Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#31

Post by dasboth » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

milankragujevic wrote: post #25

corobo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd not heard of it until now. Streisand is in full effect. I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.

I have to bitch about Samsung once more, because their batteries are absolute shit and puff up even if charged with their original charger in the original phone, and so innocently the batteries' warranty is 6 month but they puff up and decrease in capacity dramatically after 7-8 months of use.

I have to agree. I should have learned my lesson after the Galaxy S2 Mini I had, but I went and got the S4 Mini anyway. I regret it now - after 18 months it barely lasts a day with me not doing much with it and gets very hot. Last Samsung I bought for a long time, that's for sure.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#32

Post by amorphid » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

turblety wrote: post #4

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

I wonder if a larger Youtuber, someone who makes several thousand per video (advertising, Patreon, etc.), could sue (and win) for the takedown of a fair use video. If there was precedent for being liable for frivolous takedown claims, that might serve as a deterrent to additional frivolous takedowns.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#33

Post by mountaineer22 » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #12

Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I…

How is Google's behavior even covered under the DMCA (safe harbor - not very hands off)?

Because 'algorithm'?

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#34

Post by jMyles » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

I love you all. :-)

Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant.

We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system.

Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem.

Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is capable of giving in and handing over the lollipop.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#35

Post by jimktrains2 » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

parent5446 wrote: post #29

revelation wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the whole point, this probably wasn't a DMCA complaint. Google and YouTube on the pressure of rights holders have put in place a completely parallel system that offers the accused no legal recourse. They just need to go back to all DMCA. Then at least someone with pockets deep enough can challenge these fraudulent requests.

In this case the article clearly says the uploader can submit a counter-notice to reinstate the video, so it sounds exactly like a standard DMCA notice to me.

Just because it sounds like it doesn't mean it is. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-injust...

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#36

Post by andrewclunn » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

Internet censorship concerns, video games, faulty technology, and a big tech firm threatening legal action... No wonder this is top ranked on Hacker News.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#37

Post by orcy » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

warrenmiller wrote: post #6

methinks this will only lead to the barbra streisand effect.

Also a bad move for company IMO. These funny videos makes some positive feelings on this Note 7 failure, so Samsung would be better to publish more of these instead.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#38

Post by akerro » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #14

pearjuice wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple comes to mind.

Your getting downvoted beacuse morals only apply to people in the same social caste as you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

This thing is called "suicide net", plenty of images of them on Google Image, eg here http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FO...

If some people find them moral, maybe they will find this a bit less moral: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/c...

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#39

Post by luso_brazilian » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #12

Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I…

Your presupposition is that it is in Google's (and Youtube's) best interest to guarantee that videos are correctly allowed or denied based on the balance of copyright, trademark and fair use.

It could very well be that their best interest is in satisfying their big customers, the companies that invest massive amounts of money in advertising, publishing and divulging their products and services through Google platforms.

Hence the existence of Content ID as a tool for takedown as opposed to rely simply the existing tools like DMCA takedown notices.

The later is, in theory, fair as it gives the accused a clear remedy for false accusations (demand reinstatement of the video and wait for the court battle with the video in place) while the former is a process completely in control by Google and it is up to their discretion to fix the situation.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#40

Post by mickronome » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

Grazester wrote: post #13

turblety wrote: post #4

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

I wonder if in the mod Samsung's name and Galaxy brand was used and if they would have a case therefore.

Trademark defenses mostly only applies if it is a satirical or parochial product, and even then rather weakly. The song 'Barbie girl' is a good example where a trademark was used for profit, but the court upheld the parody exemption. Satire is in some cases more weakly protected than satire, but mostly if the satire is only using the mark, but not as much if it is critical at something covered by the mark. Found lots of interesting case references in http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu...