161–170 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which has nothing to do with copyright the concept but our particular current implementation of it.
> The problem is with the youtube's implementation it is not.. it is with the existing laws
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
True, but the punitive damages are set as a multiple of the damage done. I want them to be as a percentage of the revenue / valuation of the party at fault. The current system is why PG&E has literally blown up neighborhoods and burnt down a city, but the investors only got a slap on the wrist. In a system where punitive damages are a percentage of the valuation of the corporate entity that committed the crime, repea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing they do can't be done with existing cloud networks and off-the-shelf open source software, or a bit of clever coding. Burn a lot of money on bandwidth while delivering video with minimal hiccups and impressive reliability?
S3 can literally do this. There is even a "smooth video streaming" option.
The barrier to entry is enormous. I run a podcast platform; I can't even host that on S3 without going to the poor house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and act like that's the law. The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
The 'content owner' can always choose to opt out and file DMCA requests instead of using ContentID, though. If they don't like Google's system... They don't have to use it. But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
* creator is in the hospital
* creator is dead, and the heirs know nothing about dealing with copyright claims
* creator is hiking the Appalachian Trail for the next year
* creator is in jail for something unrelated
* creator got deployed on a submarine
* creator now has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember the internet
ContentID becomes a trivial way to steal money, and the DMCA becomes a trivial way to suppress the creator's work.
You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disreg…
And every second they think that way brings them a step closer to being replaced. Literally the only thing youtube has value-wise is its audience. Nothing they do can't be done with existing cloud networks and off-the-shelf open source software, or a bit of clever coding. Furthermore by catering to advertisers wholesale, they are alienating their primary users and pissing everyone off. Eventually people will get sick…
Please, link to this off-the-shelf open source software that can be used to replicate the YouTube experience, both in terms of hosting and playing videos as well as distribution on various platforms. I'll settle for Android and iOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The burn led to hospitalization. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring. >They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temper…
What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Depends on the tea" is absolutely right, but that website makes some odd claims. It reads like a content mill. Their claim that black tea should be steeped at 85 deg C is simply wrong. I don't know where they got that. Black teas are universally recognized to require the highest steeping temperatures, to the point that high-altitude brewing is a problem for many folks. The claim that green tea is best steeped at 70…
Agreed. Black tea will never brew properly at 85° - personally I'd throw that gnat's pee away and try and get it right the second time. As near to 100 as you can manage, which means warm the pot or mug first - though most don't. Pot with loose leaf is much preferable. Let it brew to taste.
How do you feel about steeping times? There are some green teas that get nasty if I steep too long, but otherwise, for me, stronger is almost always better, so I've rarely paid attention to steeping times. Sometimes I make a big french press of tea and let it steep until drunk. Do you keep track of the time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with this. There should be enormous consequences for false reports, and there should be an AI that is designed to understand fair use (It's not fucking impossible).
Sure, but YouTube doesn't have that option . Any of the suggestions given here would almost certainly lose YT their safe harbor status. YouTube's policies are as Draconian as they are because that's literally the only way to comply with the law . I can't for the life of me figure out why YT doesn't have some kind of messaging strategy around that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
S3 can literally do this. There is even a "smooth video streaming" option.
I'm aware of S3's capabilities. That's why I included the "a lot of money" caveat. The barrier to entry is enormous . I run a podcast platform; I can't even host that on S3 without going to the poor house.
I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to generate attention for a platform that mine…
Ok? And everyone working at Youtube is making money off of the videos he makes and puts on the internet. That's how society works.