AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-01-31, 10:55   Link #1
Triple_R
Ho Ho Honoka!
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

For awhile now, I've been disappointed in what I view as the slow but steady degradation of YouTube's value as it becomes ever more nerfed by modern copyright law and "Intellectual Property" laws.

Not that long ago I could put up almost any AMV on YouTube, and it would be viewable to everybody all around the world. Now such an AMV is typically instant blocked in "some countries" (almost invariably including the ones where most potential viewers are living in).

As annoying as I found this, I could at least see where music companies are coming from on this (anime companies I really couldn't see having much basis here). Yes, it is an entire song used in the AMV, after all. A song that they might want to sell for the same price as a cup of coffee through an online seller like iTunes.


However, late last night I ran into what is likely the most asinine case of a YouTube takedown I've ever experienced.

I had recently discovered on YouTube a meme called "Guile's Theme Goes With Everything", referring to the theme song of playable Street Fighter character Guile. Just for some shits and giggles, I tried Guile's theme with a few scenes from the last episode of Madoka Magica.

So for all intents and purposes I created a spoof video involving about 5 minutes of an anime episode, and a 4 minute theme song. Yes, the video is admittedly very spoilerrific, but it has only about a quarter of an anime episode in it. The "song" is the theme instrumental of a video game character.

I put that up on YouTube, and not only was it blocked from "some countries", it was completely deleted by YouTube.

Because I guess seeing a few minutes of raw Madoka Magica (no subtitles) done to a video game character's theme music is going to totally kill sales for Madoka Magica and Street Fighter games...




To see the sales-crushing mash-up vid in question, so you can judge its financially destructive nature for yourself, you can download it from here.


Friends, this is completely ridiculous. There's just no other way to put it. It's madness. It's actual madness.

And it's already here, without PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, or any of the rest.


So I don't think it's enough any more to simply react to bad copyright, trademark, or intellectual property bills/acts when they come up.

No, I think it's time to go on the offensive, partly to get back what has already been lost, if it's at all possible.

There's also the fact that, in politics, when you simply react to what your opponent is doing, you'll inevitably lose ground over time. This is because every fight you win doesn't cause your opponent to lose ground, but every fight you lose causes your opponent to gain ground. Taking a purely defensive or reactive approach in politics will not be fruitful in the long-term.


So, maybe we should try to think of ways to go on the offensive here. Maybe we should think of ways of creating a paradigm shift in how copyrights, trademarks, and IP are viewed, both legally and by society as a whole.

I don't have any easy answers right now, that's for sure, just some vague and broad ideas. But I would be interested to know what everybody here thinks.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 11:16   Link #2
Kimidori
Let's Play
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 20
it not like youtube could just NOT delete them anyway, keeping those video may lead them to the same fate as megaupload.

btw, I'm will try do some altering effect to your video to bypass the copyright detection like I did with madoka op and ed here but I have to go to bed now and have school in the morning so I'm afraid you'll have to wait for... 12 hours.

Last edited by Kimidori; 2014-03-08 at 08:28.
Kimidori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 11:21   Link #3
Triple_R
Ho Ho Honoka!
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by naamio View Post
it not like youtube have any way to NOT delete them anyway, keep those video may lead them to the same fate as megaupload.
I'm not necessarily blaming YouTube directly. I'm just saying that any law or regulation which forces them to take down spoof videos that aren't even remotely close to causing lost sales is a poorly worded law/regulation that needs to be fixed.


Quote:

btw, i'm will try do some altering effect to your video to bypass the copyright detection like i did with madoka op and ed here but i'm have to go to bed now and have school in the morning so i afraid you'll have to wait for... 12 hour
Well, thank you for that! That's very good of you.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 12:14   Link #4
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
There's also the fact that, in politics, when you simply react to what your opponent is doing, you'll inevitably lose ground over time. This is because every fight you win doesn't cause your opponent to lose ground, but every fight you lose causes your opponent to gain ground. Taking a purely defensive or reactive approach in politics will not be fruitful in the long-term.
One can hope that copyright holders would shoot themselves in the foot: Gingrich sued for using Eye of the Tiger

This could prove to be a good topic as it helps to widen the scope of discussion beyond what's currently raging in the Sopa/Acta threads, where the outrage tends to overshadow the underlying concerns about ownership and fair use.

For a start, I do believe in the concept of "intellectual property" and I further believe that it ought to be protected. The question is to what extent? At this point, I feel that existing laws have swung too far in favour of owners.

It's a huge issue that requires quite a bit of reading to keep up to date. I'll just leave two worthwhile links for others to explore in the meantime:

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2012-01-31 at 12:30.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 13:21   Link #5
Triple_R
Ho Ho Honoka!
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
One can hope that copyright holders would shoot themselves in the foot: Gingrich sued for using Eye of the Tiger
Well, if the Composer of Eye of the Tiger doesn't want his musical creation to be associated with Gingrich's politics (and by extension, with Gingrich himself), then I think it's reasonable for Gingrich to be issued a "Cease and Desist" order. But suing him over it does seem excessive, and yeah, this is probably a case of a copyright holder shooting himself in the foot.


Quote:
This could prove to be a good topic as it helps to widen the scope of discussion beyond what's currently raging in the Sopa/Acta threads, where the outrage tends to overshadow the underlying concerns about ownership and fair use.
That's the key term, in my view. "Fair use".


Quote:

For a start, I do believe in the concept of "intellectual property" and I further believe that it ought to be protected. The question is to what extent? At this point, I feel that existing laws have swung too far in favour of owners.
I agree that existing laws have swung too far in favour of owners. I do think that it's important for creators (musicians, artists, writers, etc...) to have financial incentive to create what they create, so there are legitimate financial investments here that should be protected through some means at least.

So, with any case of copyright infringement, I don't think the question should simply be "Does this constitute copyright infringement?" but rather "Does this undermine the financial investment of the holder of the copyrighted material displayed here?"

In other words, I think that a burden of proof should be placed on people issuing claims of copyright infringement that the infringing material will result in lost sales. After all, that's what really is at issue here.

Now I can imagine some cases where this burden of proof can be met. If the copyrighted material is new, a complete copy, can only be legally accessed through some means of payment, and this material is disseminated to a sufficiently large number of people, I can certainly see a case here. So, for example, if someone pirates the next Batman movie as soon as it hits theaters, and puts it up on a site to be downloaded by millions, then yes, some sales have probably been lost here.

But for songs of a certain age, for parts of anime episodes, and for small pieces of video game content, I really don't think any of this comes even close to representing lost sales.


Copyright shouldn't turn every tiny bit of professionally made content into a kind of forbidden fruit where nobody is allowed to see it, touch it, ear it, mix it with anything else, etc...

Copyright should simply serve the goal of reasonably ensuring that the financial investments of creators and copyright holders are protected.


I think that more or less sums up my take on it.
__________________

Last edited by Triple_R; 2012-01-31 at 13:59.
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 14:19   Link #6
totoum
Me at work
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 27
Send a message via MSN to totoum
The automatic blocking that happens right after you upload something is different from recieving a takedown notice,the former is a lot easier to deal with than the latter.

See this vid:

__________________
totoum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 15:42   Link #7
Endless Soul
Megane girl fan
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Age: 46
Did you try making the video with the image backwards? I know a lot of uploaders use that as a get-around-the-copyright deal.

Endless "sdrawkcab" Soul
__________________
VF-19 and VF-22S from Macross Plus
Signature by ganbaru
Endless Soul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 17:07   Link #8
dredmorte
Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
You believe in intellectual propriety. There's your problem.

Propriety is a natural right that represents a scarce resource, fruit of ones labor and thusly, a part of ones life. To take someones propriety is to take someones life.

Intellectual propriety is a government issued and guaranteed temporary monopoly over the creation and/or distribution of a non scarce resource (usually an idea).

In the old days, you needed scarce resources (like books and discs) to distribute non scarce resources (story, music, etc) so it wasn't as big an issue. But today you have Internet and all visual and audio information can be shared super fast at near zero cost. Intellectual propriety is, in a way, obsolete.

The "artists must make money" argument is only going to last so long...

But just like the guilds of centuries past, it'll take many decades maybe even centuries for our civilization to give up on IP.
dredmorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 17:48   Link #9
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
^You are absolutely right. IP is a monopoly in economic terms. And if one subscribes to classical economics, a monopoly is inherently inefficient, and should be maintained only so far as the benefits, moral or economic, outweight the losses.

Intellectual Property evolved as a concept over the problem of, as the parlance of the age would have put it, compensating genius. It was a problem of finding a model that would sufficiently allow a decent livelihood to artists, replacing the old patronage model, in an increasingly commercial world with easier access to printing presses. It is a product of capitalism, not an inherent Right, even if one is a believer of the notion of Natural Rights.

The problem, so the founders of the concept argued, was entirely utilitarian. IP certainly wasn't one of the great Natural Rights of Man proselytized by the philosophes of the Enlightenment. The conversations were about balancing individual needs ("starving author") with societal benefits of the free flow of ideas.

Even in eras where hands were cut off from thieves, scribes copying, imitating, "plagiarizing" the works of previous generations were never considered to have been doing anything wrong. Indeed in European Civilization, where IP is born, the period which saw its birth was also the height of neoclassicism, when the most prestigious literary activity was the conscious imitation of the Ancients! Would Pindar sue for the use of his Ode? Would Virgil object to the form of The Rape of the Lock? Intellectual Property is invented, just as laws were invented; they serve utilitarian purposes, and may be based on, and influence, morals, but they are not morals.

One feels of course, instinctively, that "genius" should be justly rewarded, and work should be returned with value. It is a concept that has been ingrained in many societies for millenia, and arguably fits well with common human impulses. IP as a moral right, however, has not been rooted nearly so deeply -- it certainly is already rooted somewhat, with the ever expanding notion of IP and the rhetoric of "theft," but with the birth of the Internet, the gangrenous growth of the concept of IP, and the increasingly outrageous actions taken in its defense, we may be observing whole new generations growing up with increasingly little respect for the notion of Intellectual Property as a moral right. One respects it only so far as one is vulnerable to persecution for actions against it, or more amiably for a personal interest in the well-being of particular authors, artists, and companies, not because it is ingrained into one's moral fabric.

I have stated my case before in one of the SOPA/PIPA threads, but the recent developments have made me a radical in this aspect. I was not born a pirate, or even with any inclination against IP. But now I care not for IP. I will not contribute to its maintenance. I will take pleasure in its defacement. There are already plenty of ideas, of arts, of technological advances, and they must flow and flow freely. Then society will readjust, and the pendulum may swing back again somewhere "more reasonable." I may become more reasonable then.

Right now, however, the Internet is full of rhetoric of anti-government, anti-corporate resistance, of struggle, with a hint of war (see one of those LOTR spoofs). I'm fully aware of it, and shamelessly contribute my share. Why not? It *is* war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dredmorte View Post
But just like the guilds of centuries past, it'll take many decades maybe even centuries for our civilization to give up on IP.
One of the most important untold stories of the French Revolution is that, when they declared they were "tearing down all privileges," they did initially mean all privileges. The guilds which were the basis of French urban economy were as much victims of that particular revolution as the fat, powdered aristocrats.

Maybe, just maybe...

Admittedly, most European countries had less of an "epic time" clearing out the guilds and the decades and centuries statement applies.

P.S. Poor Triple_R. I welcome thee among the ranks of the victims. Now would you like to sign here, and here, and join our Resistance?
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 18:28   Link #10
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42į 10' N (Latitude) 87į 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
That's the key term, in my view. "Fair use".
Copyright duration:

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

There's a general list on lengths of copyright and expiration.

For media items. The time it takes for media items to enter public domain: should be 20 years. Maybe even 30 years tops. Then they get dumped into public domain. The existing lengths do not make sense. Media is replaceable and is constantly replaced year-after-year.

For example:

Under "Sound Recordings Published in the United States":

Spoiler:


Really? 95 years from publication? By that point, few if any would care if such media work even exists. I'll be damned if anyone remembers who Cyndi Lauper is 70 years from now.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 21:22   Link #11
sa547
Senior Member
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philippines
Age: 38
About the only things you can upload to Youtube, it seems, are protest videos, political satires, video blogs, DIY news footage, and anything they deem as "original" (no licensed music unless it's your own composition).

I gave up on trying to upload AMVs there (three of them have been flagged), reckoning that I can upload elsewhere. A friend of mine who uploaded Fraps footage of his online gameplay recaps (he's an Audition player; it's a DDR-like MMO) suddenly had his YT account blocked, despite that the game he played used music that was legitimately licensed to the game developer (Nexon).

Something else struck me: despite that they're opposing forces in the SOPA/PIPA controversy, it is in Youtube that the record companies are dealing with Google by persuading the latter to control the former's content.

Edit: thought of listening to Korn after Another, but all I got is... "The uploader has not made this video available in your country."

Ah, well, I'll open my music collection and listen from there.
__________________
sa547 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-31, 21:54   Link #12
djmaca
My Girl ↓
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Update: Ortigas, Pasig, Phillippines
Age: 27
You know, there are other sites where you can upload that. Unless we can change how copyright is supposed to be Youtube's hands are pretty much tied up.
djmaca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 07:32   Link #13
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 26
With regards to copyright, I still think the 10% rule is pretty much just nice and enough. Intellectual property should protected, but not hogged.

The way SOPA and PIPA are doing is HOGGING creations from being turned into part of another piece of entertainment. It is stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

IP laws should be used as a second choice should some dumb judge throw a patent rights case out of the window and encourage the proliferation of quality-centric technology (i.e medical equipment - a single fault can KILL people) into cheap and mass produced, but inferior goods that damage the inventor's reputation.

Also, they shouldn't be included in any trade agreement. Take the TPP for example, including the copyright violation clause is just retarded. With the advent of the Internet, why should media still be distributed through regular mediums? An old friend of mine put it aptly, "TPP = Total Penis Penetration. Signing it is equivalent to offering your orifice to be f***ed by Big Media, the representatives sent by their countries must have been masosadists."

Nonetheless, IP protection should have limits, in terms of time horizon to let technology be superseded by superior ones (Moore's law), and to prevent artistic works from being treated like patents. They aren't, FFS.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 08:11   Link #14
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
This is pretty much the topic we touched on this page. Well, at least I was thinking of it.

To summarize: IP is not what we should be even discussing now. We can do that once we are back into sane levels of legal measures. Right now, it should be about fighting back against the attacks on our freedom, regardless of what topic they may hide behind.

This whole IP thing has crossed into ludicrous territory years ago. It needs to be set back completely first. We can not build anything reasonable on top of what crazy legislature we already have.
Dhomochevsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 20:51   Link #15
Triple_R
Ho Ho Honoka!
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by totoum View Post
The automatic blocking that happens right after you upload something is different from recieving a takedown notice,the former is a lot easier to deal with than the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless Soul View Post
Did you try making the video with the image backwards? I know a lot of uploaders use that as a get-around-the-copyright deal.

Endless "sdrawkcab" Soul
Thanks for the helpful info and suggestions. I'll keep them in mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post

Right now, however, the Internet is full of rhetoric of anti-government, anti-corporate resistance, of struggle, with a hint of war (see one of those LOTR spoofs). I'm fully aware of it, and shamelessly contribute my share. Why not? It *is* war.
That's the impression I get, yes.

I think that the pro-IP big business/corporate lobbyist side isn't even trying to balance out the legitimate financial investments of creators and copyright holders with what's best for society as a whole. This is becoming increasingly obvious to me on an almost week-by-week basis.

It does seem like the pro-IP side of the issue is trying to force ever more draconian measures down the throats of all of us, regardless of how negatively that impacts the vast majority of us. The pro-IP side seems to have an agenda that goes well-beyond simply ensuring that creators are justly compensated for their creations.

And given how over-reaching and poorly worded bills/acts like ACTA, PIPA, and SOPA are, it doesn't appear like the pro-IP side is willing to negotiate, or compromise. OTOH, nor does it appear like they have any intention of ceasing attempts to implement their agendas. It seems like these extreme anti-piracy measures just never go away, as the people pushing for them never stop trying, even when their ideas are soundly rejected over and over and over again.

So, yes, this is basically a war. I really do think that 20 to 30 years down the line, the society of that time will be greatly impacted by the results of these copyright/IP "wars". If the pro-IP side wins, I think it'll simply be horrible for the vast majority of us. It will squash a lot of creativity and possibly even "break the internet".

So since the opposition simply can't be negotiated with, the only option is to fight back, and to hopefully "win". Then, yes, we can hopefully try to find something that's reasonable and well-balanced.

Quote:
Now would you like to sign here, and here, and join our Resistance?
Definitely. Simply for the internet to reach anything remotely close to its full potential, the pro-IP side needs to be stopped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
Copyright duration:

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

There's a general list on lengths of copyright and expiration.

For media items. The time it takes for media items to enter public domain: should be 20 years. Maybe even 30 years tops. Then they get dumped into public domain.
Agreed. I think this is a big part of the problem.

Like Irenicus pointed out, much of artwork is about taking what came before, and updating it or putting a new spin on it. I wonder sometimes what an aspiring comic book artist/writer could do if he could write Batman or Superman or Spiderman comics. He may well create something better than what DC or Marvel put out.

If you look at Japan, their long-standing tolerance, if not outright encouragement, of derivative works has really enabled the best character concepts and series premises to be used to their fullest potential.

Quote:

Really? 95 years from publication? By that point, few if any would care if such media work even exists. I'll be damned if anyone remembers who Cyndi Lauper is 70 years from now.
If they do, it'll only be because they remember Hulk Hogan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
This is pretty much the topic we touched on this page. Well, at least I was thinking of it.

To summarize: IP is not what we should be even discussing now. We can do that once we are back into sane levels of legal measures. Right now, it should be about fighting back against the attacks on our freedom, regardless of what topic they may hide behind.

This whole IP thing has crossed into ludicrous territory years ago. It needs to be set back completely first. We can not build anything reasonable on top of what crazy legislature we already have.
Agreed. A lot of things need to be rolled back before we can set a new, sensible foundation.


Thanks to everyone for their helpful and informative replies.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-27, 20:28   Link #16
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimeFan188 View Post
Uncle Sam Wants You! Ö to Combat Online Piracy:

"The Obama administration is apparently out of ideas on how to protect Big Content
from online piracy. So now itís asking for your help.

Victoria Espinel, the nationís copyright czar, reached out to Wired late Monday to
explain that Uncle Sam is seeking the publicís input for ideas on how to combat
intellectual property theft."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-sam-piracy/
Abolish all forms of copyright and patent laws internationally
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-27, 20:51   Link #17
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
^yeah, I hear that argument all the time from people who don't seem to realize, death of contents is a lose-lose for every party involved.
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-27, 20:53   Link #18
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Patents are more or less fine (if they are only like 17 years). Copyright for 75 is likely excessive.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-27, 21:10   Link #19
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Both would be fine if they were not resalable, inheritable, etc. In other words, if someone would profit financially, it should be the creator/invetor/etc. not an array of leeches who inflate prices and hide behind protectionist laws that harm the masses.
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-27, 21:40   Link #20
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
Both would be fine if they were not resalable, inheritable, etc. In other words, if someone would profit financially, it should be the creator/invetor/etc. not an array of leeches who inflate prices and hide behind protectionist laws that harm the masses.
This. Patents shouldn't be transferable, and they should not belong to corporations, but to the people who did the work.

Secondly, software patents should not exist. Copyright protection is sufficient for software. Patents do nothing in this area but hinder innovation and progress.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.