We Have Destroyed Copyright Law
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- The internet destroyed copyright law and we have not re-built. Instead of laws and courts we now have claims and disputes. TH-cam in particular has placed itself in the middle of extra-legal arbitrations over what is and is not fair use, false claims of scammers, and whether it's OK to take different action based on opinions that are entirely external to copyright like...is this video nice or mean.
Learn more about Fair Use here: • Copyright, Exceptions,...
And more about Article 13 in the EU here: www.wired.co.u...
----
Subscribe to our newsletter! nerdfighteria.c...
And join the community at nerdfighteria.com effyeahnerdfigh...
Help transcribe videos - nerdfighteria.info
John's twitter - / johngreen
Hank's twitter - / hankgreen
Hank's tumblr - / edwardspoonhands
Listen to The Anthropocene Reviewed at www.theanthropo...
Listen to Dear Hank and John at www.dearhankand...
Hi! Great video, Hank! I thought I would paste the text of my deleted video here in case anyone wants to read it. I am pretty sure I own the words I wrote, although maybe the English Football Association will claim them as well. We shall see. Good morning Hank it's Tuesday. On November 23rd, 1984, I watched a college football game between Boston College and the University of Miami.
In general, I didn't care much about sports--I was not, you'll be surprised to learn, a particularly athletic child. But this game held my attention--so much so that I started crying when, with less than thirty seconds to go in the game, Miami took a seemingly insurmountable lead.
But then Boston College's diminutive quarterback Doug Flutie threw a 52-yard pass to his roommate and best friend Gerard Phelan, and Boston College won the game in what came to be called the Miami Miracle, and my dad threw me in the air, and I felt the purest joy I'd ever known and in a way, most of what I've done in my life since has been an attempt to understand, celebrate, and/or re-create that moment. I'm after the feeling that Al Michaels had when he famously exclaimed, "Do you believe in miracles? YES!"
Like, I am very interested in what's called radical hope, the idea that existential hope is available to all people at all times. It's kind of the founding value of my belief system, and I'm pretty sure I believe in it not because of theology or philosophy or whatever, but because I have seen with my own eyes that even when there is not really much cause for hope, hope is still the correct response to the human condition, as evidenced by the ridiculous and beautiful hope of Doug Flutie and Gerard Phelan.
Of course, I know there is nothing miraculous about a completed hail mary, or the U.S. defeating the USSR in hockey. By definition, improbabilities usually don't occur but occasionally do. I’m not looking for anything supernatural; I just want to have hope, and more than that, to be unalone in that hope. For me, there is nothing like being in a virtual space or real room or stadium with people whose hope is oriented in the same direction as mine, and who love the same thing I love. I don’t think you need to get that feeling from sports-you can get it from concerts or book clubs or by being heavily invested in Martian rover landings.
But ultimately this urge to find and share hope is why I write and make videos and work in my garden, and it’s also why I sponsor the third tier English soccer club AFC Wimbledon, who wear DFTBA on their shorts, and who have shown me again and again that hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all. Wimbledon have had an extraordinarily difficult season-they are in last place in their division, facing the prospect of being relegated into the fourth tier of English football.
But somehow amid this disaster, they made it to the fourth round of a different competition, called the FA Cup, where they faced off against West Ham United, a premier league team that has the distinction of being the only football club mentioned by name in the Harry Potter books. West Ham have several individual players who make more money per year than AFC Wimbledon’s entire annual budget. And yet…Kwesi Appiah scored (in front of the john green stand, you’ll note) to put Wimbledon 1-0 up, and then Scott Wagstaff tore through West Ham’s defense to create a breakaway and then finished as calmly as you like to make it 2-0, and then Scott Wagstaff scored again, and then 19-year-old Toby Sibbick scored, and AFC Wimbledon beat West Ham 4-2, and in a basement in Indianapolis I found myself in tears, overwhelmed with gratitude for the football club that had again shown me the meaning of life.
It is never wrong to be hopeful, and anyone who tells you otherwise just hasn’t watched enough AFC Wimbledon games. The FA Cup is now down to its final sixteen teams, and Wimbledon is among them. In the next round, we’ll face off against Milwall, a club a division ahead of us. We can’t possibly win that game, of course. Or can we? Hank, I’ll see you on Friday.
p.s. three things: First, I wrote a defense of sports in general and penalty shootouts in particular on the most recent episode of The Anthropocene Reviewed; a new episode comes out Thursday. Second, if you’re interested in our book club Life’s Library but didn’t get to sign up before, there are a few slots open now at lifeslibrarybookclub.com; and lastly if you’ve ever wanted to be part-owner of a third tier English football club, there’s never been a better time. For 25 pounds a year, or around 30 dollars, you can become a member of the Dons Trust, which owns the club, and make AFC Wimbledon’s next miracle your miracle. Links in the dooblydoo below!
Bloody love this, huge gratitude to both John and Hank for this! Onto the fifth round COYD
It was a brilliant video John...I am sorry it was taken down :(
This is some great shade
This text is missing *John grabs his hair * (am I the only one sees him doing this in his entries?)
Thanks John
I was here when it happened. I saw the secret video. I have obtained the hidden knowledge and seen the Great Ones, and I think I've gone mad.
But have you always been mad, do you know you've been mad?
@Shall NotWither But do the fish people play football?
The Great Ones lies dreaming of... The adsense.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Was there non-Euclidean geometry?
I want to point out that TH-cam doesn't review disputes, the "rights holder" does, which is bull crap imo cause if a company falsely claims something on purpose they will just deny the dispute. This has happened to me and other independent musicians (some much larger than myself), it needs to be fixed.
How do you fix it? Only real option is to go to court.
@robittiget They can afford to, it's just easier to make the lawsuit someone else's problem
I agree that that's a problem, but if TH-cam issues a declaration that they are siding with the channel owner, they are making themselves complicit in any copyright violation the video may or may not feature, which leaves them in a legally vulnerable position
Lul they wont but idk why
"We are kind of citizens of corporations"
And that's the exact moment in which we need to start talking about anti-monopoly or even anti-oligopoly laws.
Monopolies, apart from a few limited areas, are very unnatural and unlikely to happen.
Laws that try to stop monopolies usually end up only benefiting them. And the fact that the government is a monopoly itself and very likely to be corrupt doesn't even help. IP laws are a prime example.
The best action against monopolies and abusive practices can come from us. Speak with your wallet.
_Ultimately, corporations will replace government, as a centralized international body that can meet the needs of the public worldwide without the chaos created by national self interest._
@@ufazig nonsense. Monopolies are the natural state of unregulated markets. Its in the ultimate interest of every corporation to be a monopoly, so most companies aspires towards it
The government is not a monopoly because its not a corporation. And the state is the only entity able to break up monopolies as its the only entity with the strength to do so.
People have some power towards preventing monopolies but ultimately when the monopoly is established they can't do anything
Here's an easy example. Say i have great personal wealth. I open up a shop selling milk. I sell my milk for kess than i buy it and absorb the loss with my great wealth. Thus i drive all my local competitors out of buisiness. Then i can raise the price of milk as much as i want
This is a situation preventable only with a law that disallows this type of anticompetitive practice. Nothing else can do this. Only the state can effectively regulate markers. Markers left in their own devices will result in a monopoly or an oligopoly
I get copy strikes on my own music that I make
Helaman Gile me too, sort of. I’m a conductor, and last year my choir did Handel’s Messiah. When I uploaded it here (easier than trying to send files or DVDs to 50 people), a record company blocked audio, saying they owned it. 1. No you don’t, this music is in public domain. 2. You can see by looking at the video for one second that we are a church choir, not your professional ensemble. Ugh.
@@sarahgrin sorry to hear hope TH-cam fixes there system soon this is really getting out of hand
Stop writing one four five bro lol
Barret's Music Education you know what they say, “if it ain’t baroque....” lol
@@sarahgrin Ugh. That was a bad one. I expect interesting times later this year when I start to produce a few music videos as intended.
One is a cover, used with permission, the other made trough an internet cooperation - the other guy have released his version already.
The funny one I had were one of my vids got monetized, but the claim from youtube were on the wrong video! (Suggesting it were done manually.)
TH-cam copied the other music on the vid and had it appear twice, but that displaced the sound effects - so it were fubared and I had to reupload.
So what about the video where that piece of music is found on? Well it's still up and not claimed as of writing. :)
This is probably the most Informative and even-handed video on TH-cam explaining the problem with Copyright law and Fair Use.
And people wonder why Crash Course is so popular.
@@Dragon-le2dc True and it didn't even cover Copyright law and Fair Use but rather TH-cams policies.
Just a small question, where do you draw the line? If you Invent let's say a pill that enables the body of a person to only want to eat the amount of the type of food it will need until the need for the body arises again you would solve the obesity crisis and nearly every problem regarding health degradation due to wrong nutrition but do you own that idea? If you wanted to profit from that idea and even made it so that you would not gain any profits above the amount of money you invested in the development and the production of said pill I would you say it is okay for a big pharma company that does not need to invest any money and can start production immediately to simply underbid you and everything you invested is probably lost?
I think a world where such great ideas were freely accessible would be great and I'd love to live in it but in this world, your own value would no longer be measured in money but in intellectual achievements.
tell that to mumkey
Except you missed the part where Hank shills for TH-cam. Copyright law is not supposed to be about the creators and large corporations, it was designed to protect individuals by making a great public domain for society to draw from. Claiming it isn't about law anymore is disgusting and effectively makes it so that we're expected to stick our heads in the sand and say "oh well, I guess that's how it is - derp". The reason this crap doesn't go to court is because it's a CIVIL violation, not CRIMINAL and absolutely NO distinction was made.
I got to see John's video before it was removed ... one could say that's a miracle.
Munjee Syed I thought so, too. It was such a coincidence
I like Jim Sterling's patent-pending "Copyright Deadlock" system. He knows certain companies (Nintendo, EA, Activision) will generally try to place a claim on any piece of their content he uses, rightfully or not. He also knows that record labels will do the same. So if he ever wants to use content that will probably be claimed, he also arbitrarily uses Erasure's "Chains of Love" so that for example both Nintendo and Sire Records (Warner Bros) place simultaneous claims, preventing anybody from claiming the rights to the video. He doesn't monetise anyway, so he loses nothing.
There should be a TH-cam policy stating that every video uploaded must include "Chains of Love".
+
And Skeleton Warriors!
Yes! I was also thinking if Jim's system during this video, imagine if the vlog brothers started doing the same XD
I hear Jimquisition, I like.
TH-cam's Content ID system is incapable of distinguishing one piece of classical music from another. I use CC licensed music shared by its creators on IMSLP all the time, and TH-cam attempts over and over to claim this music on behalf of different recording companies who don't own it - sometimes two or three different companies for the same recording. It's a mess, and completely inappropriate in its structure. Claims should be reviewed BY THE CLAIMANTS before being enacted on the videos. These claims are easily challenged by video owners, but that's not the point. The point is that a claim automatically being attached to a video with no prior recourse is somewhat unethical and may in fact be illegal.
It's not illegal in itself, because to claim something on youtube (as defined by youtube) is not a legal procedure. It's a system used by google, to appease the corporate world. But it's illegal if you've entered a contract with youtube, that says you're entitled to money for your content being used on youtube, and they then start giving the money to someone else before it has been ruled by civil court that the other party is in fact the owner of the content in question. Then there are copyright laws defining how much of something is required to match what the copyright holder(s) claims is their property, in order to be defined as being that other party's property. Otherwise, for example, it'd be illegal to use a single note of sound by whatever that got the copyright for it first, so a B-flat would only be allowed to be used by that copyright holder, if there would be no definition of quantity and degree of similarity in order to claim copyright on it.
However, if it's included in the contract that you are ok with adhering to youtube claims immediately and with no right to damages caused (I don't know, I haven't read it), then it enters a grey area where you've possibly signed away your legal claim to it (not to be confused with youtube's definition of 'claim' in their procedure), and it'd become unclear who owns what of it and even youtube (google) could own your content and then the money from them ends up as just a show of good faith which they'll have the control over to stop at any moment. It's very unclear what's what depending on the contract(s) though, and how they correspond to existing laws. The root of all evil is the outdated copyright laws though. However, the danger of updating copyright laws, is that if no concessions are made, then it could basically make websites like these illegitimate, and force 'em to be taken down, because they'd possibly be operating under the premise of allowing copyright violations outright, depending on how the updated legal texts would be phrased. If there'd be concessions, it might even turn it around and legitimize the use of copyrighted material under certain limitations like the length of use of such in a video, without the need for permission or payment. Which is why updating the legal texts is "dangerous". It can easily go too far in either direction.
ContentID is illegal.
@@Joppi1992 Where does this weird idea comes from that if you get a ContentID claim TH-cam immediately gives money to the claimaint? It would be insane if it worked that way! support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961
@@AlcherBlack It's called supposition. In programming it'd be called if-then-else but without the else (a bit of an inside joke). First, I never said they "immediately give money to the claimant". Read it.
Now, you apparently missed the point entirely of the post and the supposition. It's that they're taking actions in breach of a simple payment contract. But as you linked (said in the previous post that I hadn't read it) it says that there's a clause covering that scenario.
So what it means, legally speaking, is that you aren't ultimately in control of your content on youtube. Google controls it. It gives them the right to for example determine on their own who to pay money for what it generates. If it would be a simple payment contract, you'd be covered by other IP laws (=Intellectual Property) that prohibits other individuals and businesses from making that decision all on their own without consent from you as the IP owner.
The claimants "holding the power" is the problem, and that's aside from ContentID. If you get a copyright strike, they can easily deny your disputes, which can result in a second copyright strike. It's pure abuse of the copyright system.
Creators don't file disputes because they don't want to lose their channels. The only way it can be settled is by taking it directly to TH-cam or to pursue legal action against the claimants (i.e., H3H3's "fair use" lawsuit).
TH-cam isn't a mediator, but it's about damn time they start being one. Copyright abuse on this platform is on the same level of random demonetization. It's ridiculous.
What really gets me is when I buy a video clip or music from a reputable stock house and that's what gets claimed. It's happened to me about a dozen times (mostly music) now and each time it's more infuriating. Content I have literally paid a licence fee to use! All because some artist with CD Baby, Universal, or whomever used the same stock I did.
I had a video I tried to upload blocked because some musician had used the same CC sound effect I had.
Reagan Harder I’ve heard of that and it is beyond messed up.
When you paid for it there was probably a "not for distribution.." like clause which you implicitly agreed upon buying it. Many media have that.
There was an interesting case of false claims a couple of months ago after the pianist James Rhodes uploaded rehearsal footage of him playing Bach, and Sony claimed the content as theirs and issued a takedown. Even when disputed Sony maintained it was their intellectual property, then it came out that there were a lot of small users who had been caught in the same loop when they uploaded performances of Classical music.
It also led to my favourite headline pun - "Copyright takedown notices are Baroque-en"
Sony also does that with completely original songs by small artists if they aren't protected.
@@SeaSqueeze Owwkay, lets see what happen in 2019 when I release my new album. *Grin*
@@SeaSqueeze sounds like a RICO violation, but if Sony can get away with literally installing a virus on thousands of peoples' computers in the early 2000s as part of a failed copy protection scheme, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Look up the "Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal"
I have that too (I used Ode to Joy in one of my videos) and I'm scared to do anything with it because they will be stubborn and say that it is their content(even if performed by someone else).
Sony is the devils work. All they care about is money.
...Couldn't it be argued that John's video was commentary, which falls under fair use..? :\
Anything in existence that "could be argued" as fair use will most likely "have to be argued" as fair use in a court in order to actually be able to use it as such. And to do so, you need lots of money.
Yes. It was fair use! I totally disagree with Hank, and I think I would've won a fair use lawsuit, at least under U.S. law. But it would have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue the question, and I might've lost. As Hank says, this isn't about law anymore, which is imho A BIG PROBLEM. As Hank puts it, we are becoming citizens of corporations. -John
@@vlogbrothers TY for answering John, I was scratching my head on this one :)
TH-cam doesn't give a single shit about fair use, if you get something claimed and want to fight it, TH-cam's policy is "not our problem, take them to court if you think you'll win"
yes it would fall under fair use.... but that fair use could be disputed, and while it's disputed, it can be demonetized until the dispute is over. The problem with more and more claims in the system means the longer it takes to resolve any particular issue, if there isn't enough infrastructure dedicated to the resolutions of such disputes, the clear advantage is to the rights-holder who provides proof of ownership while filing a claim because it will take forever to resolve the dispute. However, the disadvantage of a rights-holder is in not knowing when & where infringements occur, such copyright infringements frequently evade detection. People who own brands that are parodied by clone & knock-off manufactures not only have to find the knock-offs, but the source of those knock-offs to get any legal enforcement over the issue. I think at some point patent-law, and copy-right law will both be completely unenforceable because of how reproducible virtually EVERYTHING in the material world will be, & absolutely everything in virtual worlds will be. No one ever got rich over having the exclusive patent to processing flint-mapped arrowheads & being able to produce digital media will eventually be like flint-mapping rocks. Trade-marks might be enforceable because that's suppose to show the source of a product and that's important from a legal/liability standpoint regardless of other factors, but I think the Trade-marks people will eventually add counterfeit detection methods to their own products so that if knock-offs do some kind of harm or damage and the real McCoy is the one that gets sued for such things, they'll be able to prove they didn't make the produce the work that generated the claim... basically reversing the playing field completely, and opening up entirely new cans of worms like would a nefarious company intentionally distribute inferior products as counterfeit.
>inb4 this video gets a copyright strike
It's not impossible!
@@vlogbrothers Just wait til They Might Be Giants sees their content on your tshirt ;)
@@Deadlyish Just wait till IKEA sees that shelf in the background lul
I would argue against demonetization as “not that big of a deal”. I watch a lot of smaller channels in which those videos are a primary or secondary source of income. So I feel strongly when they feel as though they are threatened by companies who randomly go around and hit “this is mine now”.
The sad truth is that most of these large youtube channels are insulated and backed by massive parent companies. The parent companies love nothing more than to kill any and every channel and funnel those viewers into the fold and create a monopoly on all platforms. That he just glosses over the demonetization just proves that it's lip-service to try and appear that they give a crap about the issues at hand.
Yeah I was thinking "it's easy for a big channel to say it's not that big of a deal".
@@davidhurwich I say this without any malice to you: that is something you can only say if you are ignorant to what's actually happening.
I'm a Playlist junkie, so I have a playlist for TH-cam copyright problems that small/med sized channels have had. Watch a few of those. One guy's own voice was claimed by another company. Just think about that for a sec.
But...but...why Croatia :(
Bc I ts sucks
A crow ate ya
I like turtles
It's unfair that someone can claim 100% of the revenue for only a short sound clip. This doesn't promote creativity. It's bad for everyone.
Well ya see its only gonna last a while for the people claiming videos. Eventually people will stop adding this content which will actually have a negative effects towards them. So in the end the people claiming are just making their own content obsolete hahaha
@@Jockuptown agreed. Also - if the clip actually wasn't fair use, losing the lawsuit would cost them much more than lost monetization from that one video.
It should be held instead as to protect both sides, the money belongs to the one who does have the right to the video/clip and should be given to them, rather then given to the claimer.
If I don't want to have my content claimed, I can avoid using copyrighted content in my video.
If that happens, remove the video, edit out the clip, and reupload it, so they can't claim it.
I've had fun times when companies straight up claim something they don't even own. It happened with a song by Approaching Nirvana (who are known for allowing song use on TH-cam), and a random record label claimed it after about 3 years of being uploaded. I contacted Approaching Nirvana and the false claims happened on their videos as well! Luckily they got it sorted out, but it lost me a good $400 of revenue :/
+
Whack.
How is that possible? Or didn't you dispute it in time?
@@fabiandekorver Doesn't matter - a successful dispute still means the video was not generating revenue for the first part of its life. Imagine you put up a video that gets claimed, then gets a million views, then you successfully dispute the claim a week later. Those million views in revenue are gone. Or at least that's how it used to work - now, when a claim goes into dispute, TH-cam hold the revenue until it's resolved, giving you back what you're owed. But when revenue claiming was first introduced, this wasn't the case and scammers abused the hell out of it. It was basically free money
I remember those days, that is when I actually can monetize my channel. I get sick that they claim royalty-free musics they don't own. Even the creator (incompetech) was concerned with the issue and give a template of how to dispute it.
The dumbest thing happening in copyright law right now is that lawyers are going around shutting down open mics if the venue owners refuse to pay licensing fees for every single song that could possibly be played there. Because selling a couple of drinks by convincing teenagers to come play shitty acoustic covers of popular songs is really a pressing issue in intellectual property...
+
Folk songs will be a thing again?
Daniel Jensen The future:
YOU SPOKE! SPEECH IS COPYRIGHTED! JAIL FOR LIFE! JAIL FOR LIFE!
Aren't covers fair use though?
@@NihongoWakannai Nope. Famous bands who cover songs have to pay a licensing fee to the copyright owner. Basically anything that involves making money is not covered by fair use. I think it's technically even violating copyright law if you were to play music from your phone or something at a bar/restaurant/store/whatever. It just doesn't get prosecuted like ever, but it could. Which is what's happening to some open mics. Although I think it's actually just lawyers saying it could happen and using that as an excuse to extort from coffee shop owners.
Claiming content you don't own is fraud automated or not, collecting money from that is interstate fraud.
TH-cam doesn't care
Finally somebody is catching on. People are assuming TH-cam has good motives. They are wrong. They are facilitating fraud and are willfully blind because they are financially profiting from the fraud.
Honestly the government needs to step up and shut down TH-cam's fraudulent practices. They can't be trusted to comply with the laws.
@Winston Videos So you're calling every youtuber who makes videos on earth, an idiot? Way to make you seem like a negative person
@@mikeshoults4155 You say that, and I agree with you, but then I look at how the governments have dealt with Zuckerberg and Facebook. These old people don't have a clue how to even start suing these companies for breaking the law because they aren't tech savvy. If we were living in a real democratic political realm, these courts would be open to experts from the fields who could provide evidence and instruct these old politicians why and how these companies are breaking the law. This new era requires a reformation of all spheres of power.
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, that's not gonna happen soon. Why? Because people with power don't like the idea of ever losing it.
Absolutely true. If you stole on of these guys videos they would be the first to cry about it, but they steal other videos because they don't have any original content
You left out the part of false claims and false claims companies. TH-cam's Copyright strike system is poorly put together. Companies are claiming videos with no content of theirs in it. Or how about the guy who uploaded a video of just his voice only to get a copyright strike.
TH-cam needs to fix this issue and the community needs to continue to speak up about it. Excessive false claims should lead to banning of their account. Copyright is understandable for intellectual property. However false claims are breaking the very thing they're attempting to protect. Essentially giving the middle finger to TH-cam content creators.
Yeah, there are a lot of malicious people filing copyright claims on channels that produce videos they don't agree with.
Just to clarify, he didn't get a strike. He got claimed and it got resolved the next day, it wasn't a manual claim either but Content ID screwing up. Well according to TH-cam anyways.
@@chaosmagican The money from that day is still gone and the first days are the most important. This sets a dangerous standart
@@xXTheBl4ckC4tXx I agree but in his case it was just a mic test and a black screen :) so no content he was really publishing. On top, if you get a claim the money gets held and if you win the appeal you get it.
@@chaosmagican Two problems, first in many cases they just reject your appeal, second this is what TH-cam says:
"Monetisation during Content ID disputes is enabled when both the video creator and the Content ID claimant want to monetise the video"
Some companies don´t want to and if you get a claim deadlock, then the chance is even higher
Easiest fix - A false claim results in a temporary strike against the claiment, three strikes in a set time period (one month) and the claiment losses ability to issue claims for a time period (three months). This would force them to stop claiming everything and see what sticks, and only issue claims on what they are certain is theirs and not within 'fair use'.
Completely agree, if there is a three strike rule for content creators, there should be a three strike rule for IP owners
+++
Seems like the obvious and hilarious solution. Honestly I think it should be a general rule - terms between two sides (disney:random youtuber, bank:individual) cannot disproportionately favor the larger entity.
The problem here is often the automated system. I work for a small music distribution company that handles thousands of songs through content id, and most of our problems day to day come from the automated claims. Just recently one of our artists used a Michael Jackson sample in a song(legally through fair use). When we imported it into our system content id picked up on it and started erroneously claiming thriller videos and covers. If course we do the due diligence and clean it up afterwards, but if we got dinged for every single automated claim, we'd be done for before we even knew what happened or had time to fix it.
@@zarkony1What A Shame, Horribly Inaccurate Automated Systems Would Go Away?
My whole obsession with They Might Be Giants began with a pirated tape. I’ve more than made up for it with being fan club member.
BrickTsar you must be thinking of some other band ;)
replica2618 I broke the oath. Now I’m in trouble
I was introduced to Ani Difranco back in the napster days. At some point I saw a copyright notice on a friend's CD, and it had a message roughly to the effect of, "This is copyrighted, if you didn't pay for it, please do so in the future." Her coolness factor went up 100-fold! I still listened to pirated copies through college, but after I got graduated and got a properly paying job, I bought every CD she had available. And while I'm not much of a concert goer, I have gone out of my way to attend several of her concerts. In other words, I not only payed her in the future, I payed her much more in the future as a direct result of her explicit graciousness regarding copyright.
boo yah, what an immensely nice thing to say. I’ll have to look her up
@@BrickTsar Is the first rule of TMBG club that you don't talk about TMBG club?
Quick update on the EU Copyright reform directive(Article 13, Upload Filters etc): It might very well not be passed for the foreseeable future. As you might know, the European Parliament had passed its position for the law. In the EU, however, national ministers have to agree to a law too; they do so in the aptly named Council of Ministers (If you wanna make a very, very simplistic and imprecise comparison, you might say that the Parliament is the EU's House of Reps, while the Council is more like the Senate).
In order to come to an agreement for a single version both the EP and the Council usually agree on their own positions first before they enter into informal negotiations with each other, the so-called trialogues, in which the appropriate European Commissioner is also involved.
In the present case, national ministers in the Council couldn't agree amongst themselves on a unified position, which is why the most recent trialogue, which was thought to be decisive, was cancelled on very short notice. As there are European Parliament elections in May, there is likely not enough time to find a unified position among ministers, have another round of trialogues and pass an identical bill through both the EP and the Council before a lot of the players change with the election (Members of Parliament and the Commission). Which means that the project, at least for now, seems to be stalled.
You can read all about it in Julia Reda's excellent blog:
juliareda.eu/2019/01/copyright-hits_wall/
(Julia is a German member of Parliament for the Pirate party who is caucusing with the Greens and has been her party group's assigned rapporteur on the file. She has been a critic of Article 13 and other aspects of the bill from the very start.)
European Digital Rights (EDRi) also has a very good info bulletin to keep you informed about copyright (and privacy, surveillance etc) matters with regards to EU legislation:
edri.org/theme/copyright/
Thank you for enlightening a Canadian on the complexity of the EU government system!
Also, if you're European, and you care about this: VOTE! Turnouts for European Elections are incredibly low, which is very sad in my eyes but also gives every single voter even greater power. The elections will be held from 22nd to 25th of May depending on where you are, and voter registration procedures vary but are usually the same as in national elections.
You can find out how your MEP voted on this issue (and all others) here: www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-commission-proposal-ordinar.html
Also, let your national governments know how you feel about this, as the ball is currently in their corner.
@@MirorR3fl3ction It's a pleasure. I'll grab every rare opportunity to play out my EU nerddom though ;) have a great day
This is great news and hopefully as time goes on article 11 and 13 get thrown out all together. 11 and 13 would do more damage then good to everyone in long run.
@@ster8145 Keep forgetting most countries don't have compulsory voting/notification at the voting booth.
I swear, the number of times I wind up buying a song b/c of hearing it used by some creator on TH-cam is single-handedly keeping iTunes afloat.
well not anymore
spotify . only reason for music anymore. where else am i going to find it ? i do not pay attention to ads. .. lol
Half of my music library is from TH-cam videos I saw
To be honest youtube copyright is way worse than what is described here there is small youtubers / medium sized youtubers getting extorted by copyright claimers literally demanding payment to uncopyright your videos so you won't get those 3 copystrikes. ObbyRaidz is a example he streams and plays minecraft but got copyrighted by some douche and the guy sends him emails and messages holding him up for ransom and when he tried to get the copystrike taken down youtube denied it and placed a 2nd one on him. Then you got SmellyOctopus
another youtuber who got copystrike and it was his voice that gets copystriked and when he appeals it gets denied by youtube it seems anyone can copystrike a video these days and if your a youtuber your just ###### in 2019!
I was ten minutes into the video before I realized it was longer than the average 4 minutes.
I kept thinking, this is a very long 4 minutes
I wonder what the punishment will be!
At 6 minutes for me.
It's educational, I'm pretty sure, so it falls outside of Punishment parameters.
@@eiderc4682 this falls under the umbrella of educational so it's allowed
I think the best example of why the system is flawed is that one of my favorite creators, Nakey Jakey, made a heavily edited 35 minute video. That was the only video he made that month and in my opinion, an amazing product. That video contained 4 seconds of copyrighted material and he lost all the revenue for that month. That’s not acceptable.
++
It's going beyond this, too. People are re-uploading smaller content creators' videos, and then turning around and issuing copyright claims on the original video. So, they're basically trying to make money on two videos, and hoping the smaller creator is too nervous to challenge it.
Or someone will take a creator's original music, use it in their video, and then make a claim on the creator's music.
Beyond the ridiculousness of not allowing fair-use anymore (that's what it's come to), there are loopholes in the system that are being exploited en masse.
Somehow, Epic Games managed to hit itself with a copyright strike.
@@coastersplus It hurt itself in confusion!
I'll note that use of 4 seconds in a 35 minute video would win a Fair Use claim in virtually any court on the planet. The problem is the cost of taking it to court.
As a small content creator the state of copyright law has me worried. It’s hard not to feel bullied by the system sometimes, and I think we risk hurting our collective arts and culture if we continue at the same pace.
This is super interesting to pose the question of "is it okay for them to take it down when they don't like it." For example: Disney are absolutely fine with people vlogging in the parks. Even when all the background music that plays in the actual parks is their copyrighted music. You get no strikes or ad diversion. But the second you film say a parade or the fireworks show BOOM instant copyright claim. And Disney themselves have been open about how they live people vlogging in the parks because it's basically free advertising.
You making of a video of yourself is your own performance. You own your actions whereas the music playing in the background is understood to be incidental, and also such low fidelity that your video isn't going to be a competitor to them selling CDs of the same music. Those parades and fireworks shows though, that's Disney's performance and it's totally going to compete with people wanting to visit the park just to see those performances. That's why Disney cares about one thing and not another even though they appear to be super similar situations.
The legal term for this is largess, and it means that you have some form of legal right over how another may use A piece of property. The key component being A choice by the rights holder on weather to enforce their rights or not on an individual bases.
This makes A lot of intuitive sense when talking about physical property. If you have A home and want to allow someone in, but then later kick them out you would want every right to do so, but if Disney didn't like one specific review of the park in A vlog they could choose to enforce their rights to the background music and have that video removed.
What if one day disney decided to start culling all of those vlogs from the internet? It would have A huge impact on both culture and the lives of those who chose to vlog in the park under the impression that disney was okay with it. This is A natural effect of largess.
Those vlogers from the laws current perspective accepted that they didn't have the rights to these things and chose to use them anyway, but A very large portion of our planets culture is now rooted in largess like this and I'm worried that all the ways that this can be exploited haven't been fully explored yet.
Why doesn't TH-cam just hold revenue itself from claimed videos until the claim is resolved (or after a certain period of time passes)? I don't see why the claimant should automatically profit from content ID making potentially false claims. The current system gives an incentive for companies to claim literally everything for profit with no repercussions.
because they dont care
Didn't they actually did that also shown in this video? Before they just got the revenue from claimed videos, now it's being held for some time in case of appeals and if they won the appeal they also get all the hold revenue. Or did you mean something different?
TH-cam is a monopoly. No other similar platform comes close to it in terms of clout. A monopoly has the say on everything pertaining to it and its products and it will get away with whatever it sees fit because people will use its products anyway.
In short, we need to have a worthy contender to TH-cam to actually see a change in the way TH-cam deals with copyright issues or anything at all for that matter.
He literally says in the video that's exactly what TH-cam does.
But are we going to talk about how copyright lasts essentially forever and how that's a bastardization of the original purpose of the law
I guess I'm really lucky I have seen John's video
It’s a Miracle
Yep, I didn't get the chance.
I hope I´m not snitching so I guess I´ll take that coment of in like, say 5 min?
COUGHbitlyCOUGH oh dear me COUGHCOUGH2SoSCOUGH Sorry bit of a coughing fit COUGHCOUGHUZmCOUGH I swear this never happens normally
@@TheDarkMessiah +++
We didn't destroy copyright law, copyright law has been broken from the very beginning. It has no place in a world where the internet exists.
I'm glad you've emphasized the point that we've moved beyond law, and that practically, intellectual property rights are being described and enforced by private corporations. Thinking about it this way really helps focus the discussion on fairness and justice, since questions about legal rights are out the window at this point. So what exactly is the effect of TH-cam's policy and is it fair?
Well, what's happening is that millions of content creators are making things that other people want to see, that everyone agrees is OK to make, and that everyone agrees is properly their work, and yet large corporations leveraging their vast libraries of intellectual property get to take the value generated by that content for themselves. Real people doing legitimate work with reasonable expectations of compensation, within the boundaries of commonly accepted norms of fair behavior, are having the value of their work stolen by large corporations. According to your analysis, this is tolerated by TH-cam because of the tacit threat of legal retaliation by those same giant corporations.
Yup. If anyone needed a succinct explanation of how the inherent imbalance of power inherent in capitalist society side-steps the will of the people, as enshrined in law (well, theoretically), to benefit business interests at the expense of the individual, well... This is it.
It's almost as if capitalism is bad for everyone that isn't super rich..
A great music to this would be *Judas Priest - Breaking the Law*
But the video might get copyright claimed
laaaaaame
"...makes intellectual property much stronger, which in my opinion probably makes creativity a lot weaker." So true, Hank. Finding the balance between the goal appeared to be the intent of original copyright law. Unfortunately, in the 20th century, most changes in copyright law were solely for the benefit of the corporations holding the copyrights. It long ago stopped being about protecting the creators' intellectual property and became something to protect profitability in perpetuity. Only recently are we starting to see public domain law changing for the better, and new works are falling into the public domain due to their age for the first time in living memory.
I think the simple solution is to not allow corporations to own copyrights.
@@krellend20 good idea
They need to ban corporations from pushing for legislation and contributing the campaign funds and copyright duration needs to be rolled back to the 1908 law or earlier.
Hon, government has been solely for the benefit of corporations for decades now. This isn’t that surprising.
I feel lucky to have seen John's video now
I love this channel.
Hey thanks Rob!
@@vlogbrothers you guys are great
I love this channel, ha I just copyrighted Robs comment! Lol
Everything said so far is surprisingly civilized. Nerdfighteria is the best of TH-cam.
Man, a serious jolt of nostalgia from highschool me (now 30) from the Brotherhood 2.0 intro. You guys are so awesome and have been that way for so long. Thank you!
Thought you were going to talk about Disney extending copyright benifts near indefinitely. Can you talk about this at some point?
I've gotten a strike before because of a song playing through a stereo in the same room as I was recording. Had nothing to do with the video. It was literally just background noise. It's nuts.
Describing IP as "other people's property" is perhaps the worst use of "property" I've ever heard.
Oof at hearing the classic vlogbrothers opening (back when it wasn’t vlogbrothers)
and "communcation" lol
I once had a video blocked. I was filming the beach and promenade where I live and a car drove past playing some music. It was only for a short while, I didn't recognise the song and there was traffic sounds, beach sounds and seagull noise all going on at the same time. But apparently TH-cams AI picked up they song and blocked my video worldwide. My videos only get a few hundred views at best.
When I played back the video I didn't recognise the song and had never heard of the artist, but apparently they don't want their music on YT. I guess I'm lucky I didn't get a strike.
I agree that video claims are better than taking them down. However, a big problem is that, as I understand it, entire videos are often claimed for very small copyright transgressions. Reasonably, if a 4 second copyrighted clip is in a 400 second video, the copyright holder should at most be able to claim 1% of the video revenue.
JIFs are not ok. GIFs, though, always great.
I feel like copyright should be abolished
th-cam.com/video/RGRKTw-DWfw/w-d-xo.html
But I like that brand of peanut butter.
But, but...Choosey mothers choose Jif!
He's saying it wrong, It's Gif, not Jif. Jif is a clearing product, peanut butter or a New Zealander's friend Jeff.
The creator of the format says it is "Jif, like the peanut butter". That is the only way I ever heard it pronounced for over 20 years... until recently some kids got it wrong ha ha
Parody is fair use!!! How are these people even allowed do this?
Because F logic.
Because TH-cam is broken.
Censorship
Because you are free to fight it - and risk a strike (they know most will not)
This is one of the most reasonable discussions I've seen on this issue. As Hank pointed out, this is a great system with a lot of potential, we just need to weed out the abuse. False copyright claims are rampant, and unfortunately their resolution depends solely on the claimant. We need third party arbitrators. Since the platform is too large to pay for these arbitrators, funding needs to be user sourced. If you receive a false copyright claim, you should have the option of paying some lump sum (say, $100) to bring in a randomly-selected impartial third party arbitrator. TH-cam would then petition the claimant to put up the same lump sum for arbitration. If they fail to do so, the claim is lifted and the creator gets their money back. If the claimant agrees and pays the arbitration fee, then the arbitrator evaluates the case and determines the outcome. The winner gets their money back, and the loser's payment goes to the arbitrator. A system like this would solve so many of the copyright abuse issues that content creators are currently facing.
"We Have Destroyed Copyright Law". I wish.
The problem with copyright law is copyright law.
Hippity hoppity abolish intellectual property
Why would you wish for destruction of copyright law? Are you just a thief?
@@jamescarter3196 No, he's someone that never made anything worth anyones attention, so he doesn't have to worry about someone stealing it, so he doesn't care about copyrights.
@@jamescarter3196
'cos its disputable ideas can be private property.
Mixtapes are not piracy they are explicitly permitted via the home recording Act and you're even allowed to share it with friends and family 100% legally
And who would want to buy music it's literally sound
I STILL can’t listen to Somebody That I Used to Know without accidentally singing The Subway Where I Used to Go 😂😂
Awesome video, Hank. I actually just wrote an article that’s forthcoming in a law journal that talks about a case from 2016 and the state of affairs as it relates to TH-cam fair use. I actually cited to one of your earlier copyright videos in it, but wish wish wish I could’ve cited to this one as well. I do know none of it would have been possible without that first video, so thank you!
If you wanna post the DOI for that when it comes out, I'm all into reading it. We librarian folks have (unsurprisingly) an outsized interest in copyright law. :D
Disney destroyed copyright law.
The God Emperor capitalism.
Both
That mouse should've been in public domain already !
No, it was Congress, at Disney's behest. RIP Sonny Bono.
Copyright is an anachronistic system in this age. When the ability to copy is so pervasive and mainstream, it makes it clear that putting restrictions on copying is impossible to enforce and doesn't serve the intended purpose of copyright to begin with. It was meant to prevent other publishers from mass-producing copies of works from other publishers.
This video is great. Probably the best intro to copyright on TH-cam I’ve seen. I just wish it was easier to post music and only get monetized rather than blocked.
It's BS that a rights holder can claim 100% of the revenue from your video for including just one short clip of their content. It should be proportional to at least some extent, but the past couple of years have really shown us where TH-cam The Company's loyalty lies.
Agreed. They have an algorithm that is powerful enough to identify content across a vast database, they should be able to figure out a fair share of profits based on how much of the video was copyrighted. The IP owner would get to see the Claim option as "Claim 30% of the revenue", and if they think it is insufficient they can ask for the content to be pulled. Then we can have actual profit sharing between IP owners and content creators. They could also have a system to automatically black out or mute the portion of the video that was pulled for copyright rather than pulling the entire video down and forcing the creator to remake the video without the clips.
Meanwhile, the prohibitions against harassment and hate speech _stated_ in their community guidelines are completely toothless in practice, because they don't give a damn about the actual human beings using the site.
@Tyler Durden
Lol. That is India when it comes to copyright in general. We use copyrighted material like it's nothing. And we have been doing it since the dawn of popular televised media back in the late 60s.
Thing is, copyright laws are simply not designed for people who live in India, where copyright as a notion and concept only really became as such as of late, when we realised that some American has gone and patented rice made in India, basmati rice, as American.
Another example is who wrote the Ramayana? As far as I know, at least 3 versions of it exist, and they all are held in high regard.
This was a very well thought out discussion on intellectual property law. Kudos as usual.
But I have a problem with at least one part of it. You said that demonetization is not a big deal for “most creators.” Personally, I think this is wrong. It’s likely the case for creators who already have large followings, such as you two, but I don’t think it’s true for smaller creators. I say this as someone who watches content from both big and small TH-camrs. Smaller YTers struggle to make the money they need to keep doing what they are, in large part because of demonetizations that seem inconsistent (I certainly don’t know all the details).
This comment seemed to come from the perspective of a privileged creator, someone who can say “oh, here’s one video I won’t make money from. Oh well, I have plenty others.” I think this fails to consider the perspective of creators who don’t make as much from their videos. I could have misunderstood what you meant but this does concern me.
Sean Fraser This is especially true of youtubers who have a style that is difficult to monitize because they discuss controversial topics such as religion, trans rights, rage comedy etc etc
MadaxeMunkeee Very true. It also applies to creators who mostly make TV and film reviews. They include clips to comment on so the viewers can see what they’re talking about. For them, EVERY video is at risk of demonetization, so it becomes much more of an issue than for someone like Hank and John.
I took Hank’s comment to mean that one video that is demonetized isn’t a big deal, especially if it brings new subscribers...not that repeated demonetization wasn’t a big a deal. Especially because most smaller creators probably aren’t living solely off their TH-cam career. So yes it sucks, but you can handle it.
Christine Frank I see your point, but that’s kind of part of the issue. Hank only discussed demonetization as a one-time event. He didn’t talk about demonetization as an ongoing problem for a creator, presumably because he and John don’t have to worry about it. As I said in my original comment, it seems like he was mostly considering how it would people like him.
Also, to your point about smaller creators not living solely off TH-cam, that isn’t necessarily the case. I guess this depends on how you define “small,” so maybe I’m more talking about “medium-sized” creators. They don’t make as much as a bigger creator, but they do generally try to make it their full source of income. So demonetization still affects them disproportionately.
I also think that creators are making sure to not make their money just from ad revenue on TH-cam. Patreon is very popular among content creators large and small because it doesn't have a demonetization issue.
Anyone else get confused for a second at the beginning? (Hank's voice and John's face)
I think it would be good if you could claim a percentage of a video's revenue equal to the percent of the runtime of that video taken up by your content.
Yeah. I have a holiday shopping vid. For a 45 second piece of a 15 minute vid... Frank Sinatra gets all the revenue. Well, he is dead, but his copyright holder gets it. They should only get a portion. Probably not going to happen, thought.
+
Great video! You hit the nail on the head and didn't waste any time presenting a ton of great information. I wish ALL channels were this effective and efficient! Subscribed!
There’s still so much confusion about copyright, fair use, parody, etc. My personal view is we’re too restrictive right now, but as a content maker I do know that these systems are in place to help me even when our corporate overlords don’t move very quickly when “obvious” changes need to be made. Thanks for the video Hank!
Unless you're a large corporation, those laws _aren't_ there to help you; the fact that they do at all is a byproduct -- you're caught in the wake of a much larger ship and it could still go poorly for you at any time. It's a false sense of security, because you are not the target of the protections afforded by most of our Copyright laws.
We are becoming citizens of corporations. -John
Oh, no. Late stage capitalism.
empCarnivore I heard that and thought of the Corporate Congress on the TV show Continuum. It could be anarcho-capatalism or techno-fascism waiting to happen.
@@hypergraphic I was thinking of every cyberpunk setting right before corporations were declared sovereign nations.
It is, and it's still just a kakistocracy that maximizes suffering and harm.
"Late stage capitalism"? No, more like post-capitalism.
Yes, sadly. Although I guess we could go deeper down this craptastic rabbit hole.
Shadowrun, except without the fun fantasy parts of Shadowrun.
One situation I heard was when a game that used music they had permission to was being played on people's TH-cam channels. The game maker and I think the music creator allowed this but somewhere along the line a music publisher got in the way. So I think the game maker had to design an option for "TH-cam" friendly music.
The Borderlands GOTY remaster has a setting for streamers that removes ALL music from the game.
@@StephenDeChellisHMTKSteve
Thing is, some game makers might want to chose their own TH-cam friendly music.
I think that the right music can be a powerful thing for a game, It helps to set the mood and even imersse someone into a game.
Great video Hank! Copyright is such a mess and as a U.K. citizen, Article 13 scares me. And no one wants it but it’s being pushed through anyway. It could seriously damage creative content throughout the world and peoples’ incomes :/
The US Copyright law needs to be completely reformed. 90% of the problems and disputes would be solved by simply redefining what is fair use and what is not. Basically, fair use should be anything as long as you're not making money off it. As simple as that.
There are definitely people that can't afford to lose monetization on even one video.
I need John's video re-uploaded. It was incredibly powerful and meaningful to me.
Pay close attention to the screen in the last few seconds of this video.
th-cam.com/video/WPAO_ifX64o/w-d-xo.html
It's relevant to youtube now, but this has always been the case. You mention subbed VHS tapes of anime, and that's a perfect example. Without people painstakingly acid washing subs onto early tapes of anime, we wouldn't have the anime industry in the west that we do now.
There were tons of studies during the huge "anti-piracy" craze of the late 90's early 2000's that found that piracy had beneficial effects for the industries involved. There was a huge EU study recently that found the same thing. Yet the music industry still pretended its an issue, and anime youtubers nowadays will tell you the same is true for anime. "If you don't subscribe to CR using my referral link, you are killing the industry!".
But the entire anime industry exists BECAUSE of piracy. And now the shift in values is such that people are super anti-piracy because they believe that it does have a negative impact. CrunchyRoll as a company exists because it was a piracy website, and they made money off of ad revenue and became a legitimate company that pays youtubers to worship them.
And of course there's weird standards there too. Just like we've come to accept gifs, people who are anti-piracy are fine with buying bootleg unlicensed harry potter merchandise, or paying for fanmade art, etc, all of which are also copyright violations. You aren't supposed to profit off of fanart, but people do it anyway without giving a cut to the original creators... but values today are such that we say "it's wrong to watch a stream of this show" but "it's perfectly fine to buy this bootleg merch from a random online store". Now I point this out specifically because for a lot of industries, the merchandise is where the big money is. If you really wanna support your favorite anime, the merchandise is where most of the money is in the anime industry. If you really wanna support your favorite band, the 99 cent song download off itunes is nice but what they really care about is you buying their tshirts and concert tickets.
Copyright Law is broken, but so are our values and how we think about copyrighted content. And that's largely to blame, in my opinion, due to social media influencers. They espouse values, sometimes very passionately, and will decry some behaviours as unacceptable... but then they'll turn around and give a pass or even promote other behaviours which are as "damaging" or as violating... but have no problem with it. That's hypocrisy. There's academic literature out there on the impacts of piracy, and it's clear we need to do away with it. The publishers aren't gaining more money off of it, content creators aren't gaining more money off of it, etc. I still distinctly remember cases in the early 2000's of people going to court and essentially being bankrupted because they were getting sued for astronomical sums of money over an mp3 file. A random individual getting sued for millions by a record label isn't going to be able to pay it off, the record company will never see that money. The only people who win in these cases are copyright lawyers I guess.
I wasn’t aware that rights holders could simply claim the revenue from a video with their content in it. That’s an absolutely brilliant compromise.
there are lots of creators that I love especially around the youtube anime section that lost their channels due to copy right strikes. I think it is a shame that the system isn't really working for small creators.
I hope John doesn't beat himself up over getting the takedown.
The greater point of this discussion is-- corporations look more and more like governments every day. This is mostly because of the success of the inventions and systems these corporations were created to promote, but it raises the point of: SHOULD it be this way? Probably not. I think most corporations would rather just be money and job engines than sovereigns of their little domains, and I can't imagine too many people actually benefit from the non-policy our governments currently have on the subject.
corporations cant(shouldn't) be governments for one simple reason: a government exists for the betterment of the people it serves, a corporation exists for the betterment of itself(the owner/s). they look like governments only in that they are beginning to wield power on scale approaching that of governments, at least from the perspective of the people.
PS: The terminology's a little off from my experience. You only get a copyright strike if you *fail to dispute* a DMCA takedown. The `three strikes' thing is a TH-cam policy, whereas disputing the takedown becomes a legal matter, which TH-cam then washes its hands of [if the copyright holder doesn't respond within 30 days]. You can only dispute three takedowns at a time though.
No, it hasn't happened much, but I read the notice very carefully.
Hank, love you guys. You are mixing two things here. We have criminal and civil law in this country. Civil law (which covers copyright, patent and trademark issues) is a civil matter and generally is not grounds to get you arrested or fined. Copyright issues CAN become a criminal matter, but 99% of these issues on TH-cam do not fall into that category except for those that pirate content.
There are people taking royalty free songs, slightly tweaking them and selling them as their work. Then, they submit copyright claims on TH-camrs who have the same royalty free songs in their videos. The fraud claiming copyright while the original creator made it royalty free. It's insane!
MannyMUA should watch this. In fact most youtubers should watch this.
I'd be curious what Jim Sterling thinks about Hank's take on this
This isn't about pogs though.
This was a very, very good explanation.
Just.... no
The house is on fire during an earthquake and he is here saying "everything is fine"
false claims are extremely common and there is practically nothing creators that are not huge can do about it.
TH-cam does not rewiev claims, even if you fight them. Companies hold all the power and will claim you even for your own music. You have no power to fight it.
That 2009 intro almost had me checking the date of the video!
More and more these days, we shift to a system of "guilty until proven innocent" and TH-cam is a huge part of this shift.
And let's make sure the accuser is the one who decides guilt while we're at it! That seems fair!
Dang, I haven't listened to "Brother's on a hotel bed" in so long. I'll be right back
Ah, fansubbed anime. Back in the day, that was pretty much the only way to get it. The stance of myself and most of my friends was that fansubs were fine if a proper commercial version wasn't available (at least without flying to Japan). It got a bit murky when there was a legal version, but it sucked (dub only, crappy sub, bad re-edit, ect.), which was disturbingly common in the mid-90s.
But, based on some smaller content creators, people who are just starting to grow their audience and have made TH-cam their living demonetization is a huge deal. If that is their sole source of income, how long can they survive, trying to grow their audience, with no income coming in?
Everyone has been copyright each other for thousands of years. Eating, sleeping, farming, cooking, walking, sex, having kids, etc.
One of the best videos explaining the mess we all deal with. Thank you!
While it's true youtube's systems are extralegal in that they block stuff even when a legal claim is filed; the system is ultimately in place because of the threat of lawsuits of companies which WOULD be enabled by copyright law. We desperately, desperately need copyright and intellectual property law reform, and getting it would mean youtube could change their policies due being less at risk from rightholders. The constitution already states that purpose of inellectual property is to "Promote the sciences and useful arts", NOT for the private profit of rightholders. The laws just need to be altered so that they actually work that way: Fair use needs to be strenghened and expanded drastically, terms need to be drastically shortened, breaking DRM or doing whatever you want with your purchased media for personal use needs to be legalized, etc.
Jabberwockxeno One thought I had was if Viacom (or similar) initiated a lawsuit of sufficient scale, could TH-cam threaten to close up shop? It would be a win for Viacom, but then they’d be the company that killed a website that literally billions of people use, and couldn’t there be massive public backlash for that?
In the end, Viacom is a company so they might be like “yes, moar monies” but I can’t help but think it could be a total disaster for them as well somehow.
Intellectual property law "promotes the sciences and useful arts" by explicitly PROVIDING A MECHANSIM FOR PRIVATE RIGHTSHOLDERS TO PROFIT. That is HOW it encourages the arts. If people can't make a profit from their work because it is immediately stolen and claimed by everyone else, then no one produces useful innovations or artwork. Now, have copyright protections gotten out of hand with regards to the length that they are in effect or in the way the burden of proof is established? Almost certainly so. But the idea that copyright law isn't to protect the ability of creators to profit from their work is ridiculous. It is EXPLICITLY for that purpose.
@@BTheBlindRef Of course, private profit is what incentivizes that progress, i'm not denying that, but my point is that when trying to come up with specific rules and laws, the POINT of those should be for the progress of arts and sciences as the endgoal, not solely profit. Let me make a specific example: Fangames and similar derititive works do not de-incenvtize rightholders from making new works, and, if anything, ACCOMPLISH that progress by enriching the public with further new works. Denying the ability for the public to make fan projects is solely something that benefits the rightholders without furthering the progress of the arts and sciences.
The law exists for the wealthy, not to reign them in.
As I understand it, you might be slightly off though the idea is similar. What I heard was that there are 4 so called safe harobors in the digital millennium copyright act or DMCA. The one you seem to be referencing says something to the effect of "once notified of a possible violation of copyright the alleged violator must be immediately removed" so the people getting mad and yelling at TH-cam for it's policy and seeming inaction in obviously false claims on videos are missing that if TH-cam dare to mediate or if they tried to decide what not to take down they open themselves to losing their safe harbor and sharing liability for the violation with the creator.
Tl;Dr TH-cam isn't protected by laws they are continuously struggling to stay in the safe zone of the law that could ream them
But what happens if the content being flagged isnt a copyright violation but rather original content independently produced by a youtuber a company wants to claim revenue on?
@@Fr00stee, YOU as the creator have to find it clear to get to court with the irrefutable evidence that your own content was in fact, uniquely created and independently from the "rights owner" who has claimed the strike against you...
Countersuing for damages and reclaiming such would be the only possible resolution to put this kind of thing in the books, and force the governing body(ies) to recognize the so-called "industry leaders" are guiltier of abusing it than anyone else.
It's expensive, and dubious, having to prove this in court, provided it even gets to court. You can't allow the matter to settle outside of court, because that doesn't do anything in "Court Law"... That just gets the short-term monetary agreement settled.
Setting a Court Law Precedent is what we're talking about, where the change in "applied" law must become ratified by interpretation at (probably) the highest court(s) in the land, in the U.S. potentially all the way to THE Supreme Court. Many law-students begin careers with dreams of following through to set a real precedent and present case(s) to the Supreme Court, but it's sooo long and SOOOooo expensive, the chances are once a lifetime. ;o)
@@Fr00stee the only path forward in situations like that are either the claimant stops claiming the thing or you take the claimant to court. TH-cam could intercede, they are not forbidden to.. it would just be very very unwise
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 that's rather doom and gloom. I don't think you would have to go all that far... But yeah it's expensive either way. I also doubt you would need irrefutable evidence I believe what needs to be decided is called minimal creativity. Not to plug another channel on this one or anything but my job is nonstop driving so I listen to a lot of things including a channel called lawful masses which is very informative
@@cowardly_wizard, I don't see it as exactly "doom and gloom"... There are ways to "work around" some of the issues... like expense.
To get just a bit elaborate, here, my point is that you HAVE to establish CASE law, and that's done in court... You can get some "practical application sense" of it from Officer 401, though I'd have to find the particular vid' before I could link it.
You (everyone in the U.S. by now) are aware of "Miranda Rights" (also dubiously that thing the police tell you when they arrest you before any questioning)... Right?
Miranda is the name of a guy who WALKED on a counter-suit against the police for violating his rights. They'd been practicing that for decades since the rights were put into "Written Legislation"... and doing it to pretty much everyone. BUT it was Miranda who brought the matter to court and got it turned into "Case Law" as applied by the court.
We have Copyright LEGISLATIONS, but not much working Case Law... SO the big corporates who can afford legal teams to harass less financially powered creatives kind of get away with murder...
BUT get it established as Case Law that these corporates are obviously and ubiquitously ABUSING legislated law to intimidate, say... by taking one of them down with punitive damages to make the precedent, and you can put REAL "teeth" to the copyrights we should all enjoy... AND it kind of forces someone's legislative hands to affix some "reasonable numbers" to what exactly constitutes "Fair Use".
Minimal Creativity, such as Weird Al Yankovic has used (I think?) has some established principles, requiring so many differences from his exact "product" to be a parody of yours (or anyone's) exact "original material"... AND with the publicly acknowledged leak of issues between him and Coolio a few years back, it's become more and more apparent that Yankovic makes a habit of at least attempting to ask permissions to parody other artist's work.
SO the biggest problem with dealing with the Corporate teams is going to be financial and time. Time can't be changed, BUT by getting groups of "smaller creatives" together to lodge class-action work against particular establishments for the abuse of the laws on the books, it can begin to be established that the corporate end of entertainment needs governing more strictly... It's just difficult and dubious to try to estimate where the courts are most likely to draw lines in the sand.
Finally since this is already too f***ing long (lolz)... "Irrefutable" is a goal to set as "optimal", so keeping in mind any material you can possibly bring to bear that stands up to scrutiny in court is helpful. It's not going to be good enough to bring Mom and Pop to the stand to swear on a stack of bibles that Junior really was working on his original sheitskubel two years before Ford or Disney. You'll need a legal document or a fairly sophisticated approach to legally sound date/time stamped means of proof... that the Original Sheitskubel belongs to Junior, rather than Ford's most powerful sheitskubel or Disney's cutest and most popular sheitskubel.
It can be done. Geiger sued and finally got his recognition as the source material for the "Alien" franchise, a couple decades after the fact... so there's always hope. I might recommend a "St Rose Medallion" but there's always hope. ;o)
I’m taking a copyright class right now and it is so confusing and complicated and one of our professors is a copyright librarian with a law degree and even she gets a headache trying to figure it out in actual real life examples. Basically, a lot of what I’ve learned is that copyright laws are purposely vague and can be pretty subjective to the point that EVEN COPYRIGHT LAWYERS ARE CONFUSED.
You forgot the part where legitimate claims disputes basically give all the power to the claimants, and small creators are treated very unfairly as a result.
Can we get LegalEagle or another attorney in here to be part of the discussion?
Andrew Farrell Hi Andrew 👋
+
@@DonaldGuy Hi!!!!!!!! How's the fam?
Suggest it in his videos!
Note some guys private stream got claimed but the only audio was the guys voice no video
Why can't TH-cam just split the monetization between the creator and the person/persons claiming it? I've seen, when creators are complaining about claims, how TH-cam shows where it detects copyrighted material in a video (e.g. from 1:03 to 1:21 there is copyrighted music). TH-cam can detect portions of a video that are infringing so why not divvy up the money based on how prevalent copyrighted material appear in the video. Like if ten seconds of a song is used in a minute long video the song owner gets 1/6 of the revenue or if half of a video is spent watching a trailer and the other half talking about it they can split it between creator and trailer owner. I can't be the first to think of this so i wonder why something similar to this isn't implemented.
Because that's hard. It's the problem with the whole copyright system now. Our system sees everything as binary: you're stealing or you're not. Trying to determine a "fine" based on usage isn't easy to do, especially when we consider that certain media has different lengths. The song "You Suffer" by Napalm Death is one second long. How much money am I going to lose for playing that once? Dragon Ball Z Abridged, a staple of TH-cam copyright arguments, uses the original animation re-edited with entirely new audio over top. That's not something you can easily divide up as their content and your content because both new and borrowed content are going on at once. In a world of remixes and mashups, what is and isn't acceptable is entirely up to individuals, because a set legal definition for what's acceptable beyond "absolutely no material not by you" doesn't exist. And seeing how TH-cam's policies have to be largely automatable, individual judgement doesn't work.
@@drpibisback7680 there is a fair use standard, works that "fundamentally alter" the original are acceptable as new, so the remixes, and audio replacement you mentioned should be fair use
It's very simple: They can do whatever they want, you can pretend you have rights, but if it's taken down in the peak of your traffic to your video, that's money you will never get back.
I have never heard the TH-cam copyright system explained in such an interesting way. I usually only heard people yelling about it, but I am glad we have TH-camrs like you to look more critically about large issues like this.
Uhg... It really should be GIF as "Guh-if" because GIF stands for Graphical Interchange Format. So "Gra-" not "Jra-" so GIF not JIF
okay, I tried looking it up but didn't find it so here's a question out of curiosity. who gets the claim if you have multiple copyrighted items in your video. Can you bamboozle the copyrights owners by pitting them against each other? Can you create a space time paradox of drama?! Can you watch the world burn??!!
Jim Sterling often intentionally uses footage from multiple companies for exactly this reason!
@@MisterAppleEsq hooboi have I heard this name more than once in the comment section today. time to check this smart bat out!
@@AlexAzureOtaku Yeah, from what Jim has found, basically if multiple companies place a claim on the video, then nobody profits. You receive no ad money while the claim is being sorted out, but the claim never gets sorted out because the companies don't bother to actually fight each other, so none of them get awarded the ad money either. It's a brilliant maneuver if your only goal is to post your video and you get your income by other means. But if you need the ad money, you're taking a loss.
Cats : Meow Meow
Dogs : woof woof
Idiots : First first
Me: Howl Howl
Intelctuals: oh yeah yeah
I especially like the part where you have access to a lot of tools that smaller channels don't have. That's super fair.
Please please let this be the first in a long series exploring how we’re basically “citizens of corporations” cause not enough people are talking about this 💚 you get it Hank