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

151–160 of 219 posts

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#151

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

bisby wrote: post #100
luso_brazilian wrote: post #39

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…

Huh? I absolutely have a right to come out and publicly say that YouTube or Facebook is practicing censorship of ideas for political or financial gain on their platforms, and express the fact that this is a bad thing for users. Expressing such an opinion is not tantamount to stating I have any "rights" under their platforms or being entitled; you are connecting those dots in your head without basis just to be snide.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#152

Post by mzw_mzw »

bisby wrote: post #100
luso_brazilian wrote: post #39

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…

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

It's amazing how, every time a private organization is criticized for how it handles speech on its platform, some tedious rando jumps out of the woodwork to smugly lecture everyone about how private organizations don't have legal obligations to host anything.

Yes. We know. We know, we know, we know, we all know. The First Amendment does not apply. We are not saying that Google is legally required to do anything. We are saying that Google's behavior is not in the spirit of free speech and chills discourse. That's it. Can we take it as read that everyone's up to speed on this and move on without the pointless derail, please?

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#153

Post by mzw_mzw »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #150
hilop wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't make their behavior automatically good or beyond criticism.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#154

Post by takeda »

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?

YouTube goes beyond copyright, and totally ignoring fair use, there's also no neutral third party that you could ask to review.

I had a situation recently by uploading a dashcam video recently, it had song played from a radio and it got flagged. I appealed from it that it is fair use (no monetary gain, it doesn't affect their sales (very bad quality, not whole song), it's not center part of the video (in fact I would prefer if it wasn't there).

The studio owning the song responded that blocking it is still valid and youtube informed me that I can appeal again, but if I lose again I can lose my account, which at that point I gave up. I doubt that studio has any consequences for labeling things incorrectly.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#156

Post by Pica_soO »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #152
bisby wrote: 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…

>It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere. It's amazing how, every time a private organization is criticized for how it handles speech on its platform, some tedious rando jumps out of the woodwork to smugly lecture everyone about how private organizations don't have legal obligations to host anything. Yes. We know. We know, we know, we know, we all know. The First Amendment…

You are totally right, we should disown whoever posseses the digital main-street. Its outrageous the public, the people of the constitution have to be beggars in some private backyard.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#157

Post by dawnerd »

odbol_ wrote: post #142
bisby wrote: 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…

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.

Nothing stopping anyone from distributing their videos via torrents (some musicians do this).

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#158

Post by robterrell »

odbol_ wrote: post #145
robterrell wrote: post #86

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…

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…

Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted. And they are generally blurred out for product-placement reasons, not because showing them on television is infringement.

I don't know what you're referring to, but if a filmmaker is sued because the Simpsons is playing in the background of a movie... that is definitely a possible legitimate copyright issue. I'd assume that fair use would apply, though.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#159

Post by logicallee »

gok wrote: post #74

Why would Google want to leave up a video that ridicules their top hardware partner? YouTube isn't a public service.

According to a recent UN report to be released in a few months and which I've gotten an advanced copy of, YCombinator is the worst organization in the history of modern civilization.

That was a satirical sentence. Now let's examine your argument as applied directly to this very comment. Why is it in YCombinator's (the organization that runs this forum we're both posting in) interest to "keep up" this comment, which is obviously satirical by being over-the-top.

Because the default is "keeping up."

They would be crazy to remove it, which won't happen. The situation might be different if this were a new account not making a valid, albeit satirical, point. The fact that "YCombinator is not a public service" is not right, because yes, in some ways, Hacker News is a public service in a sense, and so is YouTube.

Maybe not exactly, but it is not highly administered to promote only a single thought.

Note: I want to add the disclaimer that I really actually don't have negative feelings about YCombinator, in case someone misunderstands. I'm literally just making a point by showing that just because they run this service doesn't mean they would remove a comment like this one. You need really, really good reason to remove something. By default things stay up.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#160

Post by Scirra_Tom »

jMyles wrote: 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…

Isn't this going from one (perceived extreme) of making sole actors able to bring content down to another extreme where no-one can bring anything down?

Does fixing the issue really mean making all material (copyrighted or not) always available and impossible to take down?

Post reply on HN