How to keep people from reading

[l0st]

^^^^THIS!!^^^^

Yes, it is about money, but I believe there is also a darker underpinning and that is one of control.

Whenever I see a 'plaintiff' seeking legal remedy when no injury (damage) has occurred it gives me pause to think about their motivations.  Clearly no publisher of some antique work who is no longer in business can lay claim to that work or its publication.  So, while on the face of it may seem to be about money, the darker reality is someone wants to remove the work from circulation by seeking such an oblique and obtuse allegation.

Its an interesting conundrum. I believe it used to be, at least in the US, 25 years of copyright, then you could extend up to two more times *if* you could prove that your "novel" contribution should not be used by others.

What we have now are a ton of copyright trolls who buy the rights to old stuff then go after those who use it. When the copyright is up, they re-release a very similar "digitally remastered" version of whatever that can't be told apart from the original and continue suing people.

I see this and have experienced it myself on YouTube. You can use an old version, technically un-copyrighted, but the autobot will flag you for copyright infringement. Then, you have to prove the version you used wasn't the no longer copywritten one - if that's even possible. You can even get this kind of reaction posting stuff (like background music) that's creative-commons licensed but sounds "too similar" to the original "according to the bot."

I did a live karaoke thing on YouTube for a stint. All of the works used were licensed for public reproduction and not originals. That doesn't stop the Goog, however. Even when providing documentation of the paid licensing with boilerplate from the clearinghouse agreeing, Goog decides you ain't gettin' no cash.

Ought to be illegal, IMHO. Technically it is, but how does one challenge the "goog AI"?

But yes, they use this stuff as a method to remove anything they disagree with from public consumption. In my case, there were a lot of older songs involved with potentially "racy" lyrics that I guess Goog just doesn't agree with having posted due to content.

Personally, I think any entity that poses such a challenge should have the burden of proving that said challenge is legit. As it stands now, they just quote DMCA and the site takes it down without recourse. Your only recourse as the poster is to sue them. Lawfare should be illegal as well. Just my 2 cents.