Ironically, CBS literally posted the entire first episode for free on YouTube: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard...
with ads they make money from
CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
171–180 of 188 posts
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#172Youtube 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…
Frank London, "Copyright is Theft", 2008
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're both wrong. The biggest uploaders of copyrighted content - are the copyright holders. Also, Google spent about $1 billion on legal fees after the YT purchase, so there was no "agreement" without a war. HN downvoters ... learn to read. Here, I'll spoonfood you: "For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewe…
I expect you're getting downvoted for your attitude more than your content. Leading with a blanket "You're wrong" doesn't encourage a productive dialogue. Neither do "learn to read" and "I'll spoonfood you".
GP's attitude is fine - there's nothing offensive about stating "You're wrong".
People's search (need?) for offense is becoming pathological.
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Picard -in the first episode- has given us a Starfleet that has failed to live up to its own principles. Do readers here honestly think that this idea is somehow an abdication of Star Trek's central conceit? - a project where morality tales about possible (fairly socialist, post scarcity) futures can and do help us think about moral issues and respond in more moral ways in our own lives.
Cold war Star Trek intentionally included a Russian crewmember, Civil-Rights-era Trek had a Black crew member as well as an alien race -Klingons- coded with racial tropes pointed at Black people and found ways for the viewer to gradually identify with the alien race. TNG had a Klingon crew member and gave us Ferangi (coded with some Jewish stereotypes), followed by the Borg (the 'looming threat' of Collectivism') and subsequent series are projects that bring sympathetic characters of each of these backgrounds (Quark, Seven of Nine).
Picard's anger at Starfleet in the new series stems from their moral abdication in the face of the largest refugee crisis Starfleet has ever seen. Today, we are in the second largest refugee crisis our planet has ever seen, and Western nations have responded less with sympathy than with rising anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't see how this is in any way "keeping the iconography to tell whatever kind of story they like"
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect you're getting downvoted for your attitude more than your content. Leading with a blanket "You're wrong" doesn't encourage a productive dialogue. Neither do "learn to read" and "I'll spoonfood you".
GP's attitude is fine - there's nothing offensive about stating "You're wrong". People's search (need?) for offense is becoming pathological.
I wouldn't say "You're wrong" is necessarily offensive per se, but I do think it tends to shut down discussion rather than encouraging it. I wouldn't have down-voted if not for the more egregious follow-up though.
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Whic…
The original Star Trek had a good (though contested) claim to be the first (Black and White) interracial kiss on US public television[1]; Compare that with the Pew study "Intermarriage in the US 50 years since Loving v Virginia", showing that in 1990, about 63% of non-Blacks would be very or somewhat opposed to a close relative marrying a Black person[2] Pew. Imagine what that figure looked like in 1968.
If we don't see the original Star Trek as staking as many firm moral positions on issues where popular opinions are mixed, it says more about who we have become today, and how popular morality has adjusted, than about what was or wasn't radical or confronting at the time.
There doesn't seem to me to be any plausible claim that earlier Trek was previously less "confrontational" or deliberate in promoting its chosen morality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_interracial_kiss_on_tele...
[2] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/2-public-views-on...
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Small correction: YT is not losing any money. Recent numbers just came out, it was one of the main profit sources and one of the fasted growing.
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Alphabet made $86b last year. They did not, and I'm curious where the mixup came from. They did $46.1b in revenue fiscal year 2019, and $10.7b in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-earnings-show-goo...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/gros...
Alphabet gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2019 was $86.264B, a 16.62% increase year-over-year.
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
No, I was specifically talking about Content ID, as that is the one I used in the past (challenging on fair-use grounds). You can appeal a claim, which is usually rejected by the claimant. You can appeal that which, when rejected, will add a copyright strike to your account and then you can appeal that which removes the strike but requires you to provide contact details in case the claimant wants to sue you.
Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Isn't the issue that they're depriving the user of income based solely on a non-legal (not not-legal) complaint? If YouTube really justed wanted to have people Duke it out in court, they wouldn't have their own system that is massively tilted towards the studios. They're effectively allowing one side to be judge and jury.
There are two different processes here: the DMCA and ContentID.
If YouTube receives a DMCA request it will take the video down immediately (in accordance to the law). However, you can counter the DMCA claim at which point the other party has to either drop it or sue you.
ContentID is the non-legal system which essentially blocks or transfers monetization (copyright holder's choice) for any detected copyrighted work in YouTube's database. YouTube developed it to avoid fighting studios.
Since there are no objective standards to determine if something is fair use or not, instead it's a bunch of factors that are all supposed to be weighted against each other by a judge, there is no way for YouTube to determine if something is legal infringement of copyright (Fair Use) or illegal infringement of copyright. The solution here for YouTube is to be conservative and not allow any infringement against the rights holder's wishes.
It's not a great system, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I'm not sure how or even if it could be changed.