Naturally I now want to see all of them.
Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
171–180 of 219 posts
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You said "so it sounds exactly like a standard DMCA notice to me." My point was that ContentID isn't the DMCA, or even a legal notice. It exists only within YouTube.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#173Why 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 i…
I've been downvoted, but I think people didn't get my point at all. There is no way that YCombinator is removing this comment, just because they host this platform, and for emphasis I pretend to be critical.
There is no WAY youtube would remove a video of an exploding samsung, just because samsung is a partner.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#174Earlier 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…
On on the side of, society extends corporations a lot of rights and protection. Stand to reason that demands that they serve the public interest aren't unreasonable. Especially in this case where the claim is corporations are abusing a right; copyright and trademark protection.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#175Earlier 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?
IANAL, but the DMCA Safe Harbor is for hosting providers that want to keep their hands clean of their user's uploaded content. If you're hosting your own content, the whole procedure doesn't apply to you (though if your content really is infringing, keeping it up after receiving the takedown could be used as evidence of willful infringement).
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple comes to mind.
Your getting downvoted beacuse morals only apply to people in the same social caste as you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
From your link (emphasis mine): "The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#177Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#178Earlier 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…
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.
There is regulation. It's called the DMCA and it actually forces Google to take down any video that Samsung claims to be theirs.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You said "so it sounds exactly like a standard DMCA notice to me." My point was that ContentID isn't the DMCA, or even a legal notice. It exists only within YouTube.
If it was only ContentID and not DMCA-related at all, then there would be no counter-notice.
Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted.
How can that be? Every artistic work is automatically under copyright (see the Berne Convention, which the US adopted in 1988), so why wouldn't logos be?