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…
Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
131–140 of 219 posts
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#132Earlier 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…
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#133Wonder 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…
"Copywrite" and "copyright" are not synonymous.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#134Wonder 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…
"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
#135Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#136Earlier 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.
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
#137Earlier 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…
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
#138Earlier 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.
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
#139Earlier 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.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#140Update: video(s?) is back up: http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE
Nice job Samsung!