
Is it time to look at monetisation as a new exclusive right of the author? - walterbell
https://www.technollama.co.uk/is-it-time-to-look-at-monetisation-as-a-new-exclusive-right-of-the-author
======
sjy
This is the result of a several decades worth of normalising the process of
clicking through unread shrink-wrap agreements: confusion about the nature of
copyright, which _is_ the author’s exclusive right to ‘monetise’ their work.
Creators assign this right to YouTube in exchange for the hosting service. If
YouTube dominates the market such that no copyright holder can afford to
reject their terms, that problem is not going to be solved by granting
creators new rights which will also be assigned to YouTube under revised terms
and conditions.

~~~
narag
... _that problem is not going to be solved by granting creators new rights
which will also be assigned to YouTube under revised terms and conditions_

If I've understood TFA correctly, the proposal is a law that prevents _exactly
that_ from happening. You can define a right as unwaiverable. Any new terms
and conditions will be void.

Oh and yes, I think it's a good idea. Either you remove the video or you pay.

~~~
pjc50
This is a reinvention of "moral rights / droit moral" which are already a
thing in some jurisdictions.

But it won't help, because the exact problem is the claim to ownership! If
your video is demonetised because of copyright infringement, then youtube is
asserting that _it 's not your video anyway_; because you included 30 seconds
of incidental music or whatever, the video actually belongs to Sony or
Universal.

This can only really be fixed by putting the question in front of a court, and
the minimum cost of that is far more than either party is willing to pay.

~~~
narag
I thought the problem was that YouTube won't give you money while keeping the
video online and keeping the profits. If they need to take it offline, the
perverse incentives disappear. It's in their best interest to take the
creators' side by default so they can keep taking their part.

The ownership question is better completely removed from the publisher's
hands. The problem seems to be that it's actually true that people "create"
using patches of someone else's works without permission. The abuse of take
down requests could be just the effect of an overreaction. YouTube won't waste
time checking authorship so better take down everything right away at the
minimum sign of trouble.

But really, can someone go against you if you have properly registered the
ownership of the video? There must be some method of proof so you can prevent
frivolous takedown requests without too much hassle.

~~~
username90
> I thought the problem was that YouTube won't give you money while keeping
> the video online and keeping the profits.

A demonetized video has no ads so there is no money for anyone when this
happens.

~~~
squiggleblaz
Well, Google makes sure that YouTube's autoplay resets to on for a reason.
Maybe this video has no ads, but as long as you stay on their site you'll play
an ad before long.

------
mikekchar
Pretty much don't agree with the premise (which is that the most relevant part
of copyright is monetisation). With existing copyright, you can offer a
license that lets you decide exactly what you want. If that's monetisation,
then so be it. CC-NC is probably exactly what you want.

Of course Youtube (and similar services) can't be forced to accept those
terms. There should be no copyright-like law that says, "You must use me
content and you can't make money from it". They have to be free to accept or
reject the license. That they are on the power side of the equation is too
bad, but that's life. You are free not to use Youtube and distribute your
material using an NC license another way.

------
buboard
There is bitchute, there is patreon and 100 others like them.

POSSE is a very much workable model nowadays. Why are we stuck with youtube? I
'd like to see at least some nonprofits like PBS who make great content put
their content on youtube rivals too.

------
satyrnein
The article suggests a right to monetization such that YouTube would not have
the ability to "demonetize" a user's videos or channel.

However, that would also require that YouTube is not allowed to have content
guidelines for what is eligible for their monetization program, which does not
seem workable. For one thing, advertisers typically want to appear next to
content that is "brand safe".

------
vanniv
Whose law was it again that if the headline asks a yes/no question, the answer
is always 'no'?

~~~
_iyig
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

Most posters are already quite familiar with it, so comments which point to it
with no further context or substance tend to get downvoted.

~~~
mikekchar
FWIW (as a meta comment), I was happy to find out that there was a name for
this and what that name was. I like it when people ask honest questions and I
wish people wouldn't assume sarcasm (though I can fully understand why they do
and sympathise).

