Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Like it or not, the US has an adversarial legal system -- and therefore relies on the injured to enforce their rights in court. It seems to me the way to stop this from happening is to sue the takedown provider and the Graceware guy. Damages are hard to prove for a museum, but attorney's fees are clearly covered.
Generally automated take down services are not my favorite business - the DMCA has strong penalties for infringement baked in, and one reason those penalties exist is that there is a strong enforcement clause that the takedown notices are made in good faith. There is no way these were made in good faith based on the facts described.
Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright.
I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!
Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game.
Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.
Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks.
That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious.
The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is why would anyone believe there is money to be made there. Its not like sending takedown notices is a renewable source of income.
Even if someone was making a movie about it, the secrecy doesnt make a lot of sense. The guy could clear so much up with just an email.
>Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik
Just a few years ago, the son of one of the original Metal Fatigue developers found old nightly backups and handed them over to Nightdive. I just find this to be a pretty weak element of the argument. The person with the strongest claim, using the weakest methods to establish that claim doesnt make sense to me.
The most plausible explanation, based on the facts so far provided, is that it is Harigai, and he is not happy with how the game/company turned out and does not want to be reminded about it anymore.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence.
Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one.
2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more important targets.
They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.
Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.
That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
Missing detail about DMCA here is that you can file a counter-notice. You can reply and say "this is fair use" or "I own this", and the service provider will 1) forward the notice, 2) restore the content unless the claimed copyright owner sues.
It's not perfect, and the system can still be abused. But a DMCA takedown isn't necessarily an impossible burden that requires the recipient to do sleuthing to determine the real copyright owner. If they own it, they are good. If it's reasonably fair use, say so. Sending a DMCA takedown is easy, but you can flip it back just as easily. The hard/expensive part is filing/defending a lawsuit, which the complainant must initiate, which then reveals their identity, establishes liability for false claims, and carries a burden of proof.
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive.
It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you have the resources, use them! This is a cost of getting big. You have economies of scale in other areas, don’t try to evade responsibility here.
There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era.
You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree.
That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says:
> The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located.
Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.
I do speak more broadly than this specific case. But even in this case: many of the notices here might have been deemed not-obviously-invalid, and thus DMCA process should be followed, but also (as described) many of them are manifestly fair use or in some cases not even infringing: and such notices can reasonably be rejected.
Don’t think these platforms obey every notice that meets the nominal requirement of the statute; they definitely do ignore some because they’re obviously nonsense. I suggest they should do this more. Yes, they theoretically open themselves up to liability in doing so, so I do expect them to err on the side of the claimer if there is any reasonable doubt.
But instead, they side with rights-claimers (who may or may not be rights-holders) structurally. They make takedown systems that go well beyond what is legally required, and then don’t police them, so that they invariably become vessels of abuse.
Here is a detailed example from uploading church services with old hymns in 2020, and YouTube’s Content ID system actively facilitating copyright fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. I say YouTube should be required to cut off such transparent copyright fraud, when it is pointed out; and that if they’re not willing to do so, their platform should be shut down.
The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe), how much of the copyright was infringed (is it a short clip in a larger study, as an example).
The big companies don't want to do this basic due diligence because today at least it requires human labor, even if that human labor is "do a quick glance and check a couple boxes".
The article even points out that US laws say that things taken down for copyright infringement but are in fact Fair Use should be able to claim damages. In theory a class action lawsuit of video essayists could make a real strong case in direct, estimated demonitization losses due to spurious copyright takedown notices YouTube acted upon automatically without any Fair Use checks. I can't imagine the stress of being involved in a case like that in practice, which is probably why there isn't enough people begging to be in a class action lawsuit like that.
The way it works now is that the accuser has a few days to submit proof that they're suing to defend their rights, or else the platform can reinstate the content. In practice this would (and does) lead to a game of whack-a-mole between large rightsholders who have to pay money for lawyers and uploaders, who don't pay anything but an internet bill. Obviously, this doesn't fly in court and platforms have to go out of their way to ensure that they aren't profiting from mass piracy. It doesn't help that the aforementioned lawyers are always eager to go after a juicy, solvent target instead of Some Dude in Ohio with fiber and a lot of free time.
What do you do when your basic fair use check turns out to not be so basic after all? What happens if a video starts as academic but later turns out to be part of a commercial operation? Is the platform indemnified because it was "obvious?"
You're also forgetting that the platforms do not want to take down content. YouTube at least does a few basic checks automatically and makes heavy use of human reviews. I'm sure a few people would benefit if they quadrupled their spending on copyright review, but it's crazy to think that it makes sense for them to do this.
That’s how it works under DMCA. But some of the largest platforms go ridiculously further.
The way it works now on YouTube is that you get a copyright claim which they probably won’t tell you about, but will just steal your money, or a copyright strike if they want to actively take it down. If you contest it, the rights-claimer gets to decide your fate: if they ignore you for a month, or if they decide your counterclaim is okay, you’re fine; but if they decide to press the other button, your entire account is at least ⅓ of the way to being blocked. And there is no recourse! YouTube refuses to adjudicate. This system is insanity.
A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.)
That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars.
Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it).
It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today.
> a clear and simple expiration
> life of the author
> (at least in the US
I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author.
On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time.
Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.)
The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.
Amen to that. Larger companies should face more requirements than small ones. And if they can't meet them, great! That just means they can't be large. Companies should be smaller on average than they currently are.
Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Like it or not, the US has an adversarial legal system -- and therefore relies on the injured to enforce their rights in court. It seems to me the way to stop this from happening is to sue the takedown provider and the Graceware guy. Damages are hard to prove for a museum, but attorney's fees are clearly covered.Generally automated take down services are not my favorite business - the DMCA has strong penalties for infringement baked in, and one reason those penalties exist is that there is a strong enforcement clause that the takedown notices are made in good faith. There is no way these were made in good faith based on the facts described.
The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.
Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright.
I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!
Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game.
Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.
You still have to prove it in court, and it's already hard enough to prove seemingly obvious things, such as that a seller didn't deliver a product.
None of this would have happened if there were any real world consequences to sending fraudulent DMCA takedowns.
So no one has discovered the motivation of this person? They must have spent a lot of money to engage in this behavior.
Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
It's definitely all circumstantial evidence, but from all the recent stuff about Cookie's Bustle we know that whoever it is:
a) Is willing to at least tell the UK government that he's Keisuke Harigai (see this UK trademark registration: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... )
b) Is comfortable with registering companies in shady tax havens and knows his way around international IP registration/enforcement
c) Has a bunch of private data related to Cookie's Bustle's development
d) Is unwilling to make any sort of public statement beyond sending takedown notices
Meanwhile, Keisuke Harigai:
a) Is Keisuke Harigai
b) Runs a company out of the Cayman Islands
c) Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik
d) Has not made any sort of statement related to Cookie's Bustle since 2001 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20010725131942/http://www.idevga... ) despite people attempting to contact him after the takedowns started
Obviously nothing concrete but I think he's the likeliest candidate.
The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks.
That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious.
The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is why would anyone believe there is money to be made there. Its not like sending takedown notices is a renewable source of income.
Even if someone was making a movie about it, the secrecy doesnt make a lot of sense. The guy could clear so much up with just an email.
>Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik
Just a few years ago, the son of one of the original Metal Fatigue developers found old nightly backups and handed them over to Nightdive. I just find this to be a pretty weak element of the argument. The person with the strongest claim, using the weakest methods to establish that claim doesnt make sense to me.
The most plausible explanation, based on the facts so far provided, is that it is Harigai, and he is not happy with how the game/company turned out and does not want to be reminded about it anymore.
He's a CEO in the oil industry. He probably finds all of the video game enthusiasts annoying and a threat to his personal brand.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence.
Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one.
2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more important targets.
They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.
Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin
Not to mention you know who (rhymes with bloatus)
I think the theory was he had a rare copy and wanted to drive the price of it up.
That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
Missing detail about DMCA here is that you can file a counter-notice. You can reply and say "this is fair use" or "I own this", and the service provider will 1) forward the notice, 2) restore the content unless the claimed copyright owner sues.
It's not perfect, and the system can still be abused. But a DMCA takedown isn't necessarily an impossible burden that requires the recipient to do sleuthing to determine the real copyright owner. If they own it, they are good. If it's reasonably fair use, say so. Sending a DMCA takedown is easy, but you can flip it back just as easily. The hard/expensive part is filing/defending a lawsuit, which the complainant must initiate, which then reveals their identity, establishes liability for false claims, and carries a burden of proof.
The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer.
The process is often abused just to gain this information, with the complainant dropping the whole thing after receiving these details.
> The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer.
I didn't have to do this when I received a bogus takedown notice for a YouTube video.
But I'm not in the US and I don't know if YouTube's process varies by jurisdiction.
Youtube's takedown process isn't actually a DMCA takedown.
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive.
It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you have the resources, use them! This is a cost of getting big. You have economies of scale in other areas, don’t try to evade responsibility here.
> Assess legal challenges.
There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era.
You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree.
That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says:
> The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located.
Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.
I do speak more broadly than this specific case. But even in this case: many of the notices here might have been deemed not-obviously-invalid, and thus DMCA process should be followed, but also (as described) many of them are manifestly fair use or in some cases not even infringing: and such notices can reasonably be rejected.
Don’t think these platforms obey every notice that meets the nominal requirement of the statute; they definitely do ignore some because they’re obviously nonsense. I suggest they should do this more. Yes, they theoretically open themselves up to liability in doing so, so I do expect them to err on the side of the claimer if there is any reasonable doubt.
But instead, they side with rights-claimers (who may or may not be rights-holders) structurally. They make takedown systems that go well beyond what is legally required, and then don’t police them, so that they invariably become vessels of abuse.
Here is a detailed example from uploading church services with old hymns in 2020, and YouTube’s Content ID system actively facilitating copyright fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. I say YouTube should be required to cut off such transparent copyright fraud, when it is pointed out; and that if they’re not willing to do so, their platform should be shut down.
The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe), how much of the copyright was infringed (is it a short clip in a larger study, as an example).
The big companies don't want to do this basic due diligence because today at least it requires human labor, even if that human labor is "do a quick glance and check a couple boxes".
The article even points out that US laws say that things taken down for copyright infringement but are in fact Fair Use should be able to claim damages. In theory a class action lawsuit of video essayists could make a real strong case in direct, estimated demonitization losses due to spurious copyright takedown notices YouTube acted upon automatically without any Fair Use checks. I can't imagine the stress of being involved in a case like that in practice, which is probably why there isn't enough people begging to be in a class action lawsuit like that.
The way it works now is that the accuser has a few days to submit proof that they're suing to defend their rights, or else the platform can reinstate the content. In practice this would (and does) lead to a game of whack-a-mole between large rightsholders who have to pay money for lawyers and uploaders, who don't pay anything but an internet bill. Obviously, this doesn't fly in court and platforms have to go out of their way to ensure that they aren't profiting from mass piracy. It doesn't help that the aforementioned lawyers are always eager to go after a juicy, solvent target instead of Some Dude in Ohio with fiber and a lot of free time.
What do you do when your basic fair use check turns out to not be so basic after all? What happens if a video starts as academic but later turns out to be part of a commercial operation? Is the platform indemnified because it was "obvious?"
You're also forgetting that the platforms do not want to take down content. YouTube at least does a few basic checks automatically and makes heavy use of human reviews. I'm sure a few people would benefit if they quadrupled their spending on copyright review, but it's crazy to think that it makes sense for them to do this.
That’s how it works under DMCA. But some of the largest platforms go ridiculously further.
The way it works now on YouTube is that you get a copyright claim which they probably won’t tell you about, but will just steal your money, or a copyright strike if they want to actively take it down. If you contest it, the rights-claimer gets to decide your fate: if they ignore you for a month, or if they decide your counterclaim is okay, you’re fine; but if they decide to press the other button, your entire account is at least ⅓ of the way to being blocked. And there is no recourse! YouTube refuses to adjudicate. This system is insanity.
Copyright is a special privilege that usually monopolizes certain information.
It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic.
That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.
"Usually?"
The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it.
It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.
A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.)
That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars.
That's why it is a monopoly right.
A patent lasts 20 years. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (at least in the US, thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts).
The term of a copyright is too long, I agree, but it is a limited right to control a creative asset with a clear and simple expiration.
Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it).
It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today.
> a clear and simple expiration
> life of the author
> (at least in the US
I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author.
On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time.
Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.)
The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.
Amen to that. Larger companies should face more requirements than small ones. And if they can't meet them, great! That just means they can't be large. Companies should be smaller on average than they currently are.
There is nothing that large companies want more than a straightforward, procedural list of requirements on how to comply with copyright law.
(ok maybe there are several thousand things, but you get what I mean)