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

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#211

Post by tomohawk »

haliax wrote: post #209
tomohawk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going even further, another way to interpret the 1st Amendment is that it is the federal governments responsibility to protect those freedoms, and that it would be well within the power of Congress to enact laws prohibiting the censoring of free speech, even on so called private platforms. This sort of thing has been done in the past, for example by prohibiting discrimination based on race even in private establishme…

Actually, I don't think this is a valid interpretation of the First Amendment, which is written specifically to circumscribe the powers given to Congress, beginning "Congress shall make no law..."

In other words, this is a right to be protected, not just passively allowed.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#212

Post by oldmanjay »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #186
oldmanjay wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in this case, just to keep things concrete, would be in the service of compelling people to host objectionable speech against their will.

"objectionable speech" is a pretty melodramatic way of saying "parody videos of a consumer product", on par with "taxation is violence and theft"

They object to the speech and decline to host it. Juggle the words however you like to make it more emotionally palatable to you. My goal is to speak precisely.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#213

Post by jimktrains2 »

parent5446 wrote: post #179
jimktrains2 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why couldn't contentid have it's own counter notice? Your arguing from your assumption, not to.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#214

Post by Dylan16807 »

oldmanjay wrote: post #212
chrismonsanto wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"objectionable speech" is a pretty melodramatic way of saying "parody videos of a consumer product", on par with "taxation is violence and theft"

They object to the speech and decline to host it. Juggle the words however you like to make it more emotionally palatable to you. My goal is to speak precisely.

If your goal is to be precise, you should double check the definition of objectionable. It means that the common man would deem it offensive, not that a particular party would object to it for a reason like saving face.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#215

Post by Dylan16807 »

icebraining wrote: post #177
hk__2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes content discovery very difficult.

Why?

A centralized directory that hosts no content will be DMCAed or sued just as easily as one that does, so they will have to implement the same kind of result censorship. And decentralized directories are very vulnerable to spam.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#216

Post by parent5446 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #213
parent5446 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was only ContentID and not DMCA-related at all, then there would be no counter-notice.

Why couldn't contentid have it's own counter notice? Your arguing from your assumption, not to.

Because I've received Content ID notices before. The wording is very different. First you "dispute" the Content ID notice, and then the appeal is rejected, and it gives you a separate form to send a "counter-notice", which contains explicit warnings that the copyright holder can then sue you after you send the notice. Sure it's an assumption, but based on the reading of this article, it seems very clear that this was the result of a DMCA notice.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#217

Post by ccvannorman »

jMyles wrote: post #120
oldmanjay wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have great news! There are a ton of video hosts on the web, who attack the problem from all different angles. Your solution already exists ! You must be thrilled.

I can't quite tell if you are being sarcastic? ...but yes, I am thrilled! The internet increasingly seems to have a will about it, and one that organizes around basic principles of freedom and decentralization. So that's good news. I haven't quite picked a video delivery solution yet; I'm still largely a YouTube user. Do you have a suggestion or guide?

The solution will be in the form of AGI sold to end-users to take care of this problem. Let me explain:

In 2016 you navigate to https://youtube.com to browse videos

in 20X6 you navigate to my_agi://videos/ to browse, and it figures out how to quickly surf youtube and many, many other platforms to present your videos

In that way, personalized and ubiquitous AGI allows end users to access the plethora of video content sites in one single easy to understand endpoint that is controlled by the user.

True, the Apples of the world will sell you an iAGI that is walled-garden, and then we're back to square one. damn. Well, I tried.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#218

Post by Buge »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #68
Buge wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube gets 45% of ad revenue, whether it's content ID or not. And content ID was forced on youtube when they were sued for $1 billion by Viacom.

So, after Google was found guilty, the judge ordered contentID to be created and implemented?

It was a civil case, so no one is found guilty. It was settled, and part of the settlement was the google made contentid.

Re: Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

#219

Post by gm-conspiracy »

FireBeyond wrote: post #184
gm-conspiracy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't upload very often because their upstream sucks. This is chicken-and-egg bullshit. I am sure it is not that difficult to provision. The area I resided in, had only DSL. Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it. The DSL was oversub…

"Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it." Not to sound rude, but you don't actually believe that, do you?

No offense taken.

I agree, it sounds like total BS to me. But, I am not surprised considering it is a cable company.

Post reply on HN