- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
This extraordinary saga of takedown notices for performances of Shakespeare show that 27 years after it was passed, the DMCA is still not fit for purpose. The companies like Google that are tasked with implementing it often do so in the most desultory way. There is an underlying assumption that claimed infringements are valid, an injustice compound by an arrogant indifference to the rights of ordinary citizens who find themselves caught up in a complex copyright system that is stacked against them.
You must log in or register to comment.
“We’ll clear things up only after we hear from the original creator “
To DMCA takedown or to not DMCA takedown? That is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the sponsors and ads of free content, or take cards against premium content and by supporting skip them.
Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Act IV, Scene 1
[Enter pirates]
First Pirate: Hold, villain!
It’s mine. I own the Shakespeare copyright.
Pay up.
Hmmmm bet Gemini is trained on lots of Shakespeare. Book em Danno!
The naval battle flag of the knights Templar?
Edit: spoke too soon. I was thinking the skull and crossbones, strangely more popular among free agents after Friday 13th October 1307.
deleted by creator
Just gonna leave this Tom Scott video here because I think it is an interesting watch.
There are alternatives to Youtube. Use them.
Not so much a Youtube issue as a modern copyright issue.
But I’m curious, is that recommendation meant for users or creators? And don’t say “both”, I know it’s a chicken and egg thing, I’m asking what you think comes first.
Read the article - in this case the problem is YouTube not reacting to the DMCA counterclaim.
he promptly sent YouTube a counter-notice, as the DMCA contemplates, and assumed that would the end of the matter. After all, he reasoned, Shakespeare is in the public domain, and besides, Shakespeare by the Seas assured him that it had not relied on Coallier’s claimed version of the Shakespeare plays in crafting the script for its performances; indeed, Shakespeare by the Sea had never heard of Coallier or seen his supposed copyrighted versions of Shakespeare, and hence could not have copied them. Even so, YouTube, ignoring the DMCA’s procedures, refused to honor his counter-notice or even forward the notice to Coallier so that Coallier could file suit for copyright infringement. Instead, it issued a copyright strike against Underwood’s channel and told him that he would have to work things out with Coallier.
All they had to do was to (and are legally required to do) is forwarding that counterclaim and then restore the content. Then the crazy dude claiming to own the copyrights to Shakespeare could try to sue the uploader. A sane legal system should throw out that quickly.
But instead YouTube didn’t forward that message, did issue its own copyright strike and might ban your account if you get too many of those strikes and then told them to negotiate with some nutcase.
There’s no consequences to filling out a false claim. That’s been a problem with the DMCA that existed even before YouTube.
I read it. I disagree with your interpretation.
It’s a DMCA issue in that the current set of regulations puts the onus on the poster and the effective enforcement on the platform.
Sure, Youtube is way less zealous in protecting the rights of the genuine content creators than those of even illegitimate claimants… but that’s by design. If they make a mistake and enforce too strictly they will not likely get sued at all, and if they do the damages will be low. If they do the opposite on a large scale the threat, at the time the DMCA was being hashed out, was becoming directly liable for any and all copyrighted content they host by accident.
The regulation isn’t fit for purpose and never has been. Google’s extreme lack of diligence in protecting the public domain (and whatever copyright exceptions are applicable) is a result of this. I don’t like Google or their practices in general. They definitely don’t spend enough on direct support, be it on copyright or on security issues. In this case, being honest with you, I’d err on the same side they do, even if there is a secondary issue with how little funding they put on required support and assessment of edge cases beyond their algorithmic solutions.
Content has to arrive first for users to consume. It really is a “both” type of response to some extent.
In my opinion, the solution is for content creators to simultaneously release on alternative platforms while also maintaining a YouTube presence so they’re still making money from that. However, they should start heavily advertising the alternative platforms on every video and transitioning to a different payment model (e.g. Patreon, Ko-fi, Indiegogo, etc). Content creators could organize with other creators to coordinate the transition. If you got huge channels like Digital Foundry, Linus Tech Tips, GamersNexus, etc (for the PC gaming scene, as an example) to agree, then that’s already millions of users. It begins a snowball effect.
That being said, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any alternative platforms that can handle the bandwidth that supports millions of users simultaneously, along with thousands of content creators uploading and processing large videos regularly. There’s a reason YouTube has such a monopoly, and their vast wealth of pre-existing content is the main component, but not the only one.
All the examples you provide already have alternate hosting methods they publicise aggressively. LTT has Floatplane, which they own, DF offers Patrons higher bitrate alternative to their videos for download, GN pushes people to their website (although that’s different and not really monetized) and a whole bunch of other creators banded together and made Nebula as an alternative to Youtube.
My understanding is that the vast majority of those alternatives from successful, established creators are residual, secondary monetization windows when compared to Youtube advertising and sponsorships driven pretty much entirely by Youtube views.
I do agree that Youtube is a huge aberration. Every other dominant streaming site is built on owned or licensed content, not UGC, and they’re largely supported by subscription revenue first, advertising second. Definitely not by third party sponsorships baked right into the UGC. It is what it is, though, and if it got shut down tomorrow I genuinely don’t know that independently generated content would survive in any form at all. Maybe someone would ramp up capacity to try to replace them, but most likely you’d see social media posts becoming the real replacement.
Much as my feelings for Youtube are mixed, I don’t know if I can think of a realistic alternative that isn’t worse.
That is for individuals. Whichever side you are on. No alternative can exist without both creators and users in large enough numbers.
Asking which is first is a stupid question. Even if you could prove an answer it wouldn’t change a thing.
I’m sorry I can’t think of how to write that nicer.
They have fuck all content. Fortunately both peertube and yt I regrate into pipepipe seemlessly so don’t even need a second app.
Check out the pinned post at [email protected] about channels to follow. Maybe you find something interesting.
Alternatives such as? I see people say his but none of the so-called alternatives have anywhere near the functionality or availability.
Agreed, and curious to see what “solution” the OP comes up with.
Shake more beer, Willy!
A good article on Walled Culture, marred by its being illustrated with AI slop. Surely a normal, real public domain Shakespeare image could have illustrated the point of the article just as well, if not better.
