Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#91

Post by Mithaldu »

robterrell wrote: post #86
Mithaldu wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if the texture of the model in the mod is a photo published by samsung in some way, meaning they would have a copyright on the texture, and publishing a video made with the mod made with the texture would indeed be a legit copyright violation. Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just…

That's not how copyright works. The forms of intellectual property protection that apply to the Note 7 simply don't apply to a texture in a video game that is video-captured. Even setting aside the broad protections given to parodies (in the US at least.) Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist…

> Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture.

Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case.

The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#92

Post by shostack »

mattnewton wrote: post #85

Oh boy, Streisand effect in full swing. Block a YouTube video and now get to the front page of the BBC.

That's the part I don't get. Presumably they have a PR team that aren't idiots with the money they have. Surely they had to have thought this might happen, right? Right?!

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#93

Post by stevarino »

mattnewton wrote: post #85

Oh boy, Streisand effect in full swing. Block a YouTube video and now get to the front page of the BBC.

Sadly I don't think Samsung has to worry about the Streisand effect: how much worse can it really get for them?

This is just damage control for their products not to become complete jokes.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#94

Post by parent5446 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #35
parent5446 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Not sure how that article is relevant. As I just said, you can submit a counter-notice. Sure the ContentID system might have flaws, but (as the article says) you can still dispute it.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#95

Post by sf_rob »

jhasse wrote: post #21
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 about an alternative to YouTube? It's such a pity that online videos have become so centralized ...

Vimeo exists and IMO offers a better desktop playback experience than YouTube. That said, they'll never compete, even if they're as good as YouTube as a platform for videos/video discovery because they don't have an entire ecosystem, not to mention name recognition, propping them up (e.g. Android, Google Apps).

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#96

Post by abdias »

It's a funny story but also shows how pathetic (IMO) some companies and organizations become. They just don't realize the cat is already out the bag. "Damage control" should not be used for censorship. This is clearly fair use (satire).

And in general about YouTube and similar companies: This is what happens when the court principle of innocent until proven guilty is inverted to be guilty until proven innocent.

There is a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, and Google (and other companies) should adhere and respect the intentions behind it.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#97

Post by edsouza »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #33
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'?

Most likely Samsung used the Youtube's "Content ID" system. DMCA is not necessary in that case.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#98

Post by intrasight »

antihero wrote: post #84
intrasight wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about hosting your own videos. Then someone would have to take you to court to have it taken down.

Couldn't they just send you a DMCA takedown request, then if you don't file a counter request and take it down, when it goes to court they can just nuke you for not following DMCA procedure?

Right. You counter their automated boilerplate DCMA notice with your won automated boilerplate DCMA. End result is the same - the have to take you to court.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#99

Post by [deleted] »

1_2__3 wrote: post #54
jnagro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. Satire is fair use.

This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is. Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned. Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks. Copyright does not protect basic look and feel. There's…

[deleted]

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#100

Post by bisby »

luso_brazilian wrote: post #39
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 platform…

It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere.

Youtube, facebook, reddit, hacker news are all private organizations. They are not legally obligated to host your content (in some cases, like copyright infringement, they are legally obligated to NOT host your content).

The only thing that keeps these sites from arbitrarily censoring their users is money. If facebook deleted every article that zuckerberg disagreed with, people would eventually stop using facebook (there might be some speculation about how their "top stories" algorithm "filters" stuff out).

Less users means less ad revenue. But on the flip side, if samsung accounts for a noticeable chunk of ad revenue and that becomes at risk, less ad revenue means less ad revenue too. If blindly DMCA'ing videos yields a loss of 2% of users, but keeping the video up yields a loss of 5% of ad revenue (from samsung's share), then I imagine they will always prefer to side with samsung.

This isn't illegal, this is just one of the truths about capitalism. If a company exists to make money, it will side with money. if a company exists to provide a quality service, it will side with quality service. Quality service often doesn't have the marketing team though.

Post reply on HN