Live data from Hacker News

Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

bbc.com

131–140 of 219 posts

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#131
post #34

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…

Both free markets and state-controlled systems reward centralized control of any given type of media. In the former case, it's the idea that a "network effect" drives revenue opportunity. There's a real sense in which, in either of these regimes, our organism cannot build an immunity to singular community-controllers deciding that they weren't going to give you the lollipop in the first place. That's their prerogative, whether or not it was written in a law. The question is, how do we economically incentivize decentralized social networks to the point where they're as feature-filled, advanced, engineered, and efficiently operated as the centralized ones? There's no simple answer to that question.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#132
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

that being said, I think there is probably legal precedent in holding Youtube accountable to the public interest given its breadth and depth. Looking at the typical 1st amendment litmus test re: falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater - even if that theater is private, what is yelled inside becomes public interest if it affects the public welfare.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#133
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…

nit: ...copyrighted content.

"Copywrite" and "copyright" are not synonymous.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#134
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…

Youtube really has terrible discretion here. The optics of banning a cancer patient's channel and sole source of income are not great...

"It's going to take three months to get the strike removed from my channel... I got my live stream taken away," he said in a video. "If I submit a counter-notification to say 'sue me', I wonder what they will do. Will they sue me, the kid that has cancer and just makes money off YouTube playing a video game?" "It really sucks, because I really worked hard on this channel."

edit: spelling

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#135
Maybe this has nothing to do with DMCA and more to do with Samsung spending millions of dollars in advertising on Youtube (speculation). If one of your major sponsors threatens to pull back advertising dollars, that supports your platform, maybe you bow to their requests. Maybe.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#136
post #132
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

that being said, I think there is probably legal precedent in holding Youtube accountable to the public interest given its breadth and depth. Looking at the typical 1st amendment litmus test re: falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater - even if that theater is private, what is yelled inside becomes public interest if it affects the public welfare.

It's a popular myth that yelling "fire" in a theater is unlawful.

For speech to be unlawful it must incite violence:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#137
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their entire business model of distributing arbitrary uploads is a grant from the government, one which was very controversial until the overton window passed. edit: We can certainly decide that it's in the public interest to place limits on the editorial control over sites that rely on safe harbor, just as phone companies aren't allowed to censor particular conversations. Things get to be rights because we collectiv…

That's not actually libertarianism; it's crypto-fascism. There is no distinction between a totalitarian government and a perfectly "libertarian" company which owns all land and property, so true libertarians must be concerned with how power is actually distributed.

Tech giants have scale and effects on par with government, especially as these "independent" companies tend to make decisions in lock step. Thus libertarians should be primarily concerned with the rights of the distributed actors within these ecosystems.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is great, but if it gets out of hand, government intervention is needed. Two good examples are the breakup of Ma Bell and US v. Microsoft (2001). For a present day problem, look no further than ISPs.

Ma Bell and ISPs are odd examples, because their monopoly or quasi-monopoly positions are possible because of government involvement.

> Ma Bell and ISPs are odd examples, because their monopoly or quasi-monopoly positions are possible because of government involvement.

False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#140
post #65

Update: video(s?) is back up: http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-...

The video appears to have had a few tens of thousand views before Samsung's complaint. Two days later, it's nearing 1.4 million views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE

Nice job Samsung!

Post reply on HN