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

191–200 of 216 posts

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

#191

Post by JoshTriplett »

trogdor wrote: post #188
FireBeyond wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

> A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios.

I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal.

Also:

> 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.

That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either.

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

#192

Post by trogdor »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #191
trogdor wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

> A very small minority of takedowns can’t be appealed due to YouTube’s contractual obligations with some major studios. I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal. Also: > 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…

>I think you may be underestimating the number of takedowns that are impossible to appeal.

Maybe. I have never received one, nor do I know anyone who has.

I am also very careful about what I upload. I have paid a lot of money in fees to license content when it’s been necessary, and otherwise I would rather not take chances.

Despite that, on one memorable occasion I had to fight it out with Sony Music. That dispute almost went to court, and I had a university’s First Amendment legal clinic defending my side. Fortunately, Sony Music backed down. That wasn’t fun, though.

>That description seems slanted to the most favorable possible case for Sony and YouTube, there. A very common case is "used two seconds of footage for fair use commentary on it", or "used no footage at all, and the claim is a mistake", and those claims can't be appealed either.

You might be right, though I was trying to describe the reason I think those contracts exist. I wasn’t saying anything definite, nor was I saying they are a good thing, though I probably implied it.

I do have personal experience having my company’s content infringed by a YouTube channel run by someone in Vietnam, and who filed a counter-notification in response to a takedown notice, despite their infringement being blatant. Suing someone overseas is ridiculously expensive, and they were probably judgment-proof anyway. It sucked.

Regarding your other point, I don’t think it’s possible to have Content ID automatically match audio that is less than ten seconds long. It used to be, but it’s not anymore.

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

#193

Post by deelowe »

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.

No, this is a result of how the DMCA is written. If a content distributor is notified of infringing content, they must take immediate action or else face penalties. The problem is, there's no definitely way for a content distributor to know if content is truly infringing until a court has made it's decision.

This puts content distributors in a precarious position. The only way to ensure liability is minimized is to to assume any complaint is valid and take immediate then arbitrate on the back-end.

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

#194

Post by that_guy_iain »

shkkmo wrote: post #159
that_guy_iain wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers. I always find it gobsmacking th…

> I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements fr…

So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.

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

#195

Post by greggsy »

doublerabbit wrote: post #107
fermigier wrote: post #30

"Here's my favorite example, here: 1928, my hero, Walt Disney, created this extraordinary work, the birth of Mickey Mouse in the form of Steamboat Willie. But what you probably don't recognize about Steamboat Willie and his emergence into Mickey Mouse is that in 1928, Walt Disney, to use the language of the Disney Corporation today, "stole" Willie from Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill." It was a parody, a take-off; it…

No one seems to mention that Walt didn't really animate, nor create Mickey Mouse. Walts friend of the time: Ub Iwerk did. Credit for Disney early successes should really go to him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks

It’s right there in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. Credits did go to him. The film was produced by Walt Disney Studios.

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

#196

Post by nmz »

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…

Morality changes and is imposed by the times, what is moral today will not be tomorrow, To your great grandchildren you'd probably be the same as a "boomer" today and will be looked at in the same vein (an ageist word used as an insult). It is the way of human culture.

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

#197

Post by hulitu »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #157
Log_out_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very piracy, but okay for the big guy.

You realize that the folks at Disney put in thousands of hours to create their own version of the story. Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work. But go ahead and pretend that this is the same as the cheap-ass behavior of some stoned pirate who can't bring himself to pay for content and uses Lessig as a justification for his thievery.

> Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work.

Maybe you should take a second read of the original, Grimm's version.

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

#198

Post by xrd »

jsnell wrote: post #160
xrd wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a powerful indictment and should not be missed. I recently read an article about how video games shops don't need to worry about any kind of copying. The reason is that most video games make the lion share of their money in the first few months, and then it tapers off significantly. So, you can copy ideas, styles, and whatever, but it won't dampen opportunities for the original work to make money, so don't wo…

> If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws. Your premise is incorrect, which makes the conclusions invalid. The revenue is not lost during a monetization dispute, it's held in escrow. I.e. even if it were true that the vast majority of revenue of a YT video is ge…

That's a really good clarification, thank you. I didn't know this!

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

#199

Post by shkkmo »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #194
shkkmo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements fr…

So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home le…

Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.

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

#200

Post by xhkkffbf »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #175
xhkkffbf wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the folks at Disney put in thousands of hours to create their own version of the story. Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work. But go ahead and pretend that this is the same as the cheap-ass behavior of some stoned pirate who can't bring himself to pay for content and uses Lessig as a justification for his thievery.

>Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work. And "Steamboat Bill" didn't? I fail to see the difference outside of the fact that Grimm et. Al didn't have a small army OF lawyers to say otherwise.

I'm not sure your point? I admitted that they borrowed a bit. And then your point is that "Steamboat Bill" borrowed? Okay. I guess. But I'm not denying that the filmmakers and artists grab ideas and plots from the collective idea well. I'm saying that they also put in thousands if not millions of hours of work creating the new version.

It's just wrong for the pro piracy crowd to use this as an excuse to justify their theft.

Post reply on HN