Update: video(s?) is back up: http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-...
It really is superb parody.
Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
141–150 of 219 posts
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#142Earlier 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…
This is why the Distributed Web is so important. We need to be sharing all our videos/content in a P2P manner so it can't get censored.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The way i phrased the reasoning for skipping it should've made clear that i actually read it. I only skipped responding to it. The entirety of the comment assumes the mod was made without using an image file copy-righted to samsung, which is however a possibility.
Also your comment about the video footage is inane. Yeah, sure, it would likely be resolved under Fair Use, but only once a judge gets involved. The DMCA request is still entirely valid.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#144I never would have seen the video without the 'block'. Thanks Samsung, that was funny!
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#145Earlier 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…
What? Samsung comes with a copyrighted background image by default on their phones. The modder took that background image, modified it, and redistributed it. That's illegal.
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#146Earlier 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…
Funny how people tend to view things like malls and social media as public places. It's a mass illusion we all place on what is inevitably a biased corporate product fully intended to make money. It would be interesting to see what a municipal social media platform would look like.
There was a pretty famous course case in Canada on this point, on whether a mall could be useful as a public space.
Court decided no, but a dissent lamented that there were no public spaces in many instances.
I just searched, and the US Supreme Court has gone back and forth on this issue.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/do-you-have-free-speech-...
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/...
Being trampled to death is fairly violent. I wonder how non-intential violence would be viewed by a court.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#148This is the abuse of the copyright system people warned about and YouTube downplayed.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#149Wonder 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 huge monetary penalties enforced on these companies by law, instead of hoping that the industry police itself? There is no way anything else is going to work and hell will freeze over before abuses stop voluntarily.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#150Earlier 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…
Its amazing how people act like money and short-term metrics are all that the matters, and the the only purpose of money is to accaccumulate it as an end in itself, and that the public shouldn't communicate to applysocila pressure and consequences to bad actors.
OP was just saying that is how most corporations act.