Kinda related, but I hate how the big studios go after old videogames and try to take them down. It looks like, in the future, this era will be called the "digital dark ages", not because all the stuff got lost to bitrot, but because all the stuff became illegal to own so that the studios could sell the new stuff again and again.
He intentionally samples less than 5 seconds iirc, and they still ding him, take all profits from the video, which took many many hours to create, and he cannot afford a lawsuit. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Wait til you hear it's (or at least was) possible to get dinged for 0.00 seconds.[1] That particular issue's probably solved by now, since Youtube requires claims to include a time stamp showing where the problem clip is. Nevermind the fact that wasn't a requirement to begin with. No wonder the corps ding every creator out there. It's free money with no downside to them. Nevermind the fact they're actively destroying culture.
That kind of works with smaller players (a random thai TV channel dinging people incorrectly is probably going to get some sort of time-out, and even if not, going to court against a smaller player like that is probably within the realm of possibility), but the big players have too much leverage. If Sony gets threatened with even minor punishments, they can simply say 'Fine. But then you have to remove all videos featuring gameplay from Sony Interactive Entertainment's games, or else we'll sue you for copyright infringement'. Even that example is fairly narrow and something that Sony is clearly allowed to do within the current bounds of copyright. They could go full nuclear and demand anything even vaguely related to Sony and its cultural hoard be taken of Youtube, and Youtube would have to comply, if nothing else, while the fight in court goes on.
Youtube has very little leverage, and Google/Youtube is very invested in not ending up in court over this kind of disputes, and the corps making claims know that.
The only actual fix is reforming or abolishing copyright.
We did try to reform copyright; that's what the DCMA was about. While I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that if a rights holder alleges that a video infringes their rights, Google passes that on,and the creator of the video responds that it is fair use, Google is then immune to any liability per the DCMA (it would be a matter between the two parties). What I do not understand is why that process is not being followed here. Why is Google not insisting that the big media companies follow the law and use the process laid out by the DCMA?
The DMCA is absolutely not copyright reform. It was brought to us by the same mindset that brought us the Bono act. It's a bad piece of legislation that should have been replaced 20 years ago.
> What I do not understand is why that process is not being followed here. Why is Google not insisting that the big media companies follow the law and use the process laid out by the DCMA?
Because the DMCA and copyright in general proved to be a massive hindrance in actually having Youtube be workable, so they made their own system which functionally bypasses it, by giving in to the corps. The corps can either misuse the DMCA and make life hell for Youtube, or they can get in on the system with Youtube and make some cash on the side. There is no middle ground where the DMCA isn't misused, Youtube gets to exist and the corps don't get paid.
javcasas · · focus · HN ↗
giancarlostoro · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/@diggingthegreats/videos" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@diggingthegreats/videos
He intentionally samples less than 5 seconds iirc, and they still ding him, take all profits from the video, which took many many hours to create, and he cannot afford a lawsuit. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Telaneo · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/VvFGumd_esg?&t=685" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/VvFGumd_esg?&t=685
giancarlostoro · · focus · HN ↗
Telaneo · · focus · HN ↗
Youtube has very little leverage, and Google/Youtube is very invested in not ending up in court over this kind of disputes, and the corps making claims know that.
The only actual fix is reforming or abolishing copyright.
bigstrat2003 · · focus · HN ↗
Telaneo · · focus · HN ↗
> What I do not understand is why that process is not being followed here. Why is Google not insisting that the big media companies follow the law and use the process laid out by the DCMA?
Because the DMCA and copyright in general proved to be a massive hindrance in actually having Youtube be workable, so they made their own system which functionally bypasses it, by giving in to the corps. The corps can either misuse the DMCA and make life hell for Youtube, or they can get in on the system with Youtube and make some cash on the side. There is no middle ground where the DMCA isn't misused, Youtube gets to exist and the corps don't get paid.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗