Skanky Vamp
Sniffin' the Slayer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26,460
Considering Disney was a big proponent to getting this passed I think that's safe to say.
Sweeping new copyright measures poised to pass
- Thread starter Skanky Vamp
- Start date
Skanky Vamp
Sniffin' the Slayer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26,460
This isn't designed to help the "comon" person. They will still get screwed over. Just ask Anas Abdin.
M
M
Guest
With regards to Abdin, it's crap timing, but it's happened before. If he had been getting his frames and script copyrighted along the way, it would be less of an issue. There would be a registered timeline of development that could be argued in court, as others have successfully done before him. Of course, that's also a big expense.
I'm not saying this was designed for the little guy, nor am I saying it doesn't have problems, but there has been a problem in the art community for some time, and something like this, while flawed, is a step in the right direction. The problem had simply gotten too big for smaller artists to combat. The fact that corporations are pushing this is about the only way a change was going to happen.
Of course, there are ridiculous aspects of this plan, but I can't hate it all.
Ethan Reigns
Scooby
You are correct about greed – but not about who is doing the stealing. A band that I know (The Joys, based in London Ontario, about 100 miles west of here) was offered a contract and were excited about it - until they read the terms. The label wanted to:
They declined to sign and were still looking for a contract with acceptable terms when their lead guitarist decided he had had enough of the road and settled down to become a recording engineer, effectively ending the band. In fact, many signed bands are so upset with their CD revenue (they may get $1 from each CD sale and the label gets the rest but some rap stars got as little as 31 cents) that the bands recommend their fans download songs for free. One of the Joys songs, “Do I”, has been selected as the theme for a new television program and was at the end of the movie "Cake", so they are using every other avenue available. She ended up getting a distribution deal to put her music out there but radio ignored her because they do not want to be seen as going around the labels who determine who gets early releases of new music. Distribution is the musical equivalent of Book Baby and other vanity presses for book publishing.
This is nothing new. Atlantic records started as a competitor to Mercury in the 1950's with a promise that the artist would get 5 percent of sales when Mercury was offering 7 percent. So why did Atlantic survive and not Mercury? Because no one signed with Mercury got their 7 percent or pretty much any money. And some of the early black singing groups only got a one-time cash deal – sometimes as little as $30 – for transfer of ownership of a song.
More recently, the RIAA attempted to get payment for every blank recording medium sold. They claimed it was to go back to the artists. Well how did they know who was being recorded so they could get money back to them? They didn't. And they never paid anything to anyone. Eventually, there was the threat of a RICO act prosecution for charging a private tax and this sort of disappeared with the demise of the cassette. And with semiconductor and hard drive digital media, they could not get anyone to pay.
- break up the band and take only the lead singer, Sarah Smith (a great rocker with a great set of pipes),
- the label would get almost all the income from CD sales (she would get $1 for each CD sold),
- and would assume ownership of all material, past present and future,
- she would have to appear where they wanted, when they wanted and conform to the fashions and style they wanted.
They declined to sign and were still looking for a contract with acceptable terms when their lead guitarist decided he had had enough of the road and settled down to become a recording engineer, effectively ending the band. In fact, many signed bands are so upset with their CD revenue (they may get $1 from each CD sale and the label gets the rest but some rap stars got as little as 31 cents) that the bands recommend their fans download songs for free. One of the Joys songs, “Do I”, has been selected as the theme for a new television program and was at the end of the movie "Cake", so they are using every other avenue available. She ended up getting a distribution deal to put her music out there but radio ignored her because they do not want to be seen as going around the labels who determine who gets early releases of new music. Distribution is the musical equivalent of Book Baby and other vanity presses for book publishing.
This is nothing new. Atlantic records started as a competitor to Mercury in the 1950's with a promise that the artist would get 5 percent of sales when Mercury was offering 7 percent. So why did Atlantic survive and not Mercury? Because no one signed with Mercury got their 7 percent or pretty much any money. And some of the early black singing groups only got a one-time cash deal – sometimes as little as $30 – for transfer of ownership of a song.
More recently, the RIAA attempted to get payment for every blank recording medium sold. They claimed it was to go back to the artists. Well how did they know who was being recorded so they could get money back to them? They didn't. And they never paid anything to anyone. Eventually, there was the threat of a RICO act prosecution for charging a private tax and this sort of disappeared with the demise of the cassette. And with semiconductor and hard drive digital media, they could not get anyone to pay.
Skanky Vamp
Sniffin' the Slayer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26,460
from the giz
In July, Harry “hbomberguy” Brewis shared a video on his popular YouTube channel called “RWBY Is Disappointing, And Here’s Why.” The two-and-half-hour video — a sharp, detailed critique of the cartoon RWBY — was the result of a lot of work by Brewis and his producer, Kat Lo. It also took an extra week and a half of editing and $1,000 in legal fees just to get and keep the video up on YouTube. All because of YouTube’s copyright filter. And thanks to a new proposed law by Sen. Thom Tillis, Brewis’ experience could become virtually everyone’s.
YouTube’s copyright filter is a labyrinthine nightmare called Content ID. Content ID works by scanning all the videos on YouTube and comparing them to a database of material submitted by copyright holders—often music labels and movie and TV studios—which have been given the ability to add things to the database by YouTube. Once Content ID matches a few seconds of an uploaded video to something in the database — regardless of context — a number of automatic penalties can be imposed. According to Google, most of the time the rights-holder chooses to just take the money generated by ads placed by Google on the video. If the original creator didn’t want any ads put on their video, too bad. But in other cases, the rights-holder can make something much worse happen: They can make sure no one sees the video at all.
The problem with filters like Content ID is that their restrictions have nothing to do with the law. The ability to use copyrighted material without permission or payment—especially short clips for purposes such as criticism, commentary, education, and so on—is protected by something called “fair use.” It’s easy to get into the weeds of fair use, but the important thing to note is that whether or not a use is fair depends on a lot of context. Context that Content ID simply can’t determine. All it does is determine is whether elements of a work match to its source, not what is actually being done with the material. For example, a movie review using a 14-second bit of a film to illustrate what is good or bad will trigger a Content ID match to the whole movie. As far as Content ID is concerned, those 14 seconds are no different from a complete copy of the film being uploaded. So while algorithms like this might be useful in flagging potential infringement, the fact that Content ID automatically applies penalties, with no human review involved at all, is a problem.
Brewis’ situation is not unique. And it’s possible that it’s about to be the best-case scenario for anyone trying to share videos, music, or art online. You may remember the overzealous EU copyright directive that passed last year. We are seeing a call for new, faster, harsher penalties in the United States, too. In the giant spending and covid-19 relief package, there are two new copyright bills: the CASE Act, which creates a weird quasi-court in the Copyright Office that can deal out $30,000 worth of “small claims” judgments with limited appeal options.
Click the link above to read more.
In July, Harry “hbomberguy” Brewis shared a video on his popular YouTube channel called “RWBY Is Disappointing, And Here’s Why.” The two-and-half-hour video — a sharp, detailed critique of the cartoon RWBY — was the result of a lot of work by Brewis and his producer, Kat Lo. It also took an extra week and a half of editing and $1,000 in legal fees just to get and keep the video up on YouTube. All because of YouTube’s copyright filter. And thanks to a new proposed law by Sen. Thom Tillis, Brewis’ experience could become virtually everyone’s.
YouTube’s copyright filter is a labyrinthine nightmare called Content ID. Content ID works by scanning all the videos on YouTube and comparing them to a database of material submitted by copyright holders—often music labels and movie and TV studios—which have been given the ability to add things to the database by YouTube. Once Content ID matches a few seconds of an uploaded video to something in the database — regardless of context — a number of automatic penalties can be imposed. According to Google, most of the time the rights-holder chooses to just take the money generated by ads placed by Google on the video. If the original creator didn’t want any ads put on their video, too bad. But in other cases, the rights-holder can make something much worse happen: They can make sure no one sees the video at all.
The problem with filters like Content ID is that their restrictions have nothing to do with the law. The ability to use copyrighted material without permission or payment—especially short clips for purposes such as criticism, commentary, education, and so on—is protected by something called “fair use.” It’s easy to get into the weeds of fair use, but the important thing to note is that whether or not a use is fair depends on a lot of context. Context that Content ID simply can’t determine. All it does is determine is whether elements of a work match to its source, not what is actually being done with the material. For example, a movie review using a 14-second bit of a film to illustrate what is good or bad will trigger a Content ID match to the whole movie. As far as Content ID is concerned, those 14 seconds are no different from a complete copy of the film being uploaded. So while algorithms like this might be useful in flagging potential infringement, the fact that Content ID automatically applies penalties, with no human review involved at all, is a problem.
Brewis’ situation is not unique. And it’s possible that it’s about to be the best-case scenario for anyone trying to share videos, music, or art online. You may remember the overzealous EU copyright directive that passed last year. We are seeing a call for new, faster, harsher penalties in the United States, too. In the giant spending and covid-19 relief package, there are two new copyright bills: the CASE Act, which creates a weird quasi-court in the Copyright Office that can deal out $30,000 worth of “small claims” judgments with limited appeal options.
Click the link above to read more.
HowiMetdaSlayer
𝕔𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕒 𝕒𝕕𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥 ☕️
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
✨ Hail Hydra ✨
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 13,814
On the other hand...its JUST been revealed that a certain person has demanded that the American people be given $2000 instead of $600.
This idea has my full support. And it just may happen.
Last edited:
HowiMetdaSlayer
𝕔𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕒 𝕒𝕕𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥 ☕️
To be fair Pelosi has said that she would try to make that happen. Problem is I doubt the republicans in the senate will let it go through. 🙄
Agreed
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
Don't make it about parties 😛
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
✨ Hail Hydra ✨
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 13,814
I don't mind waiting a little longer for $2000. Its like, way better than $600! 😁
HowiMetdaSlayer
yeah, but I just don't see the reps in senate passing that
Ethan Reigns
Scooby
On the other hand...its JUST been revealed that a certain person has demanded that the American people be given $2000 instead of $600.
This idea has my full support. And it just may happen.
The copyright measures will prevent you from posting gifs of other people's work like the one above. For this forum to continue, the Buffy-Boards may need the permission of Josh Whedon, the Kazui brothers and the networks the shows appeared on. Otherwise, the forum owner may end up being called before the Copyright Kangaroo Court and forced to pay $30,000 for every Whedonverse and other gif on this board. It would be best if the board was incorporated so her personal exposure would be limited.
Skanky Vamp
Sniffin' the Slayer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26,460
Not only that but the images as well; those used in the banners, wallpapers, forum headers and avatars.
HowiMetdaSlayer
𝕔𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕒 𝕒𝕕𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥 ☕️
Taake
Haven’t the Dems, till now, been blocking various relief bills themselves? Seems like it is all about getting to look like the hero, not about the needs of the people.
Sorry, having been a way makes me a bit rusty. The thread topic is fine, but the off-topic veering into party politics is, well, politics and not about copyright
buffy-boards.com
So lets stick to the topic.
As someone who has come to love reaction videos as well, I’d be loathe to see them disappear or being harder to publish.
Rule Updates
We have made some edits to the posting rules, mainly to add #18 on Memes and GIfs: Memes/GIFs: We ask that you refrain from replying to discussions with memes/gifs only. This is a discussion board, and we expect members to use their words; plus, threads of meme-only posts add very little to the...
So lets stick to the topic.
As someone who has come to love reaction videos as well, I’d be loathe to see them disappear or being harder to publish.