Modern copyright doing what it does best: Limiting creativity & productivity, typically to the benefit of deeper pockets.
As for attribution... why in the world can't we just prosecute people for fraud? Fraud has been illegal literally the whole time. There is no reason it should be resolved with copyright or contracts.
Does DMCA help to make this happen less often?
For example, this - https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/105156
Edit: Turns out the repo got taken down
Being able to obtain, manipulate, and reshare bits of culture like videos is a huge source of creativity. Even in the commercial creative world, being able to download a trailer, advertisement, or really any video with a particular effect and take it frame-by-frame to dissect and understand it is a powerful learning tool.
And it's valuable to be able to archive works that are likely to be torn down or that need to be accessed offline. As an example of the latter, I'm currently a high school software teacher, I often download videos demonstrating this or that and share the MP4s with my students since YouTube is blocked.
When I was in the university, some of my roommates were in the film department. Their was this understanding that you could use a certain number of seconds of a copyrighted video in your project.
But in practice today, it is hit or miss. I have seen a TikTok stitching Harry Potter to make a parody taken down as violating copyright.
While there exists other videos on TikTok doing the same thing for longer duration.
I would say if there is anything you actually like on Youtube you're a fool if you don't download it.
Aren't most people here pretty big on "right to be forgotten"?
> No. When you receive material under a Creative Commons license, you may not place additional terms and conditions on the reuse of the work. This includes using effective technological measures (ETMs) that would restrict a licensee’s ability to exercise the licensed rights.
> A technological measure is considered an ETM if circumventing it carries penalties under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, or similar international agreements. Generally, this means that the anti-circumvention laws of various jurisdictions would cover attempts to break it.
> For example, if you remix a CC-licensed song, and you wish to share it on a music site that places digital copy-restriction on all uploaded files, you may not do this without express permission from the licensor. However, if you upload that same file to your own site or any other site that does not apply DRM to the file, and a listener chooses to stream it through an app that applies DRM, you have not violated the license.
It seems you would have to link to a download from the description? Hiding the derived work some place else seems to get in the way of reuse.
If the material is already distributed elsewhere and you post it as~is on youtube it seems the license is satisfied?