Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think in practice that would lead to something like patent trolls — organizations designed no face no threat from the normal consequences. Plain old money based fines should work. Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough, given the scale of the internet.
I really like the per error idea - allows for large cases to have no barrier to contest but for the whole thing to not become like patent trolling. Maybe also some sort of threshold for mass cases, like a progressive taxation: If you're right 95% of the time, you get a discount. If you're wrong 50% of the time, you pay the full fee. Who would be in charge of setting these?
YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
201–210 of 262 posts
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#202I 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".
I've seen nature videos where there's no sound but the birds chirping, and YouTube is still able to hear someone playing All-Star on Mars and flag the video. It's really incredible tech. EDIT: The article actually mentions some similar examples: http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copy...
if it can identify the song why can't it process it out of the soundtrack ?
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I had never thought of that. That's cynical genius of the highest order. AND they get to play the moral high-ground card of "seriously, we're sorry! We're on your side-- look at what we're doing to help!"
When tobacco advertising was banned from TV, literally all tobacco companies profited. It was a classic example of game theory - If one of them advertised, they all needed to advertise to keep up, but if none of them do (or were unable to because of regulations), they all profit because people were still buying tobacco.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#204google is dominated in search and youtube, both especially the latter, need a competitor, kind of burger-king to MacDonald
Any competitor that gets big enough to challenge YT will attract the same scrutiny from content rights owners. and will face the same copyright issues that YT does. The problem isn't in the content hosting industry, it isn't even on the content producing industry. It is on the policy & legal side.
Case in point, twitch.tv added a contentid type system on their VODs (video on demand) in 2014.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know the guy who created ContentID. He's a good guy and only had good intentions, namely to keep YouTube in business by identifying legit copyright issues. At the time, a human had to review all the claims. This is a good example of how AI can go bad.
Looking at the DMCA requirements, it doesn't appear like it would require a lot of human intervention. 1. Copyright owner provides written notification of the alleged infringement. The notification has to provide reasonably sufficient information to allow Google to locate the alleged infringing material; provide contact information for the claimant; include a statement that the claimant has a good faith believe that…
ContentID does go far beyond DMCA requirements. I think for a while, some big companies has carte blanche to delete any video. I guess narrowly winning a billion-dollar lawsuit against them will scare a company that way.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think in practice that would lead to something like patent trolls — organizations designed no face no threat from the normal consequences. Plain old money based fines should work. Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough, given the scale of the internet.
I really like the per error idea - allows for large cases to have no barrier to contest but for the whole thing to not become like patent trolling. Maybe also some sort of threshold for mass cases, like a progressive taxation: If you're right 95% of the time, you get a discount. If you're wrong 50% of the time, you pay the full fee. Who would be in charge of setting these?
Or what about a system like they use in Finland to deal with speeding tickets - the fine is based on your income. The local paper has a weekly list of top offenders, which is amusing to say the least.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another reason to backup HD Youtube videos is that they'll "demote" them to SD if they don't get enough views.
I've never heard or seen that. Seems weird as well. Source?
they are probably talking about their caching. Videos with low views are not cached at all servers, especially not higher definitions. So you want to watch the video, the server realizes "oh hang on, I threw this one out, let me grab it again from another server". while the server fetches the fullHD video, you get it in 360p
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to some, YouTube's copyright filters / markers aren't good enough to satisfy the EU directive. It's insane. The DMCA is bad enough already. Copyright should be loosened, not tightened. Then maybe we'd see some competition in video hosting.
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.
The complexity here is that there are multiple parties involved: the copyright holder, who suspects there may have been an infringement; the uploader of the potentially infringing content; and the host, who wants as little to do with copyright claims as they can.
The DMCA strikes a balance for the copyright holder and the host, by letting the host avoid any liability for the copyright infringement, as long as they enforce valid requests by no longer hosting the content.
The new EU law builds on this principle, giving hosts more responsibility to check whether copyright might be being infringed. I'm strongle against the idea, but I can see the logic that the host is best-placed to actively monitor all uploaded content.
A big issue I have, both with the DMCA and this new legislation, is that there's no balancing in the direction of the uploader. Aggressive solutions like your proposal do address this imbalance, but they don't do anything to address the actual concerns each side has.
If we want more reasonable copyright laws in this arena going forward, we should also be pushing for an uploader's right to appeal, as a balance against the rights of and affordances for the other two parties: * There should be an 'appeals'/'counterclaim' process for content uploaders to take responsibility for the content. Presumably, to balance against the copyright holder's needs, they should submit their name and address when they claim that their content is non-infringing. * From the host's side, the uploader following this process should remove all responsibility for that content from them, so they have no concern about liability and can re-enable access to the content. * From the copyright holder's side, they need to be able to seek recourse if they still think the content is infringing. This can be done by taking the uploader to court, using the details they have provided.
I desperately hope this new legislation fails, but I think you were spot-on about aiming for a 'fair balance', and even acheiving that would be a great improvement.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard or seen that. Seems weird as well. Source?
they are probably talking about their caching. Videos with low views are not cached at all servers, especially not higher definitions. So you want to watch the video, the server realizes "oh hang on, I threw this one out, let me grab it again from another server". while the server fetches the fullHD video, you get it in 360p
I recently had a video with very low views that just wouldn't load for minutes on end. Was wondering if they were down, or if it had to be grabbed from some tape archive because a disk crashed. After about 10-15 minutes, it slowly loaded. This was at all qualities, browsers, and even when trying from another continent.
Re: YouTube’s Piracy Filter Blocks MIT Courses, Blender Videos, and More
#210I 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.
The really frustrating aspect is that one would need to implement advanced search functionality on those videos otherwise the more you archive the less chance you have of finding anything. The "hosting" aspect of YouTube is really a small part of why the service dominates. The connections between channels and links from one video to another channel -- network effects and discovery -- are what make disrupting YT seem…
> network effects and discovery -- are what make disrupting YT seem impossible.
i highly doubt that. The youtube monopoly is due to both audience, and the monitization model available (which, atm is getting shoddier and shoddier every day with random demonitizations).
Hosting is a big issue, but it's a technical issue, and other platforms (such as vemeo, or some other platform) has "solved". But those platforms don't dominate (or even show up as a blip!) because content creators can't use them to make their living.