this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
373 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
1950 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article hides it in the update.
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.
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.
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.
Free as in freedom, not free beer.
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
Of course YouTube should be able to put ads on it. That’s public domain. You can do with it whatever you want.
Start reading, please:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States
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?
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.
They should be allowed to try to put ads on, and I should be allowed to try and block them.
Hell half of these damn copyright claims are automated bots. I guess they forgot to turn this one off.
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.)
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
deleted
Exactly, Disney never intended to make trouble with this, and this isn't a significant historical win for copyright activists.
It’s still significant because being demonetized kills a video in the algorithm and even if the claim is reversed you don’t get that back
The title/article isn't about the damage its doing to people using it. It's implying that Disney is going to actively give trouble to people using it, when it was nothing other than a mistake that was bound to happen anyway.
I'm not saying it didn't significantly impact the creator, I'm saying Disney backing off the bad claim is not significant. It's what Disney was always going to do, it's just that "Disney and youtube accidentally flag Steamboat Willie stuff" isn't as clickbaity. .
I'm sorry, but if you were expecting to make an amount of money from Steamboat Willie on Youtube at this point, prepare to be disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steamboat+willie
Rather than making money, the deprioritization of a copyright claimed video can cost a channel a significant amount of views and potential subscribers, so even if you’re not making money off that specific video, it’s still a significant impact.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/results?search_query=steamboat+willie
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.