I just got a copyright claim against a video I posted on youtube 10 years ago.
The video is a film by Georges Melies that was shot in the 1890s.
Someone is attempting to claim copyright over a film that is 130 years old, who's director died 86 years ago.
Now 1) I don't give a shit about this clip on youtube. 2) The person who made this claim is clearly in the wrong. 3) I can't be the only one that they have targeted illegally. 4) Youtube is a problem.
As an archivist, let me say clearly:
Modern copyright law is actively harmful to the preservation and study of our culture.
It harms artists by giving undue power to publishers. It harms artists by limiting remixes. It harms preservation and research efforts.
It's broken. It's bad. It should be massively reformed.
Of course the claimant backed down. How could they do otherwise?
But the fact remains that they should face legal repercussions for claiming ownership over something they don't own.
I should, at least, be able to bill them for the time I spent dealing with their spurious claim, but frankly the repercussions should be worse and deeper than that.
Issuing an illegal takedown notice should come with serious risk.
Small claims basics Small claims court allows you to sue a person, business, or government agency that you think owes you money. Generally, you can only sue for up to $12,500 in small claims court (or up to $6,250 if you’re a business). You can ask a lawyer for advice before you go to court, but you can't have one with you in court. Special rules for COVID-19 rental debt cases in small claims
@ajroach42 The concept of easy takedown requests for immunity from direct copyright suits was what made the modern internet possible. I think the DMCA and equivalents were a good idea in the nineties, but they need to be reformed badly to make spurious claims less frequent. Automatic screening and claiming made it too cheap and easy.
Copyright in general was bad already before that and has only gotten worse.
They weren't even a "good idea in the 90s".
@ajroach42 I mean, we don't really need copyright at all, you've already pointed out that it doesn't help anyone who actually needs the privilege
No copyright, no spurious copyright claims
@ajroach42 reformed? Abolished more like.
The only purpose of copyright as a legal concept is to turn activities previously labeled "plagiarism" into blameless lawful activities when carried out by a company.
"Work for hire" laws mean that anything you write is by default owned and copyrighted by your employer, and they pay you at most once for it. And as soon as a company asserts copyright of your work, they can remix/resell your work and use it to extract perpetual profit without giving anything back to you, not even attribution is required. It's inherently asymmetric because the whole purpose is extraction
I recommend Pirate Cinema (2012) a novel by Cory Doctorow, a near future dystopia about the evils of overreaching corporate copyright.
Congratulations to Bvlbancha Public Access for their solution submission to the 2024 MIT SOLVE Indigenous Communities Fellowship making it to the semi-finals! https://solve.mit.edu/challenges/2024-indigenous-communities/solutions "How can Indigenous innovators in the US and Canada build upon traditional knowledge and technology to meet the social, environmental, and economic goals of their communities?" The innovation thought up by Hali Dardar is the Uke' Contracting System, which is a "prototype for Indigenous data sovereignty which creates sole ownership at the initial fixation of copyright for sound, video, and image recordings." Learn more here: https://solve.mit.edu/challenges/2024-indigenous-communities/solutions/87542 #IndigenousGulf #Indigenous #science #solutions #IndigenousCreatives #Bvlbancha #NOLA #MIT
@ajroach42 Just cause I've been looking at the US constitution recently for reasons, this is what the US copyright is constitutionally based on:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Really don't feel like our current laws and practices are really in line with that intent. If anything it prevents progress. Know I'm speaking to the choir, but grr.
@ajroach42 I am of the opinion that the copyright of works by an individual are fine - except for the term. They don't need to feed the creator's grandkids' grandkids.
Copyright of works by a corporation? Should be like patents - super short. 20 years at most.
Transfers of copyrights TO a corporation should immediately cause them to move to the corporation term.
How about "works by an individual - life of the individual + 20 years; works by a corporation - 20 years; works by an individual then assigned to a corporation - 20 years from date of assignment; or the remainder of the original individual copyright if assigned after the death of the creator."
@jherazob Right. That's why I said modern copyright law was the problem, and not youtube.
Was I unclear?
Livestreams facilitate that, by discouraging us from saving things, and encouraging us to produce shit so useless it's not worth saving. Only big companies can really afford to stream stuff to us, so by adopting their rigged game, we end up in their control. Youtube used to have a download button, but it should surprise no one that by streaming, you gave them the power to take it away, and more.
Saving vods is always an option (and most streamers do, the main streams that don't get saved are that way to avoid DMCA bullshit, not for any technical reason), and recording one through yt-dlp (among others) is more than feasible.
I see no particular contradiction there, and no reason why that cannot be continued with Free Software and p2p schemas.
The Youtube download button was probably removed as a result of pressure by copyright fascists, and its "effective" removal was only possible because of the proprietary and SaaSS nature of Youtube as a platform.
It's like how vidya is a problem. Yes you can in theory make not shit games, but by playing games, we're making it easier for them to screw with our heads, and making it harder for our actual friends and neighbors, by staying inside playing games all day.
You must be very lucky indeed to live somewhere where one's neighbors are not socially regressive plague cultists (this has seemingly gotten worse over time, instead of better). The notion of inclusivity for those vulnerable is nowhere in their minds.
My neighbors would sooner try to invite state violence upon me than collaborate on anything of interest, much less assist in loosening the grasp of the statists on our lives.
As for proprietary malware games, I also see no reason why one cannot make Free Software games (and indeed I have many on one of my machines) with interesting stories that do not compromise of corposcum propaganda.
Besides, this body of mine makes in-person interaction profoundly uncomfortable too. I would much prefer to chat with the few of my amicable neighbors over short-range radio.
This would also have the benefit of allowing for the use of asynchronous communication, which greatly superior to synchronous audio-transmitted verbal communication (it enables both richer content and it is more comfortable).
And indeed, I would consider audio-verbal communication and other synchronous communication to be very similar to the streaming you oppose.
Can't blame you for playing games, or for livestreaming, but it really is a problem, and you weren't led to do those things for any reason other than making you a helpless tool.
Are you going to say we should burn down libraries next, because they aren't conducive to one joining in the plague masses?
Major publishers all have different strategies for selling ebooks to the public library system. Baker & Taylor, Overdrive and a myriad of others have to have enough of a selection to keep their patrons satisfied, but it can be challenging to know all of the different prices, terms and models that publishers employ, since they have changed many times over the years.
@ajroach42 I made videos for a while on YouTube and I encountered these music channels that offered royalty-free music that encouraged creators to use them.
Three years later, every single video of mine that used them was later copyright claimed by that channel.
I later switched to Epidemic Sound for my music and I still get claimed every so often but Epidemic just swats them down now.
@ajroach42 Someone at youtube obviously ignored the possibility of malicious copyright violation claims.
Someone really fucking dumb.
Andrew (Television Executive)
Σ(i³) = (Σi)²
mizblueprint
toni 
Maverynthia🌱
Stanley Black-Decker
James Gleick
masukomi
sleepfreeparent
Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC
Primo
jaryl
Zontar
Raiden 
StarkRG
RynUfe
Luke (Shiv)
MrAlanCooper
CategorySolo
the Amygdalai Lama
Njord
Simon Brooke
Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】
CharonPDX
Zanidd
One Meat Ball ✔️
Zonder Zon
Lena Falkenhagen
Sicko Mode 100% of the Time
Jaime Herazo
Cy
Bujold
LisPi
Cody 
Brian Moakley
Grumpy Grimnir 
Brad Patrick