from Hacker News

Sony sends copyright notices to TV Museum about shows 40 to 60 years old

by CoBE10 on 9/4/23, 11:02 AM with 214 comments

  • by mopenstein on 9/4/23, 11:59 AM

    They do encode old content but also add the biggest and ugliest watermark in the lower third of the media advertising their website in everyone of the videos. Doesn't preservation usually mean not destroying the works with tacky advertisements that can't be removed without permanently altering the original content?

    I consume (and share) a lot of old video and I don't see this as a big loss since you can't enjoy the original works as they were intended to be.

  • by Moggie100 on 9/4/23, 11:49 AM

    The title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel would make the museum ‘die’ then they’re simply not preserving the data properly.

    I’m not sure why folks seem to think that Youtube is a good place to archive anything - sure its a good distribution system, but time and time again we see that a handful of malicious actors can shut down entire channels with relative ease.

    I would hope that these videos are backed up somewhere else on any of the many bulk cloud storage providers out there B2, AWS, Google cloud storage, etc. etc. etc. and could, with some effort be made available elsewhere than Youtube, or restored to the platform after the current storm dies down.

  • by ta1243 on 9/4/23, 12:58 PM

    "Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those transmissions were removed from YouTube for violating Sony copyrights, with MCCTv receiving a strike"

    Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does.

    Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences.

  • by elzbardico on 9/4/23, 2:21 PM

    Good luck counting on Sony's goodwill. Historically, Sony has been probably the most aggressive and vicious media company when it comes to copyright.

    I refuse buying a Play Station specifically because I despise Sony Corporation for that.

  • by helsinkiandrew on 9/4/23, 4:33 PM

    I may have missed something but the two take down notices they show are for the Bewitched TV show. They may be old but are still being shown on television and sold on AppleTV/Amazon etc. - they are still making money for the owner.

    I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t expect a takedown notice for posting them or similar shows on YouTube.

  • by jan_Sate on 9/4/23, 11:37 AM

    That's a bummer. Maybe they could upload the videos to the Internet Archive?

  • by PreInternet01 on 9/4/23, 2:50 PM

    YouTube is not the problem here: its way of handling copyright claims, no matter how much you dislike it, is the only reason it survived this far.

    Would it be nice if they added a 'monetize, but don't penalize the uploader, since this is really not something we care about that deeply' option for content owners? Sure.

    But the real solution is in copyright law reform, specifically in mandatory licensing. If, say, what a content owner can charge for a license to certain content is, like, 20% of their total revenue for that particular content over the past 5 years, that would solve an awful lot of problems. Plus, make cross-provider access to certain other content a lot more convenient for consumers.

  • by londons_explore on 9/4/23, 11:45 AM

    Aren't these processes mostly automated? Is it possible that not a single human has so far been involved on behalf of the copyright holder?

  • by TekMol on 9/4/23, 2:10 PM

    Why is YouTube needed for this project?

    Why not just put all those videos on a webserver?

  • by chiefalchemist on 9/4/23, 12:44 PM

    Isn't part of the copyright law that companies must defend their right in the short-term, else it's effectively forfeiting the protection in the future? In order words, you can't cherry pick. They have to be thorough and consist, else they're potentially creating a loop hole; a loop hole that might hang themselves.

    Note: Not defending Sony or any Big Inc, simply wonder how the law is written and how that drives corporate behavior.

  • by prirun on 9/4/23, 3:46 PM

    I would review this link about disputing the DMCA copyright claims against your museum:

    https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...

    IANAL, but IMO, you have several points in your favor to argue that yours is "fair use":

    1. You're not (I presume) making money from it

    2. Part of it is news, which is more likely to be fair use than creative works.

    3. The content is old and the quality is poor compared to today's standards.

    4. The current market value of the content is not very high. It's not like you are publishing the upcoming Dune sequel. Current market value and whether you are taking away money from the copyright owner are considerations in determining fair use.

    If you are actually setup as a museum or online library, I would think that would bolster your case even further that this is fair use.

    As I said, I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion. However, I do think people are much too quick to cave on these automated DMCA takedowns. If you do dispute it, what's the likelihood this Indian company or Sony is going to sue you? Whether you are willing to take that risk is of course your decision, but their entire operation would fall apart if everyone disputed their claims. It only works because everyone caves immediately.

  • by edgarvaldes on 9/4/23, 8:53 PM

    I dream of the day when the archiving of the web is no longer a problem: bandwith, storage, tagging, search, etc. All the videos, all the tutorials, all the books, everything archived and retrievable for posterity.

  • by yaur on 9/4/23, 5:05 PM

    Is this MBC[1] or a different Chicago based classic tv museum?

    [1] https://www.museum.tv/

  • by mavu on 9/4/23, 12:17 PM

    It's almost as if a for-profit company is not a reliable place for things that are not done for profit. Weird.

  • by 1970-01-01 on 9/4/23, 12:43 PM

    We need a senator to fix this.

    YouTube is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be copyright and if they are copyright, when you put your video in, it gets in line, and it's going to be taken down by anyone that holds onto enormous amounts of copyright material, enormous amounts of copyright of material.

  • by alanjay on 9/4/23, 3:10 PM

    This the problem with YouTube- they're judge, jury and executioner.

    If you dispute the claim its judged by checks notes the person who claimed copyright.

    Even if the original work is 120 - yes, 120 - years old!

    See first comment on

    https://youtu.be/HFq7XpFmYo4