HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Simple distribution laws are going to ensure that the bulk of claims go against smaller channels, and that those channels will have little recourse but than public outcry and outrage to seek redress.

But larger channels have been hit, notably Adam Neely, at 1.38m subscribers, by Warner Chappel, over his defence of Katy Perry's copyright in a Warner recording, for a segment of the video illustrating the source of the claim against Perry, and not the Perry piece Warner claimed infringement of by Neely.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyrig...

https://youtube.com/user/havic5

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8

⬐ gurchik

Thank you for the Adam Neely example, I forgot about that.

To summarize, Warner was being sued over Katy Perry's Dark Horse, claiming that the melody violated the copyright of Flame's Joyful Noise. After Neely published a video at no expense or request from Warner defending Katy Perry, Warner rewarded him by copyright claiming him.

It gets even more absurd. That lawsuit against Warner? It was found that Katy Perry's melody infringed on Joyful Noise, but when Warner issued the DMCA claim to Neely, they said Neely infringed on the melody of Katy Perry. In other words, they issued a claim on something that a judge literally just ruled that they do not have copyright on.

If it couldn't get any absurd, there's one last thing I remember. In the DMCA claim Warner has to select a time period of Neely's video where the Katy Perry's melody was being infringed, and the time period they chose was actually when Neely was demonstrating the melody of Joyful Noise. So perhaps even Warner's lawyers can't tell the difference.

⬐ dredmorbius

Good summary, yes, it was simply insane.

Two additional elements:

- Warner manually reviewed the work, so this wasn't just a case of algorithms gone wild.

- Warner's claim was that the infringement was against the primary melody of "Dark Horse", when it was in fact a background melody. Neely makes a big point of this, I'm not sure it's hugely salient, but ... well, it just adds that much more flavour to the manure sandwich.

Adam Neely (YouTube music educator) had an absolutely farcical run-in with this situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8) where he made a video defending Warner Music and Katy Perry's Dark Horse against Flame's Joyful Noise plagiarism suit. He lost the claim from Warner Music even though:

1- he was defending Warner Music

2- he didn't play any recordings, he just played 3 notes on a synthesizer (which is his whole premise that it's un-copyrightable)

3- Warner Music lost the actual suit (which implies they don't have copyright on those 3 notes?)

4- someone at Warner Music manually tagged the "infringing" part of the video, except the person tagged not the Dark Horse part of the play through but the Joyful Noise part of the play through (*^∀^)ノ彡┻━┻

changelog: improved ascii art

⬐ rebuilder

It's not a copyright system. Sure, YouTube are required to take down copyright-infringing material as defined by law, but AFAIK they are not required to apply considerations for fair use etc. I'm not sure there's any requirement for them to consider the truthfulness of copyright claims at all.

IOW, YouTube's system may be a response to copyright legislation, but it does not apply that legislation. Appeals to the fair use doctrine are missing the point. The doctrine does not apply since YouTube's actions are not constrained by copyright law.

IANAL, as you can probably tell. I may be wrong about what YT are required to consider, but in that case, I don't see how they can operate as they do.

⬐ ajsnigrutin

If youtube's automated system detects a copyrighter (eg.) song, the user should be given an option to say "no, it's not copyrighter, or it's fair use, etc", after that, the claim should be forwarded to the copyright owner.

The copyright owner would then verify if it is indeed a copyright infringement, and if they believe it is, and the user still believe it isn't, the case should be brought to some quivalent of "small claims court", where both sides would present their sides, and the loser has to pay some fine (not too large, but still high enough to deter pointless cases.. eg $1000 (to cover the court cost), and damages up to eg. $1000 due to lost views, or damages due to unlicenced distribution).

Basically, make it worth fighting for, if you're sure you're right in what you're doing, and not too expensive, when eg. Sonys lawyers build a multi-year case, destroying you financially, even if you're doing the right thing.

⬐ rebuilder

Well, that sounds like something to take up with the legislator, not YouTube.

⬐ andykx

From another non-lawyer perspective, might it be different since there is money involved? I view it as potentially infringing on some people’s livelihoods.

Again, just spitballing. I have no idea what the reality of the situation is.

⬐ afiori

part of the issue is that fair use is something that needs to be proven in court

⬐ unlinked_dll

It's not simply that they don't have any requirement to consider fair use but that there's no incentive for them to do it. If they defend users content that may infringe or may be fair use (the distinction is up to a court, mind you) they open themselves up to secondary liability. If you're a service provider you're probably going to err on the side of claimants and never reject a single one.

⬐ dwild

Yeah that's the whole point of DMCA, you remove liability by not taking side.

⬐ adtac

There should be a strike system against claimants falsely claiming videos, just like the users have a strike system. Three incorrect claims and every claim you make will be reviewed by an independent third party (billed to the claimant, of course).

⬐ ralusek

That is so, so hilarious. Any one of those things individually is funny. Together; glorious.

⬐ RandomTisk

It's pretty simple, Alphabet/Google make it far too easy for mistaken, false or frivolous claims. It's obvious why, usually the claimant has the heavy bags of money to use as a bludgeon, but it's not right.

⬐ jonathanstrange

IANAL but it seems to me Alphabet/Google can get in serious legal trouble for it if they continue the system. There are a number of companies who massively submit false copyright claims and YouTube let's them do their business, even though it's easy to check in particular cases that the claims are false. These bogus companies get at least part of the monetization from videos they falsely claim.

Doesn't that mean that Youtube is knowingly facilitating fraud and in some cases - when legitimate content is taken over - even commercial copyright infringement? It seems to me that the only reason why Youtube has gotten away with it so far is that nobody has systematically collected the evidence and sued Youtube in a country like Germany, for instance.

Edit: On a second thought, fraud seems irrelevant. It's about commercial copyright infringement.

⬐ mcv

There really needs to be a class action suit about this. Google allows Big Content to claim other people's content. Instead of fighting copyright violations, they assist in copyright violations on a massive scale, and deprive artists of income from their content.

⬐ Mirioron

The interesting thing is that one idea behind the copyright change in the EU is to alleviate this point. I don't think it'll work, but that's what the politicians touted it as.

⬐ raverbashing

It was the copyright lobbyist that pushed for it, so of course it isn't (to alleviate this point)

⬐ guramarx11

somehow that explain some other issues on yt, like not only demonetizing the corona virus tagged videos but also other videos on the channel involved

⬐ LeoTinnitus

It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.

⬐ rswail

Copyright is not Trademarks is not Patents.

They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property.

All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours.

You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc).

Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent.

So your premise in your message is incorrect.

⬐ rolls-reus

I've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

⬐ GoblinSlayer

If a belief is comfy enough, people won't abandon it :)

⬐ Hnrobert42

I donate to EFF regularly, and I support the article’s premise.

However, I am not sure an argument by EFF, no matter how much I support it, can be considered a factual counterpoint.

Also, I’m bummed to see the parent post downvoted. I thought on HN, downvotes were supposed to be used on off topic/hostile/unproductive points, not just ones with which we disagree.

⬐ creato

It is misinformation written in an authoritative tone with no source.

⬐ RichardCA

It's considered bad form to lump them together.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

⬐ rolls-reus

The article has citations to some rulings that affirm the point it is making. "Wallpaper Mfrs., Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp., 680 F.2d 755, 766 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (“an owner is not required to act immediately against every possibly infringing use to avoid a holding of abandonment”);"

⬐ wglb

Downvoting for disagreement has been a long-accepted practice, as noted by 'pg and 'dang.

⬐ Hnrobert42

My bad. I reread the guidelines and FAQ. I must have been thinking of some other forum.

⬐ elithrar

The parent conflates copyrights with trademarks.

⬐ jeltz

It is down voted due to being off topic. Copyright and trademark are two unrelated topics.

⬐ DuskStar

However, trademark is not copyright.

⬐ thwarted

US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it

Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.

⬐ Veedrac

It's not just that it's easy, but that the theft is legal and profitable. You don't even need to be rich to do this, you just need stuff you can claim; see How to Break YouTube (Copyright Claim your own video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo

Another recent copyright abuse was this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8 and this was even manually stricken.

Basically this was a critique of aggressive copyright lawsuits that was manually copyright claimed... for the wrong song.

⬐ bediger4000

What's all this about "Intellectual Property" promoting creation and helping creators prosper? Watch this and be disabused of that notion.

⬐ sirwitti

Adam Neely's youtube channel is incredible. The musicologist (yeah, you can study that) in me loves it because the information he provides is accurate and easy to digest.

The musician in me loves his videos because he documents many of his (to me) relevant experiences and thoughts.

Apart from the claim being obviously fraudulent, he is one of coolest youtubers I know and deserves better than that.

⬐ Cthulhu_

While he is one of my favorite youtube channels, I can't get into his recent musical endeavours; to me it's a lot of complexity and flourishes that I'm sure make musicians excited, but I can't get into it.

⬐ tasty_freeze

Two or three years ago he was having a live stream and I asked: if you hadn't studied music in college, what would you have studied. He answered Philosophy. Makes complete sense.

⬐ DanCarvajal

Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.

⬐ kristofferR

There is actually something creators can do about it.

If you add your own copyrighted song to ContentID and add the song to your video, you can copyright claim your own video and prevent others from abusing ContentID to earn money on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo

⬐ anonsivalley652

After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the DMCA.

    15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
        (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
        (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification
    shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.

⬐ ikeboy

This isn't under the DMCA but still interesting: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions...

Tl;dr Amazon seller filed a false counterfeiting allegation against another seller. A jury found "$4,460 in compensatory damages" and awarded 150k on top of that in punitive, reduced by appeals court to 75k.

Biggest award for false claim of IP infringement I'm aware of. Unfortunately it was in state court and not precedential. And with all the appeals it likely cost them more than 100k to litigate.

I currently have a similar case ongoing, and I know of a few dozen other cases. See e.g:

Argo Holdings, Inc. v. Youngblood Skin Care Products, LLC (0:19-cv-60487)

ABG Prime Group v. Innovative Salon Products (2:17-cv-12280) (settled)

Verbena Products LLC v. Sesderma USA LLC (1:19-cv-23778)

Verbena Products LLC v. Suavecito, Inc. (1:19-cv-24001)

Verbena Products LLC v. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc. (1:19-cv-23616)

SZS Solutions, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (0:17-cv-61942) (settled)

⬐ peteradio

"knowingly"

I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.

⬐ anonsivalley652

Are you a lawyer, or just have a keyboard warrior merit badge?

⬐ dang

Please don't cross into personal attack or respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Those things don't help.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

⬐ kevingadd

YouTube content ID is not the DMCA, so you have no recourse.

See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en

This is why bad actors are able to liberally steal ad revenue for millions of videos without being punished, often claiming content they don't even own.

⬐ coleca

From the video this case wasn't Content ID, it was manually flagged.

⬐ kevingadd

That still means it went through the content ID system. The UI flow if they manually file a DMCA is different.

DMCA also does not reassign revenue, content ID does that.

⬐ ikeboy

You have recourse - dispute the content ID claim and either they must abandon the claim or convert it to DMCA, which then gives you all the rights you have under DMCA.

⬐ otakucode

Look into the case where a Christian film company fraudulently claimed a tons of videos on The Bible Reloaded YouTube channel. They went to court. They 'won'. Kinda. They ended up settling, but their case was as iron-clad and perfect as anyone could dream. They didn't include a single frame of the movie they were talking about in their video, didn't include a single nanosecond of audio from the film, but the company still filed a claim. But when they went into court, the company blamed the actual employee who filed the claims and for some reason the court just decided that the company can't be held responsible for the actions their employee took while doing the job they were hired to do. I would expect the same thing to happen in any similar case. They just throw the one person under the bus and move on.

⬐ jccc

Minutes ago:

"Update - the claim was released, so I'm making this video unlisted. Thanks guys for watching!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8&lc=UgweA62dBUvC-...

⬐ hyperpallium

> I couldn't help it. It's in my nature. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

⬐ bloudermilk

Has anyone written extensively about these types of corporate contradictions? On the surface what happened in this situation is obviously absurd, yet I don't find it surprising at all. I can't begin to imagine how far removed the person who manually flagged that content is from anyone at Warner familiar with that lawsuit. Companies that big are simply incapable of managing this kind of minutia properly.

I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how you avoid it.

⬐ mirimir

Well, someone with more money than ways to spend it could start funding suits against YouTube, Google, the fraudulent claimants, etc. Maybe even a bunch of class actions, each against a suitable set of defendants.

⬐ Vysero

It really sounds to me like the owner of the video has an open and shut case against Warner music should he decide to file a lawsuit.

⬐ 6510

some info on the worm can factory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS_vmEbUwY

imho the goal should be to get money to the people who created something and proportion it with the effort. Shit posts should be excluded for starters. Oh so you've pointed a camera at something! Lets sink tax money into defending your huger for lazy ass exploitation! A journalist traveling to some place to do some cheap crap news report on something should be modestly monetizable for a few weeks. A studio sinking millions into a production should enjoy a few years of ownership but if they fail to break even in say 2 years we should free up the system for actual efforts.

⬐ wuz

For more on how absolutely absurd Youtube's copyright system is, this video really highlights it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w

⬐ anonsivalley652

IANAL so we need an actual copyright lawyer to break this down. Paging Leonard French.

⬐ Cthulhu_

Actually, we don't need a lawyer; there was a lawsuit, the copyright claimants in this case lost the case, therefore they don't own the copyright on the segment that they claimed infringed on their copyright. The case was closed already.

⬐ jb775

He just commented on the video saying the copyright claim was removed.

⬐ jsilence

Please use other platforms like lbry.tv. thanks.

⬐ kjakm

There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on YouTube but these larger publishers in particular are so aggressive because there is no reason for them not to be. They face no consequences for getting it wrong. I think YouTube has a '3 strikes' rule for creators who infringe - maybe they need something similar for false claims. If you are found to have made 3 false claims within a 12 month period you are not allowed to manually claim for the next 12 months.

Alternatively a rule similar to the 'challenge' rule in the NFL - you get three claim ' credits'. If you use a credit correctly you get it back. Use it incorrectly and you lose it for the next 12 months.

⬐ fortran77

Nearly every time I sit at my own piano and record a classical piece I'm playing myself (Chopin, Schumann, Mozart, etc.) I get a copyright claim against me within hours of it going up to YouTube.

⬐ c2h5oh

All DMCA requires is a 'good faith belief' your takedown claim is valid to avoid any consequences of it not being valid..

Deals copyright holders have with YouTube took it as a not good enough starting point and made it worse.

⬐ sli

Years and years ago before YouTube let everyone upload videos above ten minutes, I uploaded an episode of a cartoon and it was put on hold for being too long. I didn't do anything after that, though. I just left it alone and it stayed in that state on my account ever since.

Until last month, anyway. I decided to click the "reprocess" button just to see what would happen. To my surprise, it did it, and then my account was immediately hit with a copyright strike. It really seems weird to me that it didn't "count" until it was successfully processed. Surely YouTube could have detected it at pretty much any other time, but they didn't.

Just a weird YouTube copyright anecdote I wanted to share.

⬐ ikeboy

>YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

>YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed.

>Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_...

⬐ Cthulhu_

Note that this issue was not flagged by content ID, but manually.

⬐ ikeboy

There's only two kinds of claims, content ID (both automatic and manual) and DMCA.

⬐ Vysero

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of "Content owners" who have lost their Content ID access due to "erroneous claims", but I get the feeling that this list simple does not exist. Hell, I would be surprised if the "guidelines" for Content ID use even exist.

"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated."

Of course the users are to take all this on good faith.. you know because YouTube is such a reputably moral and ethical company.

⬐ thomasfortes

I would bet that this list would have only small content creators that flagged videos.

There's no way that the big media companies would be in it, and they are probably the biggest offenders.

⬐ ikeboy

Most of the issues I've seen with big companies are through automated content ID. The relevant comparison is how many valid manual claims someone makes vs invalid. If there's millions of valid claims and, say, hundreds of invalid claims, I don't think they'd take action.

⬐ ikeboy

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2605065

Here's guidelines for content ID.

And they update policy often - here's a major update from last year: https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-m...

⬐ Vysero

Ah they do exist. Interesting:

"You must have exclusive copyright rights to the material in the reference file for the territories where you claim ownership."

apparently not..

"The following examples are ineligible for use in or as a reference:

    Karaoke recordings, remasters, sound-alike recordings, and some dubbed content
    Sound effects, soundbeds, or production loops

"

Pretty sure a guy replicating music on a keyboard counts as a "sound-alike recording".

"You must provide individual references for each piece of intellectual property."

Warner has provided no references to speak of. I am no lawyer but it doesn't sound to me like Warner did their due diligence in following the rules here...

⬐ ikeboy

The reference is what Warner would have to upload to YouTube to show the original content being infringed.

⬐ Vysero

You would think they would have to upload that prior to making the claim.

⬐ ikeboy

Which they presumably did - uploaded Dark Horse to the content ID system.

⬐ Vysero

and we are back to square one...

⬐ tssva

What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright.

Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.

⬐ kjakm

> What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright.

My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.

⬐ rahuldottech

Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.

⬐ jimhefferon

But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.

⬐ skunkworker

That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.

⬐ 300bps

What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright.

The video clearly states that what they are claiming is that his video contained "the melody of Dark Horse" from Katie Perry. The irony kicks in because he actually played "the melody of Joyful Noise" which is the song that Katie Perry was accused of copying.

For further irony, Katy Perry claimed that Dark Horse was not similar to Joyful Noise even though they apparently have trouble distinguishing them and Katy Perry even lost the lawsuit saying that she does not even own the melody copyright that she is asserting against the YouTuber.

⬐ Cthulhu_

Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about.

And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.

⬐ jandrese

On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most lawyers.

⬐ jimbob45

The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time.

Of course, the MPAA/RIAA owns our government and has for a while. Not to mention the trade deals the US brokered in the last year made sure to taint the copyright duration of every other country too so this will probably never get fixed until we all decide to practice some Civil Disobedience.

⬐ kjakm

>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time.

Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income.

Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.

⬐ mmebane

Maybe make it an exponentially increasing cost, such that most people can afford 2-3 renewals, but the cost increases steeply after that. The first $X per renewal could go to the copyright office, and everything above that to the Library of Congress.

⬐ larrik

On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.

⬐ kjakm

I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.

⬐ jimbob45

The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.

⬐ zzo38computer

Yes, that would help with that problem.

If it were up to me I would just abolish copyrights and patents. But, another idea I have seen is that copyright lasts 2 years for free, and then after that you have to pay a fee (of your choice) to the government to retain copyright; copyright expires in 14 years. However, anyone can make it public domain early if they pay the copyright holder 100 times the fee for retaining copyright.

⬐ oliwarner

> It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time

So Disney, The Beatles, The Stones (etc) could all afford to stay copyrighted indefinitely, but all my content would enter into public domain (and exploitable by megacorps) after 10 years?

I don't disagree that there are existing issues, but I think you'd just be introducing more.

⬐ Something1234

The financial cost should be exponential in nature with no die off. Maybe the first couple would be affordable like 40 years worth.

    initial         - $         0
    10 year renewal - $        50
    20 year renewal - $       500
    30 year renewal - $     5,000
    40 year renewal - $   500,000
    50 year renewal - $ 5,000,000
    60 year renewal - $50,000,000
     n year renewal - a_{n-1} * 10

Note all of those numbers should be inflation adjusted as needed. Especially considering that most money is made in the first couple of years.

Maybe treat characters and franchises as trademarks instead too. Make it a use it or lose it after the copyright expires.

⬐ arminiusreturns

No, the root cause is the DMCA. Copyright is good in most cases and while there is room for improvement, and room for discussion for how it might need to evolve in a different information industry, it is copyright that helps protect even FOSS copyleft for example.

When DMCA was passed I remember the arguments being about this very sort of thing, and most of the hacktivist-types I knew at the time railed against it... but they obviously lost and weren't listened to. I think those who opposed DMCA are being vindicated...

This is the problem when you have a "representative" government that actually doesn't represent you at all.

⬐ NobodyNada

Note that the DMCA isn’t involved here. YouTube has their own system for copyright claims that allow 3rd parties to take down videos without filing a DMCA takedown.

If the claimant filed a DMCA request, the video owner could file a counter-notice which would put the video back up unless the claimant decides to sue. Since YouTube allows copyright holders to take down a video without going through the DMCA, then the video owner loses the right to file a counter-notice, and the copyright holder gets the final word on whether the video is taken down.

⬐ ikeboy

Note that this is dead wrong.

Content ID claims can be disputed, and if the rights owner doesn't convert it to a DMCA claim then the content goes back up.

⬐ NobodyNada

TIL, thanks. Although, based on https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en, it looks like the rights owner can delay the appeal process for up to 60 days, keeping the video down (since you have to file a dispute which gives them 30 days to respond, and then an appeal which gives them another 30).

⬐ ikeboy

Yes.

If they choose to take revenue, then that revenue is held in escrow. If they choose to take the video down or demonetize it, then it appears that the video goes back up but is unmonetized during the dispute process.

"If the policy is set to block (don't allow users to view the video on YouTube) or track (allow users to view the video without advertisements), this policy may be temporarily lifted until your dispute is resolved. Learn more about policy and claim basics. During this time, your video cannot be monetized."

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 (click "file a dispute", then "What happens after you dispute?"

⬐ nocturnial

> then that revenue is held in escrow

This maybe a translation/different legal point of view, but I really doubt it's being held in escrow.

If it's being held in escrow, google would've provided the other party with the details to check the account with the third party.

I could be mistaken but I really doubt your google escrow assertion. Provide me with a statement of google in which they make that claim and I'll happily retract my statement.

⬐ ikeboy

Google holds it in escrow and doesn't give it to either side until resolved.

See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en

⬐ nocturnial

Escrow means an independent third party holds on to the money. It's a lot more complex than that, but let's take this simplified position as a starting point.

The things you posted only justified my position. Google holds the money, not an independent party.

If you say you hold something in escrow but actually keep the money for yourself during that time... well, in my region judges really don't appreciate that kind of argument.

⬐ ikeboy

Google is independent from the two parties in any dispute. I don't really care about your pedantry about terminology. We're not in court.

⬐ nocturnial

This is not for you but I want to stress for anyone reading this that you didn't supply a written statement from google claiming the money was in escrow.

You didn't do that because you probably can't and the lawyers at google aren't idiots.

⬐ nocturnial

> I don't really care about your pedantry about terminology. We're not in court.

Fair enough, then let's leave it at that.

⬐ nocturnial

OK, I have karma to spare...

Not even google is claiming to put it in escrow otherwise you would've given me a link where they claimed it was.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to say that google holds on to the money... that's fine because they do. But don't claim it's in escrow because you clearly don't even understand what it is.

dang: it's ok to delete my account I'm done with this.

⬐ nocturnial

Oh great! Now I get downvoted because I know what escrow means. It would help if those who bothered to downvote me would provide a link where google says they held the money in escrow instead of a link where they said they would just hold on to the money.

dang: It's ok to delete my account i'm done with this bullshit

⬐ Jonahgay

Madlads