Current Events > Why is copyright the way it is...

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean in terms of YouTube or whatever. If I film myself doing something in a store and a song can be heard on the store speakers for 10 seconds in the background, completely muffled and covered by my voice, the copyright owner of that song can claim all monetization. But like, why? How is that hurting them? I understand when people upload a song but mess with it to get around auto flags, but I doubt people are looking for a 10 second random clip thats in the background incidentally and deciding thats enough, I wont look for the full song.

no, my video wasnt flagged. This is just what I think about on mornings when Im off from work and dont know what to do with myself >_>

---

---

monkmith posted...
Disney will take possession of your entire family for posting that.


---

Hambo the Hog posted...

Disney will take possession of your entire family for posting that.

i'm posting behind 5 vpn on my neighbors toaster, they cant find me!

---

OkNewUser

Music copyright can last over 100 years and the rights to popular songs usually were given to the record companies (this means the musicians basically sold their right to weigh in discussions on whether or not a company can use that musicians own music and for what purpose) in exchange for distribution and manufacturing

Ok it's time for me to go now


---

monkmith posted...

i'm posting behind 5 vpn on my neighbors toaster, they cant find me!

Dont count on this as the toaster will probably talk.

---

Copyright laws were designed for a world without the internet and need to be completely overhauled. The rules give corporations far too much power for that to happen though.
---

Mistere Man posted...

Dont count on this as the toaster will probably talk.

...oh fuck i forgot about this little bastard! damn it! does disney own talking hammers?

---

VipaGTS posted...

I mean in terms of YouTube or whatever. If I film myself doing something in a store and a song can be heard on the store speakers for 10 seconds in the background, completely muffled and covered by my voice, the copyright owner of that song can claim all monetization. But like, why? How is that hurting them? I understand when people upload a song but mess with it to get around auto flags, but I doubt people are looking for a 10 second random clip thats in the background incidentally and deciding thats enough, I wont look for the full song.

no, my video wasnt flagged. This is just what I think about on mornings when Im off from work and dont know what to do with myself >_>

In the scenario you described they actually shouldn't be able to. However, Youtube isn't going to stand up for you because they just don't want to make waves and it's not like you have an army of lawyers to fight it.

Simple explanation is that copyright holders are greedy fucks and youtube doesn't care enough to protect content creators, it's significantly easier to just give in to the copyright holders.

---

Why?

Because you are making money and they want it. They don't care how they get it because they are theives.
Big labels love to steal from artists and now they found a new avenue to steal from others.

realnifty1 posted...

In the scenario you described they actually shouldn't be able to. However, Youtube isn't going to stand up for you because they just don't want to make waves and it's not like you have an army of lawyers to fight it.

This. A significant problem with the way YouTube and other streaming and media services control their content is that they prefer to play it safe and delete something rather than keep it up and get sued themselves. The result is a huge amount of fair use content gets purged and users are forced to fight through arbitration to get it put back up. For many, it's just not worth the effort, especially if it runs the risk of shutting their channel down for a month if that's their main source of income.

---

I've said this before, but there should be a rule where, if you made a Ninja turtles game 10 years ago, you should be able to remake the game as many times as you want with the license intact, even if you lost the license to it. The only condition is that you cannot change anything about the game.
---

pojr posted...

I've said this before, but there should be a rule where, if you made a Ninja turtles game 10 years ago, you should be able to remake the game as many times as you want with the license intact, even if you lost the license to it. The only condition is that you cannot change anything about the game.

the problem is that remaking it on a new platform requires conforming to new hardware and software interfaces. It's physically impossible to remake an old game for a new console and not change anything about it.

you would need the rules to be carefully written by people who deeply understand software development for something like this to work.

---

s0nicfan posted...

pojr posted...

I've said this before, but there should be a rule where, if you made a Ninja turtles game 10 years ago, you should be able to remake the game as many times as you want with the license intact, even if you lost the license to it. The only condition is that you cannot change anything about the game.

the problem is that remaking it on a new platform requires conforming to new hardware and software interfaces. It's physically impossible to remake an old game for a new console and not change anything about it.

you would need the rules to be carefully written by people who deeply understand software development for something like this to work.

This is a very good point. If you're porting the same game, something must be changed. there would have to be some kind of strict rule set on that. Maybe have it so the game can only be an emulation form where the original code is used
---

pojr posted...

This is a very good point. If you're porting the same game, something must be changed. there would have to be some kind of strict rule set on that. Maybe have it so the game can only be an emulation form where the original code is used

I think what you would have to do is separate the underlying architecture from the functional game. so you could change as much of the code as you want it as long as the presentation itself is less than some percentage altered not to include updates like display resolution.

So you could update netcode, adapt it to a new os, improve matchmaking, whatever... as long as the look and feel of the user facing presentation remains the same. Or you could upscale the graphics to work on a newer display, as long as you don't physically alter the original models or sprites.

the less than some percentage change would be in there to allow you to do things like update settings icons to match the buttons of the console you're porting to without that technically counting as a change.

---

s0nicfan posted...

pojr posted...

This is a very good point. If you're porting the same game, something must be changed. there would have to be some kind of strict rule set on that. Maybe have it so the game can only be an emulation form where the original code is used

I think what you would have to do is separate the underlying architecture from the functional game. so you could change as much of the code as you want it as long as the presentation itself is less than some percentage altered not to include updates like display resolution.

So you could update netcode, adapt it to a new os, improve matchmaking, whatever... as long as the look and feel of the user facing presentation remains the same. Or you could upscale the graphics to work on a newer display, as long as you don't physically alter the original models or sprites.

the less than some percentage change would be in there to allow you to do things like update settings icons to match the buttons of the console you're porting to without that technically counting as a change.

That sounds like a pain in the ass to do lol. I could see there being many court cases and where people are arguing percentages to a judge lmao. But hey, it would give us TMNT on virtual console.
---

realnifty1 posted...

In the scenario you described they actually shouldn't be able to. However, Youtube isn't going to stand up for you because they just don't want to make waves and it's not like you have an army of lawyers to fight it.

This, you're still under "fair use" (though this is arbitrary as fair use can only be judged under court), but youtube rather takes it the easy way and side with the copy right holders.

Anyways, from what I hear from my friend, he uploads what he calls copyright infringement stuff but doesn't get his stuff taken down because he doesn't monetize it. I think that plays another key role when company goes after your stuff as well.

---

In the case you're talking about, you can blame Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube for leading to the ContentID system. The DMCA is also responsible for the way this sort of thing works, though putting the burden of proof onto the website at large and letting them deal with potentially illegal content instead of instantly taking everyone to court has allowed for leeway in cases where shit is particularly stupid.

Nine times out of ten, YouTube will act in favour of the copyright holder, but when you have people getting DMCA'd over trailer footage, soundalike music or a fraudulent copyright holder (like that guy who puts 5 minutes of classical music in a shitty techno song and marked the classical music as his content), platforms like YouTube tend to step up when it counts.

If you want to know who's responsible for the shitty state of copyright law as a whole though, it's Disney.

---