Rant: If you have uploaded the original theatrical version of a now public domain (at least in it’s native country and the country you uploaded it in) onto YouTube, there is less of an issue. That is, if all copyrighted layers of that film version have lapsed their copyrights (especially the book it was adapted from and the soundtrack) and all possible trademarks related to that film have lapsed, you shouldn’t be in any legal trouble. That is, outside of a thing called copyright restoration."
Japan does have the public domain. However, the Berne Convention (that international copyright treaty most of the nations are members) mandates that most works (excluding film and photos) expire at least 50 years after the creator(s) have died. Japan is life+50 or may have been temporarily life+70 when it prepping for the TP-P.
Please/thanks to the people that can give the Japanese text equivalent of this quote about the public domain, as I want to tweet that response to the manga-ka: “when a manga work’s copyrights and all its trademarks become public domain in the country of the uploader, it is legal.”
I feel like you’re saying that there are some things that are in the Public Domain that can be posted freely, morally. Which, while possibly true, doesn’t seem to have much to do with the link - which is talking about posting things, immorally, to rake in a buck, knowing full well that it hurts the original author and publisher.
When a person uploads a manga (or any work) online and when all copyrights/TMs to it (including any underlying source material) are now public domain, it is legal. Also, unauthorized doesn’t always mean illegal. For example, a now public domain movie was uploaded onto YT. While you were not authorized by the previous rights holders to upload, legally you don’t need to ask permission
Legal doesn’t mean moral. If I find some small, island nation, build a house there, and bribe the government of the island to decree my house exempt from all laws, it doesn’t make it moral for me to rape and murder women in that location.
Just for the record, the words “public domain” don’t appear anywhere in the article. The article talks exclusively about illegal posting of in-copyright materials. Some quotes:
The article actually describes a manga that is a powerful argument against illegal pirating and distribution of copyrighted works to the detriment of creators. It’s as far from the OP’s description as reality can stretch.
Your own cite uses the term “illegal” multiple times. Do you have any evidence that it it being used incorrectly? Remember, your opinion on what should be legal is not evidence.