181–190 of 321 posts
Your precious books and movies are no different than a song someone wrote and/or performed. Get your heads out of your asses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welcome to the DMCA. It's as broken as copyright and causing quite serious stifling of young creators. It sometimes feels like it's used more for evil than for its legitimate purpose.
Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections against false accusations.
Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then come back with "but we didn't know it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get away with it.
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner" makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main argument I can accept for copy right is that it allows for people to pool their tiny amount of money to vote for the kind of music they like so it is more democratic than a patron-focused model where authors and musicians would need to cater to a few patrons' tastes. However, even though most of the money remains concentrated at the top, we no longer have this problem. It is fairly easy to support your favor…
> Imagine the innovation at Spotify if there were no copyright! None, because Spotify would go out of business overnight as people stole their source code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube partners can upload a collection of files they claim rights on, and a YouTube bot will check any newly published video against anything in that database. It's all automated. They don't verify if the claimant actually has the rights, this is left to the "dispute" process. Sometimes multiple companies upload the same files. Sometimes the algorithm has false positives because the section of audio used is too sho…
Sometimes they use your work in theirs, upload it and have YouTube flag your original as infringing. I have to wonder why anybody still uses YouTube. It can't be the community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections against false accusations.
More like "DMCA theoretically has protections against false accusations, but instances of people being held accountable are extremely rare." Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then come back with "but we didn't know it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get away with it.
Possibly NSFW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM&t=20s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.
> Who was sending these notices? There's lots of them. The most notorious one I had to deal with was Adrev. There are reports of people getting notices from AdRev for videos that don't even have any music in them. [1] [1] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/42xLe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections against false accusations.
More like "DMCA theoretically has protections against false accusations, but instances of people being held accountable are extremely rare." Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then come back with "but we didn't know it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get away with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely agree with this. There is a human right to be a storyteller, to reimagine characters and themes, to expand settings and genres. To sit around the campfire and make new stories of King Arthur and Lancelot, new stories about Sherlock and Watson, new stories about Harry and Hermione. Copyright is supposed to be a balance between the author and society. In exchange for releasing the full body of the work, th…
> There is a human right to be a storyteller, to reimagine characters and themes, to expand settings and genres. To sit around the campfire and make new stories of King Arthur and Lancelot, new stories about Sherlock and Watson, new stories about Harry and Hermione. Although I disagree that this should be considered a human right, isn't this generally covered by fair use in the US anyways?