<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>anigbrowl</author><text>YouTube isn&amp;#x27;t a scrappy little startup with no resources left over after keeping the servers up and running 24-7. They absolutely have the talent, capital, and legal resources to innovate in this area and to assess things like public domain claims.&lt;p&gt;The concept of public domain resources is not a difficult one, you don&amp;#x27;t need special legal training or advanced math to understand the idea that copyright expires and that works whose copyright has expired are free to all. &lt;i&gt;There is no mechanism to even assert public domain status on Youtube.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;You have to wait and offer it as a defense if subjected to a copyright infringement claim, and the copyright infringement claim is presumed to be valid and the claimant is the first judge of the public domain assertion.&lt;p&gt;Youtube didn&amp;#x27;t invent the system, but they are far from being helpless victims as you imply.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jchw</author><text>The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it.&lt;p&gt;Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.</text></item><item><author>anigbrowl</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s really a pity there&amp;#x27;s no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons&amp;#x27; as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it&amp;#x27;s almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.</text></item><item><author>jazzyjackson</author><text>This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it&amp;#x27;s completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley&amp;#x27;s Never Gonna Give You Up, I&amp;#x27;m informed that the music is licensed by:&lt;p&gt;(on behalf of Sony BMG Music UK); UMPI, Kobalt Music Publishing, LatinAutor, Warner Chappell, BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, LatinAutor - UMPG, SOLAR Music Rights Management, AMRA, UMPG Publishing, CMRRA, LatinAutorPerf, LatinAutor - Warner Chappell, and 15 Music Rights Societies&lt;p&gt;What is happening here? Does YouTube have legal arrangements with all of these bodies to make sure they get their penny per kiloview?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording</title><url>https://www.improbable.com/2021/09/13/youtube-the-ig-nobel-prizes-and-the-year-1914/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sc11</author><text>Thankfully said EU law includes a part that it&amp;#x27;s forbidden to block content for copyright reasons if the copyright claim is invalid. It includes ways for NGOs and users to go after companies that overblock. How this will actually work in practice is unclear since it&amp;#x27;s obviously an impossible requirement but some NGOs like the German GFF are already collecting cases and are looking to take legal action (see e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;freiheitsrechte.org&amp;#x2F;aufruf-illegale-sperrungen&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;freiheitsrechte.org&amp;#x2F;aufruf-illegale-sperrungen&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt; (in German))</text><parent_chain><item><author>jchw</author><text>The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it.&lt;p&gt;Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.</text></item><item><author>anigbrowl</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s really a pity there&amp;#x27;s no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons&amp;#x27; as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it&amp;#x27;s almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.</text></item><item><author>jazzyjackson</author><text>This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it&amp;#x27;s completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley&amp;#x27;s Never Gonna Give You Up, I&amp;#x27;m informed that the music is licensed by:&lt;p&gt;(on behalf of Sony BMG Music UK); UMPI, Kobalt Music Publishing, LatinAutor, Warner Chappell, BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, LatinAutor - UMPG, SOLAR Music Rights Management, AMRA, UMPG Publishing, CMRRA, LatinAutorPerf, LatinAutor - Warner Chappell, and 15 Music Rights Societies&lt;p&gt;What is happening here? Does YouTube have legal arrangements with all of these bodies to make sure they get their penny per kiloview?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording</title><url>https://www.improbable.com/2021/09/13/youtube-the-ig-nobel-prizes-and-the-year-1914/</url></story>