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

151–160 of 259 posts

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

#151

Post by Aunche »

rsa4046 wrote: post #132
marcusverus wrote: post #123

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. 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…

David Graeber has argued persuasively that there is little real anthropological evidence to support the notion that money arose from the ‘inefficiency of barter’. [1—3] 1. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-on-the... . 2. https://newrepublic.com/article/159227/david-graeber-changed... 3. Graeber D. 2011. ‘Debt: The First 5000 Years'. Melville House, NY

This just shows that economists are poor historians. It doesn't change how money enables more efficient and sophisticated forms of commerce than than barter or a credit social credit system.

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

#152

Post by DrJokepu »

djthorpe wrote: post #27
jazzyjackson wrote: post #9

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by: (on behalf of Sony BMG Mus…

In my vague understanding, there are five parties: 1. The viewer or listener of the music, you might or might not get the right to listen to music in your "territory" or country, and often the music is monetised which means you get ads, or a portion of your subscription revenue is apportioned to the "view"; 2. YouTube itself, whom decides on the viewers' right to listen to the music based on their complicated set of…

Don't forget about sub-publishers and admins, who represent the original publisher in certain territories!

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

#153

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

jchw wrote: post #71
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.

The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.

It is explicitly for the benefit of YouTube.

It is possible to make a non-antagonistic system that complies with DMCA: Respond to the takedown upon receipt and give account holders an easy path to restore the disputed content under fair use or for invalid claims. Then the originator of the claim can use the normal legal process and Google is off the hook as a safe harbor. Google doesn't want to do that because they're in bed with the media companies to get favorable treatment on their paid services.

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

#154

Post by cybersol »

gundmc wrote: post #122
jcranmer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

For now, at least until they extend it another 100 years.

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

#155

Post by anigbrowl »

jchw wrote: post #108
anigbrowl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube isn't a scrappy little startup with no resources left over after keeping the servers up and running 24-7. They absolutely have the talent, capital, and legal resources to innovate in this area and to assess things like public domain claims. The concept of public domain resources is not a difficult one, you don't need special legal training or advanced math to understand the idea that copyright expires and tha…

I don’t think it can be made clearer: YouTube fought the battle and lost. This is the compromise. Sure, they aren’t a scrappy little startup. Can anyone please propose what they’re supposed to do after losing the lawsuit?

I missed the evidence of them having fought the battle. How do I file notice with Youtube of public domain or fair use assertion with regard to a video I'm uploading?

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

#156

Post by bscphil »

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.

I think your parent comment is thinking about the world before privatization, where most resources are understood to be the collective property (and responsibility) of the community, and the community itself enforced rules intended to make sure that the resources were well managed.

Once you start talking about the modern, post-privatization world, things are different of course. Resources like water may be in theory community managed, but in practice private for-profit entities acquire the right to extract as much as they can. Think Nestle and water for example.

That said, I think privatization was inevitable. I don't think it makes sense to long for the days where community management was possible, because that was probably always limited to rather local resources and not to handling global problems like climate change. (Maybe a "global community" is possible in some utopian future, but thinking about that doesn't seem like a way to solve the problems we have now.)

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

#157

Post by ipaddr »

wesleywt wrote: post #136
jchw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.

I might be naive but I think the overzealous copyright strikers are hurting their products as they are limiting the views these musical products receive. Essentially deleting themselves from zeitgeist. I have not heard main stream music in years. Yet I am listening to new music almost everyday.

This is a great point. Music use to be everywhere from tvs to movies to drug stores, elevators, etc. Everyone heard many of the top 40 so a common language and understanding existed.

I don't think there is a mainstream anymore. The only place to hear popular music is advertising and it is always from much earlier eras.

Shows like WKRP cannot work anymore. You can't even get it on dvd because of the music licease demands.

Todays popular music are highly profitable but only heard by a small group.

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

#158

Post by jcranmer »

gundmc wrote: post #122
jcranmer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I strongly suspect that Youtube makes no attempt to assess whether or not the claimed copyright is in fact in the public domain, so I wouldn't quite call it "working as intended." But, for the next few months, it's not wrong.

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

#159

Post by exporectomy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #134
exporectomy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument that dead people's work shouldn't be protected because they can't be encouraged to make more is wrong, even where copyright gets extended afterwards. Predicting future value allows others to pay for it while they're alive, possibly by speculating on future enhanced copyright law. Corporations can persist beyond the life of any humans within them for a good reason. It enables longer term investment and d…

The social contract was: you make a work, society will pretend it's scarce for a few years so you can make money. Then it will enter the public domain. What was the last movie you've watched that entered the public domain? I bet not a single person on this site will see that happen within their lifetimes. The fact is copyright monopolists have systematically robbed us of our public domain rights.

All the responses seem to be a bit off-target. I'm specifically talking about copyright being linked to the lifespan of the author. It's arbitrary and unfair on authors. I'm not saying we need long copyright terms. I don't know what the optimum would be - maybe 10 years, maybe forever (like indigenous culture).

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

#160

Post by exporectomy »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #90
exporectomy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument that dead people's work shouldn't be protected because they can't be encouraged to make more is wrong, even where copyright gets extended afterwards. Predicting future value allows others to pay for it while they're alive, possibly by speculating on future enhanced copyright law. Corporations can persist beyond the life of any humans within them for a good reason. It enables longer term investment and d…

There is as much validity to your argument as there is to the argument that copyright should terminate upon the death of the creator (or after a reasonable time) to enrich the public domain and allow others to freely build upon those public domain works to create new works of economic and cultural value. Neither scenario is testable. It ends up being a question of the kind of world you want to live in-- one where the…

That stuff is only culture because Disney/etc. paid to entice us to watch it. If people don't want their culture to be owned by someone else, they shouldn't rent it from someone else.
Post reply on HN