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

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#121

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #102
matheusmoreira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be a…

> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Pira…

So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts.

> See how it's nonsense?

It's not. Computers are increasingly non-free and DRM is a big reason. The copyright holders want guarantees that I can't run unathorized software against their data even though it's my machine.

Combine this with worldwide governamental desire to regulate or ban encryption. It's an existential threat to the computing freedom we all enjoy today.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#122

Post by gundmc »

jcranmer wrote: post #70
tablespoon wrote: post #40

> Here’s what triggered this: The ceremony includes bits of a recording (of tenor John McCormack singing “Funiculi, Funicula”) made in the year 1914. The Corporate Takedown > YouTube’s takedown algorithm claims that the following corporations all own the copyright to that audio recording that was MADE IN THE YEAR 1914: “SME, INgrooves (on behalf of Emerald); Wise Music Group, BMG Rights Management (US), LLC, UMPG Pub…

> All works first published or released before January 1, 1926, have lost their copyright protection, effective January 1, 2021. That's not the entire story. Sound recordings are a separate category, and pre-1923 sound recordings have a special clause that means they don't enter public domain until 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1401

So this is WAI per current copyright laws?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#123

Post by marcusverus »

roughly wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

> Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world.

Could you elaborate on how "'inventing money because barter is inefficient' doesn't seem to exist in the real world"? The idea that barter's inefficiency drives demand for money seems to me to be self-evidently true, so I'd be interested to hear a different perspective.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#124

Post by tomcam »

roughly wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

How about rampant overfishing in the world seas right now?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#125

Post by megablast »

roughly wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

Wow. You got your two main point completely wrong.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#126

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #106
matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.

You should read up on the history of copyright.

I have. To infringe copyright at scale in the old world, you needed industrial hardware like printing presses. Centralized operations of significant size. Easy target for litigation.

Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truckloads of derivative works of copyrighted material every single day in the form of memes.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#128

Post by ThrustVectoring »

colonwqbang wrote: post #115
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a name for deliberately hosting a service that blatantly disregards copyright enforcement. It's called "contributory infringement", and the litigation of which will have existential amounts of potential damages.

Source on this? I thought this was the whole point of US laws like DMCA. If you comply with all reasonable and lawful takedown requests, you are supposed to be safe. It particularly shouldn't require YOU as web host to try to ascertain the legal status of every 100-year old sound clip. That's not realistic, as Youtube's experience clearly seems to show. It does require you to respond when someone sends a signed docum…

A healthy dose of legal realism here: doing something that is technically within the scope of the law as written does not fully remove the risk and expense of getting sued over it. The process is that you can still get sued by Viacom for a billion dollars, spend a ton of money on lawyers and discovery over many years, and wind up making the entirely reasonable call of implementing ContentID or the like and settling. You do more than you're legally obligated to do on behalf of copyright owners, but whatever, the people uploading videos bear the brunt of this cost.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#129

Post by freeone3000 »

elliekelly wrote: post #83
roughly wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

> and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure. What? Clean water, clean air, deforestation, overfishing, noise pollution. There are infinite externalities that have been shifted onto the commons that social compact and peer pressure haven’t (and arguably won’t) solve.

Because one side clearly isn't a peer. If, say, Microsoft decided to go full renewable, then there'd be pressure for everyone else to. If it's a bunch of unimportant people against a corporation with the money to obtain its rights, well!

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#130

Post by nanis »

roughly wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

> most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons”

You mean through exclusionary rules, investing in monitoring and punishment etc all of which divert resources from the productive activity solely by the existence of the incentive to overuse the "commons" or others' goodwill.

True, while the subgame unique subgame perfect equilibrium of most models is full free-riding, most lab experiments show less than full free-riding. That does not mean the incentives are not there.

Why are dorm bathrooms not as clean as bathrooms in your house?

> inventing money because barter is inefficient

That's a silly statement: No one decided to invent money in a similar process of invention like the lightbulb. Instead, coins, tokens, and other recognized mediums of exchange dominated over barter because barter is inconvenient and inefficient.

Even animals can learn to use a medium of exchange[1].

[1]:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608095044.h...

Post reply on HN