We're joining Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: We're joining Facebook

#51

Post by chickenfries » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 3:00 AM UTC

ingrand wrote: post #18

chickenfries wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but they could also choose to enforce copyright claims on people who can pay. Or maybe facebook just doesn't care about my meme pages and wants to purge them so I spend more time looking at branded content.

The porn industry has been doing this for a while. I remember about 4-5 years ago were services available to content producers that scanned tube sites and newsbins for copyrighted content. You had to pay for it though (SaaS, they wouldn't sell the code). It was somewhat of a racket, because the people selling the detection service were also running the tube sites that were condoning piracy. It's amazing how the porn…

Does it predate content ID on youtube? I suppose the difference with ContentID is that it's free to file a claim and it's limited to youtube and not multiple tube sites.

Re: We're joining Facebook

#52

Post by iknowicouldturn » Fri, Jul 28, 2017, 3:19 PM UTC

twunde wrote: post #24

iknowicouldturn wrote: post #11

Wonder how much they'll be using the technology and how. Will they try to do it like YouTube with trying to keep videos up, and having the revenue go to the copyright owner? Or maybe they won't do much. Comments seem to be divided.

I suspect that it will more likely be similar to YouTube where they try to keep images and other IP up, and generate ad revenue for both FB and the creators. Most of the team behind Source3 worked on a startup called Rightsflow, which did music licensing and eventually was acquired by YouTube. They were responsible for doing a lot (all?) of the music licensing for videos, so that instead of videos being taken down th…

Yeah that makes sense and most likely for sure.

Re: We're joining Facebook

#53

Post by 6stringmerc » Sat, Jul 29, 2017, 3:43 AM UTC

divenorth wrote: post #5

6stringmerc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed; also, turn it around and it becomes a user-generated-content tool as well. As in anything that goes viral, the brand owner can take ownership of and exploit as an unauthorized derivative work, free of any user recourse. Well, except Fair Use, but I'd hope that's part of their model to consider, because it's important I think.

But nobody really knows what fair use means. We have a general idea but that's it.

No, we do know what Fair Use is it's just that people like to claim it as an excuse when it's not valid.

CASE IN POINT: Mike Masnick. That sonofabitch is the most ignorant loud-mouth "I ain't never made nothing creative so everything is Fair Use" sinkhole asshole since Nick Denton.

Fair Use is alive and well. Idiots who try to wear it as a defense cloak get what's coming to them. I know the right lawyers to dail up if I ever need to, but I haven't needed to, because I'm not Masnick.