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

101–110 of 188 posts

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

#101

Post by wostusername »

mnm1 wrote: post #87

The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate. Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other words, it really doesn't exist anymore for…

Google does not have the power to determine if something is fair use or not, that is up to the courts. You might think something is fair use, and I might disagree. We are supposed to go to court and have a trial to determine which one of us is right. Google is not judge and jury, they can't make that determination.

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

#102

Post by j-c-hewitt »

darkarmani wrote: post #92
j-c-hewitt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube in general is not liable for copyright infringement on content posted by users. People love to talk about standing up to legal bullies, but lawyers are expensive. Copyright law is extremely friendly to plaintiffs and generous in terms of damages: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html CBS would totally show up in a small town if they knew that they had a good chance of winning. Their lawyers are alrea…

> In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in the future. That's true of trademark, but why do you think that is true of copyright?

Unlike trademark, you do not lose your copyright registration for failure to enforce it. However, it makes it a lot easier for prospective defendants if you have a track record of ignoring infringements. Your registration is not in danger, but your ability to win as much as possible might be. Even works with no identifiable copyright owner are not necessarily considered 'abandoned,' which creates a lot of interesting issues, such as in the case of Google Books: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

The main thing with copyright is not like the risk of trademark dilution: it's just that not enforcing it makes it easier for defendants to bargain and argue for lighter penalties.

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

#104

Post by fullshark »

rriepe wrote: post #49
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #36

CBS All Access needs the publicity - good or bad, Joe guy is doing them a favor. Hulu has The Orville which I think has proven definitively that anyone can take the Star Trek formula and pump out a watchable show. Who needs CBS?

I'd argue that CBS can't, but they didn't really use the Star Trek formula for Picard. The Orville has definitely shown us it's the ideas which are cherished, not the IP.

I also think the structure: self contained episodes, is why it works. Old star trek episodes were like bite sized scifi movies with usually at least one interesting idea within them. This long form spy thriller serial format is a drag if the overarching plot isn't really compelling.

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

#105

Post by IronWolve »

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.

People are broadcasting to multiple platforms at the same time. People broadcast to facebook/periscope/youtube at the same time via 3rd party apps.

There needs to be a way for these new content startups to allow broadcasting on multiple platforms. If a creator has to "upload" to each site, that going to turn them away from many alternatives.

I toyed with the idea of a portal for crowdfunding clone, with a threaded feed, and other technologies that already exist. Then there are dozen(s) of funding ideas for the Creators and the site.

The technology is there, the knowledge is there. But little interest from investors.

All Reddit would need to do is create creators subs with crowdfunding and paywalled content, subscriptions, etc, and they could easily own the market.

Linus is doing floatplane, so creators do see this big giant hole that is just waiting for someone to drive a truck and smash youtube.

I just can't understand why the biggest problem and the simplest solutions, and nobody has done it yet. Its like fedex\amazon, after its launches, people go, duh, that was a good idea.

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

#106

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

chc wrote: post #40
quest88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What are you paying Google for their video hosting service? Why are you entitled to have them do convenient things for you?

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

#107

Post by JohnFen »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
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…

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

> I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT

Who knows?

But what I do know is that about half of the YouTube channels I follow have already started putting videos up on other services -- they're eager to get out of the YouTube ecosystem. And I'm eager to follow them.

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

#108

Post by JohnFen »

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."

> some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced.

So, both idiots and greedy, then.

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

#109

Post by modzu »

danso wrote: post #95

It's interesting that Angry Joe got taken down; AFAIK, RedLetterMedia's review didn't get taken down, and it featured decent chunks of non-trailer footage (not sure if any of them were 10+ seconds consecutively) [0]. And, like AJ's, it was a very negative review. I don't doubt AJ was the victim of manual review, I'm just surprised RLM wouldn't be on CBS's shit list as well. (and tangentially: both are right; the "Pic…

its funny how some execs can slap the name on something and anyone expects it to be anything like what was the labor of roddenberry's life. can a bunch of people get together in a room and release a new "elvis" album cuz the name is owned by some studio?

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

#110

Post by TurkishPoptart »

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…

What a ridiculous absurdity. More light should be shed on this case.
Post reply on HN