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

We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

gamehistory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#31

Post by WorldMaker »

SR2Z wrote: post #24
chrismorgan wrote: post #13

> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…

> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or…

The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe), how much of the copyright was infringed (is it a short clip in a larger study, as an example).

The big companies don't want to do this basic due diligence because today at least it requires human labor, even if that human labor is "do a quick glance and check a couple boxes".

The article even points out that US laws say that things taken down for copyright infringement but are in fact Fair Use should be able to claim damages. In theory a class action lawsuit of video essayists could make a real strong case in direct, estimated demonitization losses due to spurious copyright takedown notices YouTube acted upon automatically without any Fair Use checks. I can't imagine the stress of being involved in a case like that in practice, which is probably why there isn't enough people begging to be in a class action lawsuit like that.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#32

Post by WorldMaker »

SR2Z wrote: post #30
kiba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is a special privilege that usually monopolizes certain information. It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic. That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.

"Usually?" The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it. It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.

A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.)

That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars.

That's why it is a monopoly right.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#33

Post by oliwarner »

vessenes wrote: post #26
oliwarner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.

Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright. I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And,…

Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game.

Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#34

Post by SR2Z »

WorldMaker wrote: post #31
SR2Z wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or…

The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe)…

The way it works now is that the accuser has a few days to submit proof that they're suing to defend their rights, or else the platform can reinstate the content. In practice this would (and does) lead to a game of whack-a-mole between large rightsholders who have to pay money for lawyers and uploaders, who don't pay anything but an internet bill. Obviously, this doesn't fly in court and platforms have to go out of their way to ensure that they aren't profiting from mass piracy. It doesn't help that the aforementioned lawyers are always eager to go after a juicy, solvent target instead of Some Dude in Ohio with fiber and a lot of free time.

What do you do when your basic fair use check turns out to not be so basic after all? What happens if a video starts as academic but later turns out to be part of a commercial operation? Is the platform indemnified because it was "obvious?"

You're also forgetting that the platforms do not want to take down content. YouTube at least does a few basic checks automatically and makes heavy use of human reviews. I'm sure a few people would benefit if they quadrupled their spending on copyright review, but it's crazy to think that it makes sense for them to do this.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#35

Post by SR2Z »

WorldMaker wrote: post #32
SR2Z wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Usually?" The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it. It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.

A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.) That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever , eventually you want other people…

A patent lasts 20 years. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (at least in the US, thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts).

The term of a copyright is too long, I agree, but it is a limited right to control a creative asset with a clear and simple expiration.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#36

Post by chrismorgan »

SR2Z wrote: post #24
chrismorgan wrote: post #13

> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…

> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or…

I do speak more broadly than this specific case. But even in this case: many of the notices here might have been deemed not-obviously-invalid, and thus DMCA process should be followed, but also (as described) many of them are manifestly fair use or in some cases not even infringing: and such notices can reasonably be rejected.

Don’t think these platforms obey every notice that meets the nominal requirement of the statute; they definitely do ignore some because they’re obviously nonsense. I suggest they should do this more. Yes, they theoretically open themselves up to liability in doing so, so I do expect them to err on the side of the claimer if there is any reasonable doubt.

But instead, they side with rights-claimers (who may or may not be rights-holders) structurally. They make takedown systems that go well beyond what is legally required, and then don’t police them, so that they invariably become vessels of abuse.

Here is a detailed example from uploading church services with old hymns in 2020, and YouTube’s Content ID system actively facilitating copyright fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. I say YouTube should be required to cut off such transparent copyright fraud, when it is pointed out; and that if they’re not willing to do so, their platform should be shut down.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#37

Post by chrismorgan »

SR2Z wrote: post #34
WorldMaker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe)…

The way it works now is that the accuser has a few days to submit proof that they're suing to defend their rights, or else the platform can reinstate the content. In practice this would (and does) lead to a game of whack-a-mole between large rightsholders who have to pay money for lawyers and uploaders, who don't pay anything but an internet bill. Obviously, this doesn't fly in court and platforms have to go out of t…

That’s how it works under DMCA. But some of the largest platforms go ridiculously further.

The way it works now on YouTube is that you get a copyright claim which they probably won’t tell you about, but will just steal your money, or a copyright strike if they want to actively take it down. If you contest it, the rights-claimer gets to decide your fate: if they ignore you for a month, or if they decide your counterclaim is okay, you’re fine; but if they decide to press the other button, your entire account is at least ⅓ of the way to being blocked. And there is no recourse! YouTube refuses to adjudicate. This system is insanity.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#38

Post by WorldMaker »

SR2Z wrote: post #35
WorldMaker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.) That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever , eventually you want other people…

A patent lasts 20 years. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (at least in the US, thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts). The term of a copyright is too long, I agree, but it is a limited right to control a creative asset with a clear and simple expiration.

Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it).

It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today.

> a clear and simple expiration

> life of the author

> (at least in the US

I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author.

On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time.

Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.)

The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#39

Post by cactusplant7374 »

icepush wrote: post #29
protocolture wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks. That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious. The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is w…

The most plausible explanation, based on the facts so far provided, is that it is Harigai, and he is not happy with how the game/company turned out and does not want to be reminded about it anymore.

He's a CEO in the oil industry. He probably finds all of the video game enthusiasts annoying and a threat to his personal brand.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#40

Post by extraduder_ire »

unmole wrote: post #22
extraduder_ire wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer. The process is often abused just to gain this information, with the complainant dropping the whole thing after receiving these details.

> The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer. I didn't have to do this when I received a bogus takedown notice for a YouTube video. But I'm not in the US and I don't know if YouTube's process varies by jurisdiction.

Youtube's takedown process isn't actually a DMCA takedown.
Post reply on HN