169
obligatory copyright only exists so rich people can own more things they didnt create
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
169 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
34789 readers
409 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
There should be a copyright system that grants copyright only to those individuals who create the thing, not the corporations that published the thing.
I'm sure there's someone who will point out why that is a bad idea, but collective ownership seems like it would be a better way to apply takedown notices more appropriately. A takedown order needs to be voted on by the owners of the thing being potentially infringed upon and if the majority does not think that something violates copyright, then the takedown notice will not be sent.
And then only to the human creator who intends to bring the item to market. No more patent trolls.
That's patent law, which is something different entirely. Copyright only covers actual works, like books, video games, and TV shows, so there's really no problem with patent trolls here. Patent law is a completely different set of problems.
The real issue is the DMCA, and YouTube's extremely loose acceptance requirements for a copyright claim. Basically, pretty much anyone can issue a copyright strike without actually providing proof that they own the work in the video, so the bar is really low.
Yes, I did a confuse. You are right. But Patent Trolls suck too.
IANAL but I think some of the problem is people are under the employ of said company when they create said thing and they have contracts that are setup that by default make that the company's IP over the individual.
I think the only issue here is how long copyright lasts. Originally, it was much shorter:
The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years.
And now it's 95 years, or the life of the author + 70 years, whichever is shorter. If we went back to the original copyright duration, we probably wouldn't have this issue, especially if the renewal required some proof of need.
I don't think the problem is corporations owning copyright, but how long copyright lasts.
Unfortunately, I can't boycott Sony any more than I already do.
RIP. Sorry to be so negative, but the system is rigged in Sony's favor.
While I don't want the YouTube channel to be shut down, I couldn't imagine that YouTube is the only place this exists and it's the only place it can be hosted.
You'd be surprised to realize what a pain in the ass it is to host a good deal of videos. There's more lost content (shows, movies and commercials) combined than archived data that exists today. Media was simply not kept and storage written over. Sadly, we're going to keep losing it.
I only managed to archive 1758 of the almost 4700 videos after reading this news yesterday. I hope someone else managed to download a bunch before the channel was removed today.
EDIT: Someone on Reddit managed to download it all and posted a torrent, it seems.
Data hoarders are legends
Bless you for trying.
I don't know if you replied before I added my edit, but someone on Reddit downloaded it all and posted a torrent, for anyone interested.
Appreciate the follow-up, I didn't see it initially
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you want a social media site based around videos with a variety of features with high traffic, then sure. If you're just archiving stuff for the sake of it, then you can simply host static content.
There are also many other places to store stuff than YouTube.