Hell half of these damn copyright claim are automated bots. I guess they forgot to turn this one off.
Comment on YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
billwashere@lemmy.world 5 months ago
blusterydayve26@midwest.social 5 months ago
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 5 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 5 months ago
Not Winnie the Pooh?
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Exactly, Disney never intended to make trouble with this, and this isn’t a significant historical win for copyright activists.
Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Well, one problem is that YouTube’s whole “Content ID” process happens specifically outside of copyright law. Google will gladly take down videos without actual copyright problems and they actively shield trolls (normally, a wrong copyright claim is a crime), because it means they won’t have to go to court.
So, it would theoretically be possible for Disney to continue the Content ID claims, even if they’d lose a copyright claim in court.
Google would eventually tell them to fuck off, i.e. to take it to court, but only if the case is clear enough.
dynamojoe@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
ThePantser@lemmy.world 5 months ago
henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
The thing about public domain is that anyone can do whatever they want. Youtube is still providing a service by providing storage, cpu and network to be able to stream the video and they are within their rights to charge for that service one way or another. Of course anyone can also offer that same service for free as it’s public domain.
raptir@lemdro.id 5 months ago
Free as in freedom, not free beer.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yeah you can go out and buy a copy of Shakespeare’s work, it’s just that you can also go out and publish some too
randomaccount43543@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Of course YouTube should be able to put ads on it. That’s public domain. You can do with it whatever you want.
mindlight@lemm.ee 5 months ago
YouTube should not be able to put ads on content they make available for you?
Tell me, in your world, who pays for the low latency, high bandwidth, high availability streaming platform you consume video on?
CybranM@feddit.nu 5 months ago
You can’t argue with some of these anti-corporation people. I dislike greedy CEOs and shareholders as much as the next guy but a company hosting and streaming videos need some sort of revenue to keep those servers running.
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 months ago
They should be allowed to try to put ads on, and I should be allowed to try and block them.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Start reading, please:
en.wikipedia.org/…/Public_domain_in_the_United_St…