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

161–170 of 188 posts

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

#161

Post by freeflight »

eranima wrote: post #122
Shivetya wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ins…

If you think Star Trek hasn't always been political, then you haven't been paying attention to any of the themes in Star Trek.

Imho that's what makes it all the more grating: Star Trek was always on the rather "woke" end of the spectrum, and it usually managed to be there without pandering or being too condescending about it.

But this new generation of Trek seems to have completely lost that ability, while at the same time retconning large parts of the universe, and its inhabitants, to serve it's now much more simplistic moral dilemmas.

Which becomes particularly apparent when contrasted with something like The Orville. Sure, MacFarlane's humor can be an acquired taste, but I found that comedy take to be much more relatable, and truer to the "Trek spirit" than recent Trek offerings.

Maybe that has to do with the fact that The Orville also depicts a way more optimistic picture of future humanity, akin to the old Trek, while new Trek seems to be too busy to make Trek as gritty, edgy and actiony as most other media nowadays.

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

#162

Post by ikeboy »

JohnFen wrote: post #155
ikeboy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue. If disputed within 5 days, the money is held in escrow and disbursed upon reinstatement. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en&ref_...

If the video has been taken down, then the video earns no money, so there's nothing to be held in escrow.

That's a valid point. I looked into that and it appears the policy says they'll put the video back up during the dispute but won't monetize it:

"If the policy is set to block (don't allow users to view the video on YouTube) or track (allow users to view the video without advertisements), this policy may be temporarily lifted until your dispute is resolved. Learn more about policy and claim basics. During this time, your video cannot be monetized."

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 (click "file a dispute", then "What happens after you dispute?"

I believe I saw somewhere that monetization is the most common rather than block or track, but can't find it now.

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

#163

Post by wolco »

penagwin wrote: post #38
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sounds like a new business model. Make claims against semi-popular youtubers and get them to agree to share revenue.

The best part is you don't need to own the ip you make a claim against. If they challenge take maximum amount of time and withdraw challenge. Keep repeating for new videos until the channel agrees.

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

#164

Post by backupcavalry »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #67
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YouTube has been behaving like this for over a decade, so I don't expect it to be their undoing any time soon.

Just because they take a long time to fall down doesn't mean they won't, though. That and they aren't really offering anything that no one else can (besides unlimited capacity, maybe?)

If DuckDuckGo's any indication then I'm holding out hope for new challengers.

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

#165

Post by monkeywork »

jimbob45 wrote: post #71
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 really don't think Google even wants YouTube. I think they'd be more than happy to buy the personal data of customers from a competitor. I think their problem is that no one wants to compete because it costs unreal amounts of money to store the amount of data that YouTube does, let alone the legal fees they must swallow each year. At this point, I imagine that they simply take the anti-consumer choice whenever a di…

Youtube is incredibly important to google.

1. It's the second largest search engine in the world, and likely the GO TO search engine for any DIY / Howto type topic. Keeping control of this keeps them in control of search field.

2. It's a massive platform for adsense. Having a single stop for advertisers on both the web and on youtube helps keep google ahead of it's competitors in advertising

3. The unspoken advantage it gives google in the world of machine language and AI. Endless natural language data in every language you can imagine, facial recognition, etc etc.

I highly doubt they care how much money it loses.

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

#166

Post by NoodleIncident »

rasz wrote: post #55
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YT has eula clause prohibiting videos that redirect users to another video platform :) Linustechtips got a ban for this once, reversed because famous https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/12/17564060/youtube-accounts-...

That doesn't surprise me at all. I was shocked when they allowed YouTube channels to promote their Twitch streams a few years back; that must have been to gauge interest in the YouTube streaming product they hadn't made yet.

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

#167

Post by gvx »

VectorLock wrote: post #117
zadkey wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's also the high barrier to entry due to bandwidth and storage: you're not going to be able to compete with YouTube if you don't offer at least 1080p streaming which means you have to have a pretty hefty infrastructure in place before you can launch.

And then the legal issues: as a scrappy new website, you're unlikely to be able to protect your users from large copyright holders, which in practice means new YouTube competitors will be even more quick to take down fair use videos than YouTube to prevent being sued out of existence.

I've been thinking about building something like that for a long time, but I just don't see how it would be feasible in the current copyright system.

The only solution I see would be sites like Dropout or Nebula(? not too familiar with it), where the platform is effectively the same as the content creator. This of course is inaccessible to the vast majority of smaller creators.

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

#169

Post by fiblye »

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.

Youtube has had loads of issues these past few years. I've seen countless youtubers say this is the final straw, they're ready to leave, Youtube's days are numbered, etc.

They always come back within a few days.

So long as 99% of users stay there, creators will stay there. If creators leave, that leaves a gap that'll quickly be filled by another creator. Youtube needs to do something that makes the viewers absolutely give up, and that's when migration will happen. I can't really imagine anything that'd do that except requiring paid accounts to view any content.

Alternatively, if some competitor comes along, has all the same content Youtube has, and offers better payments for creators without caving in to every single copyright claim, that'd draw people in like nothing else. But that's seemingly impossible now that the web isn't a wild west anymore.

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

#170

Post by paranoidrobot »

gbuk2013 wrote: post #141
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…

This is not entirely correct: you can also appeal the strike by affirming your claim (the strike will then be removed) and it will be up to the claimant to then sue you (you have to provide contact details in your appeal). Unless you run up against some studio that has a private deal with YT in which case they'll just take down your video - no appeals.

There's (at least) two different systems for video takedowns on Youtube.

DMCA takedowns have the option you specified.

Content ID is a seperate system, where it's entirely controlled by the claimant. They can choose to claim your video or not, and you have no option (other than to sue them - i.e the reverse of the DMCA system) if you want your video to go back up.

e: And to be clear, this was a Content ID claim. It's in the first screenshot on twitter where it says "Blocked - No one can view this video to one or more of the Content ID claims below"

e2: Also, Content ID does have an appeal system, but if the claimant rejects the appeal your only recourse is to initial legal action.

Post reply on HN