Spyke
kbin.social

obligatory copyright only exists so rich people can own more things they didnt create

86
RGB3x3reply
lemmy.world

There should be a copyright system that grants copyright only to those individuals who create the thing, not the corporations that published the thing.

I'm sure there's someone who will point out why that is a bad idea, but collective ownership seems like it would be a better way to apply takedown notices more appropriately. A takedown order needs to be voted on by the owners of the thing being potentially infringed upon and if the majority does not think that something violates copyright, then the takedown notice will not be sent.

20
lemmy.one

And then only to the human creator who intends to bring the item to market. No more patent trolls.

7

That's patent law, which is something different entirely. Copyright only covers actual works, like books, video games, and TV shows, so there's really no problem with patent trolls here. Patent law is a completely different set of problems.

The real issue is the DMCA, and YouTube's extremely loose acceptance requirements for a copyright claim. Basically, pretty much anyone can issue a copyright strike without actually providing proof that they own the work in the video, so the bar is really low.

1

IANAL but I think some of the problem is people are under the employ of said company when they create said thing and they have contracts that are setup that by default make that the company's IP over the individual.

6

I think the only issue here is how long copyright lasts. Originally, it was much shorter:

The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years.

And now it's 95 years, or the life of the author + 70 years, whichever is shorter. If we went back to the original copyright duration, we probably wouldn't have this issue, especially if the renewal required some proof of need.

I don't think the problem is corporations owning copyright, but how long copyright lasts.

5
lemmy.world

so.... it seems we can download an YouTube channel with

yt-dlp 'https://www.youtube.com/@FuzzyMemoriesTV/videos'

make sure yt-dlp is updated if you have errors yt-dlp -U.

I don't know if someone is seeding it.

13
lemmy.world

While I don't want the YouTube channel to be shut down, I couldn't imagine that YouTube is the only place this exists and it's the only place it can be hosted.

6
SeedyOnereply
lemmy.ca

You'd be surprised to realize what a pain in the ass it is to host a good deal of videos. There's more lost content (shows, movies and commercials) combined than archived data that exists today. Media was simply not kept and storage written over. Sadly, we're going to keep losing it.

19
clb92reply
feddit.dk

I don't know if you replied before I added my edit, but someone on Reddit downloaded it all and posted a torrent, for anyone interested.

2

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you want a social media site based around videos with a variety of features with high traffic, then sure. If you're just archiving stuff for the sake of it, then you can simply host static content.

There are also many other places to store stuff than YouTube.

5

You reached the end

TV Museum Will Die in 48 Hours Unless Sony Retracts YouTube Copyright Strikes | Spyke