16 ms·
Sony sends copyright notices to TV Museum about shows 40 to 60 years old
- jan_Sate 3y agoThat's a bummer. Maybe they could upload the videos to the Internet Archive?
- skinkestek 3y agoCopyright abusers are there as well I think. At least last time I wanted to watch Tom and Jerry with my youngest daughter it was gone. (Or maybe that was still within copyright? I don't know.)
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoaside from whatever copyright Tom and Jerry falls under I believe they are also Trademarked.
- _0ffh 3y agoI thought trademarks were for the defense against knock-offs, not the public domain.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoprobably paranoid - was just wondering if you could get hit for claiming to have legitimate Tom and Jerry videos for download if you didn't have the trademark for Tom and Jerry.
- wongarsu 3y agoIf they are legitimate Tom and Jerry videos that's not an issue. If you make your own videos and call them Tom and Jerry, that's a potential trademark violation. The idea of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and while there's some abuse and perverse incentives most trademark law makes sense through that lens. You are allowed to sell your used Ford F150 under the trademark Ford, because that's an accurate description. It doesn't stop being a Ford, pretty much no matter what you do to it. But if you build a car from scratch and claim it's a Ford F150 that's a trademark violation because you would be pretending that the vehicle was made by the Ford Motor Company, with their manufacturing standards, quality control etc.
- skinkestek 3y agoThanks for a really easy to understand explanation!
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoyeah, I wasn't thinking straight - on the other hand your explanation does make me wonder now if Johnny Cash's One Piece At a Time Cadillac would have ran into trouble if he tried to sell it.
- ta1243 3y agoCopyright is pretty much perpetual. The very first Tom and Jerry was only 80 years ago, another 10-20 years before the ones released towards the end of the 1940s would be available You can get a lot of them on amazon.
- yreg 3y agoYouTube doesn't seem like the place for this kind of thing. I used to have a (not-monetized) YouTube channel with Apple adverts since Apple deletes them after some time. Even the very old videos got deleted so often that I gave up.
- nness 3y agoInternet Archive is having its own legal troubles at the moment, might no longer be the archival safe-haven we'd hope...
- bombcar 3y agoStorage is cheap, if there’s something you’re interested in it’s time to become a data hoarder.
- sekh60 3y agoDatahoarder here, the drives are relatively cheap, but the overall cost to do it right is expensive. I have a somewhat durable setup (about 370TiB raw, replica count 3, 5 node Ceph cluster). And just that before backups I work total cost to be about $1000CAD per usable TiB. I don't shuck drives though, that could probably bring it down to 800.
- MaKey 3y agoSo you've invested six figures into a private data hoarding setup? Not bad.
- sekh60 3y agoI guess it is around six figures by now. Better not let my wife realize that, lol.
- edude03 3y ago3 replicas as in 3 complete copies of the data? Wouldn’t something would erasure coding be cheaper?
- tremon 3y agoErasure coding is only used for local duplication. If you have cross-site or cross-machine copies, you really don't want the speed of the rebuild to be dominated by available network bandwidth.
- magic_hamster 3y agoThe internet archive became almost impossible for larger uploads recently. Not sure what's going on there, but it seems that both using the command line app as well as the web uploader is extremely slow and larger files will just get a "network error" after a while. Searching for this issue I've seen it's fairly common. I imagine uploading an entire "video museum" is going to be a nightmare if it's even possible in the current state of the archive.
- londons_explore 3y agoAren't these processes mostly automated? Is it possible that not a single human has so far been involved on behalf of the copyright holder?
- rob74 3y agoProbably no human was involved on Google's/YouTube's side either - watch out puny humans trying to operate YouTube channels, the machines are coming for you!
- tremon 3y agoIf true, does that make the situation better or worse?
- sp332 3y agoFor a DMCA takedown, someone has to sign that they looked at it. I'm not aware of anyone actually getting in trouble for that though. And YouTube's ContentID is designed for automated takedowns.
- stayfrosty420 3y agoFor music this is the case AFAIK.
- Inhibit 3y agoIn my case it was. Got an automatic flag on an work composed, performed, recorded, and released by the Air Force Band of the Pacific. Turns out someone was re-selling it on media and the label had auto-filed all their holdings. So you'd get flagged on every usage. The sergeant in charge of the correspondence for the band was annoyed but as YouTube is private there honestly wasn't anything they could do (other than write me a polite response to send on that I was correct). I did make them aware of it in the unlikely event someone else asks, though. Annoyingly enough YouTube doesn't take down the automatic match even when it's a false claim from what I saw.
- Moggie100 3y agoThe title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel would make the museum ‘die’ then they’re simply not preserving the data properly. I’m not sure why folks seem to think that Youtube is a good place to archive anything - sure its a good distribution system, but time and time again we see that a handful of malicious actors can shut down entire channels with relative ease. I would hope that these videos are backed up somewhere else on any of the many bulk cloud storage providers out there B2, AWS, Google cloud storage, etc. etc. etc. and could, with some effort be made available elsewhere than Youtube, or restored to the platform after the current storm dies down.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoA museum that nobody can access is just a warehouse.
- Moggie100 3y agoTrue enough, but even physical museums have warehouses where the artefacts are safely preserved between viewings. Analogies aside, I’m not against anyone using Youtube (or any other platform) for distribution - just that it absolutely should not be also used for your actual archive. There are much, much safer and better systems for that. Replicate to preserve!
- s0rce 3y agoThose often support researchers and aren't just warehouses but it is a bit disappointing how much of the really neat stuff you can't see without special access. I really enjoy seeing rock and mineral collections and got a tour of the Royal Ontario Museum collection from a research collaborator when I was in Toronto and it was so cool to see.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoOn the other hand, is it that difficult to get special access? I'm sure every museum is different, along with the broad attitudes of the country, specialism etc. On a few occasions, I have been shown things by enthusiastic members staff that usually wouldn't be on display, so I suspect that with the right combination of genuine expertise, courtesy and patience nothing is impossible to view, regardless of current status or academic qualification.
- mopenstein 3y agoThey do encode old content but also add the biggest and ugliest watermark in the lower third of the media advertising their website in everyone of the videos. Doesn't preservation usually mean not destroying the works with tacky advertisements that can't be removed without permanently altering the original content? I consume (and share) a lot of old video and I don't see this as a big loss since you can't enjoy the original works as they were intended to be.
- throwaway_ab 3y agoExactly my thoughts. I had a look at the channel and wondered why there was no true archival version provided by either: 1. The channel org itself via "Internet Archive" and/or torrents. 2. The community. It is trivial to create archival copies of youtube channels and most rare true archival footage on youtube will be mirrored elsewhere, even if "illegally". (1) does not exist and (2) is non existent either, no one considers these encodes valuable enough to preserve, which does seem odd considering it is unique data. Load up the videos, and you see a giant watermark, thus destroying any archival usage. No one will fight for this channnel, no one will bother mirroring it, because every encode is ruined and flawed. If the channel/org has the originals, consider talking to Internet Archive
- saurik 3y agoOh come on... I read these comments and was thinking I'd see something ridiculously large--maybe even taking up a third of the video--not something that's only like a tenth the vertical space. Yes: it would be better to not have it, but a lot of TV stations had watermarks on TV shows at the time! This isn't that large, I can see through it, and the audio is (of course) fine. The reason no one is mirroring these things isn't because of the watermarks: it is because all of this content was already just ephemera that most people consider trash in the first place. Hell: I care a lot about this stuff... but do I want to personally spend the money to carry it around forever? This is a lot of content that I will never personally watch much of. But is that because of the URL watermark? No. (edit: Oh god... I started watching some of this stuff and realized it isn't just commercials but local Chicago news reporting on important historical topics and now I am in fact frantically archiving parts of the channel, though I am definitely doing so selectively; but like, they clearly themselves were uploading somewhat selectively, so the hit rate is higher than I had initially hoped even though it is still certainly a small fraction of the channel.)
- mavu 3y agoIt's almost as if a for-profit company is not a reliable place for things that are not done for profit. Weird.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoWe need a senator to fix this. YouTube is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be copyright and if they are copyright, when you put your video in, it gets in line, and it's going to be taken down by anyone that holds onto enormous amounts of copyright material, enormous amounts of copyright of material.
- cheschire 3y agoFor the younger end of the HN population that may not have been aware of national politics at the time, this is a reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
- isykt 3y agoThis is a meme but it’s not a bad metaphor at all, and the Senator was unfairly maligned for using it. He was fairly maligned for being against network neutrality, though.
- b33j0r 3y agoJon Stewart really nailed that meme in by pointing out that Stevens was simultaneously earmarking online gambling, with specific carve-outs for horse-racing. If you’re around my age, you don’t need to use the Bing to picture in your head that graphic of horses being able to run through the tubes. (Jon Stewart also kinda made me and everyone I knew think Arby’s was terrible for a long time. With great memes comes… the responsibility to recognize that not everyone has Katz!) ;)
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoNo such thing as unfairly maligning a politician in my opinion.
- ethbr1 3y ago'Al Gore claimed he created the Internet'? See e.g. "Al Gore and the Internet" by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf https://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html https://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/...
- chiefalchemist 3y agoIsn't part of the copyright law that companies must defend their right in the short-term, else it's effectively forfeiting the protection in the future? In order words, you can't cherry pick. They have to be thorough and consist, else they're potentially creating a loop hole; a loop hole that might hang themselves. Note: Not defending Sony or any Big Inc, simply wonder how the law is written and how that drives corporate behavior.
- ta1243 3y agoSounds like you're mistaking it with trademarks
- kwhitefoot 3y agoNo. That applies to trademarks.
- dredmorbius 3y agoNo, not at all. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37142194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37142194>
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago[dead]
- ta1243 3y ago"Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those transmissions were removed from YouTube for violating Sony copyrights, with MCCTv receiving a strike" Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does. Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does. Because we end these sentences here, we are where we are. > Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. Doubling down on the awful ending helps insure we stay here. Instead, we could continue the thought into the broken systems that put us here. eg: Trading law for cash+favors.
- Pannoniae 3y ago"Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences." - Have you heard of jury nullification? This is not a bad-faith jab, I'm really curious. Laws are not absolute and there is no requirement to uphold it if either the judge or the jury thinks it's not reasonable. (Exceptions include minimum sentencing laws, AFAIK.)
- Zetice 3y agoExceedingly rare and shouldn’t be relied upon in any case. Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
- ghastmaster 3y agoJury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic. There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
- roguesupport 3y ago[dead]
- TekMol 3y agoWhy is YouTube needed for this project? Why not just put all those videos on a webserver?
- porkbeer 3y agoCost.
- elzbardico 3y agoGood luck counting on Sony's goodwill. Historically, Sony has been probably the most aggressive and vicious media company when it comes to copyright. I refuse buying a Play Station specifically because I despise Sony Corporation for that.
- porkbeer 3y agoStill nicer to its custimers than nintendo.
- seanp2k2 3y agoOr Comcast aka XFINITY
- callalex 3y agoNintendo has never installed root kits on customer computers without informing or gaining consent at least.
- makeitdouble 3y agoNeither did the Playstation group. It makes no sense to count everything with "Sony" in it as the same company if you're talking about their morals.
- edgyquant 3y agoNintendo is fairly average as far as enforcing copyright goes. I really think it’s their aesthetic and presentation of friendliness that makes them seem to standout. Sony is far worse in this regard.
- itsTyrion 3y agoNintendo has previously, amongst other things, taken down a homebrew project because it 'bypassed a technical protection' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35846726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35846726
- 3y ago
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- PreInternet01 3y agoYouTube is not the problem here: its way of handling copyright claims, no matter how much you dislike it, is the only reason it survived this far. Would it be nice if they added a 'monetize, but don't penalize the uploader, since this is really not something we care about that deeply' option for content owners? Sure. But the real solution is in copyright law reform, specifically in mandatory licensing. If, say, what a content owner can charge for a license to certain content is, like, 20% of their total revenue for that particular content over the past 5 years, that would solve an awful lot of problems. Plus, make cross-provider access to certain other content a lot more convenient for consumers.
- jonas21 3y ago"Monetize but don't penalize" is one of the options for content holders on YouTube [1]. But in this case, the copyright strikes are for full episodes of the TV show Bewitched, which the copyright holder does care about and is currently selling for $1.99 per episode [2]. And I don't know about the whole mandatory licensing thing. There are certainly places where I would not want things I've written or photos I've taken to appear, even if they paid me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system) [2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.1ca9f72f-98ce-1216-ab52-15839faafcf2 https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.1ca9f72f...?
- alanjay 3y agoThis the problem with YouTube- they're judge, jury and executioner. If you dispute the claim its judged by checks notes the person who claimed copyright. Even if the original work is 120 - yes, 120 - years old! See first comment on https://youtu.be/HFq7XpFmYo4 https://youtu.be/HFq7XpFmYo4
- beebmam 3y agoWhy shouldn't a business get to decide what content they host on their platform? They're paying to keep that data hosted and the services up and maintained! Are you suggesting YouTube shouldn't have the right to refuse hosting someone's content?
- Kamq 3y ago> Why shouldn't a business get to decide what content they host on their platform? They should. But that doesn't prevent social consequences, including badmouthing them on their rationale. Your response would be very relevant if the OP was proposing a law that would force them to carry such content, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIt's rude to just ignore the extremely valid point someone made and act as if they had not brought it up in the first place.
- beebmam 3y agoYouTube should, like any other business, have the right to be judge jury and executioner of all content they host and provide to others on their platform. Period. They should never be coerced by a government to not have the right to not host content.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- prirun 3y agoI would review this link about disputing the DMCA copyright claims against your museum: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#dispute https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... IANAL, but IMO, you have several points in your favor to argue that yours is "fair use": 1. You're not (I presume) making money from it 2. Part of it is news, which is more likely to be fair use than creative works. 3. The content is old and the quality is poor compared to today's standards. 4. The current market value of the content is not very high. It's not like you are publishing the upcoming Dune sequel. Current market value and whether you are taking away money from the copyright owner are considerations in determining fair use. If you are actually setup as a museum or online library, I would think that would bolster your case even further that this is fair use. As I said, I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion. However, I do think people are much too quick to cave on these automated DMCA takedowns. If you do dispute it, what's the likelihood this Indian company or Sony is going to sue you? Whether you are willing to take that risk is of course your decision, but their entire operation would fall apart if everyone disputed their claims. It only works because everyone caves immediately.
- mod50ack 3y ago(Also not a lawyer and not giving any legal advice here.) Some of the points may be true, but it is virtually impossible that these uses are fair. Here are some reasons: 1. While the content may be old, and the production quality may not be considered high by today's viewers, these factors are not really relevant. The quality of the reproduction of the works, meanwhile, is good enough that they can be effectively viewed; while these may be less marketable than a copy made from a master, this is more than faithful enough to serve as a market replacement for the original (and thus infringes). 2. The current overall market value of the works is irrelevant. The question in an infringement suit is not whether or not there is a market for the work; it is whether or not whatever value the work could have is affected by the re-used version being used as a replacement. A popular work may have a greater market value than an unpopular one, but copyright law does not protect works based on popularity. Even if the actual market value of the original is near zero anyway, this does not make giving away free copies a fair use (since that destroys whatever market value the original could have). 3. The work has not been transformed in any way. The reproduction is faithful (to the extent this was technologically possible). The copies tend to be of the entire work. The purpose of the work (display for viewing) is the same as the original purpose; there is no transformation. The channel here is reproducing the original works in their entirety. These copies serve as a good substitute for any copies the original copyright holder could be making and selling/licensing. This boils down to the question: do these copies fulfill any demand there might be for the originals? The answer is yes. This is not fair use. The question of whether or not a copyright holder strictly enforces the copyrights — in many cases, they don't — isn't relevant; they remain valid. Now, for a lot of people, this seems unfair. The original works are often not available on the market. A lot of people think that non-marketed works should be able to be copied by non-profits for the public's use. But that's not something the law allows.
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoI may have missed something but the two take down notices they show are for the Bewitched TV show. They may be old but are still being shown on television and sold on AppleTV/Amazon etc. - they are still making money for the owner. I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t expect a takedown notice for posting them or similar shows on YouTube.
- yaur 3y agoIs this MBC[1] or a different Chicago based classic tv museum? [1] https://www.museum.tv/ https://www.museum.tv/
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- edgarvaldes 3y agoI dream of the day when the archiving of the web is no longer a problem: bandwith, storage, tagging, search, etc. All the videos, all the tutorials, all the books, everything archived and retrievable for posterity.