this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024

343 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

59377 readers

4800 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

343

YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim (mashable.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim::undefined

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 192 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The article hides it in the update.

This feels significant: Disney has officially retracted a copyright claim on a third-party's Steamboat Willie video on YouTube.

It's not significant, that's how it works. It went into the public domain and the copyright strike process took time to adjust. Disney was never going to fight this.

[–] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just as significant (and I suppose still pending) is whether YouTube has re-monetized the video. Systems fail and shit happens, and I'm glad to see that this was quickly un-struck, but it's not all the way corrected until he's making his $.0003 per view or whatever the payout is.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 51 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Hell half of these damn copyright claims are automated bots. I guess they forgot to turn this one off.

[–] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is significant because this is the first time in the history of copyright bots that they've ever had to remove a work from the bot's registry. Given how rarely it happens, the code to do that probably won't even be worth the cost of writing for another decade or two: some guy at YouTube will just add a manual exception for that video. (And that's assuming the best of intention and action from the copy-vio-bot sellers which is unlikely, given their existing behavior.)

[–] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Every year there is plenty of stuff, like movies which end in the public domain. Certainly not the first time. Just the first time you thought/heard of it

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

deleted

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Exactly, Disney never intended to make trouble with this, and this isn't a significant historical win for copyright activists.

[–] gramathy@lemmy.ml 38 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It’s still significant because being demonetized kills a video in the algorithm and even if the claim is reversed you don’t get that back

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The title/article isn't about the damage its doing to people using it. It's implying that Disney is going to actively give trouble to people using it, when it was nothing other than a mistake that was bound to happen anyway.

I'm not saying it didn't significantly impact the creator, I'm saying Disney backing off the bad claim is not significant. It's what Disney was always going to do, it's just that "Disney and youtube accidentally flag Steamboat Willie stuff" isn't as clickbaity. .

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm sorry, but if you were expecting to make an amount of money from Steamboat Willie on Youtube at this point, prepare to be disappointed.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steamboat+willie

[–] gramathy@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Rather than making money, the deprioritization of a copyright claimed video can cost a channel a significant amount of views and potential subscribers, so even if you’re not making money off that specific video, it’s still a significant impact.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/results?search_query=steamboat+willie

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[+] _number8_@lemmy.world -17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

there should be a mainstream video site that doesn't respect copyright whatsoever

lol i love that this inspired 20 downvotes. thank you for sticking up for our sacred, beloved DMCA

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

There is, it's called the Pirate Bay.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think YouTube has made people forget how draconian the DMCA is. YouTube made a special deal with the studios where copyright disputes would be handled by takedowns and demonitization instead of lawsuits against individual posters—on any other site, posters could potentially be exposed to damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The DMCA is draconian but YouTube's system is insidious. The DMCA forces YouTube to take down content upon receipt of a valid takedown notice but it also requires it to put the content back up within 10 days of a counter-notice, at which point if the original complaining party wants to do more they can take it to court.

In contrast, YouTube's content ID and manual copyright claim system can be more lenient in that it's less likely to wind up in court as the rights holder can simply demonetize the content or divert monetization to them. However it's open to a lot of fraud, abuse, conflicts of interest, and Kafkaesque appeals systems.

I have a friend who has ~1M subscribers. He specifically licensed music from an artist for his video intro and outro. Now, every few months out of the blue he gets dozens to hundreds of Content ID claims from obscure music rights management companies who have added remixes of that work to their Content ID databases. Monetization is instantly diverted to these companies. He appeals. The money is not held in escrow pending appeal -- the company gets to keep it no matter what. So the first couple of appeals get decided by the company claiming the content. Usually about a week or two later he gets actual YT support to help or he causes enough stink on social media that a YT rep will look at it and fix it. But he's lost thousands of dollars over this shit.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He should make DMCA requests to himself from an outside source so it pre-emptively locks up the request system.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Pretty sure the DMCA claims take the material down and give you a copyright strike. And not everyone has access to the other system that can affect monetization.

The only example I've seen of this being possible is making some unique song/sounds and putting them in the video, signing up with one of the rights management companies that does have access, and then claiming your own content. Still not perfect as they take a fee and a cut of "recovery" iirc.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm all for piracy of greedy corporate media, but copyright is an essential part of ensuring that artists retain control of their creations. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you harm independents who might be supporting meager lifestyles on the income from their art.

This is not and never will be a black and white issue.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yup. If I write a book it wouldn't be right for a publisher to steal it and sell it as their own.

Current intellectual property laws are fucked, but I'm also tired of people who join the circlejerk of "all IP laws are bullshit and they all need scrapped"

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Those are often the same people who say things like, "soon all of our books and movies will be made by AI, so artists will be obsolete" and mean it in a good way.

[+] tabular@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This is not and never will be a black and white issue.

A great phrase to say but you dismiss potential solutions you may not have heard of (or don't exist yet).

I suggest we have a universal basic income that supports a minimum existence. Artists having control of their creations can still be argued for but now without the "need money to live" aspect. Some artists already disregard copyright by putting works into public domain, or use a creative commons license which uses copyright to undo the restrictions placed on people by copyright.

If I could do anything I'd reduce copyright time limit to 10 years and see how that goes. I'd only keep copyright till I found another way to enforce copyleft software licenses to ensure software freedom.

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if it wasn't about the money, I'd personally still be very pissed if someone would claim my work as their own and there's no law to prevent it. I'm not saying that today's system is great, because it sucks in many ways, but some copyright system needs to be in place for the good of everyone.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The intent of Copyright was to give the public the benefit of more works being created in exchange of their right to redistribute the works. Copying physical works is difficult so we were not giving up much then, but in the modern times it's very easy to copy digital works. I also suspect we're not encouraging more works to be created with this "long after death" time limit. I have nothing against artists wanting control of their work (my video games would be nothing without them) but this is no longer a good deal for the public.

Artists can use Copyright to control their works in a limited sense but is that the control they want? Would 10 years be enough?

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

There have been many. Their creators are spending decades in jail.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I believe the words you are looking for is “Linux isos”

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Tiktok?

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

Could you elaborate as to why you feel that a mainstream platform should exist which doesn't care if the content uploaded to it is stolen?

I get DMCA trolling, and that fucking sucks, but copyrights are important for the artists and creators trying to make a living from making content.

[–] unreachable@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago