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

51–60 of 115 posts

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

#51

Post by brokenmachine »

fbdab103 wrote: post #41
johnnyo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest. “WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.

Some shows have aired with the music replaced. I recently re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the iconic closing music (Fly Me to the Moon) was replaced with something else entirely. We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.

Dawson's Creek is the canonical example for me.

The music was such a part of the show. Now it seems impossible to get the original series as it aired at the time.

Even the pirates have failed me in this instance.

>We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.

It's terrible. I worry about the same thing for children playing online games nowadays as well.

Once the servers inevitably go offline, they will never be able to replay their childhood games.

This is our cultural heritage, our shared memory. Gone.

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

#52

Post by bryanrasmussen »

randomdata wrote: post #47
blagie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."

If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?

OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold.

OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year.

OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentially buying the rights for Netflix but of course you have to pay 65K to make sure you have those rights to sell, which is money you don't have, so you need to take out a loan in order to potentially profit from your labor.

OR you're Peter Beagle https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-...

The fact is that there are a million ways in which a class of entrepreneurs make money off of their work, even though, like most entrepreneurs they fail, and whenever HN starts talking copyright there are always people who probably make significantly more per year than the average writer does at writing who want to make sure writers make even less.

It's weird that HN often loves entrepreneurs, and wants to make things easier for them - but not writers.

Aside from that this scheme, as most other fix copyright schemes, will not be taken up by most other countries (other than U.S I mean) as they tend to have a "copyright exists because creators have moral rights to ownership of their work" theory of copyright and not the whole "copyright exists to foster innovation" theory.

As other countries will not follow the U.S you would have what you often have today, things in Public Domain in U.S and not in other countries and so you cannot freely make derivative works for an international audience at least as you would be sued.

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

#53

Post by tkems »

NewJazz wrote: post #48
tkems wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving. A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright…

If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.

From my understanding, the copyright is held by the photographer unless you have a contract stating such. I was shocked that most wedding photographers consider giving up copyright a deal breaker (unless you pay a huge amount more): https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i...

edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.

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

#55

Post by bryanrasmussen »

whenever copyright comes up a bunch of engineers come up with suggestions for fixing copyright that seem to be based on the idea that every country has the same theory of copyright as the U.S.

Well I would suggest that the best fix for copyright would be to bring international Non-US standards in line with U.S or some sort of compromise between the two. The main problem I find with copyright is seeing something is in the public domain but later on realizing no, it's in the public domain in the U.S because it was made in 1926 but since the creator died in 1970 it won't really be truly public domain (excusing some potential weird little countries with unlimited copyright) until 2040.

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

#56

Post by MaxikCZ »

goda90 wrote: post #10
genter wrote: post #2

> After being hit with the claim, Baker's upload became demonetized, meaning the YouTuber could not make any money off of it. The claim also blocked the ability to embed the video on third-party websites. In addition, the YouTube video was given limited visibility, including being blocked from view entirely in certain countries. The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views (and…

I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.

Prolly can, and they prolly settle, but good luck with your random ban incoming in 2 weeks for something totaly unrelated.

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

#57

Post by benj111 »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #52
randomdata wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?

OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentia…

Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like?

Further, you are still free to take that risk and pay the 64k. Just like you are free to buy/sell that bitcoin for $x. That is your risk to take.

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

#58

Post by euroderf »

bdw5204 wrote: post #45
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…

Originally, US copyrights were 14 years with an optional 14 year renewal and you had to register it with the government and deposit a copy of it in the Library of Congress [0]. Copyrights were also limited to Americans because the purpose of the law was "the encouragement of learning" not allowing corporations to profit off of stuff they made a century ago. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution also s…

> 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests

This is where Disney gets a special achievement award.

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

#59

Post by bryanrasmussen »

benj111 wrote: post #57
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentia…

Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? Further, you are still free to take that risk and pay the 64k. Just like you are free to buy/sell that bitcoin for $x. That is your risk to take.

>Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like?

OR one can make an argument that has nothing to do with any of the things I commented and tick an item off the HN scorecard!

>Further, you are still free to take that risk

Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff.

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

#60

Post by benj111 »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #59
benj111 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? Further, you are still free to take that risk and pay the 64k. Just like you are free to buy/sell that bitcoin for $x. That is your risk to take.

>Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? OR one can make an argument that has nothing to do with any of the things I commented and tick an item off the HN scorecard! >Further, you are still free to take that risk Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating so…

>Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff.

Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make?

The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever I would think you've got some insight by then whether it's worth paying the $4.

And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line?

Post reply on HN