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

181–190 of 216 posts

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

#181

Post by johnnyanmac »

jdietrich wrote: post #106
nmz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody should keep their children far from morals? What?

Walt Disney was repeatedly accused of racism during his lifetime, mostly because he kept putting dreadful racist stereotypes in his films. The defence given by his supporters is that he was essentially naive and conformist, that he just reflected the values of his time, that he viewed his work as harmless fun, that he wasn't really thinking about the message he sent when he made a film like Song of the South . That d…

>Do you really want your kids taking heavy-handed morality lessons from someone who didn't actually have a clear sense of morality?

Gotta take the good and leave the bad. You can find those in every single piece of media at the time, but it's not like I want to cast all of Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry, Donald, etc. As such.

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

#182

Post by FireBeyond »

trogdor wrote: post #75
JoshTriplett wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube goes beyond what the law requires. If YouTube followed the law, they'd accept a DMCA notice from a purported copyright holder and take a video down, then accept a counter-notice from the video poster and put the video back up, without question , and then the recourse the purported copyright holder has at that point if they still think the video is infringing is to sue the video poster and not YouTube. And if…

Your description of how Content ID works on YouTube is wrong. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with…

His description is not wrong. You are conflating the two things.

In the Content ID system, as he said, the claimant is the only arbiter of the claim, and the appeal.

If it's not resolved, by the claimant, then it exits the Content ID system and then, and only then, can be handled by the DMCA process.

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

#183

Post by johnnyanmac »

sneak wrote: post #150
deelowe wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until aft…

This is a false dichotomy that lets Google off the hook for irresponsibility and amorality. If Google’s management is not responsible for Google’s pathological behavior, then nobody is.

Who's going to take them to court for being too strict? That's the issue.

Also, I'll admit it feels strange to monetized what is now public domain works to begin with. That's the least of the issues here but still one to consider with such works going forth.

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

#184

Post by trogdor »

arghwhat wrote: post #169
trogdor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>[YouTube] entirely disregard[s] key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke. I make my living from YouTube, and I am very familiar with their policies surrounding copyright. I think your characterization of YouTube in relation to copyright is totally off base. YouTube is covered by the DMCA, and YouTube responds to DMCA takedowns because if they don’t, they could be liable for con…

Your positive opinion on their copyright stance does not seem to align with other YouTube creators - in particular, their complaints about aggressive automatic content ID application, that successful appeal often lead to the video being up but with redirected monitization to the claimant, the poor appeal process for the blind legal requests made using it, and the associated "copyright strike" system where third parti…

I appreciate your reply. A few things:

1. Controversy sells. Content that riles people up attracts views. I have firsthand personal knowledge of a famous YouTuber, on one occasion, complaining publicly - to enormous audience response - about a Content ID claim that I know - with certainty - had already been resolved in his favor. I know that because I helped him through the process.

2. A successful appeal can never lead to the video being up, but with revenue redirected to the claimant. That is not possible.

3. The copyright strike system exists because of an act of Congress, not because of YouTube. The DMCA only shields online service providers from liability if they implement policies for terminating users who are “repeat infringers.” That’s the reason for the existence of “copyright strikes” and YouTube’s three strikes policy.

I am not saying that I love Content ID or that it doesn’t have problems - even abuses. It does. But it’s also wildly misunderstood, and its faults are often overstated, even made up.

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

#185

Post by chrismorgan »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #176
chrismorgan wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what grounds would they file suit? If YouTube complies with the DMCA §512 requirements, it’s a safe harbour, granted immunity from copyright liability.

Even if the takedown process is followed, the DMCA §512 safe harbor doesn't apply if the service provider has "actual knowledge" of specific infringing content. Content ID was (probably) first developed in response to lawsuit by Viacom on those grounds ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y... .), although it's not clear if their arguments would have ultimately been successful.

Thanks for this valuable information! Didn’t know about that suit.

Hmm. I can see a sort of a connection there. I wish there was some way for the Little Man (collectively) to object to Content ID’s undue process. DMCA takedowns say that in the case of a counternotice, platform must reinstate the content “within 10–14 business days” unless the copyright owner files suit. Content ID, on the other hand, gives no recourse—all you can do is file a dispute which is adjudicated exclusively by the claimer, who by your action initiating a dispute is granted power to Strike you with fire and brimstone (where the third strike will probably cause the termination of your Google account).

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

#186

Post by JoshTriplett »

trogdor wrote: post #75
JoshTriplett wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube goes beyond what the law requires. If YouTube followed the law, they'd accept a DMCA notice from a purported copyright holder and take a video down, then accept a counter-notice from the video poster and put the video back up, without question , and then the recourse the purported copyright holder has at that point if they still think the video is infringing is to sue the video poster and not YouTube. And if…

Your description of how Content ID works on YouTube is wrong. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with…

> If the dispute is rejected, that’s still not the end of the story. The uploader can press the dispute further. Doing so forces the claimant to either abandon their claim, or ‘upgrade’ it to a formal DMCA takedown. If a takedown is issued and the uploader believes their work is not infringing, they can respond with a counter-notification, which forces the claimant to either (a) sue the uploader within ten days, or (b) lose the dispute. In the latter case, the video goes back up and any escrow revenue - along with all future revenue - goes to the uploader instead of the copyright claimant.

Many video creators have reported not being given that option, and having the claimant's rejection being treated as the end of the process with no further recourse. If YouTube reliably always gave the option to switch to the DMCA process, to everyone, that would be less of a problem.

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

#187

Post by masto »

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…

I have a pet peeve when people use the phrase "begging the question" when they really mean "raising the question". Begging the question is kind of technical and it's sometimes hard to think of examples. You have provided one here.

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

#188

Post by trogdor »

FireBeyond wrote: post #182
trogdor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your description of how Content ID works on YouTube is wrong. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with…

His description is not wrong. You are conflating the two things. In the Content ID system, as he said, the claimant is the only arbiter of the claim, and the appeal. If it's not resolved, by the claimant, then it exits the Content ID system and then, and only then, can be handled by the DMCA process.

Isn’t that I what I wrote?

Yes, the claimant is the only arbiter of the Content ID appeal, but if the uploader wants to take things further, they can force the matter from a Content ID claim to a DMCA takedown, which can ultimately be decided by a court - if a takedown is filed, a counter-notification is filed, and the rightsholder decides to sue.

It is not permanently in the hands of the claimant. If the uploader believes they are not infringing with enough conviction that they are willing to potentially be sued over it, they can turn a Content ID claim into a legal matter. And if the rightsholder backs down, the uploader wins.

The person I was responding to claimed that YouTube doesn’t follow the law because they don’t follow the DMCA process in relation to Content ID.

This is what they wrote:

>What YouTube does instead, which is absolutely unacceptable and far beyond what the law requires, is put the purported copyright holder in charge of judging the video poster's appeal, and naturally they tend to say "no". No counter-notice mechanism, video doesn't go back up.

While that is, of course, technically true, in reality it’s not, since nearly [0] all Content ID claims can be turned into DMCA takedowns if the uploader is dissatisfied with the result of their Content ID appeal. And when that happens, there is the counter-notice mechanism that the parent comment claimed does not exist.

[0] A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios. I don’t know for sure, but I believe those contracts are intended to make it so people can’t upload copies, let’s say, of obviously infringing feature films, and then force Sony Pictures to go through the DMCA takedown process with what may be an eleven year old kid in Vietnam, who would be all-but-impossible to sue.

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

#189

Post by anticensor »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #128
weinzierl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany there is no public domain, so it never will be. It will be "gemeinfrei" , which is a different thing, somewhen after 2036. Probably even only after 2058, because one of the composers of the music lived till 1988. EDIT: German Wikipedia says 2042.

What are the practical differences between US public domain and German gemeinfrei?

None, apart from the fact you cannot gegemeinfreien your work voluntarily.

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

#190

Post by ghusto »

jamwil wrote: post #144
deelowe wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until aft…

And a consequence of their choice to operate at a certain scale.

Exactly this. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and demanding they operate at an untenable scale. Unbridled capitalism forces that.
Post reply on HN