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

CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#31

Post by jbob2000 »

henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states.

Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#33

Post by Wowfunhappy »

jbob2000 wrote: post #31
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily…

> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers.

Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#34

Post by outworlder »

jandrese wrote: post #26
warent wrote: post #6

I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser trailer.

26 seconds of a 50 minute show? 0.87% of the show is too much for fair use? I suspect you will in fact be one of the very few who thinks that is too much.

Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer itself.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#35

Post by alias_neo »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #32
jsilence wrote: post #24

Please start using YT alternatives like for example lbry.tv.

Sure, but first the content creators I watch need to go there.

Then they need to make an LG WebOS (TV) app where my family does 90% of our YouTube viewing.

Edit: Really, a downvote? How do you expect wide spread adoption 9f an alternative service if the apps for normal-user devices (TVs) don't exist?

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#37

Post by quest88 »

adamc wrote: post #29
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.

What did they do wrong in this case?

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#38

Post by penagwin »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33
jbob2000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily…

> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."

In some cases the company making the claim doesn't even own the IP. I remember a case where the youtuber NerdCubed had his Portal videos copyright claimed, even though Valve themselves explicitly states that making videos of their games (and cutscenes) is perfectly okay.

When he contacted Valve they responded - "We didn't make the youtube claim". So SOMEBODY did, but not the actual owners.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#39

Post by raverbashing »

A good reminder to avoid doing free publicity of big copyright content.

Sure, it's fair use, it's what people are talking about etc. Still, it's free publicity.

If not, content creators should be very aware of possible abuses and should add anti-abuse language to their contracts, like this: https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-c...

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#40

Post by chc »

quest88 wrote: post #37
adamc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.

What did they do wrong in this case?

They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?
Post reply on HN