Blakey clogs the <del>toilet</del><ins>status thread</ins>




  • Consumerist's onebox is literally the entire article, with no links back to the source. LOL WTF. EDIT: and completely indistinguishable from my own text. Which I'll now separate with a horizontal rule.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Consumerist's onebox is literally the entire article, with no links back to the source. LOL WTF. EDIT: and completely indistinguishable from my own text. Which I'll now separate with a horizontal rule.

    Why is this shit clogging up the status thread?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why is this shit clogging up the status thread?

    Because the janitorsmods don't do their job?

    :passport_control:



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why is this shit clogging up the status thread?

    Obviously it's my fault the entire article got inserted instead of just the link I intended.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Obviously it's my fault the entire article got inserted instead of just the link I intended.

    What about the link makes sense in here? @carman82 created a place to dump stuff like that. We also have various *IDEAS threads.



  • So wait, they needed to go to court to figure out that it's illegal (specifically, perjury) to file illegitimate DMCA requests when it's wriiten into the law1?

    1US Copyright Law, §512(c)(3)(A)(vi)



  • Apparently no one cares about that law. Sega and other (usually Japanese) companies DMCA you if you say bad things about them on Youtube. Youtube is one giant ball of illegitimate DMCA.

    Hammurabi would have something to say about this.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @carman82 created a place to dump stuff like that.

    Pfft. I don't recognize his authority.



  • YouTube's ContentID rules are actually more strict than the DMCA allows, too. Just to run salt in your wounds.



  • I'm just glad I don't have to deal with that mess.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @carman82 created a place to dump stuff like that.

    Pfft. I don't recognizerespect his authority.

    SCNR
    <now hopefully I'll get chided for unfunny meme joking!



  • @powerlord said:

    So wait, they needed to go to court to figure out that it's illegal (specifically, perjury) to file illegitimate DMCA requests when it's wriiten into the law?
    Didn't RTFA, did you? Or maybe didn't RTFL:

    To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: ... A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is **not authorized** by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
    and no clause saying that the agent is stating that it is believed to be infringing.

    The question is what that clause means, and IMO the labels have a very reasonable case that the law doesn't require them to consider fair use defenses when crafting DMCA complaints. Fair uses aren't infringing because the law says so; that doesn't mean they are "authorized by" the copyright holder.



  • A huge part of the problem with the DMCA legislation is that it puts the burden of proving complicated legal precepts to random mom who uploads a video of her toddler dancing.

    And to the file's host (in this case YouTube), but YouTube handles this burden by just immediately licking the boots of the media owner. Even though half the media owners on ContentID are fraudulently claiming to own media they don't.



  • @EvanED said:

    , and IMO the labels have a very reasonable case that the law doesn't require them to consider fair use defenses when crafting DMCA complaints. Fair uses aren't infringing because the law says so; that doesn't mean they are "authorized by" the copyright holder.

    That's a misparse of the clause. Fair uses are "authorized by" statute itself -- so even if the copyright holder states that they didn't authorize the use, the law still authorizes it, which is sufficient grounds for them to not have a good faith belief to make the complaint.



  • This entire legal argument is silly, because we all know the spirit of the law.

    Copywrite is there to prevent me from reusing someone else's efforts such that I gain income from that effort INSTEAD OF them.

    So, in common sense court, Universal would have to show that the purpose of this video is so that people will watch this video instead of the original content, in order to enjoy the song.

    And if they were to have to argue that point in court, they'd be laughed out of court.

    Same argument for parody.

    No one watching a parody of Mickey Mouse binge drinking, are watching that because they want to observe Mickey Mouse in his original content, and saw the parody as an alternative.

    Same thing for let's play videos.

    No one uses the videos as an alternative for playing the game. At best, a preview to determine if they want to buy the game. But then game devs have to make one of two arguments.
    That the gameplay isn't as important as the scenery.
    Or that their game sucks and they don't want people to find out.

    So... which is it, Nintendo?



  • @xaade said:

    Copywrite is there to prevent me from reusing someone else's efforts such that I gain income from that effort INSTEAD OF them.

    No. First of all, it is "copyright" — the right to make copies — not "copywrite."

    Copyright governs the right to make copies. Making money from those copies is part of that, but copyright applies even when there is no financial gain or loss to anyone.

    As an example, suppose John writes something, but decides he's not happy with it; he thinks it's not good for his reputation as a writer. However, he doesn't destroy it; maybe he plans to come back and improve it later — or not; it doesn't matter. Copyright gives him the right to say he's not going to publish it, and to prohibit anyone else make copies of it either. It's just going to gather dust on his shelf. He's not getting income from it, and he has no (current or definite future) plan to get income from it. He would not suffer any financial loss if Bob published it.

    Suppose Bob gave away copies for free, maybe by posting in on the Internet, or whatever. Bob is not receiving any financial gain, nor is he depriving John of any. Nevertheless, Bob is infringing John's copyright, and John could sue him. (John probably couldn't recover any damages, but he could at least get an injunction prohibiting further publication.)



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    (John probably couldn't recover any damages, but he could at least get an injunction prohibiting further publication.)
    Had John registered his work with the US Copyright Office prior to the infringement, he certainly could recover damages; statutory damages of $750--$30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 per willful infringement. These damages require no showing of financial loss on the part of the copyright holder.



  • True. However, I was assuming that since he didn't intend to publish it, he most likely hadn't bothered registering it. That's the "probably" in my statement.



  • Well, typo, but my logic still applies.

    Say he doesn't publish it.
    Then someone steals it and publishes it for free.

    His right to prevent that still hinges on the fact that he could make a profit on it, even if he doesn't.

    Even if he gave it out for free viewing, it still requires his name on it, because monetary profit isn't the only form of "gratitude". Recognition is just as valid a need for protection.

    But even if he shelved it. If someone came along, and made a fair use parody of his unpublished work, he can't claim copyright, because no one is viewing the parody instead of his original work, even if they don't have the option to. He can still then choose to publish his original work and profit from it, by monetary means or through recognition. People interested in the original work, will still demand to see it. People only interested in the parody may not have a desire to view the original work.

    But you can't steal the context, characters, or other concepts and use them in an original work, because then he loses on profiting because that new original work competes with any possible new original works he creates.

    The point is that he has the ability to control who profits, monetarily or by recognition, on the original work and any possible incarnations of new original work. But parodies and fair use don't fit into that.

    Small quotes from his original work aren't usable in exchange for his original work.

    It's all about competition.

    Parodies fit into a different competition. Like someone can make a medicine store with the same name as a restaurant, because no one going for a dinner is going to use the medicine store in exchange.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    Copyright governs the right to make copies. Making money from those copies is part of that, but copyright applies even when there is no financial gain or loss to anyone.

    Which was fine back in the days when the only reason you had to make a copy was to redistribute the work (i.e. the analog era). Nowadays, when we're all sitting in front of copy machines that, in fact must copy in order to do anything useful -- if you wish to try to deny that, expect to argue with the copyin/copyout routines in the Linux kernel ;), the entire argument for copyright granting control over reproduction alone falls apart, as granting control over reproduction of a digital work grants you absolute control over that work -- something that copyright clearly shouldn't, and doesn't, allow.



  • I think it's fair to say we should protect original content against reproductions. And that goes into effect without technology.

    If you reproduce a work in order to replace supply of that work, then you're wrong.

    If you want to paint Mario in your bedroom of your own accord, no one is coming to your bedroom to experience Mario.

    And that's just it.

    No one is coming to Youtube to experience original content, they're coming for commentary. A lot of these people already own the original content anyway, and if not, they are deciding whether they want to purchase the original content.

    If content creators want to shoot themselves in the foot.... let them ruin their PR, but don't let them control fair use.



  • @xaade said:

    If you reproduce a work in order to replace supply of that work, then you're wrong.

    And that's already covered under the right of distribution, basically.



  • Yeah, but uploading to YouTube is replacing the supply of that work. Unless it's fair use, like in the OP video, where no one in their right mind would watch this video instead of purchasing a copy of the song.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @xaade said:

    No one is coming to Youtube to experience original content, they're coming for commentary

    wat?

    Lots of people go to Youtube for, e.g. their main source of finding music, or original videos by their favourite content creators



  • Yeah, I said that wrong.

    Let me see.

    Ah, yes, I need to clarify who I'm talking about.

    If someone is coming to view commentary/parody, they aren't interested in the original content. So companies have no reason to persecute commentary/parody thinking this is giving people an alternative to the original content. Those people likely have the original content already or deciding whether they want to purchase the original content.

    Such a simple thought in my head, becomes something very difficult to communicate.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @xaade said:

    Such a simple thought in my head, becomes something very difficult to communicate

    Communicating. How the fuck does it work?

    I think I get what you're saying though. If people are intentionally hunting stuff that isn't the original content then it's likely not removing any views or purchasing from said OC



  • and by extension any content that is fixed in the same context as the original content.

    For example, some third party claiming they wrote a sequel to a book without the author's permission.

    Parody doesn't compete with the original content, but a sequel does, in the sense that the author could have or could in the future be writing a sequel themselves.



  • @xaade said:

    Yeah, but uploading to YouTube is replacing the supply of that work. Unless it's fair use, like in the OP video, where no one in their right mind would watch this video instead of purchasing a copy of the song.

    Yeah, but that's covered under the right of distribution already.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.