6 ms·
The fact that creators are still required to edit out sound from audio from passing cars is insane. It's a system designed to be a money grab for the music indu
by koboll 7y ago
The fact that creators are still required to edit out sound from audio from passing cars is insane. It's a system designed to be a money grab for the music industry, not follow any sort of legal definition of copyright. The idea that a music company could sue someone over a copyright claim for posting a video in which part of a song is fuzzily heard for a few brief moments as a car passes is risible.
- CamperBob2 7y agoAlong the same lines, if music from passing cars could be heard in the video, how was it not an unauthorized public performance when it occurred in the first place? Why doesn't the music industry go after people who unlawfully distribute their copyrighted material up and down the street at 100 dB? This sort of event is either strictly incidental, or it's not. Which is it? The copyright industry can't have it both ways, or at least shouldn't be allowed to.
- compiler-guy 7y agoBecause the people distributing their copyrighted material up and down the street at 100db don’t have a monetization plan, and, even if they did, don’t have a convenient platform to target.
- basch 7y ago>The idea that a music company could sue someone over a copyright claim You can sue for anything. "Its just a car driving by" would usually be a pretty solid defense that youre in the right, both in that its not substantial and doesnt hurt the original work.
- derefr 7y agoPerhaps we need some sort of "cry wolf" doctrine, where you can sue an entity for "suing people too often for spurious reasons" and, if proven (e.g. if 99% of their proposed suits would have been thrown out of court if they had gone to trial), remove their ability to sue others.
- i_cant_speel 7y agoThat would be very impractical in the real world. How would you prove that 99% of the suits would be thrown out without having 100 trials?
- derefr 7y agoI meant "thrown out in preliminary hearing." You can work through 100 preliminary hearings (especially when it's essentially the same suit, just with different subjects) pretty quickly, especially if you parallelize it across a bunch of the judge's analysts.
- teraflop 7y agoSounds like you're referring to something along the lines of anti-SLAPP laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... There's also the notion of a "vexatious litigant": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
- derefr 7y agoInteresting. It doesn't seem like the concept of vexatious litigation has been applied to corporations. I wonder why not?
- koboll 7y ago"could win a suit" on those grounds is a more precise way of phrasing what I meant.
- i_cant_speel 7y agoThe system is a CYA policy for YouTube. It wasn't designed for that. Copyright holders just saw it as an opportunity to abuse a system for some extra cash. The lawsuits would be unlikely to hold up in court.
- munk-a 7y agoBut moving it out of court and into an internal demonetization process has lessened the ability for creators to seek redress over spurious claims.
- skybrian 7y agoWould "seeking redress for spurious claims" be a practical solution? Which creators could use it?
- munk-a 7y agoIf labels were forced to actually push these into the court system a lot of people would fold and settle but not everyone... those who actually got in front of a judge would likely win the case, probably even being awarded by the court for the prosecution having filed such a spurious claim. Right now there is no cost to labels for submitting these AFAIK, there at least appears to be no cost even if the usage would be covered under fair-use.
- foobarian 7y agoWow, TIL. ris·i·ble /ˈrizəbəl/ adjective such as to provoke laughter. "a risible scene of lovemaking in a tent" synonyms: laughable, ridiculous, absurd, comical, comic, amusing, funny, chucklesome, hilarious, humorous, droll, entertaining, diverting, farcical, slapstick, silly, facetious, ludicrous, hysterical, uproarious, riotous, sidesplitting, zany, grotesque
- CogitoCogito 7y agoI’ve never heard this either, but I guess it’s related to “Are you trying to get a rise of me?”
- fenomas 7y agoDumb question - when someone films outside in public, why is audio of music from a passing car considered a copyright issue but video of a passerby in a Mickey Mouse t-shirt isn't? Is it just because one industry lobbies YouTube and the other doesn't, or is copyright law materially different for the two cases?
- londons_explore 7y agoIf that t-shirt was in a film, you can bet there would be someone in the legal department getting the right permissions...
- fenomas 7y agoPresumably the same would be true of music in a film, so I'm not sure how it bears on my question.
- throwaway2048 7y agoJust because youtube chooses to penalize it, doesn't mean a court would agree its a copyright violation. There is virtually zero chance something that isn't free use 100% in the clear.
- ecspike 7y agoIt's not that the Mickey Mouse shirt isn't, it's just that companies don't go after it (at least on the small scale in public spaces). Both are fair use. I think it might be lobby stuff and how they are consumed. Great music can transform / enhance a pivotal moment in a movie whereas the presence of an Apple logo or Mickey Mouse shirt, not so much. Companies can and have sued for licensing fees or if they feel their product logo was shown and misrepresented in film. Back to the t-shirt example, on the movie/funded production scale, a lot of this is prevented by the wardrobe department making sure extras are not clothed in licensed stuff.