231–240 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.
Recoding and hosting and transmitting video is so expensive that I can assure you no alternative will ever pop up.
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…
This is such a strange comment to me. "Investors" use electricity, live in neighborhoods in California, etc. Why would they want to destroy that stuff? Or are you saying that investors that live far away and have a fraction of a percent of their money invested in PG&E through a mutual fund have the desire or the ability to cause PG&E to do bad things? Assuming they do, how do you envision a diversified investor be punished, even if you took away the whole thing?
I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start. Then there's the occasional startup t…
> How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave YouTube survived even the Real Name Policy during Google+ era. At this point, I can't think I think of anything that could do a permanent and immediate damage to YouTube popularity, even if they pull the equivalent of recent Tumblr purge. YouTube has enough momentum and its audience is way too diverse for it to fail overnight. Also, vi…
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.
FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.
When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.
The copyright concept is fine. Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor. The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.
The basic issue some are concerned with is that "ownership" of intellectual property gives people or entities rights that infringe on regular property rights. There's an inherent conflict, so you can't just maximize both at once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.
It was my understanding that YouTube isn't profitable; has there been any new data on this that I've missed? Lack of similar-sized competitors in the space would certainly indicate that the margins don't really stack up and you could make an argument that the aggressive foisting of their premium offering underscores that notion, but I don't know for sure. It'd be interesting to know more about operating a site of tha…
If Google was losing money on youtube they wouldn't pay out billions a year to video creators in the face of zero competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.
Someone literally stealing from creators needs to start generating expensive lawsuits for some percentage of cases not managed appropriately. This will inspire more concern on their part.
You need to change the law first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.
Class action? There are (tens/hundreds of?) thousands of creators affected.
The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy. I think we've long since pas…
I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and…
> I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. Money. If YT's system wasn't designed this way, claimants would file DMCA claims instead. This imposes a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyrig…
No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.