6 ms·

> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they recei

> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you have the resources, use them! This is a cost of getting big. You have economies of scale in other areas, don’t try to evade responsibility here.

BrenBarn 8mo ago
Amen to that. Larger companies should face more requirements than small ones. And if they can't meet them, great! That just means they can't be large. Companies should be smaller on average than they currently are.
- SR2Z 8mo ago
  There is nothing that large companies want more than a straightforward, procedural list of requirements on how to comply with copyright law. (ok maybe there are several thousand things, but you get what I mean)
SR2Z 8mo ago
> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree. That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says: > The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located. Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.
- kiba 8mo ago
  Copyright is a special privilege that usually monopolizes certain information. It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic. That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.
  - SR2Z 8mo ago
    "Usually?" The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it. It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.
    - WorldMaker 8mo ago
      A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.) That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars. That's why it is a monopoly right.
      - SR2Z 8mo ago
        A patent lasts 20 years. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (at least in the US, thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts). The term of a copyright is too long, I agree, but it is a limited right to control a creative asset with a clear and simple expiration.
        WorldMaker 8mo ago
        Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it). It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today. > a clear and simple expiration > life of the author > (at least in the US I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author. On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time. Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.) The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.

BrenBarn 8mo ago

Amen to that. Larger companies should face more requirements than small ones. And if they can't meet them, great! That just means they can't be large. Companies should be smaller on average than they currently are.

SR2Z 8mo ago
There is nothing that large companies want more than a straightforward, procedural list of requirements on how to comply with copyright law. (ok maybe there are several thousand things, but you get what I mean)

SR2Z 8mo ago

> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree. That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says: > The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located. Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.

kiba 8mo ago
Copyright is a special privilege that usually monopolizes certain information. It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic. That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.
- SR2Z 8mo ago
  "Usually?" The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it. It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.
  - WorldMaker 8mo ago
    A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.) That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars. That's why it is a monopoly right.
    - SR2Z 8mo ago
      A patent lasts 20 years. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (at least in the US, thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts). The term of a copyright is too long, I agree, but it is a limited right to control a creative asset with a clear and simple expiration.
      - WorldMaker 8mo ago
        Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it). It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today. > a clear and simple expiration > life of the author > (at least in the US I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author. On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time. Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.) The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.