Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#151

Post by judge2020 »

RIMR wrote: post #109
no_wizard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Vimeo? I know it’s target market has pivoted to More high end indie creations however aren’t they somewhat positioned at least to exploit any holes in YouTube’s strategy? This is one of those things where I feel like a real competitor will only sort of be able to creep up not explode on the scene. I always thought Vimeo had a decent chance here because it’s pretty easy (imo) to use just like YouTube and th…

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see PornHub launch a YouTube competitor strategically as YouTube is flailing. They already run a high functioning video network. They really just need a SFW frontend with alternate branding (and no adult videos).

With the recently released VPNHub [0], it seems like they're willing to branch out and I see this as a possibility.

[0]: https://vpnhub.com

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#152

Post by toomanybeersies »

test6554 wrote: post #92
zyxzevn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope Google & Youtube will troll the EU and block all official state content for a while, until they see that this law is not working.

Google and YouTube have a more than $60 million solution in place that everyone hates. But that is more than potential competitors have. If it passes, they will surely benefit.

There's a parallel in the tobacco industry of how seemingly harmful policies are actually beneficial for certain parties.

Philip Morris, the manufacturers of Marlboro cigarettes, lobbied in favour of laws restricting tobacco advertising. The logic behind this is that they have such strong brand name recognition, if tobacco advertising was banned they'd cement their position as the market leader, as there would be no way for other brands to gain market awareness.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#153

Post by dyukqu »

jedberg wrote: post #18

I saw a great "joke" the other day. It said, "If Shazam or Siri can't identify a song for you, make a quick video and upload it to YouTube. Within a few seconds you'll get a copyright takedown telling you the name of the song".

Honest question: do you guys and gals think YouTube is really able (does it even try?) to identify the songs that Shazam or Siri can not identify - at all? I presume that if a song is unidentifiable for Shazam (or another service like it), then it's not popular and "important" enough on YouTube too so it doesn't get caught OR it's a folk song from a non-Western country.

It's highly probable that you can get the name of such a song much faster by asking about it in the comment section.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#154

Post by nomel »

ravenstine wrote: post #4

I know this is just filtering for now, but I've been backing up entire channels for fear they'll one day disappear because global policy or legacy media conglomerates won't allow for it. I imagine the "you" in YouTube will be mostly gone in the next decade. The writing's on the wall.

Another reason to backup HD Youtube videos is that they'll "demote" them to SD if they don't get enough views.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#155

Post by josephcooney »

taneq wrote: post #144
avs733 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. And before someone gets on me...I realize that these are automated filters that are rarely asserted by the actual copyright holder.

> I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Which copyright should be lost, if the assertion was false?

I'm guessing here, but if you claim that work Y infringes your copyright of X. If it turns out to be false you lose copyright of X.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#156

Post by IncRnd »

Asooka wrote: post #64
quikoa wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.

Well, let's say it takes 30 minutes to fully check for copyright compliance 10 minutes of video. This means that the speed of one person checking videos is 1/3 unchecked-minutes per minute, or 1/3upm. 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute to youtube, which makes for 24000upm. You will need to employ 96000 people 24/7 to check all videos. Of course, they can't work 24/7, so a more realistic figure is 150000 p…

There are some strong corrections that need to be made to your math.

1. Only a subset of uploaded videos need to be checked by humans, those that were flagged by the automated system.

2. Only a subset of the runtime of each flagged video needs to be checked. In other words, if a human decides within 12 seconds of a video that it is infringing, there is no reason to check the remaining portion of the video.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#158

Post by colordrops »

taneq wrote: post #144
avs733 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. And before someone gets on me...I realize that these are automated filters that are rarely asserted by the actual copyright holder.

> I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Which copyright should be lost, if the assertion was false?

The one that is falsely being infringed upon.

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#159

Post by gm-conspiracy »

kartan wrote: post #137
dwheeler wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some additional links about it, esp. article 13. It demonstrates a dreadful lack of understanding of the follow-on consequences: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/07/thanks-axel-voss.html http://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-meme-war-article-13-regula... http://melonfarmers.co.uk/eu.htm http://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-...

> The Article stipulates that platforms should “prevent the availability” of protected works, suggesting these ISSPs will need to adopt technology that can recognise and filter work created by someone other than the person uploading it. But there is no requirement that at the same time protects fair use. To remove content just in case has no negative consequences. > Article 13 is “incompatible with the guarantee of f…

What do most EU citizens have as far as upload bandwidth and the cost for that?

Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More

#160

Post by briandear »

eftychis wrote: post #132
jstanley wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly checking that you're a human. It's partly using you for free labour to train their next generation of SkyNet. We've reached a point with CAPTCHAs (originally conceived as a way for humans to exert their will over machines) where the machines are now setting tasks for the humans, and the humans are carrying out the tasks without putting up too much of a fight.

That. CAPTCHAs are used as free labour. The only reason you don't see them everywhere is because people would stop using Google.

Why do site owners use Google CAPTCHA? Even Cloudflare uses it. I resent being forced to help Google when not even on a Google site. I won’t put any of my stuff on Cloudflare specifically because they force people to help train Google’s image recognition.
Post reply on HN