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

111–120 of 188 posts

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

#111

Post by danso »

modzu wrote: post #109
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?

DS9 was created without Roddenberry's involvement. And to your point, it severely clashed with his original vision, particularly the inherent non-exploration built into the setting and the dark interpersonal conflicts. But it's arguably still very good – even if you dismiss the later seasons as being too serial and warfare-oriented.

"Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only by the sentiments the fanbase has for Capt. Picard.

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

#112

Post by Shivetya »

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…

sadly RLM was right, it is an atrocious show because certain people in Hollywood and political friends of their are more than willing to trash the legacy of respected shows and movies to score political points and show how "woke" they are.

Gone is the attempt to tell good stories and now we are stuck with political preaching which always requires all the canon of the show or movie being used to be trampled if not insulted.

RLM pointed out the defining difference between Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek and all the tripe we have today. When he wanted to deal with race he had the characters blow it off, it was such a non issue then they could not take offense because it did not occur to them. (episode with Abraham Lincoln)

Instead we are served the tripe and hatred that the woke political movement uses to silence those it does not agree with or those who dare call them out.

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

#113

Post by roywiggins »

moron4hire wrote: post #97
darkarmani wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not fair use if you're making money off of it. Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_... . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y

Parody in particular has lots of precedence backing it up as Fair Use. Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal defense that you may use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the litigation from going forward. And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair Use if the defendant is making money directly off of whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a teacher who makes copies whole-…

Commentary also has a long tradition of being fair use. People sold newspapers with reviews in them and they were absolutely able to quote from the sources they were reviewing. Quoting 30 seconds of a half-hour show as part of a review seems to fit comfortably in the tradition of fair use, whether it's a commercial use or not.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

Keverw wrote: post #73
henryfjordan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.

There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by BitwiseFool »

danso wrote: post #111
modzu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

DS9 was created without Roddenberry's involvement. And to your point, it severely clashed with his original vision, particularly the inherent non-exploration built into the setting and the dark interpersonal conflicts. But it's arguably still very good – even if you dismiss the later seasons as being too serial and warfare-oriented. "Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only by the sentiments the fa…

DS9 still had a lot of respect for the 'source material' so to speak. New Trek just wants to keep the iconography and tell whatever kind of story they feel like.

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

#116

Post by zadkey »

VectorLock wrote: post #42
macinjosh wrote: post #27

I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win. Social and legal norms be damned I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way li…

It feels like most YouTubers know and have vocalized their issues with YouTube, but lack any viable alternatives. The benefits they get with YouTube with the large audience already using the platform and potential help the 'Suggestions' system on YouTube gives them outweigh the freedom they'd get from switching platforms.

I agree, there is about to be a large market gap for streaming content creators. If someone had the team, the skill, and the funding they could effectively roll out a viable competitor to YouTube.

I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of YouTube.

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

#117

Post by VectorLock »

zadkey wrote: post #116
VectorLock wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like most YouTubers know and have vocalized their issues with YouTube, but lack any viable alternatives. The benefits they get with YouTube with the large audience already using the platform and potential help the 'Suggestions' system on YouTube gives them outweigh the freedom they'd get from switching platforms.

I agree, there is about to be a large market gap for streaming content creators. If someone had the team, the skill, and the funding they could effectively roll out a viable competitor to YouTube. I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of YouTube.

You could do everything YouTube does, but better, and still have a hard time of it because content creators audiences are still on YouTube

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

#118

Post by ikeboy »

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…

>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account.

Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims.

"If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear."

So your position is that YouTubers aren't disputing claims because they're scared of strikes, but also that if the only option was strikes then they would vanish? How do you figure?

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

#119

Post by munk-a »

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.

Some of the video essay YTers have done this already with Nebula[1], some of the gaming YTers have done this with DLive[2]... So I think it's pretty fair to say people are on the same wavelength as you, whether or not it's economically viable for them to jump ship is still to be determined.

1. https://watchnebula.com/

2. https://dlive.tv/

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

#120

Post by munk-a »

iso1631 wrote: post #77
dx87 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google relying on algorithms to do everything.

> because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything. Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b. Alphabet made $86b last year.

I find it highly unlikely that more than 1/8th of Alphabet's profits are coming from YT, so that'd make it a cost center... and I'm willing to bet it'd be deep deep in the red.
Post reply on HN