tldr: the author doesn't want the documentary anymore on Youtube specifically, anywhere else seems to be still ok.
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
121 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
59396 readers
651 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nice, we should post it on Peertube then if it isn't on tgere already ...
Yay:
You're kind of missing the point. He released the film under creative commons license, specifically Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported. The license specifically says;
You are free to: share -- copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Which of course includes YouTube. The license cannot be revoked as long as you follow the license, and sharing to YouTube doesn't constitute breaking the license. Which means he's breaking the license.
He's very liable to be sued in this situation and he would absolutely lose.
The only legitimate takedown I can see is is the non-commercial clause. If YouTube is making money off streams, wouldn't that be a license violation?
That's a question for the court. It may sound cut and dry, but it's really not. In the US legal system, other people don't stop having rights just because you have rights. There are 3 entities at play here, the author of the work, the uploader, and YouTube, all of which have rights. But the author of the movie limited (intentionally) his rights by releasing the work under Creative Commons. The user has the right to upload the video to YouTube. That is not in question. The question is whether or not YouTube is beholden to the original Creative Commons license. They didn't upload the media, and the media was legally uploaded and for all intents and purposes must follow YouTube policy which is their right to monetize.
This isn't a case of someone uploading a copy-written movie and YouTube making money off of it, it's much more complex and anyone telling you different doesn't understand the actual legal issue here.
Which of course includes YouTube.
Which distributes videos commercially.
He DMCA'd all versions of his movie, even the ones which were not monetized. This is not a good argument and won't hold up in court. Simple fact of the matter is, is that he violated his own license.
Simple fact of the matter is, is that he violated his own license.
My understanding at least is that the CC does not mandate distribution, merely allows it, so I don't see how he could have violated his own license if a third party uploaded the video to youtube in violation of the license.
I don’t see how he could have violated his own license
Because he gave others irrevocable permission, without any stipulations (including what platform they uploaded his content to), to upload his content. Period. It's a contract, and as such he cannot after the fact come out and say "oh, well, I have a problem with YouTube so you can't upload my stuff on YouTube anymore" because that breaks the contract (license).
If the videos are monetized by the uploader, he has legal standing. But it's not currently known or understood if he has the legal authority to pull the content because YouTube is profiting from his content. That's up to a court to decide.
But it’s not currently known or understood if he has the legal authority to pull the content because YouTube is profiting from his content. That’s up to a court to decide.
Are you telling me that this, the most obvious question of legality of profit in the entire pipeline of uploading content since around 2013, has not been considered by any court up to this year of Arceus of 2025?
Wow. Now I can begin to really understand the problem.
Are you telling me that this, the most obvious question of legality of profit in the entire pipeline of uploading content since around 2013, has not been considered by any court up to this year of Arceus of 2025?
Name another movie uploaded under this exact CC license has been striken down under DMCA for the same ideological reasons... You make it sound like this court case pops up every week, and it doesn't. There's no precedence as far as I can find--which means it's not a question which can be answered with any supporting empirical evidence. It requires a court case to say definitively if its legal or not.
Sued for what exactly?
Violation of his own Creative Commons license. It's a tenable contract in the United States--a contract between him and viewers, creators, and frankly anyone.
Can someone explain the IP sharing with peers part (a popup from that site)? Sounds like a torrent, but how does that work with copyright? To be clear, I don’t give a fuck, just curious
Sounds like a torrent
Because it is torrenting. I clicked on the "More information" link in the popup and:
PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users by default to help lower the load on the server. The main threat to your privacy induced by BitTorrent lies in your IP address being stored in the instance's BitTorrent tracker as long as you download or watch the video.
No idea about copyright though, but I also don't quite understand the issue there that doesn't apply to ActivityPub itself too.
Makes sense! Thank you for looking
Is the question how does it work legally or technically?
There's nothing inherently illegal about the service or how it works which is why it isn’t outright banned. The illegal part is sharing copyrighted material over the service and I think you could get caught doing this just like someone using regular torrents without a VPN would be.
Legally - if the content is legal to share in the jurisdiction it’s being streamed
Ah hell, I don't know anything about it, but figured I'd go ahead and download it to watch later.
You still can, it's on archive.org!
Edit: not sure if I'm allowed to post the direct link, but it comes up right away on the search.
I see no reason why not, it's Creative Commons licensed. Would be different if it were actually pirated content but it isn't. It's freely sharable.
Director using reverse psychology to get people to watch his documentary
Is that how that works?