Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube

AppleInsider · November 4, 2022 9:48PM

An Apple archivist has had his YouTube account disabled after Apple filed multiple takedown requests against his account.

Apple Park

Brendan Shanks, owner of the Apple WWDC Videos channel on YouTube, tweeted that Apple had filed a series of copyright removal requests against his channel.

Congratulations Apple, you took down my YouTube channel containing hundreds of20-year old WWDC videos. Wouldn't want anyone learning about Mac OS X, Darwin, Aqua, or WebObjects @tim_cook @pschiller @gruber @jsnell @ismh @mjtsai @reneritchie @reckless pic.twitter.com/w2UgVqOubF
— Brendan Shanks (@realmrpippy)
November 4, 2022

The videos in question were decades-old recordings of WWDC events.

Due to the multiple violations, not only were the videos removed, but Shanks' YouTube channel has been disabled.

In addition to losing the archive, Shanks also lost his personal YouTube account, as well as his YouTube TV, which he'd just paid for.

Read on AppleInsider

mfryd · November 4, 2022 10:07PM

The bottom line is that the videos were the intellectual property of Apple. As the copyright owner, Apple has the right to decide where, and if, the videos will be available.

Whether or not they should be available, is a separate and very different question from whether or not is it legal to post the videos against Apple's wishes.

thinkman100000000 · November 4, 2022 10:23PM

The videos in question were decades-old recordings of WWDC events.
Due to the multiple violations, not only were the videos removed, but Shanks' YouTube channel has been disabled.
In addition to losing the archive, Shanks also lost his personal YouTube account, as well as his YouTube TV, which he'd just paid for.

I wonder what prompted Apple to take this action. They certainly had every right to do so, just not clear on why, after so many years, they did this. As for the actions of YouTube, that's on them……not Apple, so I'd imagine the issues violated Google's terms of service.

entropys · November 4, 2022 10:29PM

Amazing punishment to a fan site though.

If Apple was presenting them in parallel fair enough, but it is not. It isn’t as though Apple could monetise this archive material. Perhaps a better approach would have been for Apple to pay him to maintain it, then the site is technically their property.

mfryd · November 4, 2022 10:36PM

It is not in Apple's best interest to have the videos available online. Apple wants to people to use the latest hardware and software. It does not help Apple to make it easy for people to make old computers more useful.

It is also in Apple's best interest to maintain a reputation that they aggressively protect their intellectual property rights.

Apple also has an image to maintain. If they wanted to make the videos available, they would certainly want it to be on a site designed to their aesthetic standards, and their human interface guidelines. Of course, Apple would also want to have complete control of the server, so they could control and track viewing of the videos.

Apple is far better off with the videos offline, than to have them on someone's personal site.

j238 · November 4, 2022 10:50PM

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

gregoriusm · November 4, 2022 10:52PM

“ It is also in Apple's best interest to maintain a reputation that they aggressively protect their intellectual property rights.”

This.

sdw2001 · November 4, 2022 11:02PM

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

stabitha_christie · November 4, 2022 11:21PM

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

What you believe isn’t particularly relevant. What is relevant is copyright law. Apple’s broadcasts are in fact copyrighted. They have every right to defend their copyrights Go watch one and you will see the notice is clear as day.

mangakatten · November 4, 2022 11:45PM

Sad, I’m gonna miss the iPhone reveal!:( I’ve seen it four times or something.

longfang · November 5, 2022 12:48AM

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

So the claim wasn’t legal based on your years of experience in the legal field or are you ask talking out of your ass?

mfryd · November 5, 2022 1:28AM

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work. The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.

Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value). You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there. It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy. Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work. The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible. There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?

chadbag · November 5, 2022 1:45AM

So did they make the claim against the guy and give him
tine to respond ? And did he refuse? Or did Google just kiss Apple’s bum and bring in the mighty ban hammer with no forewarning?

I’m not disputing Apple’s right to protect their IP (copyrights at the least) not Google’s right to run YouTube however they please. I’m just wondering if the “normal” sequence of events — claim, response (time given to take down etc), then more firepower if needed — was followed or they went right for the BFG?

davidw · November 5, 2022 2:40AM

chadbag said:

So did they make the claim against the guy and give him
tine to respond ? And did he refuse? Or did Google just kiss Apple’s bum and bring in the mighty ban hammer with no forewarning?

I’m not disputing Apple’s right to protect their IP (copyrights at the least) not Google’s right to run YouTube however they please. I’m just wondering if the “normal” sequence of events — claim, response (time given to take down etc), then more firepower if needed — was followed or they went right for the BFG?

"An Apple archivist has had his YouTube account disabled after Apple filed multiple takedown requests against his account."

The very first sentence in the article makes it clear that Apple had filed multiple request for the tuber to takedown those copyrighted WWDC videos. It would be assumed that with each request, the tuber was given enough time to take down those videos. And it seems more than likely that Google disabled his channel because he did not take down those videos, after been warned multiple times to do so. If the tuber didn't have Apple permission to show those videos on his YouTube channel (and refused to take them down after multiple request from Apple), then Google had no choice but to disable his channel, otherwise Google could also be charged with copyright infringement. Google must remove any copyrighted material showing on YouTube, at the request of the copyright owner. You don't have to be an "Apple", in order for Google to honor such a request.

davidw · November 5, 2022 3:41AM

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

I bet these 20 year old videos had commercial value to the tuber showing them on his YouTube channel. Even if he was not charging anyone to view these videos or placing any ads when showing these videos, the videos drew people to his channel. And once there, there is a likely chance that they might click on another one of his videos that do have ads that he makes money on. He would be indirectly profiting from showing these videos on his channel. Commercial use of someone else copyrighted material never falls under "fair use". A business using copyrighted material is never considered "personal use".

When I was a member of a health club, well over 30 years ago, the management held "Movie Night" every Wednesday after 6PM. On "Movie Night", the club would show 2 movies they rented from the local BlockBuster on a big screen TV in the lobby. The movies chosen was based on members request. They gave away free popcorn and lost money selling beer for $1 a pitcher. This was just something they did as a perk for members (and any guest visiting the club at the time). This went on for over a year, until one day a lawyer representing the movie industry showed up and told the club owner to stop it or face copyright infringement charges.

It seems that even though the club was not directly profiting money wise, from showing rental movies in their club for their members, the club gain the goodwill of their members. Plus any non members that happened to be in the club at that night, might be more tempted to join. And not to mention that anyone staying to watch the movies that didn't drink beer, might buy other beverages that the club do profit from. That counts as "commercial value" and would be copyright infringement if a business were to take advantage of that, without the copyright owners permission.

mikethemartian · November 5, 2022 6:09AM

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

The law requires copyright and trademark owners to actively police their intellectual property rights otherwise they take the risk of them becoming public domain. An example is Coca-Cola having to contact publications who use the term “coke” to incorrectly refer to other brands of cola such as Pepsi, RC, store brand, and to make sure they refer to the product as “Coke” with the TM designation.

stabitha_christie · November 5, 2022 12:28PM

mikethemartian said:

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

The law requires copyright and trademark owners to actively police their intellectual property rights otherwise they take the risk of them becoming public domain. An example is Coca-Cola having to contact publications who use the term “coke” to incorrectly refer to other brands of cola such as Pepsi, RC, store brand, and to make sure they refer to the product as “Coke” with the TM designation.

That only applies to trademarks, not copyrighted material.

omasou · November 5, 2022 4:35PM

YouTube needs to clean house.

When trying to research items and reviews, I find way, way too much garbage, specifically, people repacking other peoples content, posting press release as their own, etc.

Almost as useless as Google search who's AI is more interested in trying recommend what "it thinks I want" or to sell me something vs. providing me the information I want. It's like going to a library, asking the librarian for help and having them direct me to the school store.

sdw2001 · November 5, 2022 4:38PM

longfang said:

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

So the claim wasn’t legal based on your years of experience in the legal field or are you ask talking out of your ass?

I actually have an extensive background in copyright law. I wasn’t saying “this is legal.” What I’m stating is it wasn’t a claim made through the legal system. It was a claim made by Apple to the platform hosting the videos.

sdw2001 · November 5, 2022 4:49PM

mfryd said:

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial.

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement. And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube. There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.

Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work. The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.

Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value). You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there. It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy. Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work. The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible. There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?

I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time. They were public events. All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube. He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things. He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive. YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.

alrescha · November 5, 2022 5:03PM

The irony here is that if it were discovered that Apple had inappropriately used a single line of GPL'd code, there would be torches and pitchforks as far as the eye could see. But the wholesale copying and redistribution of Apple's WWDC videos? That's fine.

When it comes to Apple, the tech community is all about "Rules for thee but not for me".

edited November 2022

Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube

Comments