As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

[Copyright / DMCA] Look Upon Our Works, Ye Mighty, And Despair

The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
So, I am currently in love with Jim Sterling, and this Jimquisition video was recently published:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9mTOq6mP2I
...You may hear something partway through the introduction and find yourself wondering, "...But is he going to give me that?"

And... yes. Yes, he is going to deliver that to you. And it will be everything you thought you wanted.


...I am struggling to think of how to wrap this topic in a format that will be coherent / engaging, and so I think I will start with a small story:

Once Upon A Time, in a magical era before the Internet, there was a man named Tom Waits. This man had a magical voice, and many jealous marketing executive goblins wanted to use that magical voice to enhance their product advertisements. But Tom Waits was a man of strong artistic integrity and he would not sell his magical voice away for use as a means to push shitty potato chips. Enraged at Tom's unwillingness to part with his magical voice, the two bit goblins conceived a plan to steal it.

Fortunately, Tom Waits was a heavy drinking, shit talking asshole who wasn't going to deal with the goblins' bullshit, so he sued them for 2.3~ million dollars, refused to settle the lawsuit out of court and forced them to read an embarrassing apology for trying to steal his magical voice like a bunch of shoplifting teenagers in a Safeway.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

Well, except the marketing goblins, who were so embittered by the shaming & monetarily damaging proceedings that they attempted to steal Tom's voice twice more, with precisely the same result. Buggers never learn, I guess.

The End.


What is Fair Use and what does that terrible fable have to do with--

So, content creators on YouTube & Twitch have really been struggling with copyright laws & the intersection of those laws with fair use lately, and it is becoming very, very obvious that we need an arbitration body of some kind that can effectively deal with this shit, and we should probably put it in place before someone just sues the pants off of someone else and we start having precedent & copyright law effectively decided by legal fiat.

Fair Use is a simple & elegant system that effectively boils down to this:

If you use someone else's work, ideas or IP to create something that is transformative - that becomes it's own art in it's own right - then you are protected by Fair Use & entitled to your own copyright of the work you have just created.

In a sense, Fair Use is intended to be a shield for critics, pundits, teachers & researchers to use while exploring a given piece of art; in another sense, Fair Use is also intended to protect new forms of art and/or new IP that may emerge while being derived from other sources (all artwork is inherently derivative in some sense, and while lines must be drawn somewhere to establish a cozy boundary for an IP, it must also be recognized that we can't really have art as a thing if a given IP swallows too much territory).


The story of Tom Waits having to deal with the shit fingered biscuit snatchers at Frito-Lay is intended to illustrate that, while Fair Use is an elegant and simple system in theory, complex situations can arise that require a lot of subjective analysis & human judgement. Frito-Lay was not creating a transformative piece of work; they were simply finding a way to exploit the success of a musician who didn't want to work with them. That's an opinion that I think 99% of people would agree with, and yet there is no single point of data one could point to and say, "Right here is where the rules were broken,"

That wasn't much of a problem in 1988 when Waits was taking Frito-Lay to the cleaners (...though, then again, Bette Midler may disagree) in front of a judge with a fleshy brain in his head to analyze the law with - but today we're seeing a lot of this process being automated by robots, because the sheer volume of content demands automation, and the robots are dropping the fucking ball.


Every single day, content creators on YouTube & Twitch are having their work stolen from them. In some cases it's angry content creators who dislike negative reviews of their work, in some cases it's larger IP holders & studios that hire out Content ID flagging protection rackets intended to intimidate smaller channels / networks and in some cases it's an incompetent automated matching system that has no fucking idea how to filter between piracy or Fair Use critique (you may have people talking about specific lengths of time that must be adhered to for music tracks or video clips. Something else that I had the example of Tom Waits can demonstrate is that this is a load of bullshit. Fair Use is about whether or not your work was transformative, or whether you've just stolen someone's stuff for resale. That kind of law necessarily will involve a lot of human interpretation).


Sounds like something that's not my problem! Ha ha ha get a REAL job mirite?

For starters, in an economy that at times can seem a weeee bit flimsy, probably the best idea is not to start contracting the avenues by which independent artists can make a few bucks.

But even if you aren't interested in the idea that an entirely new profession is now being threatened by some trolls & old guard institutions, and even if you don't give a shit if the future is going to be paid-for content on services like YouTube or Twitch because independent artists & networks can't get anything done without signing-up in partnership with larger old guard institutes by the time this shit show ends: how many YouTube personalities are there that you either despise or vehemently disagree with, or at the very least do not think you should have to live in the shadow of as de facto policy makers?

Because, even setting aside Mr. Sterling's perfectly valid point that there is no incentive for legitimate content creators to respect copyright at all if they always get the short end of the stick no matter how fair they attempt to play the game, I will present to you my crystal ball and tell you what is going to happen (and again, I will refer back to the story of Tom Waits and his magical voice):

Someone is going to send the wrong person a false DMCA claim on the wrong day. That person is going to have the shit sued right out of them (and if the stars are truly right that day, they might even go to jail for perjury - because that is what filing a false DMCA can be considered - but that's neither here nor there), and the results of that case may have huge ramifications for what exactly copyright & Fair Use entails.

Now, sometimes these lawsuits are funny and fill us up with a wonderful sense of Schadenfreude, as with the tale of Waits vs Frito-Lay.

But sometimes these lawsuits are fucking shit and we are left stuck with legal precedent that further cripples the rights of artists in one way or another, and/or further complicates an already convoluted & outmoded set of legal standards. We probably shouldn't be just waiting around for a bunch of fucking shit lawsuits, some of which will no doubt escalate at some point to a fucking shit SCOTUS full of old people for whom Internet Explorer and the Internet itself are totally synonomous.


We need a new, proactive framework for copyright & Fair Use. If automated systems cannot handle the concept (and they clearly can't), and the workload is too much for humans to realistically handle (and it is), then we need new rules that the world can actually deal with. What is happening right now is absolutely shameful garbage; nobody who is interested in the concept of a functional press / media or art as a profession should be willing to put up with up.

With Love and Courage
«1

Posts

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Also, people have been sued for filing false DCMA claims, it goes nowhere. The bar for what constitutes "reasonable" has been lowered ridiculously.

  • Options
    ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Given my stance is a principled one with regard to the nature of what IP is - namely intangible, non-scarce pieces of information for which we provide particular rights - it seems important that I insist on the same correctness that informs my vociferous opposition to things I reject (like the moral obligation for users to not use adblock or copyright in general) as for things that I strongly support (like for youtube creators such as Jim Sterling to create whichever videos they like, in particular if they are in keeping with the existing broken legal regime to boot).

    It is ALSO worth knowing that while DCMA takedowns are supposed to take fair use into account, fair use is in fact a defense that admits copyright infringement but argues that it was justified by the various principles that correspond to the interests of society. Which is ALSO broken.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    It's worth noting that what YouTube does is far above what the DMCA actually requires, as well.

  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

    Y'all should just make up a damn word for the sake of discussion.

    Call it "chingalinging". Copyright holders claimed you chingalined their work. When you download an mp3, you're chingalinging it.

    Whatever you want to call the act. It basically boils down to "being a dick". When you pirate something, you're "being a dick". When you use a clip from a show, the show owner thinks you're "being a dick".

    Basically argue about the act and the subject at hand. Rather than waste massive effort arguing what the label is first.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    There's no consequence for filing false claims and people whose videos are flagged are presumed guilty before proving their innocence and if they are professional content creators then it can seriously affect their ability to make a living.

    As usual, the reason nothing's done about this is because the people who are affected don't have a loud enough voice compared to the giant companies that wanted this system implemented in the first place.

  • Options
    SiskaSiska Shorty Registered User regular
    This article, Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling, seems relevant to the subject. Fair use is not completely without teeth but as always you need to have the resources to fight for it.

  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

    Y'all should just make up a damn word for the sake of discussion.

    Call it "chingalinging". Copyright holders claimed you chingalined their work. When you download an mp3, you're chingalinging it.

    Whatever you want to call the act. It basically boils down to "being a dick". When you pirate something, you're "being a dick". When you use a clip from a show, the show owner thinks you're "being a dick".

    Basically argue about the act and the subject at hand. Rather than waste massive effort arguing what the label is first.

    And when copyright holders ignore fair use cases and do DCMA takedowns on legitimate reviews they're being giant assholes pretending that people are being a dick, when in fact the dick is them. The giant assholes are the dicks.

    No I don't.
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Arguing over fair use seems to be missing the forest through the trees as far as copyright goes.

    Copyright right now is in many fundamental ways working against societies interests. And part of the piracy explosion is basically the consumer opting out of those relationships.

    Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go listen to Life of Pablo, exclusively on subscription only Tidal.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

    Y'all should just make up a damn word for the sake of discussion.

    Call it "chingalinging". Copyright holders claimed you chingalined their work. When you download an mp3, you're chingalinging it.

    Whatever you want to call the act. It basically boils down to "being a dick". When you pirate something, you're "being a dick". When you use a clip from a show, the show owner thinks you're "being a dick".

    Basically argue about the act and the subject at hand. Rather than waste massive effort arguing what the label is first.

    Well, that is one of the points of dispute - if the reason given that it is "being a dick" in the same way as stealing is "being a dick" then the reason fails as it is not the same as stealing at all.

    I contend that it isn't being a dick and there have been no coherent moral critiques of piracy.

  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

    Y'all should just make up a damn word for the sake of discussion.

    Call it "chingalinging". Copyright holders claimed you chingalined their work. When you download an mp3, you're chingalinging it.

    Whatever you want to call the act. It basically boils down to "being a dick". When you pirate something, you're "being a dick". When you use a clip from a show, the show owner thinks you're "being a dick".

    Basically argue about the act and the subject at hand. Rather than waste massive effort arguing what the label is first.

    Well, that is one of the points of dispute - if the reason given that it is "being a dick" in the same way as stealing is "being a dick" then the reason fails as it is not the same as stealing at all.

    I contend that it isn't being a dick and there have been no coherent moral critiques of piracy.

    Save it for the lawyers who'll have to draft everything up in the end.

    This is an informal forum. You're going to get people who say Word A when it's clear they mean Word B. You are the only person stomping your feet and going grammar nazi over the fact. Nobody cares about what to call the act. The act itself is more important.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    hard to say without knowing exactly what they did

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    hard to say without knowing exactly what they did

    Waits has refused to allow any of his music to be used to promote products.

    Frito-Lay approached him about using a piece of his music (Step Right Up) to promote their stuff. He said no. They then went and hired a professional voice impersonator to stand in for Waits and used a jingle very similar to Step Right Up to do the promo spot.


    Waits did sue and did win over the matter (the case mostly pivoted around just how unique Waits's voice is).

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    Ok then yeah that's super shitty and unethical.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    ... it also summons Apothe0sis, who won't let you have a discussion about anything else until "stolen" vs. "appropriated" vs. "rights infringed" has been hashed out for three or four pages.

    Y'all should just make up a damn word for the sake of discussion.

    Call it "chingalinging". Copyright holders claimed you chingalined their work. When you download an mp3, you're chingalinging it.

    Whatever you want to call the act. It basically boils down to "being a dick". When you pirate something, you're "being a dick". When you use a clip from a show, the show owner thinks you're "being a dick".

    Basically argue about the act and the subject at hand. Rather than waste massive effort arguing what the label is first.

    Well, that is one of the points of dispute - if the reason given that it is "being a dick" in the same way as stealing is "being a dick" then the reason fails as it is not the same as stealing at all.

    I contend that it isn't being a dick and there have been no coherent moral critiques of piracy.

    Save it for the lawyers who'll have to draft everything up in the end.

    This is an informal forum. You're going to get people who say Word A when it's clear they mean Word B. You are the only person stomping your feet and going grammar nazi over the fact. Nobody cares about what to call the act. The act itself is more important.
    The arguments involved rely directly upon and the frame of the debate is affected by the connotations of the language used.

    And, furthermore, it has already been written by the lawyers and it is not stealing according to them.

    It isn't a merely semantic point it is a moral point as well. A factual point.

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    I think that most philosophy departments would say that plagiarism is unethical.

    Or at the very least passing someone else's work off as your own would be lying and mind giving up honesty for piracy is a thing you can do but I don't see many people getting on board with that.

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    A professional voice impersonator and a soubdalike isn't his work though.

    And by the same token I think that licensing should be compulsory if we must suffer the system of copyright at all.

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A professional voice impersonator and a soubdalike isn't his work though.
    .

    So if I type out a copy of a book it becomes my work?

    What are you using as a definition of "work" here?

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A professional voice impersonator and a soubdalike isn't his work though.
    .

    So if I type out a copy of a book it becomes my work?

    What are you using as a definition of "work" here?

    His work is his voice and his song. If sounding like another artist was bad, we'd have to prosecute way too many artists.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    They were intentionally imitating a specific artist in order to benefit from that artist's reputation and cache, after approaching the actual artist and being rebuffed.

    It's not plagiarism, it's forgery.

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    They were intentionally imitating a specific artist in order to benefit from that artist's reputation and cache, after approaching the actual artist and being rebuffed.

    It's not plagiarism, it's forgery.

    It's still passing someone else ideas off as your own without proper credit.

  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    I do agree with @Apothe0sis in that certain terms matter, especially when the topic at hand deals with issues involving words or phrases with specific meanings or connotations that are distinct from other words or phrases without said specific meanings or connotations.

    As a result, even in an informal forum like this one, it can be helpful for clarity's sake if certain terms were understood and adhered to.

    Unless, of course, we all want to spend pages arguing about how "substantially similar" totally means one thing which is nothing like the legal understanding of the phrase, but it's totes okay because I'm just using it as an example here even though I'm using it in a way completely different from actual copyright law today but in a manner that I wish copyright law was but I fail to actually say this until the discussion on "substantially similar" has gone on for three pages more.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A professional voice impersonator and a soubdalike isn't his work though.

    And by the same token I think that licensing should be compulsory if we must suffer the system of copyright at all.

    Copyright attempts to consider "creative input". If you are attempting to mimic his song and unique voice, you're essentially "tracing" his Mona Lisa and capitalizing on his creativity, not your own. It is derivative, and derivative works cannot be copyrighted by their creator unless they meet a certain threshold of 'new' input. Further, only the new parts could be protected as yours, the original elements would still belong under the original rights holder's claim.

    Unrelated: If you need a word: "unauthorized distribution" (of a protected work) more than covers what most copyright violations come down to.

    Unauthorized reproduction is fuzzier, as if I make 10 photocopies of a book and set them on fire, it's pretty clear fair use because I've done no harm. Distribution is where the trouble lies, so you can just say that.

  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    An important term in copyright law: "substantial similarity." You can read up on it at wiki here (link).

    In a nutshell, for a second work to in any way infringe the copyright of a first work, the second work must be "substantially similar" to the first work. At it's core, "substantial similarity" is used to determine whether the creator of the second work has infringed the copyright of the first work, most particularly the right of reproduction. Most often, "substantial similarity" is a question of fact before a jury, however there are instances where the court finds that reasonable people would not question whether "substantial similarity" exists and rules accordingly after a motion for summary judgment.

    There are several different tests used to determine if one work is "substantially similar" to another, but at its most general the idea is you take a random person off the street and ask them if they think the first copy and the second copy are pretty much the same.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Don't you read Dilbert? There are marketing goblins.

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    I think that most philosophy departments would say that plagiarism is unethical.

    Or at the very least passing someone else's work off as your own would be lying and mind giving up honesty for piracy is a thing you can do but I don't see many people getting on board with that.

    Plagiarism in an academic context is unethical for very different reasons than copyright infringement. Plagiarism is bad because the purpose of an academic exercise is to gauge my grasp of the material, not to incentivize the creation of more material.

    Example: Hiring a ghost writer for my autobiography is fine from a copyright perspective. It isn't fine from an academic integrity perspective.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    An established artist's work is often something like a signature; seeing it associated with something often implies to the artist's audience that the artist agrees with / endorses / works in cooperation with whatever thing. Imitating Waits's voice & music to stamp his signature on your product is, in my opinion, fraudulent - they knew that he did not wish to endorse what they were selling and chose to deceive an audience into thinking otherwise.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    An established artist's work is often something like a signature; seeing it associated with something often implies to the artist's audience that the artist agrees with / endorses / works in cooperation with whatever thing. Imitating Waits's voice & music to stamp his signature on your product is, in my opinion, fraudulent - they knew that he did not wish to endorse what they were selling and chose to deceive an audience into thinking otherwise.

    Hence why musicians sending requests to Republican candidates to not use their music at public events is a regular occurrence.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Feral wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    I think that most philosophy departments would say that plagiarism is unethical.

    Or at the very least passing someone else's work off as your own would be lying and mind giving up honesty for piracy is a thing you can do but I don't see many people getting on board with that.

    Plagiarism in an academic context is unethical for very different reasons than copyright infringement. Plagiarism is bad because the purpose of an academic exercise is to gauge my grasp of the material, not to incentivize the creation of more material.

    Example: Hiring a ghost writer for my autobiography is fine from a copyright perspective. It isn't fine from an academic integrity perspective.

    But the same paper showing the same amount of grasp for a material can be plagerism or not depending on proper citing.

    Edit: also, I was talking more about ghostwritten medical journals and whatnot which again doesn't change anything about the competency of people who did the research or the accuracy of the work

    rockrnger on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    An established artist's work is often something like a signature; seeing it associated with something often implies to the artist's audience that the artist agrees with / endorses / works in cooperation with whatever thing. Imitating Waits's voice & music to stamp his signature on your product is, in my opinion, fraudulent - they knew that he did not wish to endorse what they were selling and chose to deceive an audience into thinking otherwise.

    Hence why musicians sending requests to Republican candidates to not use their music at public events is a regular occurrence.

    But in that case the candidates are using actual music, which is just clear unauthorized use.

    Note that in the Tom Waits case he alleged false endorsement and misappropriation of his voice, and won those. It was not a matter of copyright infringement. (He didn't/doesn't own the copyrights of the song in question.) Frito-Lay was at fault because they intentionally tried to make it look like Waits endorsed their product, not because they used his song. (Which they didn't.) It's also not an issue of fair use, since trying to look like the thing you're copying and being transformative are mutually exclusive.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    You should have used a word other than stolen, as it isn't an accurate term and it colours any discussion to be had from that point on.

    No, not in this case. I'm not talking about the works themselves - I mean YouTube content creators are literally having their revenue stolen by two bit crooks. Like, actual physical money that they are supposed to be earning on ad impressions is stolen and/or destroyed by people who falsely flag the videos.

    Whether or not IP can be 'stolen' is tangential to the topic, because what is actually being stolen right now via abuse of the DMCA system is cold hard cash.

    This is a reasonable use then.

    But the use within the Tom Waits fable is not.

    Yes, but the story of Tom Waits also involved goblins, and while I hate to say it, I don't think actual goblins were involved. :(


    ...I am curious, though: do you think what Frito-Lay did in that instance was ethically fine?

    Absolutely I do. Which aspects do you think unethical?

    An established artist's work is often something like a signature; seeing it associated with something often implies to the artist's audience that the artist agrees with / endorses / works in cooperation with whatever thing. Imitating Waits's voice & music to stamp his signature on your product is, in my opinion, fraudulent - they knew that he did not wish to endorse what they were selling and chose to deceive an audience into thinking otherwise.

    Hence why musicians sending requests to Republican candidates to not use their music at public events is a regular occurrence.

    But in that case the candidates are using actual music, which is just clear unauthorized use.

    Note that in the Tom Waits case he alleged false endorsement and misappropriation of his voice, and won those. It was not a matter of copyright infringement. (He didn't/doesn't own the copyrights of the song in question.) Frito-Lay was at fault because they intentionally tried to make it look like Waits endorsed their product, not because they used his song. (Which they didn't.) It's also not an issue of fair use, since trying to look like the thing you're copying and being transformative are mutually exclusive.

    Interestingly, Huey Lewis did something similar over the Ghostbusters theme, which in part lead him to do "The Power of Love" for Back to the Future.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Having watched this unfold in different arenas for the past few years, I have a suspicion that YouTube and Google are wanting to be sued.

    Ever since the non-disclosed agreement to settle Viacom v YouTube, YT/Google have been getting more and more of the big 6 on their side in different ways. Most visibly in terms of books/magazines & music. That stuff didn't come with a monetary price tag alone. My guess, given how things have gone, was for Google to reign in YT and turn it into something more television-y. I feel that it's safe to say that we've all seen that happen in the last 5 to 6 years. Which to my mind means that the small and medium sized (by YT standards) creators are going to have a fairly rough time of it going forward.

    What it comes down to, I think Google wants something along the lines of a Sony v Universal to happen in their favor. They're poking the content producers hoping that something or someone gets pissed enough to sue them over it.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Just stumbled upon a video pretty relevant to this thread:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eHbJ9U8YLY

    These are the people behind the DragonBall Z Abridged videos. They just recently got hit by a DMCA takedown blitz which killed their channel. They go into detail on this in the video but it appear these complaints were not filed by the content owners who are generally supportive of Team Four Star.

    I'm trying to decide how horrible it would be to attach a nominal cost to a DMCA takedown request. Possibly something like a bond that would be refunded if the takedown is upheld. It would obviously require modifying the law itself.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    Honestly the current issue with youtube feels less to do with the legal situation around copyright and fair use (though obviously that's not great) and more around the fact that Youtube just doesn't give a shit about fighting for what are functionally employees unless they get to beat up some petty one man dev studio rather than a big corporation.

    Like a whole bunch of the issues with youtube isn't assholes making fake claims, or corporations overstepping what counts as fair use. It's that Youtube lets that happen and assumes the channel is the guilty party. Often with little to no way to get a timely appeal.

  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Honestly the current issue with youtube feels less to do with the legal situation around copyright and fair use (though obviously that's not great) and more around the fact that Youtube just doesn't give a shit about fighting for what are functionally employees unless they get to beat up some petty one man dev studio rather than a big corporation.

    Like a whole bunch of the issues with youtube isn't assholes making fake claims, or corporations overstepping what counts as fair use. It's that Youtube lets that happen and assumes the channel is the guilty party. Often with little to no way to get a timely appeal.

    There's liability if they fail to follow a valid claim, there's no liability the other way, ergo given the volume it's far more likely to just default to shutdown and review when they get around to it

Sign In or Register to comment.