stacks the deck even more heavily when digital files are involved. stacks the deck heavily against the common peopleģ. (c)The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsoleteĪgain, Shanks doesn’t have a physical copy from Apple to replace.Ģ. Also, since I don’t know for sure whether the recordings count as unpublished, I’m including the following for good measure: I’m willing to bet that Shanks doesn’t have a physical film roll, tape, CD, or vinyl of the recordings made by Apple. (1)the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives and (b)The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished works … You can’t really have a single copy of a purely digital file either. Second of all, and more importantly, 108 applies to physical copies. Hobbyists and miscellaneous individuals such as Brendan Shanks don’t count. “archives” as used in “a library or archives” suggests that the party doing the archival has to be an organization which hires employees. It is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work I’m not a lawyer, but here’s my reading of 108: Regardldss, courts are pretty narrow about exceptions. Technically, this falls under 17 USC 108 (libraries and archives) instead of 17 USC 107 (fair use). You’d be hardpressed to find a pro bono lawyer who’d die on the hill of 20-year-old videos of one megacorp’s developer conferences. That’s why most people hit by false copyright claims decide not to fight. Copyright exceptions are affirmative defenses, and it’s very hard to sue someone for a wrongful takedown. Winning a copyright case on an exception in court will still set you at a loss. People writing even the most reasonable criticisms of stingy but legal actions have to say it this way to prevent the usual trolls (haters of Section 230, no doubt) from deliberately misreading and responding with their “But, but, Techdirt says that a private company can do whatever they want with their private property” strawman fallacy. That looks to me like you might be condoning this action Good times.įiled Under: archives, copyright, fair use, wwdcĭoes that mean that Apple can take copyright action on them? Sure does! In addition to losing the archive, Shanks also lost his personal YouTube account, as well as his YouTube TV, which he’d just paid for.Īnd so here we are again, with a large company killing off a form of preservation effort in the name of draconian copyright enforcement. The videos in question were decades-old recordings of WWDC events.ĭue to the multiple violations, not only were the videos removed, but Shanks’ YouTube channel has been disabled. Why are antiquated videos interesting mostly to hobbyists worth all this chaos and bad PR? Does that mean that Apple can take copyright action on them? Sure does! But why is the question. Now, did Shanks have permission from Apple to post those videos? He says no. In the meantime, this treasure trove of videos that Apple doesn’t seem to want to bother hosting itself is simply gone. Now, he’s going to be moving the videos over to the Internet Archive, but that will take time and I suppose there’s nothing keeping Apple from turning its copyright guns to that site as well. Wouldn’t want anyone learning about Mac OS X, Darwin, Aqua, or WebObjects □ /w2UgVqOubF Congratulations Apple, you took down my YouTube channel containing hundreds of…20-year old WWDC videos.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |