Copyright Lecture Taken Offline By YouTube Copyright Complaint

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How funny is this? A Harvard Law professor's lecture about music copyrights has been taken down after a copyright claim was filed by Sony Music


YouTube has removed access to a copyright lecture from Harvard Law professor William Fisher, following a takedown request from Sony Music. While the online course includes snippets of well-known Jimi Hendrix covers, the clearly educational use makes this a perfect example of fair use.
 
The Nostalgia Critic talks about similar things happening here:


Definitely worth the watch.
 
You should be able to sue whoever files a false or misleading take down. Or maybe you should loose all copyright to said material. yeah we know that will never happen......
 
aOVYgLv_700b.jpg
 
Red Falcon said:
Definitely worth the watch.
Click to expand...

Not one bit. Hacks like him use almost nothing but other people's copyrighted materials in their videos. They do nothing original and hide behind a gross misinterpretation of "fair use."

Its Google/YouTube's service and they can do as they please. He has no rights to post videos there.
 
Osirus said:
Not one bit. Hacks like him use almost nothing but other people's copyrighted materials in their videos. They do nothing original and hide behind a gross misinterpretation of "fair use."

Its Google/YouTube's service and they can do as they please. He has no rights to post videos there.
Click to expand...

Gr8 B8 M8!
 
rudedog said:
You should be able to sue whoever files a false or misleading take down. Or maybe you should loose all copyright to said material. yeah we know that will never happen......
Click to expand...

This is America. That means you can sue anyone for practically anything. But until the law changes suing the companies that file false takedowns wouldn't accomplish much other than giving even more money to lawyers.

And all that is really needed is a change to the law that requires an actual human being to review a takedown before it is issued. It shouldn't be allowed to be a totally automatic process.
 
Dwango said:
This is America. That means you can sue anyone for practically anything. But until the law changes suing the companies that file false takedowns wouldn't accomplish much other than giving even more money to lawyers.

And all that is really needed is a change to the law that requires an actual human being to review a takedown before it is issued. It shouldn't be allowed to be a totally automatic process.
Click to expand...

There is already precedence. Just a while ago a judge ruled that Fair Use has to be taken into consideration in these cases. Details are on the NC video above. Problem is nobody cares since its hard to enforce. The system is so easily abusable and there is a lot of money changing hands with it, and the victims are helpless to defend themselves. Google is (most likely) free of legal blame so they would have to sue the false claim abusers one by one individually. The whole system needs a redesign, problem is making Google care enough to do it. They get their ad dollars either way. The human intervention you mentioned is one good way but since there are so many false claims it is an impossibility. There needs to be repercussions to false claims to weed them out considerably so only potential real ones remain. Only then can a human realistically intervene.
 
rudedog said:
You should be able to sue whoever files a false or misleading take down. Or maybe you should loose all copyright to said material. yeah we know that will never happen......
Click to expand...

If it ever happens to me, I probably should. Take it to the Supreme Court. Then the RIAA/MPAA will buy/strongarm the judge out to turn down the case.

If anything, people using videos makes me totally stoked about listening to and possibly buying a song. Many songs I've never heard of other than people using and promoting them in their videos. Many times a song that I thought was "meh" turns into one of my favorites because of a cool video. The memory of the video is captured in the song and I seek it out. Free advertising. Maybe we should charge for advertising their music in our videos. They are the ones making money off of it.
 
MaZa said:
There is already precedence. Just a while ago a judge ruled that Fair Use has to be taken into consideration in these cases. Details are on the NC video above. Problem is nobody cares since its hard to enforce. The system is so easily abusable and there is a lot of money changing hands with it, and the victims are helpless to defend themselves. Google is (most likely) free of legal blame so they would have to sue the false claim abusers one by one individually. The whole system needs a redesign, problem is making Google care enough to do it. They get their ad dollars either way. The human intervention you mentioned is one good way but since there are so many false claims it is an impossibility. There needs to be repercussions to false claims to weed them out considerably so only potential real ones remain. Only then can a human realistically intervene.
Click to expand...

The human intervention is not an impossibility just because there are so many claims. That is a cop out used by the corporations that just want an easy/cheap way to protect their properties and rights. The thing is if your property is that important to you cheap/easy shouldn't be what you default to in order to protect your rights. It should cost something on your behalf to instigate those protections. Hiring a small staff of people and training them to say yay or nay on a takedown notice should be the minimum required of you as a copyright holder. Google has to respond to the takedowns because not doing so means they would lose their safe harbor protections under the law and they have started ponying up lawyers to defend some of their more prominent creators against bad takedowns but until someone wins a case and gets awarded major damages nothing will change. There is a penalty in the law for issuing takedowns in bad faith but when it's some major corporation doing the issuing against some little YouTuber with no law team backing them the corporation wins by default because it's too expensive to fight.
 
Osirus said:
Not one bit. Hacks like him use almost nothing but other people's copyrighted materials in their videos. They do nothing original and hide behind a gross misinterpretation of "fair use."

Its Google/YouTube's service and they can do as they please. He has no rights to post videos there.
Click to expand...

Oh really, because this copyright attorney would seem to say otherwise:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top