3 ms·

This is the result of a several decades worth of normalising the process of clicking through unread shrink-wrap agreements: confusion about the nature of copyri

by sjy 7y ago

This is the result of a several decades worth of normalising the process of clicking through unread shrink-wrap agreements: confusion about the nature of copyright, which is the author’s exclusive right to ‘monetise’ their work. Creators assign this right to YouTube in exchange for the hosting service. If YouTube dominates the market such that no copyright holder can afford to reject their terms, that problem is not going to be solved by granting creators new rights which will also be assigned to YouTube under revised terms and conditions.

anticensor 7y ago
You do not assign YouTube your copyright except for premium videos. You grant a nonexclusive licence.
- sjy 7y ago
  Good point. It is not technically an ‘assignment’ of the whole copyright, but it does involve the creator conferring contractual rights on YouTube which would otherwise belong exclusively to the creator.
narag 7y ago
...that problem is not going to be solved by granting creators new rights which will also be assigned to YouTube under revised terms and conditions If I've understood TFA correctly, the proposal is a law that prevents exactly that from happening. You can define a right as unwaiverable. Any new terms and conditions will be void. Oh and yes, I think it's a good idea. Either you remove the video or you pay.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This is a reinvention of "moral rights / droit moral" which are already a thing in some jurisdictions. But it won't help, because the exact problem is the claim to ownership! If your video is demonetised because of copyright infringement, then youtube is asserting that it's not your video anyway; because you included 30 seconds of incidental music or whatever, the video actually belongs to Sony or Universal. This can only really be fixed by putting the question in front of a court, and the minimum cost of that is far more than either party is willing to pay.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    That's true for the copyright claims, though not for the controversial videos that YouTube also demonetizes. Still, I'm not sure who would gain by taking away that option, and forcing them to decide whether to take down the video or not. I guess it gets easier to claim "censorship", but on the other hand, it gets easier for YouTube to justify taking any controversial video down: they can just claim (truthfully or not) that they have no advertisers willing to pay, and therefore under the new rule they must remove the video altogether.
  - narag 7y ago
    I thought the problem was that YouTube won't give you money while keeping the video online and keeping the profits. If they need to take it offline, the perverse incentives disappear. It's in their best interest to take the creators' side by default so they can keep taking their part. The ownership question is better completely removed from the publisher's hands. The problem seems to be that it's actually true that people "create" using patches of someone else's works without permission. The abuse of take down requests could be just the effect of an overreaction. YouTube won't waste time checking authorship so better take down everything right away at the minimum sign of trouble. But really, can someone go against you if you have properly registered the ownership of the video? There must be some method of proof so you can prevent frivolous takedown requests without too much hassle.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      DMCA takedown requests are supposed to be made "under penalty of perjury", but this simply isn't enforced. It is, as others have said, a power differential issue: whatever the "right" thing is, without some sort of real legal action in a court you can't force them to do it.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > DMCA takedown requests are supposed to be made "under penalty of perjury" That's true, but it's important that the key claim (of an actual violation) of a DMCA takedown only requires good faith belief, which mostly makes the only thing that is really meaningfully subject to the perjury penalty in most cases the claim of owning the copyright-protected work you claim is infringed.

by sjy 7y ago

anticensor 7y ago

You do not assign YouTube your copyright except for premium videos. You grant a nonexclusive licence.

sjy 7y ago
Good point. It is not technically an ‘assignment’ of the whole copyright, but it does involve the creator conferring contractual rights on YouTube which would otherwise belong exclusively to the creator.

narag 7y ago

...that problem is not going to be solved by granting creators new rights which will also be assigned to YouTube under revised terms and conditions If I've understood TFA correctly, the proposal is a law that prevents exactly that from happening. You can define a right as unwaiverable. Any new terms and conditions will be void. Oh and yes, I think it's a good idea. Either you remove the video or you pay.

pjc50 7y ago
This is a reinvention of "moral rights / droit moral" which are already a thing in some jurisdictions. But it won't help, because the exact problem is the claim to ownership! If your video is demonetised because of copyright infringement, then youtube is asserting that it's not your video anyway; because you included 30 seconds of incidental music or whatever, the video actually belongs to Sony or Universal. This can only really be fixed by putting the question in front of a court, and the minimum cost of that is far more than either party is willing to pay.
- icebraining 7y ago
  That's true for the copyright claims, though not for the controversial videos that YouTube also demonetizes. Still, I'm not sure who would gain by taking away that option, and forcing them to decide whether to take down the video or not. I guess it gets easier to claim "censorship", but on the other hand, it gets easier for YouTube to justify taking any controversial video down: they can just claim (truthfully or not) that they have no advertisers willing to pay, and therefore under the new rule they must remove the video altogether.
- narag 7y ago
  I thought the problem was that YouTube won't give you money while keeping the video online and keeping the profits. If they need to take it offline, the perverse incentives disappear. It's in their best interest to take the creators' side by default so they can keep taking their part. The ownership question is better completely removed from the publisher's hands. The problem seems to be that it's actually true that people "create" using patches of someone else's works without permission. The abuse of take down requests could be just the effect of an overreaction. YouTube won't waste time checking authorship so better take down everything right away at the minimum sign of trouble. But really, can someone go against you if you have properly registered the ownership of the video? There must be some method of proof so you can prevent frivolous takedown requests without too much hassle.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    DMCA takedown requests are supposed to be made "under penalty of perjury", but this simply isn't enforced. It is, as others have said, a power differential issue: whatever the "right" thing is, without some sort of real legal action in a court you can't force them to do it.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > DMCA takedown requests are supposed to be made "under penalty of perjury" That's true, but it's important that the key claim (of an actual violation) of a DMCA takedown only requires good faith belief, which mostly makes the only thing that is really meaningfully subject to the perjury penalty in most cases the claim of owning the copyright-protected work you claim is infringed.