian current-world where AIs falsely flagging people have led to accounts being suspend/revoked, small businesses ruined, etc.

Whether intentional or not, Disney should be liable to this Youtube channel for damages. They should have to pay a penalty for abusing the system, and also compensate the creator for the lost revenue.

Companies like Disney sure thought it was important to "make an example" of copyright violators (pirates) in the past. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we should not stand for the double standard.

IANAL, but if such is possible to win, I'd like to see this Youtube creator start a lawsuit.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#13

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

JCharante wrote: post #9
wavemode wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…

It should be negligence to not associate an expiration date in the content ID DB

> It should be negligence

Are you gonna be the one to operate all the websites which monitor for the deaths of all those creators? Did we learn NOTHING from Abe Vigoda???

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#14

Post by tkems »

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as

1) when copyright ends for a work and a source to compare claims against

2) Orphaned works without known owners that are nearly unusable until expiration

3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection.

4) Archiving of expired works would be easier

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#15

Post by frereubu »

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #3

It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...

This seems like something different though - it's the audio this time and the screenshotted email doesn't mention Disney this time, so I wonder if he's used some music in it (there's some at the beginning) which is still under copyright? The original article made it sound like he'd created all the audio, but I presume he didn't create that music.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#16

Post by bilsbie »

tkems wrote: post #14

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends f…

Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#17

Post by caconym_ »

wavemode wrote: post #5
labster wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.

From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…

IIUC, "Content ID claims" are not actual DMCA takedown notices (or similar) and thus filing them in bad faith isn't perjury. Youtube's T&Cs likely shield them from liability to a large extent. You might be able to get flagrant repeat offenders on fraud, but I assume it would be a very uphill battle.

The actual legal DMCA stuff starts when you dispute the claim and the claimant doubles down with a takedown request, which (again IIUC) could be considered perjury—though, again, likely a very steep hill to climb.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#18

Post by danaris »

tkems wrote: post #14

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends f…

> rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work)

This would drastically change our current copyright regime.

As it stands, everything you write has automatic copyright, and doesn't require even the smallest, brokest artist to do anything—or pay anything—in order to ensure that their creations cannot profit others without their consent.

Requiring every work to be registered in order to be eligible for copyright would essentially change our system from a default of "assume anything you find is under copyright, get permission from the creator to use it" to "assume anything you find is free for the taking, and if the creator did register it they'll have to come after you."

In other words, it would mean that anything belonging to big corporate media like Disney and Hasbro would be near-automatically protected, while small, independent artists would be massively more screwed than they are today, with their creations basically being assumed to be available for anyone capable of monetizing it against its creator's will, medium, large, or megacorporation, to profit off of to their shriveled hearts' content.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#19

Post by johnnyanmac »

tkems wrote: post #14

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends f…

>I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright

Thing is most people won't even think to apply. That's why the copyright is granted automatically, with an option to renew for a longer term afterwards. An important distinction from patents. this was one of the earliest revisions to to protect he unaware, since consulting a lawyer under the original system would be too late.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#20

Post by tux3 »

tkems wrote: post #14

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends f…

Patents are also very broken, the patent trolling ecosystem is the demonstration of that.

Copyright is several times too long, but making it more like patents wouldn't help at all. On the contrary.

Post reply on HN