this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
356 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66231 readers
5419 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
356
Copyright madness: YouTube seems to doubt whether Shakespeare is in the public domain. (walledculture.org)
submitted 4 weeks ago by Cat@ponder.cat to c/technology@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This extraordinary saga of takedown notices for performances of Shakespeare show that 27 years after it was passed, the DMCA is still not fit for purpose. The companies like Google that are tasked with implementing it often do so in the most desultory way. There is an underlying assumption that claimed infringements are valid, an injustice compound by an arrogant indifference to the rights of ordinary citizens who find themselves caught up in a complex copyright system that is stacked against them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] muelltonne@feddit.org 20 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Read the article - in this case the problem is YouTube not reacting to the DMCA counterclaim.

he promptly sent YouTube a counter-notice, as the DMCA contemplates, and assumed that would the end of the matter. After all, he reasoned, Shakespeare is in the public domain, and besides, Shakespeare by the Seas assured him that it had not relied on Coallier’s claimed version of the Shakespeare plays in crafting the script for its performances; indeed, Shakespeare by the Sea had never heard of Coallier or seen his supposed copyrighted versions of Shakespeare, and hence could not have copied them. Even so, YouTube, ignoring the DMCA’s procedures, refused to honor his counter-notice or even forward the notice to Coallier so that Coallier could file suit for copyright infringement. Instead, it issued a copyright strike against Underwood’s channel and told him that he would have to work things out with Coallier.

All they had to do was to (and are legally required to do) is forwarding that counterclaim and then restore the content. Then the crazy dude claiming to own the copyrights to Shakespeare could try to sue the uploader. A sane legal system should throw out that quickly.

But instead YouTube didn't forward that message, did issue its own copyright strike and might ban your account if you get too many of those strikes and then told them to negotiate with some nutcase.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 9 points 4 weeks ago

I read it. I disagree with your interpretation.

It's a DMCA issue in that the current set of regulations puts the onus on the poster and the effective enforcement on the platform.

Sure, Youtube is way less zealous in protecting the rights of the genuine content creators than those of even illegitimate claimants... but that's by design. If they make a mistake and enforce too strictly they will not likely get sued at all, and if they do the damages will be low. If they do the opposite on a large scale the threat, at the time the DMCA was being hashed out, was becoming directly liable for any and all copyrighted content they host by accident.

The regulation isn't fit for purpose and never has been. Google's extreme lack of diligence in protecting the public domain (and whatever copyright exceptions are applicable) is a result of this. I don't like Google or their practices in general. They definitely don't spend enough on direct support, be it on copyright or on security issues. In this case, being honest with you, I'd err on the same side they do, even if there is a secondary issue with how little funding they put on required support and assessment of edge cases beyond their algorithmic solutions.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 4 weeks ago

There's no consequences to filling out a false claim. That's been a problem with the DMCA that existed even before YouTube.