Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sony Television Youtube

Sony Sends Copyright Notices To TV Museum About Shows 40 To 60 Years Old (torrentfreak.com) 61

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Rick Klein and his team have been preserving TV adverts, forgotten tapes, and decades-old TV programming for years. Now operating as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the Museum of Classic Chicago Television has called YouTube home since 2007. However, copyright notices sent on behalf of Sony, protecting TV shows between 40 and 60 years old, could shut down the project in 48 hours. "Our YouTube channel with 150k subscribers is in danger of being terminated by September 6th if I don't find a way to resolve these copyright claims that Markscan made," Klein told TorrentFreak on Friday. "At this point, I don't even care if they were issued under authorization by Sony or not -- I just need to reach a live human being to try to resolve this without copyright strikes. I am willing to remove the material manually to get the strikes reversed."

Over the weekend Klein shared details of the copyright complaints filed with YouTube. Two of the claims can be seen in the image below and on first view, appear straightforward enough. 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. A claim targeting an upload titled Bewitched -- 'Twitch or Treat' -- WPWR Channel 60 (Complete Broadcast, 8/6/1984) follows the same pattern, but what isn't shown are the details added by MCCTv to place the episode (and the included commercials) in historical context. Another takedown target -- Bewitched -- 'Sam in the Moon' (Complete 16mm Network Print, 1/5/1967) is accompanied by even more detail, including references in the episode to then-current events.

Given that copyright law locks content down for decades, Klein understands that can sometimes cause issues, although 16 years on YouTube suggests that the overwhelming majority of rightsholders don't consider his channel a threat. If they did, the option to monetize the recordings can be an option. [...] Klein says MCCTv certainly doesn't set out to hurt copyright holders. However, there's always a balance between preserving "rare pieces of video ephemera" and the likelihood that nobody needs to enforce any rights, versus unusual circumstances like these where unexpected complaints need to be resolved with impossible-to-reach parties. Klein says the team is happy to comply with Sony's wishes and they hope that given a little leeway, the project won't be consigned to history. Perhaps Sony will recall the importance of time-shifting while understanding that time itself is running out for The Museum of Classic Chicago Television.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Sends Copyright Notices To TV Museum About Shows 40 To 60 Years Old

Comments Filter:
  • Still blacklisted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pipatron ( 966506 ) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @05:08PM (#63826160) Homepage
    Sony has been on my blacklist ever since their rootkit fiasco, begrudgingly so since I really would have wanted one of their small Android phones. I guess they will remain there.
    • by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @05:24PM (#63826198) Homepage

      Glad I'm not the only one. I was already semi-boycotting Sony even prior to the rootkit thing because of their insistence on using proprietary memory stick format for all their devices long after everyone else had adopted a standard... I think it was MMC at the time. But when they did the rootkit it has been a complete boycott for me. I have not given Sony a single cent of my money since then other than watching a few of the Spider-Man movies. Even then I felt dirty afterwards.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 )

      Me too. I have not knowingly given money to Sony (by purchasing their stuff) since the Rootkit scandal.

    • Re:Still blacklisted (Score:4, Interesting)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @06:08PM (#63826280) Journal

      Some years (decades) ago, I sat next to someone on a flight who sold broadcast TV equipment for Sony. I was shocked that he had never heard of the rootkit fiasco. He had no idea.

      • Re:Still blacklisted (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @06:45PM (#63826364)

        Honestly for a lot of these large companies there is not some monolithic structure. Sony Broadcast is a prestige business with decades of users and products that are behind a lot of media to this day. The people working there will likely never run across the people working on earbuds and stereo equipment and those people will never run across the music and production group.

        Ive installed a lot of digital signage, a lot of those displays were made by Samsung. When I asked my rep about a project that needed some consumer TV sets my rep didn't know who to contact, they literally had to fill out a contact form to find someone. She said they are basically entirely different companies.

    • Me too. I have tried super hard to avoid Sony products since the root kit episode. It bothers me that their sub components are in other brands devices that I purchase.
      • by DeBaas ( 470886 )

        Me too, since almost a decade, although the trigger was not the root kit episod. The final straw for me was that after a firmware update for a TV (that was needed to solve an issue during the startup phase) I could no longer watch HD DVB-C channels. Downgrading was not possible as they stated 'We don't support downgrades as we want the customers to have the best experience'..... Funny though that I find HD channels a better experience. And no newer firmware would ever be released as they were not selling th

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      For me, it was the sony camcorders and still cameras dying due to the CCD malfunctioning years after purchase without any means of fixing them. Apparently how the heatsink on the back of the CCD is glued is the culprit, but fixing it is nigh impossible.

      For that reason, I stopped buying Sony camera equipment. I also avoided buying any more Sony game consoles.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        For me, it was the sony camcorders and still cameras dying due to the CCD malfunctioning years after purchase without any means of fixing them.

        For me, it was them wanting a couple hundred dollars to replace a camcorder's power switch and start button. Not for parts and labor, just for the part — that plus a pattern I saw where their TV and music division keeps limiting what their hardware folks can build in ways that harm consumers.

        I've been a no-Sony household since somewhere around 2003 or so.

    • Same. I wouldn't touch a Sony-branded anything with a 10' pole.

      Of course, I am sure that I am handing Sony money indirectly through streaming subscriptions and video rentals.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @05:10PM (#63826168) Journal

    Oh for Pete's sake, can lawyers ever STFU? The museum is not eating into your sales. If anything it helps sales by advertising old shows FOR FREE. Geddalife!

    • ... can lawyers ever STFU?

      Not defending lawyers, but they're just doing what their clients want and are paying them to do ...

      • Yea and crotch lice is just doing what is in their nature. Doesn't mean we need to kindly tolerate parasites.

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Those paying them probably don't review every single take-down notice. The lawyers were just hired "to be aggressive" and that's what they are doing. When it generates ill-will and bad side-effects, it's possible management doesn't even know about it.

    • You're confusing lawyers and plaintiffs.
    • by irving47 ( 73147 )

      at BEST, it comes down to "merely" wanting to protect their copyrights because of the whole, "if we don't protect the property, it will become public domain" stuff.

      • by youngone ( 975102 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @06:24PM (#63826328)
        It's the scrappy underdog Sony trying to protect itself from the voracious greed of Big Museum.
      • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @06:51PM (#63826372) Homepage

        That's trademark law, not copyright law. Someone can lose trademark exclusivity by allowing a mark to become generic, but they keep copyrights even if the copyrighted work is widely pirated.

      • at BEST, it comes down to "merely" wanting to protect their copyrights because of the whole, "if we don't protect the property, it will become public domain" stuff.

        This case highlights the difference between "unenforced copyright" and "expired copyright."

        I think society would benefit from a good faith discussion about copyright durations and about expanding fair use. For starters, I think copyrights owned by corporations should have a stage between "MegaCorp owns the copyright" and "finally in the public domain", possibly called "MegaCorp isn't likely to profit off the copyright any longer, so all noncommercial use is Fair Use". However this discussion will never ha

    • Making copyright last permanently was not a smart idea. It will be extended again in a few years, just as soon as the Disney copyrights become close to expiration, as it has every time before.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Look at the popularity of retro games on modern consoles. On a Nintendo Switch you can buy games for the original Nintendo Famicom/Entertainment System from the 1980s. That's why Nintendo protects copyrights on old games - it can still sell them 40 years later.

      Every other copyright holder has the same idea. Maybe one of Sony's old TV shows will get picked up for streaming. Perhaps there will be a remake that rekindles interest in the original, or a streaming service aimed at older people who want to watch t

  • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @05:16PM (#63826186) Homepage

    #1 US copyright law

    While it can be kind of confusing [copyright.gov] regarding works released prior to 1978, you can generally assume that if it's something newer than Steamboat Willie (which will enter public domain next year), it's still under copyright protection.

    #2 YouTube

    If you're going to disregard #1, YouTube isn't the right platform for it. Google makes most of their money from original content creators and licensed IP, so they're more than happy to kick your "yeah, it's technically piracy but it's not really bothering anyone" channel to the curb once a rightsholder (or their lawyers) makes a stink over it. If you want to fight the good fight, run a seedbox and host torrents.

     

    • #3

      You can't leave a violation up after you know it. Sony is trying to book the YouTube revenues from these programs, but if they are found to be consenting then, and complaining now, that results in lowering the damages.

      • #3

        You can't leave a violation up after you know it. Sony is trying to book the YouTube revenues from these programs, but if they are found to be consenting then, and complaining now, that results in lowering the damages.

        Patently false. It's also presuming that there's "damages" at all. What it amounts to is that Sony doesn't actually believe in copyright law, they believe in total, permanent, and complete ownership of art.

    • Abolish copyright. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stooo ( 2202012 )

      copyright law needs to be abolished. Or, at the very least, limited to just a few years.

  • why no claims? (Score:4, Informative)

    by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @06:21PM (#63826316) Homepage

    Youtube is fully capable of issuing claims on material that's copyrighted and diverting the funds to the rights-holder. I didn't realize they didn't do it with video content, but they do it with music all the time. The uploader simply loses the ability to monetize it, and the music label gets the ad revenue from that point on. Why on earth can't they do that with a couple episodes of whatever? I am guessing it's possible shows like bewitched have exclusive streaming agreements somewhere?

  • by Rainwulf ( 865585 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @07:26PM (#63826422)

    Where you can only claim copyright if its possible to purchase said content.

    If it's not purchasable at all, then it should not be illegal to archive/store it.

    This will force all these companies (ok, sony to be exact) to either pull their head in, or make it purchasable again.

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @08:43PM (#63826532) Homepage Journal

      Just reduce the copyright term back down to 28 years and be done with it. The purpose of copyright is to encourage content creation. The shorter the term, the more it does that, because people can't coast on their laurels and perpetually earn revenue from things they created decades earlier. Therefore, every copyright extension ever passed has progressively undermined the law's ability to serve its original purpose.

      • Not to mention that despite all of the claims of "theft" by rightsholders, extended copyright terms represent REAL theft from society, as in "taking something that the rightful owner can no longer make use of".

      • Yup. About 30 years ago I used to do some plumbing work. It would sure be nice if I was still getting paid for it every time somone used the taps.

    • Where you can only claim copyright if its possible to purchase said content.

      In this case, it is possible to purchase said content. Bewitched has been released on DVD a few times now, most recently in 2015.

      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B012... [amazon.com]

      It's technically out of print at the moment, I believe. But there are more than enough copies in circulation right now that they're cheap and easy to find.

      And if streaming is your thing, all of the usual transactional VOD operators are offering all 8 seasons.

      https://www.ama [amazon.com]

    • There should be a new law Where you can only claim copyright if its possible to purchase said content.

      If it's not purchasable at all, then it should not be illegal to archive/store it.

      The problem is how we define 'purchasable'. If Microsoft kept a copy of Windows NT 4.0 Server on their online store for $999,999, it's still technically "for sale".

      If we try and pin it down to "purchasable at a 'reasonable prince'", then even at $9,999, Microsoft can still say that it's still "affordable" to anyone who needs it enough to buy it, even though it's still several times more expensive than MSRP.

      Same shenanigans if we say "can't charge more than MSRP"...well, now on release day it's $999,999, but

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      All this content is purchasable. The original series is on DVD and they are available on Amazon, so the 'archival' argument goes straight out of the window in this specific case, go buy it and rip it to your NAS if you want it in another format.

  • by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @08:04PM (#63826474)

    This is just one example of why piracy still thrives and will continue to do so in the unforeseeable future. If one really wanted to one could download all the episodes of Bewitched right now.

    • And such downloading would affect almost no one that had any personal association with the show. So far as I know, Erin Murphy is the only living person regularly involved with the show that still receives royalties, but is pretty much retired from acting and did well enough with other ventures that those checks don't do anything to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" in any articulable manner.

  • Class action time! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 )
    Enough of this shit. Media companies are engaged in plain criminal abuse and conspiracy.
  • Instead of attacking groups like this, they should push to be able to put advertisements on it.
    Seriously, this could actually HELP Sony with new stuff, while preserving the past.
  • As Gabe of Valve Software famously said:

    "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem,"

    Sony is clueless about the long-tail. People pirate shit because there is NO LEGAL OPTION TO BUY old products such as TV shows.

    If Sony think there is zero value for shows that are 20+ years old then they should lose access to copyright holding culture hostage and the shows should revert to the public domain.

  • I'd love to see copyright law overhauled and some sense put back into it but with all that Disney money behind it I doubt it.
  • > I just need to reach a live human being to try to resolve this without copyright strikes. Good luck with that. Welcome to the bot-net.
  • The problem here isn't the copyright claim, it's that a major service provider in the internet (eg Google) DOESN'T HAVE A HUMAN YOU CAN TALK TO.

    In what other business would that be acceptable?

    Can you imagine an oil change business in which, if you had a question or concerns, the employees were instructed to ignore you completely?
    A store?
    A factory?
    Let's not even begin the question of market reach and dominance, under which both EU and US laws recognize other standards than a normal firm that a consumer can s

  • The only cast member still alive is Erin Murphy who played the daughter Tabitha - and she's 59
    I suspect none of the people who made this are still alive ...Who exactly that was involved is still alive to be encouraged to make more ...

  • Sony is ... "Still Crazy After All These Years" ... (my apologies to Paul Simon for using this fine lyric in this way)
  • by macwhiz ( 134202 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @09:39AM (#63827622)

    I'm the first one to say that copyright law needs fixing, but this isn't a good example. The headline for this ought to be "Television 'museum' blatantly violates copyright law, is surprised by inevitable result."

    "Bewitched" is a very popular, culturally-important TV show with obvious commercial value. In fact, you can buy it on DVD even now [amazon.com] and it streams legally via numerous services, both paid and free-to-view—and you can bet Sony got paid by those free-to-view providers. So providing a copy on YouTube without licensing it is an obvious copyright violation with clear commercial impact. It's asking to be sued. It's not abandoned property,

    Besides, it's not necessary to include the entire copyrighted program to preserve the ephemera that the "museum" says they're trying to preserve, such as local commercials, bumpers, station idents, and the like. For those things, there's a strong fair-use case. Not so for "Bewitched" itself.

    A responsible curator would understand copyright and avoid violating it. If they truly needed to disseminate copyrighted material, they'd work with rights-holders to secure permission before publicly exhibiting the copyrighted work. Then they would have a strong argument if an overzealous rights-protection firm issued a takedown notice that YouTube wouldn't let them appeal. As it is? They should've known better, they did the wrong thing, and the result was predictable. I'm not feeling too sorry for them.

    Should the law be different? Maybe. But it isn't.

  • I grabbed a few videos off of it to watch later with 3DYD; some star treks and SCTVs. But it would have been nice to just enjoy the old shows here and there.

    It's clear the people doing this are doing it out of love for the nostalgia and just sharing what they have found with everyone.

    The quality of the videos is nothing that someone would pay money for. It's not as though it would compete with any commercial offering for the same thing.

    Just sony shouting mine! mine! mine!

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Working...